Just to play devils advocate, who says that privacy ever really existed? Before there was widespread urbanization people tended to live in small communities. Word travels fast in those small communities so there tended to not be a lot of secrets. Urbanization has given us the illusion of anonymity which we equate to privacy. Both are ultimately illusions.
Having said that, we need better oversight. NSA employees have coined a term for the misuse of the NSA infrastructure for "romantic" purposes (LOVEINT). This is not a problem unique to the NSA. The RCMP officer likely abused his position of power and this is exactly why we need oversight of our military and policing institutions (well actually all of our institutions, even the religious ones). Put simply, where there is a concentration of power there is *always* corruption. Power can take many forms (political, economic, physical/force etc.). Whenever there is a concentration of any kind of power into the hands of a few, there will be corruption either of or by those individuals. One comment for Budda. Ad hominem attacks on individuals (aka name calling) does not actually lend any weight or legitimacy to your arguments. Always focus on the topics and arguments that people are making and not the people themselves. This is a common logical fallacy that humans are pretty much wired to make. Having said that we are smart enough to be able to recognize this and do better. A related fallacy are the class of arguments known as "straw man" (or Aunt Sally for our UK visitors) arguments. In your specific example, there is functionally no difference between Obama and Bush as these programs and their abuses transcend both presidencies and their political parties. There are a large number of people involved and you cannot pin it on one person. You also cannot fix the problem by running a popularity contest every 4 years. You certainly can not have intelligent and productive debate with name calling. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Juan Alberto Cirez <jaci...@gmail.com>wrote: > Budda, > You should know better: Expectation of privacy in this day and age is > naïve, to say the least. > > Email, the most used form of communication today is WIDE OPEN; HTTPS > (SSL/TLS) is a joke and even AES is weak enough in its most common > implementations to justify serious doubts about its integrity...and > DNS?...Well... > > Sure, in a perfect world we would all hold hands and sing cumbaya; but in > this world everybody wants to share their pain with the rest of the > world...and entire government entities exists for the sole purpose to > undermine the influence anf power of their fellow governments... > > ...but then again, what do I know... > On 2013-12-19 11:03 PM, "TekBudda" <tekbu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That part of what I am saying. And as callous as it sounds....if the >> choice is between mine or anyone else's privacy/liberty & an attack of >> some sort....well I will take the attack. >> >> That is not to say that every reasonable precaution should not be take >> to avoid things from happening. But just because they can >> look...doesn't mean they shouldn't be held to the highest principles of >> integrity, accountability, etc. >> >> Sobering yes... but I have thought a lot about this & I know that me or >> people like me (i,e beliefs, etc.) will be openly targeted....will be >> rounded up...and will be beheaded publicly...or whatever. Anything i >> can do to stop/delay that or other things from happening...and protect >> others....well...I will do. Even at the risk or sacrifice of my own life. >> >> The crap we see in society right now..especially with obumhole & his >> cronies is just barely scratching the surface. >> >> On 13-12-19 11:39 PM, Terrell Larson wrote: >> > It is not about having something to hide. It is about them having >> > something they can use against you. A freind of mine is an attractive >> > woman. She knows a certain RCMP offier who wanted to date her looked >> > into her tax filings. How he did it? She doesn't know but she told me >> > he knew things which were only in her tax filings. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> clug-talk mailing list >> clug-talk@clug.ca >> http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca >> Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) >> **Please remove these lines when replying >> > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > clug-talk@clug.ca > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > **Please remove these lines when replying >
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list clug-talk@clug.ca http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
