Ah, but which emotional response?
If the government can break it (and in), then by definition it is not secure. There is, to my relatively extensive knowledge, no Government Only scripting language that non-government types find utterly incomprehensible. When we talk about techno-wizards and computer gurus, that’s not literal.
Also, most of the low-level encryptions and online security measures available right now and those used by the overwhelming majority of the public, *are piss easy *to get inside of. Fucking Amazon knows where you live and everything about your browsing history. What subdirectory your porn is hidden in, too.
You also ignore the fact that Government, a monolithic entity, is actually made up of a myriad employees, each of which may or may not be up to par ethically speaking and on an individual basis.
[quote=“Crazyhorse, post:5, topic:688907”]
(
…)
You are an idiot. Just the flu, by itself, kills more Americans every year than Osama Bin Laden ever did in his wildest dreams. (…) QUOTE]
Every year 50,000
people die in automobile collisions in this country
Why isn’t there a big uproar about that?
Realistically, what can be created is a security system that is extremely difficult but not utterly impossible to crack. Ordinary people won’t be able to get in at all (unless you do something stupid like use your name spelled backwards for a password); megacorps and governments will be able to get in (or bypass) the security with significant effort. The end result will be to make mass fishing-expedition surveillance impossible while leaving enough leeway for a reasonable number of individually targeted surveillance operations, each of which would need justification for the resources expended. Ideally, the encryption itself would be prohibitively difficult to break, leaving the option of using bypass measures such as keylogging (thus inhibiting the government from spying on people for illegitimate reasons such as political opposition, because any significant risk of getting caught tips the cost-benefit analysis away from such dirty tricks).
Given that this situation satisfies the legitimate needs of law enforcement and national security, arguments based on those concerns may be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant to this issue.
Oh wait, let me try one:
In a free society, one does not need a right to counsel.
The only reason one would need counsel is if one were a criminal.
Yeah, I’m back to thinking he’s taking the piss. Idiots as useful as Smapti only exist in the fantasies of tyrants.
I prefer anarchy to totalitarianism. Anything else?
What in the holy ever-loving fuck is that even supposed to MEAN?
“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Crime is a product of social excess.” - Lenin
Try to top this one, I’m rather proud of my patriotism: I bought an American Flag Wrapped With A Yellow Support Our Troops Ribbon bumper sticker, and I *put it on my car!
*I know all about true patriotism.
Speaking of Support Our Troops, how about that Traitor Bastard Bergdahl? Am I right?
Fuck that guy.
I’m a patriot.
I have said nothing in this thread that I do not believe. Nor do I advocate tyranny; I advocate a system that would make tyranny impossible.
Patriotism does not come from shouting slogans or buying into the sensationalism and propaganda of the for-profit media. It comes from right thoughts and right action.
The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. In a free society, the only people to have to fear their government are those who break the law.
Your analogy is false; one accused of a crime is always entitled to counsel because even a just government is not perfect and is capable of making mistakes, and there must always be a process available to remedy those mistakes if they happen.
Frankly, Smapti’s posts sound much calmer and coherent than those of his critics.
Congratulations on being shallow, I guess.
Error! Error! Norman, Co-Ordinate!
Yes, the absence of pretty flowers that smell bad does contribute something to the ambience…
Did I ever claim that I expect government to be right 100% of the time? Mistakes can happen. The important thing is that it’s possible to fix those mistakes so we can constantly strive towards perfection, not abolish the system entirely because it’s not 100% effective on day one.
I’ve never read it, so if I have arrived at similar conclusions I did so in a different way. My philosophy is mostly drawn from Hobbes, Plato, and some of the early socialist philosophers, coupled with my own personal observations on human behavior, the flaws of unrestrained free-market democracy, and the reasons that authoritarian states tend to fail.
Yes; this is one of several reasons why all citizens require strong and impermeable barriers against government intrusion into their private business. One does not allow even the best-behaved government full access, just as one does not allow even the best-behaved toddler* to go exploring alone.
*The toddler is less likely to get into trouble, given the general rule that the intelligence and wisdom of a large group is determined by its dimmest individual member and inversely proportional to the group’s size.
“Government intrusion into private business” is an oxymoron.