+ Post New Thread
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 159
General Chat Thread, Another rushed law, another death knell for privacy in General; Originally Posted by Disease Not Ad Hominem at all, just plain simple truth, there is no argument about it there ...
  1. #121

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,529
    Thank Post
    527
    Thanked 2,648 Times in 2,049 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    925
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    Not Ad Hominem at all, just plain simple truth, there is no argument about it there is no privacy on the net or phones simple as that.
    You're stating this from the the current situation. There used to be plenty of privacy on the internet. Its only recent years that has so heavily focused on removing that privacy. Attacking people for *wanting* privacy on the internet is Ad Hominem and rather odd to say the least.

    It may not be right but it is not going to stop happening and it is not going to go away so don't expect privacy. How do you think they foil so many terrorist plots.
    Keep drinking the cool aid. There was a review of terrorist plot interventions in the USA a little while ago and it found that out of the ~50 plots foiled, I believe it was only 1 of them was aided by the NSA data. The rest were gained by on the ground intelligence, as had been done for hundreds of years.

  2. #122

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,839
    Thank Post
    669
    Thanked 2,188 Times in 1,493 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    900
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    Not Ad Hominem at all, just plain simple truth, there is no argument about it there is no privacy on the net or phones simple as that.
    There's no argument, because you said there's no argument.

    And anyone who DOES argue is an idiot.

    Ad. Hominem. [And circular reasoning.]

    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    How do you think they foil so many terrorist plots.
    How do you know they do?

    All we have is their word for it. And it's not like governments have routinely spread false information to get people to think a certain way or do what they want... oh, wait. They have.

  3. #123
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,110
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 72 Times in 49 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    You're stating this from the the current situation. There used to be plenty of privacy on the internet. Its only recent years that has so heavily focused on removing that privacy. Attacking people for *wanting* privacy on the internet is Ad Hominem and rather odd to say the least.



    Keep drinking the cool aid. There was a review of terrorist plot interventions in the USA a little while ago and it found that out of the ~50 plots foiled, I believe it was only 1 of them was aided by the NSA data. The rest were gained by on the ground intelligence, as had been done for hundreds of years.
    There has not been privacy on the net for over a decade, I am not attacking people for wanting privacy I am stating that privacy does not exist, Ad Hominen only counts if I attack the person not the argument, seeing as there is no argument about there being no privacy on the net, Ad Hominem is not valid. If you can prove that there is privacy on the net from the likes of the NSA/GCHQ then by all means display it. Until that point my statement stands.

    Keep drinking Cool aid? That would be Ad Hominen and also therefore a bit hypocritical.

    At the end of the day if people want to believe that they have privacy go for it, but don't be disappointed when you find out that it is a fallacy in the same way that people found out that exact fact on the TOR network, do a bit of research.

  4. #124

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,529
    Thank Post
    527
    Thanked 2,648 Times in 2,049 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    925
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    There has not been privacy on the net for over a decade, I am not attacking people for wanting privacy I am stating that privacy does not exist, Ad Hominen only counts if I attack the person not the argument, seeing as there is no argument about there being no privacy on the net, Ad Hominem is not valid. If you can prove that there is privacy on the net from the likes of the NSA/GCHQ then by all means display it. Until that point my statement stands.
    Your words were "anyone who thinks they have any privacy on the Net or phones is an idiot tbh". That is an attack on the person, not the argument.

    Keep drinking Cool aid? That would be Ad Hominen and also therefore a bit hypocritical.
    That was my intention. It was irony.

    At the end of the day if people want to believe that they have privacy go for it, but don't be disappointed when you find out that it is a fallacy in the same way that people found out that exact fact on the TOR network, do a bit of research.
    People aren't arguing that there is privacy.. They're arguing that there should be privacy from snooping by all sorts of people.

  5. #125

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    5,375
    Thank Post
    958
    Thanked 1,630 Times in 1,103 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    711
    ITT: rolling over and showing your tummy to the government, because what's the point in fighting, eh? Governments have never been forced into u-turns on any policy, ever. They always get their way.

  6. #126
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,110
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 72 Times in 49 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post


    That was my intention. It was irony.
    Easy to explain hypocrisy as irony, whatever floats your boat.



    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    People aren't arguing that there is privacy.. They're arguing that there should be privacy from snooping by all sorts of people.
    Fair Enough point.

  7. #127
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,110
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 72 Times in 49 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by sonofsanta View Post
    ITT: rolling over and showing your tummy to the government, because what's the point in fighting, eh? Governments have never been forced into u-turns on any policy, ever. They always get their way.
    I don't think it's a case of not fighting I think the problem is that even if they u-turned on the visible policy it would still carry on regardless, I for one do not care what they snoop on as I have nothing really to hide.

  8. #128

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,271
    Thank Post
    884
    Thanked 2,749 Times in 2,322 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    I don't think it's a case of not fighting I think the problem is that even if they u-turned on the visible policy it would still carry on regardless, I for one do not care what they snoop on as I have nothing really to hide.
    But what they are after is not the means to do it as they already do, what they are after is the acceptance of the public in law so they can't be hung out to dry if the populace ever does manage to get a little control back over their governments. They want us people to say by default and lack of careing or voices that are heard to pat them on the back and say 'yea, go to it'.

  9. #129

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,839
    Thank Post
    669
    Thanked 2,188 Times in 1,493 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    900
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    even if they u-turned on the visible policy it would still carry on regardless
    At which point, when it's found out they'd be in deep AS IT'S ILLEGAL.

    The reason it's been going on so long is that while we may suspect it's happening, we can't prove it.

    "Innocent until proven guilty" is still a thing and spying on everyone is treating the population like criminals for no damn reason.

    Why are people finding this so hard to understand?

  10. #130

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,529
    Thank Post
    527
    Thanked 2,648 Times in 2,049 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    925
    Whether or not they've been doing it illegally for any length of time, the law is an important change as it makes it legal. I've already shown that corruption is a thing, and the idea of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is demonstrably fallacious. How can you still be OK with it?!

  11. #131

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    5,375
    Thank Post
    958
    Thanked 1,630 Times in 1,103 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    711
    The other point to bear in mind is that privacy is a concept that is eroded piece by piece, step by reasonable-sounding step. You can't wait for the Complete Bumholes Bill to come along and be debated about whether it's ok for the government to declare curtains illegal so their man across the street can keep an eye on you, because they'll never take a step that sounds so shocking and obvious. The only way such a thing would ever be suggested would be after a long build up of piecemeal legislation coming to a crescendo.

    So if you enjoy privacy on any level - and what person doesn't? Who would want to be tailed all day every day by someone shouting out all your thoughts and actions? - you have to fight every point, not just the ones that come across as immediately unreasonable. The slippery slope only ever gets steeper.

  12. Thanks to sonofsanta from:

    Bompalompalomp (16th July 2014)

  13. #132
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,110
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 72 Times in 49 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    At which point, when it's found out they'd be in deep AS IT'S ILLEGAL.

    The reason it's been going on so long is that while we may suspect it's happening, we can't prove it.
    Seriously? Have you not read any of the revelations by Snowdon? And who do you think is going to prosecute the government, there is a great quote from the film a few good men and having served in the Army I can say that it is a true perception:

    Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.


    Great film as well.
    Last edited by Disease; 16th July 2014 at 01:13 PM.

  14. #133
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,110
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 72 Times in 49 Posts
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by sonofsanta View Post
    T

    So if you enjoy privacy on any level - and what person doesn't? Who would want to be tailed all day every day by someone shouting out all your thoughts and actions? - you have to fight every point, not just the ones that come across as immediately unreasonable. The slippery slope only ever gets steeper.
    Because I believe that on this issue net and phones, it is't going to make any difference if it's law or not it's still going to happen.

  15. #134

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,839
    Thank Post
    669
    Thanked 2,188 Times in 1,493 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    900
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    Seriously? Have you not read any of the revelations by Snowdon? And who do you think is going to prosecute the government
    So basically, "put up and shut up".

    This is how we got into this mess in the first place.

    And the NSA stuff has been deemed unconstitutional by their [supreme?] court.

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...ally-justified


    We can't question it because of legal precidents brought in before this. [Ideas on secret courts and sealed records] This wasn't all done at once.

  16. #135

    JJonas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Walsham, Norfolk
    Posts
    3,207
    Thank Post
    418
    Thanked 450 Times in 335 Posts
    Rep Power
    390
    Why are politicians exempt from this law? Especially as they have lost a dossier full of alleged evidence of historical child abuse carried out by their members!



SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Facebook 'to seek consent for privacy changes'
    By elsiegee40 in forum e-Safety
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14th November 2011, 05:40 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 6th July 2011, 06:28 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 29th April 2010, 11:45 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20th December 2009, 03:16 PM
  5. Compiling for another machine
    By Ric_ in forum *nix
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13th March 2007, 04:34 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •