Reviews, News, and How To!
The Fantasy of Privacy
Amazingly, a lot of people don’t know this. We lost most of our privacy many years ago. No one knows the exact date, but as time has marched on this free nation known as America has lost most of its freedoms. The freedom of privacy is only the most recent freedom to be taken away. I say taken, but the worst part about this idea is that it actually wasn’t taken. We’ve given it all to the government.
Most people don’t believe this. “We couldn’t possibly have given away our privacy. I think I would have remembered doing that!” Well, you do. Show of hands, how many people wanted the extra cameras on street corners, to keep an eye on speeders? Or the ones in public parks and buildings to make sure no crimes were being committed? What about allowing the government to tap ‘certain’ phone conversations that ‘may’ threaten the security of the country? Sorry to tell you folks, but those were not just set up to monitor all the bad little boys and girls, but also to keep an eye on the good ones. Not just incase they go bad, but just incase the information on them could one day be useful.
The government never said they were only going to watch the speeders. True, that camera is usually in a fixed position, so stay out of the way of that camera. But then they got the public to vote on other cameras that could move, the next step up. No one saw a problem with this, since the fixed ones did so well. Now they could see anything they wanted from fixed positions. I don’t even remember when they started to tap the phone lines. Sure, they say they only record conversations with certain key phrases, but they never did tell us all of the words and phrases they put on that list. They mentioned a couple, but not the entire list. Otherwise the ‘terrorists’ would know them and avoid them. As a result, they can record every phone call and know everything that went on, including who made it and who received it. If they find something of interest and can’t pass it off in another way, they can pick a word out of the conversation before the information they want and say that’s one of their secret words.
It’s not limited to the real world, either. Anytime they want, they can reach for a ‘random’ person’s log of internet habits. Sure, they can’t view the exact address you go to, but they don’t have to. They can view the IP addresses of where you go and what you do. For those that don’t know, an IP address is the EXACT location of something in a computer or network, mostly ports. Since the internet is a link of server computers, each main site being a new IP address, the government, and pretty much any branch of law enforcement, can see into the minds of anyone they please, simply by looking at the sites they visit and how often they visit them. Not just the criminals, but the law abiding citizens that are getting in their way.
Until recently, e-mail wasn’t safe either. Only recently was a law passed that, under certain circumstances, no one was allowed to view your e-mail. But, the second they ‘confirm’ that you qualify for their ‘special circumstances’ they will immediately check on your e-mail. However, they don’t need to do that much. They can simply ask the e-mail provider for your username and password and gain access whenever they want. Your provider won’t say no, because they know how much trouble the police can be. Then all they have to do is have one of their ‘tech’ guys login and grab anything they can use against you, whether relevant or not.
You know what the next step is? Locator chips, implanted into the body, so the government knows where you are every hour of every day until you die. If you do nothing ‘wrong’ you live a very boring life. If you live life how it should be lived, absolutely free, you’re bound to wind up in jail. Don’t believe me? They’re already trying to pass a law to have prisoners implanted so they can keep an eye on them. They’re also guilting parents into getting them for their children. The next logical step would be to have them set at a high price for adults. Then a lower price so everyone can afford it. Lastly, they will become mandatory, “for the good of the nation.” So much for our freedom.
Some time ago, a guy was arrested for ‘littering’ when the police saw a sign on his lawn that said “Impeach Bush” on the front. That’s it. The court eventually let him go, due to freedom of speech, and paid him for the court costs, but that sentiment won’t hold for long. If the police can arrest you for your opinion, even today, imagine what kind of ‘freedoms’ we will have in the near future. As long as it is “for the good of the nation” the government can do anything.
Keep this in mind, the next time you go voting away your freedoms. Take a good long look at what you are voting on, and try to look past the lies. Read through every word of that issue, and see what they are really trying to do. Decide for yourself what the government can do with this, simple, law-abiding issue, and then decide whether or not it’s worth it.
Is piece of mind really worth the freedom you pay?
Most people don’t believe this. “We couldn’t possibly have given away our privacy. I think I would have remembered doing that!” Well, you do. Show of hands, how many people wanted the extra cameras on street corners, to keep an eye on speeders? Or the ones in public parks and buildings to make sure no crimes were being committed? What about allowing the government to tap ‘certain’ phone conversations that ‘may’ threaten the security of the country? Sorry to tell you folks, but those were not just set up to monitor all the bad little boys and girls, but also to keep an eye on the good ones. Not just incase they go bad, but just incase the information on them could one day be useful.
The government never said they were only going to watch the speeders. True, that camera is usually in a fixed position, so stay out of the way of that camera. But then they got the public to vote on other cameras that could move, the next step up. No one saw a problem with this, since the fixed ones did so well. Now they could see anything they wanted from fixed positions. I don’t even remember when they started to tap the phone lines. Sure, they say they only record conversations with certain key phrases, but they never did tell us all of the words and phrases they put on that list. They mentioned a couple, but not the entire list. Otherwise the ‘terrorists’ would know them and avoid them. As a result, they can record every phone call and know everything that went on, including who made it and who received it. If they find something of interest and can’t pass it off in another way, they can pick a word out of the conversation before the information they want and say that’s one of their secret words.
It’s not limited to the real world, either. Anytime they want, they can reach for a ‘random’ person’s log of internet habits. Sure, they can’t view the exact address you go to, but they don’t have to. They can view the IP addresses of where you go and what you do. For those that don’t know, an IP address is the EXACT location of something in a computer or network, mostly ports. Since the internet is a link of server computers, each main site being a new IP address, the government, and pretty much any branch of law enforcement, can see into the minds of anyone they please, simply by looking at the sites they visit and how often they visit them. Not just the criminals, but the law abiding citizens that are getting in their way.
Until recently, e-mail wasn’t safe either. Only recently was a law passed that, under certain circumstances, no one was allowed to view your e-mail. But, the second they ‘confirm’ that you qualify for their ‘special circumstances’ they will immediately check on your e-mail. However, they don’t need to do that much. They can simply ask the e-mail provider for your username and password and gain access whenever they want. Your provider won’t say no, because they know how much trouble the police can be. Then all they have to do is have one of their ‘tech’ guys login and grab anything they can use against you, whether relevant or not.
You know what the next step is? Locator chips, implanted into the body, so the government knows where you are every hour of every day until you die. If you do nothing ‘wrong’ you live a very boring life. If you live life how it should be lived, absolutely free, you’re bound to wind up in jail. Don’t believe me? They’re already trying to pass a law to have prisoners implanted so they can keep an eye on them. They’re also guilting parents into getting them for their children. The next logical step would be to have them set at a high price for adults. Then a lower price so everyone can afford it. Lastly, they will become mandatory, “for the good of the nation.” So much for our freedom.
Some time ago, a guy was arrested for ‘littering’ when the police saw a sign on his lawn that said “Impeach Bush” on the front. That’s it. The court eventually let him go, due to freedom of speech, and paid him for the court costs, but that sentiment won’t hold for long. If the police can arrest you for your opinion, even today, imagine what kind of ‘freedoms’ we will have in the near future. As long as it is “for the good of the nation” the government can do anything.
Keep this in mind, the next time you go voting away your freedoms. Take a good long look at what you are voting on, and try to look past the lies. Read through every word of that issue, and see what they are really trying to do. Decide for yourself what the government can do with this, simple, law-abiding issue, and then decide whether or not it’s worth it.
Is piece of mind really worth the freedom you pay?
Comment
-
Comment by Dean on October 10, 2009 at 11:36pm -
You don't generally know who has a gun in the US though, unless you ask people. I was sitting with some friends once, and learned that one of them carried a gun when another one asked to see it. The guy replied "If you ever see my gun, it will be the last thing you ever see". Did he even have one? Probably, but the question remains unanswered.
It was a felony at that time to display a concealed weapon in that state, and likely still is. So, on a previous point made by someone else, of the threat being as effective, when I used to do drugs and would buy them on the street in really bad neighbourhoods, sometimes on foot, I think that most people assumed that I was carrying one. No one ever asked of course, and it wouldn't have mattered in such an environment, if I'd answered either way... you still would take the safer assumption if you had reason to believe someone might be. In my case, people assumed that because I was in the wrong neighbourhood often, walking around carelessly, sometimes without shoes, because I don't like shoes. It was of course stupid, and not slick or anything and I had no delusions about that.
To use a gun effectively as self defence is rare. The best way to use a gun against a person is to just pull it and shoot them. Is that a nice world? It simply is the way it is in some places, but it isn't nice.
I don't think there's a good argument either way for guns in the US... things are what they are. Its the same thing with privacy... things are what they are. I preferred it when phone taps and surveillance, when it came to national security, was simply done illegally. Legalising it is what's abusive to the person who "doesn't have anything to worry about." Things are what they are now though. The US will be conquered before there's an effective revolution (agreeing with Bit Byter on revolution), and who can know when something that drastic can happen... not likely soon is a good bet.
-
Comment by Eric Fox on October 10, 2009 at 3:16pm -
Just thought I would put in my two cents, since it is my blog you are conversing on.
One example of how Those with Guns can prey on Those without Guns is that if you know who does not have a gun, and they meet regularly, you can take them all out with one gun and enough bullets. If you have no idea who has a gun and who doesn't, then you must consider everyone to have a gun on them in whatever state it is legally allowed. If everyone was allowed to carry a loaded gun the only people that would shoot are those that would be socially or emotionally inclined to do so anyway, but there would be a good chance that the people could fight back before the slaughter occurs.
Unfortunately, this does pose a "control" problem, so the government will never allow this to happen. It would be borderline anarchy with people policing themselves.
-
Comment by Dean on October 9, 2009 at 9:55pm
-
Check out the second paragraph of this section of the article here as well.
Seems the NRA might have caused some confusion on the matter.
-
Comment by Dean on October 9, 2009 at 9:43pm
-
There are no inner city gangs here, and I'd hardly qualify gangs in the US as being organised criminals in the traditional sense for that matter. I was referring to a higher level of organised crime. Gangs don't really apply here.
I've done some quick research. Australia isn't notable for entire families being gunned down in rural areas (I'm fairly certain anyway). I think you're confused with the actions of one guy, Martin Bryant, a while back and are generalising that to a larger population. The reality is that that single incident played a large role in Australian gun control.
The statistics I've just found indicate that gun control in Australia has not had much of an impact either way, however at the same time its only possible to speculate how things would be today if there was no gun control. I speculate that things would be much more violent and that the culture would have been shaped by the presence of easy to obtain guns. People who get robbed are 3 times as likely to be robbed by someone with a knife, and that takes more desperation on the part of the person robbing you.
I'll reassert my statement, that no one here has "learned that the ones without them (guns) were easy prey for the ones who do (have them)".
There hasn't been anything like the Port Arthur massacre since it occurred, and it was a facilitator of gun control... not the other way around. I think perhaps you got confused about which was the cause and which was the effect, especially if you'd been hearing about it at the time as the legislation would have been controversial at the time.
More close to the topic topic though, I wouldn't wish freedom to have guns on the people here (and neither do they), but in the US they have their place. There is the argument that everyone else has them so you need one, and I respect that opinion while at the same time personally feeling that its a bad argument with a lot of holes. My opinion doesn't matter though, as its a constitutional right. The intention of that right was never "self defence" as people perceive self defence when talking about guns, but defence of ones country, and possibly the right to overthrow the government.
On all of these points, guns fail today in my opinion. The only way to use them effectively in self defence is by doing it offensively or pre-emptively or in a paranoid way (or perhaps when someone pulls theirs first in slow motion you have enough time to respond...). They are useless for overthrowing a government, and would only be scratching the tip of an iceberg in the way of national defence.
Well at least I talked about guns in regards to revolution... wasn't able to tie it into privacy :P
-
Comment by Gary Bing on October 9, 2009 at 3:33pm -
No Dean. It has nothing to do with inter city gangs. The horror was with the advent of entire families gunned down on their rural ranches (as what Australia is most notable) I have been anti gun anti NRA for most of my life. I don't subscribe to the idea of keeping a firearm for protection as they have a tendency of "dealing with the wrong person." ( I had a late night encounter with a friend who if I had a gun I might have shot her by mistake instead of she "just wanted to talk." ) I was rethinking my stance on guns when I heard the horrible news in Australia. There are other countries that have gone through this. Look them up. I was merely showing an example of things that were going on Australia that I am more familiar with.
-
Comment by Dean on October 8, 2009 at 6:03pm
-
The only gun violence I hear about in Australia is rare attacks between members of organised crime, and not on the the average person.
Also, no one here has "learned that the ones without them were easy prey for the ones who do". That would be a rare perception to find in a person here. Australians in fact look at the US and are appalled at the amount of gun violence there is. Additionally, we look at it in contrast to how heavily defended gun ownership is in the US and conclude that its a case of national stupidity. Sorry to say it, but it is what it is and I'm not going to sugar coat it... I'm an American myself and happen to live here overseas.
I'm admittedly unaware of the crime statistics involved with gun control in Australia, but to say that Australians have learned anything is wrong, and the sentiment toward America in regards is what it is. I'm not sure what the point was in bringing it up since Australians do not, as an overwhelming consensus, want guns as part of their society. If guns were wanted, it would be far, far easier for public pressure to impact the decisions of our elected officials.
We don't have a perfect government, but as for governments that don't represent the people electing them, Australia isn't really the place to start looking when its so very integrated into one's own system. I fear for the future of Australia, but I'm incredibly satisfied for the moment, when comparing it to the United States.
-
Comment by Gary Bing on October 8, 2009 at 5:04pm
-
In the late 70's a consortium of world bankers met in Belgium to discuss the possibility of an implant in the wrist as a substitute for debit cards. A spokesperson from Master Card suggested a true "master" card that would have all of one's accounts on that very one card. It's all there but I guess no one is comfortable being the one to promote "the mark of the beast." I was told by a telephone employee that all our calls to information were recorded on huge tapes the size of movie reels. I didn't believe it. She took me down a huge basement area and through a hall some one had already pulled the tape and I could here my voice asking about the number for the Fox Fullerton Theater judging by the time frame that would have been Walt Disney's last film he made" Jungle book. (Late 60's) In Australia the government banned public ownership of guns. There was a subsequent 60% jump in violent crimes involving guns. They have learned that the ones without them were easy prey for the ones who do.
-
Comment by Eric Fox on October 7, 2009 at 4:14pm
-
Man, you just love to fight me, don't you.
I never said I would not fight, I said I would not hold a gun. Also, I used the term "gun" loosely to mean weapon as well as the literal gun. These days the revolution might be mostly fought by hackers. With a significant lack of skills, I imagine my roll would be providing shelter or funds, or simply not cooperating with the side I least preferred. Leave the fight up to those who have skills other than "large meat shield" know what I mean?
As for who the "we" I referred to is, I was referencing the American people of the colonial days. I, obviously, have not fought any kind of battle. If I had, I would probably be a lot quieter and less opinionated, letting the government do its thing while I just tried to get over the carnage. Closest I've come to combat is a Call of Duty 4 demo, so I assume my mind would be a little broken. Since I am able to freely discuss this matter, and am not the least bit nuts (despite evidence to the contrary) I cannot have had any experience in this field, second hand or otherwise.
Hmm... bit of a rant there... Oh well.
-
Comment by Eric Fox on October 7, 2009 at 1:06pm
-
A revolution cannot be stopped by the government. If nothing else, the government would prove that it is needed simply by trying to stop it. I cite our own independence day as an example. The harder the government fought, the harder we fought back. One reason I'm sure any revolution would work is that it is currently going on in small numbers, threatening to go larger, and guns have not been completely removed from our hands yet.
Personally, I would not hold any of those guns, as I would be useless, but I would not oppose the ones with the guns. The way I see it, if the people are simply paranoid and realize it soon enough we will have a better country without a problem, and if they are on the money we will have a new government soon.
-
Comment by Eric Fox on October 7, 2009 at 12:18am
-
A lot of people think that. There are rallies going on around the county that are practically threatening another revolution if Obama doesn't turn things around soon.
© 2012 Created by Chris Pirillo.
You need to be a member of Geeks to add comments!
Join Geeks