This is such a BS argument.
This is what happens when America loses its balls to win a War. It turns against its own citizens.
The last war America won was WWII. We won that the good old fashion way.
We should do the same against ISIS.
The problem is, you gun grabbers never do. For instance in Britain when guns were banned, murder by handgun went up dramatically-- because now the bad guys knew their victims were disarmed. Murders over all skyrocketed.
You don't want to get rid of guns- you want the out of control cops to have them to easily murder us and the innocent citizens to be unable to defend themselves.
You're just like the sheep who vote for every tyrant.
No they didn't overall gun deaths have been in a downward trend over the last 20 years, to put it in perspective the US gun deaths has not changed, if anything it has increased.
This is what happens when America loses its balls to win a War. It turns against its own citizens.
The last war America won was WWII. We won that the good old fashion way.
We should do the same against ISIS.
1. As other readers pointed out - Allied forces won the war, not America.
Some sources point out that America just waited to join the winning side. It could have been Hitler who they might have joined. Just remember - US was against both fascists and communists. That's why the US waited before they joined the war.
2. It's not that easy to win a war as you might think: e.g. Korean War ended in a stalemate and Vietnam ended in retreat.
3. You can't win a war against the terrorists.
I am not going into a deeper definitions of war and terrorists etc.
Just let me ask, how the end of "war" with ISIS would look like?
With WWII it was clear - the capitulation of Germany (Italy, Japan). And ISIS?
Which government and country are going to capitulate? Who is going to sign the document?
Trying to win a war on terrorists/terrorism is the same as winning the war on drugs - impossible.
If you ask me about the solution, then IMHO, we should support the country to fight this war for themselves. Screw those who support refugee policies. We need to support people who are staying is Syria!
P.S. As for encryption - I am all for the real privacy without 'backdoors'.
The problem is, you gun grabbers never do. For instance in Britain when guns were banned, murder by handgun went up dramatically-- because now the bad guys knew their victims were disarmed. Murders over all skyrocketed.
You don't want to get rid of guns- you want the out of control cops to have them to easily murder us and the innocent citizens to be unable to defend themselves.
You're just like the sheep who vote for every tyrant.
Wrong. I live in the uk. You just made that up. On a day where the Paris attacks had just taken place and the news agenda was rammed a shooting in Liverpool gained massive news coverage because it was the 3rd gun death this year in the city. I don't mind that you have guns in the US or that you believe guns are necessary but don't try to justify it with flawed arguments that have no evidence. I wonder if you will respond rationally to this challenge or just fly off into an invective rant...
When the US citizens lose their freedoms and privacy out of fear of terrorists, that's when the terrorists win.
If I was a terrorist I still wouldn't trust encryption from anyone. I sure wouldn't be using a phone to text to others to bomb or whatever. If I sent a text to someone that just said GO or it's a Go, what does that mean? Nothing of course unless it was a go to to the planned Bomb at the set time. Having access to people's phone's would have done nothing because it's meaningless. Anyone with half a brain will have their own code. That is if they are even texting each other.
The other lame excuse Child Molesters. Who are these people texting that they took some kid, and maybe did more to? That's just dumb. They aren't going around telling people.
Here's a Idea, including you OBAMA, don't go Importing these terrorists into the country!!! There is ZERO way you can background check these people. They sure as hell don't need to come all the way to the U.S. There's countries all around in the middle east they can go to.
You chart is completely irrelevant. Tyre is no coo relation between owning m16 and genocide of Armenians.
also where is American genicide against natives?
I hate to say this , you made his point, European settler who fear the Native populations of the Americas passed laws which made it illegal to give or sell guns to Native Americans so they could wipe them out. Only when they gain some arms were they able to fight back and regain some of what they lost. His point was when government disarm the public it allows those in charge to eliminate those who they do not like or perceives they different enough to get rid of them. Also you focusing on the type of weapon not the act of limiting access to any weapon.
Keep in mind you (I'm going to assume you live in the US) are hear today able to say what you can because people in the US back in the 1700 were able to have arms and were still able to fight off the more superior armed British Army. They could not do that if they did not have access to arms. Yeah American does not have clean history on this subject since they did exact what the British want to do the Americans as the Americans did to the Native populations.
As tragic as this event is, in 2013 alone over 11,000 people were murdered by guns in the US, and over 80,000 injured. Yet we vehemently defend our right to own guns. And these clowns think we should give up our right to privacy? If you want to prevent mass murder in the US, which happens every year, there is s better way to start than taking away our right to privacy, and our right to online security.
Taking away guns does NOTHING but makes things easier on the criminals. Look at the places with the highest gun control laws on the books. They have the highest crime rates. A Gun levels the playing field. It allows the weak to protect themselves.
Look at the Boston Bombing. Not a single gun used to kill a number of people. Even when guns are hard to come by, doesn't stop people. There's been Mass stabbings in Schools before like in Japan. People have been killing people long before guns existed. I can walk into a Home Depot and find all kinds of things that can be used to kill people.
A all controlling government is all about spying on the general population. It's not about Terrorists or anything else. That's just their lame excuse. If a terrorist sends the text GO or whatever, what good will that do spying on everyone's text messages? That Go command was just a word for a already set plan of attack to bomb or whatever a set target at a set time. Spying on people's phones would have done NOTHING.
Correct. They're only threatening to attack the US. Just ignore it.
/s
No, but to engage in another war that does not involve US interests is foolish. In case any have forgotten, the US is currently $17 trillion in debt and you and I are the ones stuck with that bill.
I may be wrong, but as I understand it, ISIS' core purpose is to bring about Armageddon. They are a suicide cult.
Here I the thing I find interesting with our government, they are upset that private companies are allowing its citizens to protect what is theirs and not allow the US to ease drop on them. However, this is the same government who sells top secret weapon and communications systems to other countries who either spy in the US or turns into a rouge state and use those same weapons against the US and its allies. Anyone notice what the ISIS militian are using, they using US made weapons and such.
1. As other readers pointed out - Allied forces won the war, not America.
Some sources point out that America just waited to join the winning side. It could have been Hitler who they might have joined. Just remember - US was against both fascists and communists. That's why the US waited before they joined the war.
The problem is, you gun grabbers never do. For instance in Britain when guns were banned, murder by handgun went up dramatically-- because now the bad guys knew their victims were disarmed. Murders over all skyrocketed.
You don't want to get rid of guns- you want the out of control cops to have them to easily murder us and the innocent citizens to be unable to defend themselves.
You're just like the sheep who vote for every tyrant.
Complete and utter bollocks.
The police do not routinely even carry guns in the UK. We have armed response units when required.. which isn't that often.
Taking away guns does NOTHING but makes things easier on the criminals. Look at the places with the highest gun control laws on the books. They have the highest crime rates. A Gun levels the playing field. It allows the weak to protect themselves.
Look at the Boston Bombing. Not a single gun used to kill a number of people. Even when guns are hard to come by, doesn't stop people. There's been Mass stabbings in Schools before like in Japan. People have been killing people long before guns existed. I can walk into a Home Depot and find all kinds of things that can be used to kill people.
A all controlling government is all about spying on the general population. It's not about Terrorists or anything else. That's just their lame excuse. If a terrorist sends the text GO or whatever, what good will that do spying on everyone's text messages? That Go command was just a word for a already set plan of attack to bomb or whatever a set target at a set time. Spying on people's phones would have done NOTHING.
I tend to agree with what you are saying.
I said this back in 2001 and I keep saying it, if we want to be safe in the US, do not let the terrorist in the country. We have these people coming and going every day and the issue is once they are here they protected by the same laws which protect those who are here for all the right reasons. However, these individual are not protect by our laws outside our boards as such you can invade their privacy all you want. I rather see out government make anyone who wants to step foot on our soil prove who they are and they not something else. I do not care if they have spend years convincing our government they deserver to be here. If you do not let the bad guys in they we have nothing to worry about and our government has no reason to ease drop on our private information.
Because the government has failed to protect the boards and do the correct diligence on those seeking to come to the US they now feel their only solution is to spy on all of us. You know trying to spy on 350M people day in and day out is impossible task and they will still fail to find the bad guys, But if you only focus on the million of so who are trying to get in their success rate will be far higher.
I support One Last Hurrah if it really is One Last Hurrah.
After which we go nigh-isolationist. End NATO, end the rest of our foreign defensive agreements, sell base land back to respective countries (negotiate new contracts for as-needed temporary basing for any future wars), and just let the world destroy itself.
I’m sick and tired of the ‘world police’ baloney. Isolationism was grand.
Who says it has to be one way or another? The U.S. does have bases all over the world. What other country does that? Would we be OK with say Germany, maybe IRAQ and a few other countries have bases in the U.S.?
Why are we still in France? The war has been over for a very long time. All these other countries can't protect themselves? All this money being spent and paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
How about we pull out of some of these countries. Protect our own boarders, which for some reason we have a hard time doing. Continue on with LEGAL Immigration with real background checks. There's no Isolationism going on if the U.S. is still working with France and UK and any number of other countries and the Citizens are touring countries and people from other countries are touring the U.S. That's the exact opposite of Isolationism.
On the other hand blindly importing a bunch of people including Terrorists into your country is really just asking for it. If you don't think what happened in Paris wouldn't happen here, you're fooling yourself. There is ZERO way to do a background check on these people.
You civil liberties/privacy blowhards are living in a dream world. The entire fight over eavesdropping/privacy/tapping is bogus. Nothing electronic is private. Period. It hasn't been since the dawn of the internet, and the phone before that. Whether we like it or not, the government has been conducting mass surveillance for 50 years. It's the price of living in a technologically advanced society. Do you honest think you're going to stop mass surveillance? You honestly think you'll ever have "privacy" with any electronic communication? It's laughable. This whole debate is a dog and pony show. As a member here for over 15 years, it's funny watching a new generation of 18-25 year olds scream about civil liberties and get excited over Ron Paul, Jr. As Scott_h_PHD used to say: "Rock 'n Roll baby. Freedom of speech"
I have to agree. Not sure why people think email are somehow protected communications. You are correct, the NSA has been monitoring internet communication for a long time. I worked for a networking equipment company and one of our largest customers was the NSA. Back in the 90's they were running more fiber than any other company out there. They have more bandwidth coming into their facilities than most of the telecoms had at the time.
You know you send a letter in the US mail and the government can not open or touch it there are all kinds of laws in place to protect your snail mail. Not the same for emails, this is why companies now have signature lines on outgoing email that state the content of the email is only for the sender and recipient otherwise if is forward then it is free for anyone to look at and use.
In the case the government is just upset they can not use your own personal communications against you in court. They can not make your testify against yourself, but they sure feel that can use your emails against you.
A very controversial matter, since both parts are right ... Privacy has to be protected, but State security in this time is a concern....
No solution.
I want my iMessages to be encrypted, but what about iMessage being used by terrorists?
That is the role of the CIA or NSA to hack those devices to view their communication. As we all know this has been done numerous ways in the past. It should not be done in a way that gives a backdoor, since that makes it guaranteed that someone else will use that same backdoor for malicious purposes. As other have stated, the bad people will always adopt their ways of communicating. Its easy to use a plethora of other solutions to communicate encrypted or anonymously. Even if everything had a back door and could be accessed, they would resort to code or communication the old fashion way via courier. People will always find a way around it (and laws) to do bad things.
So right now you have the govt up in arms about terrorists and MUST have back doors to view their communication / data on their devices. Rewind several months to when we had the uproar of China hacking the government as well as the corporations they have been stealing secrets from where you want to make sure data is secure and encrypted, since having the backdoor means a way for them to exploit.
Fortunately, Apple is still leading the industry by providing end-to-end encryption, forcing Homeland Security to do its job by gaining evidence of unlawful activity prior to accessing people's private data.
...
My understanding is that under the current situation, even if Homeland Security gets the evidence of unlawful activity - and subsequently a warrant - it is technically impossible to get access to the private data without the owner knowing about it (and giving you their passcodes). So what happens when you have evidence against a person but you want to catch them in the planning act in order to broaden your understanding of the threat and the other participants? You can't do that anymore. That was (once upon a time) a huge advantage for homeland security. Don't discount the importance just because we all cherish our privacy and fear the government. There is a proper balance somewhere.
When the US citizens lose their freedoms and privacy out of fear of terrorists, that's when the terrorists win.
This is already ongoing. I don't use airports anymore, for example. They're intolerable examples of people being treated like criminals as normal operating procedure AND of people lining up to subject themselves to it. In many ways, the terrorists have won and are actively winning. It doesn't hurt the government agencies or politicians and it doesn't hurt the corporations, so who's going to stop it and roll back our lost civil freedoms? No one. The future is a majorly slippery slope, covered in snow, with a huge snowball rolling downhill at increasing speed.
Not to express anything that suggested I was on one side of the 'not part of this thread and won't be solved here debate' but you seem to have assumed a position for me.
NOPE. Try reading again. Try posting again, rather. You claimed a VERY specific psy-op position, thus revealing what you believe.
I found the debate on freedoms, privacy and government ability to legislate technology interesting. I would like to return this thread to that useful debate as I genuinely think the basis of the law is flawed and people were meaningfully debating it.
Comments
ISIS attacked France, not the US.
/s
The problem is, you gun grabbers never do. For instance in Britain when guns were banned, murder by handgun went up dramatically-- because now the bad guys knew their victims were disarmed. Murders over all skyrocketed.
You don't want to get rid of guns- you want the out of control cops to have them to easily murder us and the innocent citizens to be unable to defend themselves.
You're just like the sheep who vote for every tyrant.
No they didn't overall gun deaths have been in a downward trend over the last 20 years, to put it in perspective the US gun deaths has not changed, if anything it has increased.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom?
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
No data for the US before 1999
J
This is such a BS argument.
This is what happens when America loses its balls to win a War. It turns against its own citizens.
The last war America won was WWII. We won that the good old fashion way.
We should do the same against ISIS.
1. As other readers pointed out - Allied forces won the war, not America.
Some sources point out that America just waited to join the winning side. It could have been Hitler who they might have joined. Just remember - US was against both fascists and communists. That's why the US waited before they joined the war.
2. It's not that easy to win a war as you might think: e.g. Korean War ended in a stalemate and Vietnam ended in retreat.
3. You can't win a war against the terrorists.
I am not going into a deeper definitions of war and terrorists etc.
Just let me ask, how the end of "war" with ISIS would look like?
With WWII it was clear - the capitulation of Germany (Italy, Japan). And ISIS?
Which government and country are going to capitulate? Who is going to sign the document?
Trying to win a war on terrorists/terrorism is the same as winning the war on drugs - impossible.
If you ask me about the solution, then IMHO, we should support the country to fight this war for themselves. Screw those who support refugee policies. We need to support people who are staying is Syria!
P.S. As for encryption - I am all for the real privacy without 'backdoors'.
Wrong. I live in the uk. You just made that up. On a day where the Paris attacks had just taken place and the news agenda was rammed a shooting in Liverpool gained massive news coverage because it was the 3rd gun death this year in the city. I don't mind that you have guns in the US or that you believe guns are necessary but don't try to justify it with flawed arguments that have no evidence. I wonder if you will respond rationally to this challenge or just fly off into an invective rant...
When the US citizens lose their freedoms and privacy out of fear of terrorists, that's when the terrorists win.
If I was a terrorist I still wouldn't trust encryption from anyone. I sure wouldn't be using a phone to text to others to bomb or whatever. If I sent a text to someone that just said GO or it's a Go, what does that mean? Nothing of course unless it was a go to to the planned Bomb at the set time. Having access to people's phone's would have done nothing because it's meaningless. Anyone with half a brain will have their own code. That is if they are even texting each other.
The other lame excuse Child Molesters. Who are these people texting that they took some kid, and maybe did more to? That's just dumb. They aren't going around telling people.
Here's a Idea, including you OBAMA, don't go Importing these terrorists into the country!!! There is ZERO way you can background check these people. They sure as hell don't need to come all the way to the U.S. There's countries all around in the middle east they can go to.
You chart is completely irrelevant. Tyre is no coo relation between owning m16 and genocide of Armenians.
also where is American genicide against natives?
I hate to say this , you made his point, European settler who fear the Native populations of the Americas passed laws which made it illegal to give or sell guns to Native Americans so they could wipe them out. Only when they gain some arms were they able to fight back and regain some of what they lost. His point was when government disarm the public it allows those in charge to eliminate those who they do not like or perceives they different enough to get rid of them. Also you focusing on the type of weapon not the act of limiting access to any weapon.
Keep in mind you (I'm going to assume you live in the US) are hear today able to say what you can because people in the US back in the 1700 were able to have arms and were still able to fight off the more superior armed British Army. They could not do that if they did not have access to arms. Yeah American does not have clean history on this subject since they did exact what the British want to do the Americans as the Americans did to the Native populations.
As tragic as this event is, in 2013 alone over 11,000 people were murdered by guns in the US, and over 80,000 injured. Yet we vehemently defend our right to own guns. And these clowns think we should give up our right to privacy? If you want to prevent mass murder in the US, which happens every year, there is s better way to start than taking away our right to privacy, and our right to online security.
Taking away guns does NOTHING but makes things easier on the criminals. Look at the places with the highest gun control laws on the books. They have the highest crime rates. A Gun levels the playing field. It allows the weak to protect themselves.
Look at the Boston Bombing. Not a single gun used to kill a number of people. Even when guns are hard to come by, doesn't stop people. There's been Mass stabbings in Schools before like in Japan. People have been killing people long before guns existed. I can walk into a Home Depot and find all kinds of things that can be used to kill people.
A all controlling government is all about spying on the general population. It's not about Terrorists or anything else. That's just their lame excuse. If a terrorist sends the text GO or whatever, what good will that do spying on everyone's text messages? That Go command was just a word for a already set plan of attack to bomb or whatever a set target at a set time. Spying on people's phones would have done NOTHING.
No, but to engage in another war that does not involve US interests is foolish. In case any have forgotten, the US is currently $17 trillion in debt and you and I are the ones stuck with that bill.
I may be wrong, but as I understand it, ISIS' core purpose is to bring about Armageddon. They are a suicide cult.
Here I the thing I find interesting with our government, they are upset that private companies are allowing its citizens to protect what is theirs and not allow the US to ease drop on them. However, this is the same government who sells top secret weapon and communications systems to other countries who either spy in the US or turns into a rouge state and use those same weapons against the US and its allies. Anyone notice what the ISIS militian are using, they using US made weapons and such.
I don't think inanimate objects murder people. And given the article topic, guns are largely banned in France; how'd that turn out?
They're largely banned in Mexico also. How's that working out, with all the mass murder going on there.
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/26/175288241/angry-days-shows-an-america-torn-over-entering-world-war-ii
EDIT: A very good interview about the above here:
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/153296
The problem is, you gun grabbers never do. For instance in Britain when guns were banned, murder by handgun went up dramatically-- because now the bad guys knew their victims were disarmed. Murders over all skyrocketed.
You don't want to get rid of guns- you want the out of control cops to have them to easily murder us and the innocent citizens to be unable to defend themselves.
You're just like the sheep who vote for every tyrant.
Complete and utter bollocks.
The police do not routinely even carry guns in the UK. We have armed response units when required.. which isn't that often.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/rate_of_all_gun_deaths_per_100_000_people/194
US=10.64
UK=0.23
Taking away guns does NOTHING but makes things easier on the criminals. Look at the places with the highest gun control laws on the books. They have the highest crime rates. A Gun levels the playing field. It allows the weak to protect themselves.
Look at the Boston Bombing. Not a single gun used to kill a number of people. Even when guns are hard to come by, doesn't stop people. There's been Mass stabbings in Schools before like in Japan. People have been killing people long before guns existed. I can walk into a Home Depot and find all kinds of things that can be used to kill people.
A all controlling government is all about spying on the general population. It's not about Terrorists or anything else. That's just their lame excuse. If a terrorist sends the text GO or whatever, what good will that do spying on everyone's text messages? That Go command was just a word for a already set plan of attack to bomb or whatever a set target at a set time. Spying on people's phones would have done NOTHING.
I tend to agree with what you are saying.
I said this back in 2001 and I keep saying it, if we want to be safe in the US, do not let the terrorist in the country. We have these people coming and going every day and the issue is once they are here they protected by the same laws which protect those who are here for all the right reasons. However, these individual are not protect by our laws outside our boards as such you can invade their privacy all you want. I rather see out government make anyone who wants to step foot on our soil prove who they are and they not something else. I do not care if they have spend years convincing our government they deserver to be here. If you do not let the bad guys in they we have nothing to worry about and our government has no reason to ease drop on our private information.
Because the government has failed to protect the boards and do the correct diligence on those seeking to come to the US they now feel their only solution is to spy on all of us. You know trying to spy on 350M people day in and day out is impossible task and they will still fail to find the bad guys, But if you only focus on the million of so who are trying to get in their success rate will be far higher.
I support One Last Hurrah if it really is One Last Hurrah.
After which we go nigh-isolationist. End NATO, end the rest of our foreign defensive agreements, sell base land back to respective countries (negotiate new contracts for as-needed temporary basing for any future wars), and just let the world destroy itself.
I’m sick and tired of the ‘world police’ baloney. Isolationism was grand.
Who says it has to be one way or another? The U.S. does have bases all over the world. What other country does that? Would we be OK with say Germany, maybe IRAQ and a few other countries have bases in the U.S.?
Why are we still in France? The war has been over for a very long time. All these other countries can't protect themselves? All this money being spent and paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
How about we pull out of some of these countries. Protect our own boarders, which for some reason we have a hard time doing. Continue on with LEGAL Immigration with real background checks. There's no Isolationism going on if the U.S. is still working with France and UK and any number of other countries and the Citizens are touring countries and people from other countries are touring the U.S. That's the exact opposite of Isolationism.
On the other hand blindly importing a bunch of people including Terrorists into your country is really just asking for it. If you don't think what happened in Paris wouldn't happen here, you're fooling yourself. There is ZERO way to do a background check on these people.
You civil liberties/privacy blowhards are living in a dream world. The entire fight over eavesdropping/privacy/tapping is bogus. Nothing electronic is private. Period. It hasn't been since the dawn of the internet, and the phone before that. Whether we like it or not, the government has been conducting mass surveillance for 50 years. It's the price of living in a technologically advanced society. Do you honest think you're going to stop mass surveillance? You honestly think you'll ever have "privacy" with any electronic communication? It's laughable. This whole debate is a dog and pony show. As a member here for over 15 years, it's funny watching a new generation of 18-25 year olds scream about civil liberties and get excited over Ron Paul, Jr. As Scott_h_PHD used to say: "Rock 'n Roll baby. Freedom of speech"
I have to agree. Not sure why people think email are somehow protected communications. You are correct, the NSA has been monitoring internet communication for a long time. I worked for a networking equipment company and one of our largest customers was the NSA. Back in the 90's they were running more fiber than any other company out there. They have more bandwidth coming into their facilities than most of the telecoms had at the time.
You know you send a letter in the US mail and the government can not open or touch it there are all kinds of laws in place to protect your snail mail. Not the same for emails, this is why companies now have signature lines on outgoing email that state the content of the email is only for the sender and recipient otherwise if is forward then it is free for anyone to look at and use.
In the case the government is just upset they can not use your own personal communications against you in court. They can not make your testify against yourself, but they sure feel that can use your emails against you.
A very controversial matter, since both parts are right ... Privacy has to be protected, but State security in this time is a concern....
No solution.
I want my iMessages to be encrypted, but what about iMessage being used by terrorists?
That is the role of the CIA or NSA to hack those devices to view their communication. As we all know this has been done numerous ways in the past. It should not be done in a way that gives a backdoor, since that makes it guaranteed that someone else will use that same backdoor for malicious purposes. As other have stated, the bad people will always adopt their ways of communicating. Its easy to use a plethora of other solutions to communicate encrypted or anonymously. Even if everything had a back door and could be accessed, they would resort to code or communication the old fashion way via courier. People will always find a way around it (and laws) to do bad things.
So right now you have the govt up in arms about terrorists and MUST have back doors to view their communication / data on their devices. Rewind several months to when we had the uproar of China hacking the government as well as the corporations they have been stealing secrets from where you want to make sure data is secure and encrypted, since having the backdoor means a way for them to exploit.
...
Fortunately, Apple is still leading the industry by providing end-to-end encryption, forcing Homeland Security to do its job by gaining evidence of unlawful activity prior to accessing people's private data.
...
My understanding is that under the current situation, even if Homeland Security gets the evidence of unlawful activity - and subsequently a warrant - it is technically impossible to get access to the private data without the owner knowing about it (and giving you their passcodes). So what happens when you have evidence against a person but you want to catch them in the planning act in order to broaden your understanding of the threat and the other participants? You can't do that anymore. That was (once upon a time) a huge advantage for homeland security. Don't discount the importance just because we all cherish our privacy and fear the government. There is a proper balance somewhere.
This is already ongoing. I don't use airports anymore, for example. They're intolerable examples of people being treated like criminals as normal operating procedure AND of people lining up to subject themselves to it. In many ways, the terrorists have won and are actively winning. It doesn't hurt the government agencies or politicians and it doesn't hurt the corporations, so who's going to stop it and roll back our lost civil freedoms? No one. The future is a majorly slippery slope, covered in snow, with a huge snowball rolling downhill at increasing speed.
NOPE. Try reading again. Try posting again, rather. You claimed a VERY specific psy-op position, thus revealing what you believe.
I don’t disagree.