Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

vvswarup

macrumors 6502a
Jul 21, 2010
544
225
Well... When torrerist attack happen, you guys would question government ability to gather information and blame on government.

I support government have ability to monitor internet and communication activities so they can prevent next torrerist. The last thing I would worry is state reading all my emails. How likely is that. No government has reseouce reading billions text message everyday. But when government do need read potential torrerist email or text message, then government should have the ability to do so.

Lefties alawys want put things to the extreme. If you want hide something, you are doing something that need to be hide.

If you want to be an open book, be my guest. But don't try to paint those who value their privacy as abnormal people. Privacy is the foundation of a free society. Without it, there can be no freedom of thought. People will inevitably turn into mindless drones who constantly censor themselves for fear of running afoul of the government.

You say you're not worried about the state having the capability to read all of your emails. You say no government has the resources to sift through billions of messages sent everyday. That's true if you're talking about people sorting through internet traffic. Advances in computer science can make that job lot less resource-intensive and very much within the government's capability.

I won't speak for any other country because I'm not familiar with their laws. In the US, abuses of power have happened. Nixon used federal agencies like the CIA and FBI to spy on and harass political opponents. Clearly, laws didn't matter to him. As part of COINTELPRO, the FBI spied on and attempted to disrupt numerous organizations that weren't breaking any laws but were deemed potentially dangerous for gobbledegook reasons. If the government could be trusted to use its powers of surveillance to only go after those who are breaking the law, I would be less opposed to it but COINTELPRO tells us that that's not the case.

Let me say it again. If you want to be an open book, be an open book. Don't try to imply that privacy is meant for only those who are doing something wrong that needs to be hidden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: akash.nu and 827538

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68030
Jan 31, 2015
2,543
9,710
Boston
I work in healthcare. SMS text messages are not HIPAA compliant- technically neither is iMessage and I doubt WhatsApp is either... we have a HIPAA compliant text app. Anyways, I'm not sure if healthcare is considered "normal people", but I consider myself "normal" and the need for encrypted messaging for work.

I believe, as an American anyways, to the right to privacy. The government should not have the right to view my personal or business related text without a warrant. Period. I understand the debate of National Security vs Privacy, but the law needs to be drawn somewhere and I think it has already moved too far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 827538

827538

Cancelled
Jul 3, 2013
2,322
2,833
I don't know firsthand about your political parties, but I sympathize because it's pretty much the same problem of choosing between the lesser of two evils here these days in the US. I've voted for candidates in either of our two main parties and even looked at third party candidates. Over here though, both main parties have had candidates that have called for the erosion of privacy and personal liberty and both have shown about the same measure of ignorance regarding technology in general and internet commerce in particular. Both parties at their extremes are messy on immigration and healthcare. I think sometimes they know better, but choose to vocalize only the extreme positions that they think will appeal to their constituents.

So it can be shocking when actual competence does rear its head and quite amazing the country runs as well as it does.

I wouldn't say the UK's politicial situation is quite as bad as the US. We don't have our politicians being openly bri... I mean lobbied to the tune of millions of dollars and we can actually vote for alternative parties with a chance for actually bringing about change (UKIP). I used to feel pretty confident with the Tories, I supported Brexit and felt they'd do a decent job of it. But right now I'm looking at their cabinet and their past records and thinking to myself, these people are morons, really massive incompetent morons. So I need to find an alternative to vote for which there is none for me, UKIP were a one trick pony and Labour aren't even worth thinking about.

Actually the leader of the Scottish Tories seems a bit more capable than the rest.

Anyway I'm leaving this country next year so I'm done caring. I'm not staying to spend the rest of my life being taxed to hell to pay for the mistakes of my parents and to pay for other people's pensions knowing full well I'll never see one. (I'm 25). High cost of living, high taxation, poor services and terrible infrastructure - no thanks.
[doublepost=1501747009][/doublepost]
I am one of those immigrants about whom you are complaining, but I feel your pain. I've been in the UK for more than 20 years now, and in that time the governments of both parties have curtailed various rights (e.g., freedom from double jeopardy, freedom from self-incrimination, freedom of assembly, freedom from lengthy detention without trial, the right to privacy etc.). As a US citizen I have to say that many of these measures would have been unconstitutional in the US. I know many people are concerned about immigration to the UK, but one of the issues that will arise from Brexit is that the European Court will no longer protect UK citizens' rights. Unless the UK creates a Bill of Rights, or some other explicit document stating which rights are inviolable, then there is the risk that the government's infringement on personal liberties will accelerate, and not just in relation to privacy but also everyday issues like consumer rights.

Interesting you brought up double jeprody. They didn't just remove it, there has to be substantial new evidence to bring about a retrial. I actually agree with the change. As they showed cases where DNA evidence that wasn't previously available helped to convict.

I have zero issue with skilled immigration of people willing to integrate and adopt our values. I assume you fall into that category.

What I am f***ing sick of it mass uncontrolled immigration. We are a small island with a relatively high population. This has put massive strain on infrastructure, services and especially housing. It also suppresses the wages of low skilled British workers - at a nightshift courier job I worked at while studying our wages were cut due to the unlimited supply of Eastern European labour. Now that Brexit has happened and less people are deciding to come (I realise we still have open borders with the EU) they've suddenly upped the wage back to where it was years ago.

And let's not beat about the bush, the mass immigration of certain groups from the third world has been a ****ing disaster. Some cultures are inferior, anyone going to defend the Middle East's attitudes towards gays and women here? How about Pakistan's revenge rape culture?

Mass immigration is a huge topic and issue in Western countries and rightly so. It's damaging to us, and our politicians seem to just stick their heads in the sand and do nothing. Hence you get people voting for Trump and Brexit which in my opinion are symptoms of the problem.

I fully welcome skilled workers that we need like doctors, teachers, engineers, nurses, scientists. They should be welcome and encouraged to come here. But the uneducated, unskilled migrants are not welcome. Especially when they do not share in our values and culture.

Just a side note I'm actually emigrating to the US next year as I'm marrying an American. So I guess that will make me an immigrant. Difference between me and the people I dislike is I have money, I speak the language, I share the same values and culture, I have an engineering degree with skills to offer and job offers waiting for me. Plus my fiancé has lived in the U.K. for almost half a decade and benefited from being here so it's kind of swings and roundabouts.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68040
Jun 8, 2009
3,383
14,255
Scotland
...
Interesting you brought up double jeprody. They didn't just remove it, there has to be substantial new evidence to bring about a retrial. I actually agree with the change. As they showed cases where DNA evidence that wasn't previously available helped to convict.

Honestly on the whole I think it's a bad idea I favour instead Scotland's 'not proven' verdict which leaves open the possibility of another trial if new information arises. However, in England, a new trial can be ordered even if there is a 'not guilty' verdict. I know it's rare for double jeopardy to be invoked in England, but the mere possibility raises the potential for abuse. The financial resources of the state can withstand the cost of multiple trials, but this is much less true of individuals.

Just a side note I'm actually emigrating to the US next year as I'm marrying an American. So I guess that will make me an immigrant. Difference between me and the people I dislike is I have money, I speak the language, I share the same values and culture, I have an engineering degree with skills to offer and job offers waiting for me. Plus my fiancé has lived in the U.K. for almost half a decade and benefited from being here so it's kind of swings and roundabouts.

I wish you and your fiancé well. The US is a great country and a wonderful place to live on the whole. :)
 

LovingTeddy

Suspended
Oct 12, 2015
1,848
2,153
Canada
Who decides what is the "collective good"? How can you evaluate that collective good without individual good?

The worst atrocities in history were perpetrated by people claiming to be acting for the "collective good" of the citizenry.


Collective good is good for the nation. You can say Nazi is bad... But it advanced German and brought Nazi from the recession.

There cannot be individual good without collective good. Nation is made of collective individual and individual is subject to the nation. Whether you agree or not, democracy or decitorship, country are always and will remain so be controlled by group of elite and ordinary citizens really have no way to how government run and direction of country going. Therefore, individual is always subject to group as whole.

Take Iraq for example, can you really say individual good is achieved when the while country is in chaos? No. Only when the while country is doing well, then it is possible for individual doing well. Individual scarifies is needed for country as whole doing well.
[doublepost=1501761826][/doublepost]
If you want to be an open book, be my guest. But don't try to paint those who value their privacy as abnormal people. Privacy is the foundation of a free society. Without it, there can be no freedom of thought. People will inevitably turn into mindless drones who constantly censor themselves for fear of running afoul of the government.

You say you're not worried about the state having the capability to read all of your emails. You say no government has the resources to sift through billions of messages sent everyday. That's true if you're talking about people sorting through internet traffic. Advances in computer science can make that job lot less resource-intensive and very much within the government's capability.

I won't speak for any other country because I'm not familiar with their laws. In the US, abuses of power have happened. Nixon used federal agencies like the CIA and FBI to spy on and harass political opponents. Clearly, laws didn't matter to him. As part of COINTELPRO, the FBI spied on and attempted to disrupt numerous organizations that weren't breaking any laws but were deemed potentially dangerous for gobbledegook reasons. If the government could be trusted to use its powers of surveillance to only go after those who are breaking the law, I would be less opposed to it but COINTELPRO tells us that that's not the case.

Let me say it again. If you want to be an open book, be an open book. Don't try to imply that privacy is meant for only those who are doing something wrong that needs to be hidden.

Freedom of thought or any freedom is build upon the society as whole. There is no freedom of thought or freedom when countury isn't doing well. Freedom is not natural right, freedom is given. Freedom is what government granted to you. When country or national need take away your freedom for greater of good, they can. This is way there are Martial Law.

I repeat that again , Freedom and Human Rights are granted by government though law. Law can be changed and government can be changed. Freedom and Human Right can be restricted any time and there is no unlimited freedom at all
 

vvswarup

macrumors 6502a
Jul 21, 2010
544
225
Freedom of thought or any freedom is build upon the society as whole. There is no freedom of thought or freedom when countury isn't doing well. Freedom is not natural right, freedom is given. Freedom is what government granted to you. When country or national need take away your freedom for greater of good, they can. This is way there are Martial Law.

I repeat that again , Freedom and Human Rights are granted by government though law. Law can be changed and government can be changed. Freedom and Human Right can be restricted any time and there is no unlimited freedom at all

I speak only for the US government. Where does the government get its power? Its power is given to it by the people. The government is a servant of the people, not the other way around. In the USA, the government exists because of the consent of the people. The government doesn't get to change the law willy nilly. Elected officials make the laws.

And no, freedom and human rights cannot be restricted any time. Through elected officials, the people choose to let their rights be restricted when absolutely necessary.

You say there is no freedom of thought or freedom when the country isn't doing well. That's wrong. The country can never be "well" if there is no freedom of thought or freedom.
 

akash.nu

macrumors G4
May 26, 2016
10,823
16,930
Collective good is good for the nation. You can say Nazi is bad... But it advanced German and brought Nazi from the recession.

There cannot be individual good without collective good. Nation is made of collective individual and individual is subject to the nation. Whether you agree or not, democracy or decitorship, country are always and will remain so be controlled by group of elite and ordinary citizens really have no way to how government run and direction of country going. Therefore, individual is always subject to group as whole.

Take Iraq for example, can you really say individual good is achieved when the while country is in chaos? No. Only when the while country is doing well, then it is possible for individual doing well. Individual scarifies is needed for country as whole doing well.
[doublepost=1501761826][/doublepost]

Freedom of thought or any freedom is build upon the society as whole. There is no freedom of thought or freedom when countury isn't doing well. Freedom is not natural right, freedom is given. Freedom is what government granted to you. When country or national need take away your freedom for greater of good, they can. This is way there are Martial Law.

I repeat that again , Freedom and Human Rights are granted by government though law. Law can be changed and government can be changed. Freedom and Human Right can be restricted any time and there is no unlimited freedom at all

I'm sorry, why am I supposed to lose my freedom again? Freedom is our birth right. No government can "grant" it. In fact it's atrocity to think that the government can take away our freedom. The government is there for people, not the other way around. I wonder where you get such ideologies from.
 

LovingTeddy

Suspended
Oct 12, 2015
1,848
2,153
Canada
I speak only for the US government. Where does the government get its power? Its power is given to it by the people. The government is a servant of the people, not the other way around. In the USA, the government exists because of the consent of the people. The government doesn't get to change the law willy nilly. Elected officials make the laws.

And no, freedom and human rights cannot be restricted any time. Through elected officials, the people choose to let their rights be restricted when absolutely necessary.

You say there is no freedom of thought or freedom when the country isn't doing well. That's wrong. The country can never be "well" if there is no freedom of thought or freedom.

The fact is your freedom always been restricted. Do you yell your boss say it is my freedom to wear underwear at work? Do you except you say some racial words and not get fired? Do military personal say it is my freedom not going to war and except not tried for treason?

Whether democracy or not, our rights and freedom always been restricted for greater of good. This is just way of life. There cannot be unrestricted freedom, law is there to restricted our rights and freedom.
[doublepost=1501763143][/doublepost]
I'm sorry, why am I supposed to lose my freedom again? Freedom is our birth right. No government can "grant" it. In fact it's atrocity to think that the government can take away our freedom. The government is there for people, not the other way around. I wonder where you get such ideologies from.

Government is there for the greater of the good, far more than individual people. And when it is for greater of good or collective interest, right and freedom will be restricted
 

akash.nu

macrumors G4
May 26, 2016
10,823
16,930
The fact is your freedom always been restricted. Do you yell your boss say it is my freedom to wear underwear at work? Do you except you say some racial words and not get fired? Do military personal say it is my freedom not going to war and except not tried for treason?

Whether democracy or not, our rights and freedom always been restricted for greater of good. This is just way of life. There cannot be unrestricted freedom, law is there to restricted our rights and freedom.

You're changing the context from individual privacy to social norms here. Dress codes & being politically correct are social norms. Not rights as human beings.
 

LovingTeddy

Suspended
Oct 12, 2015
1,848
2,153
Canada
You're changing the context from individual privacy to social norms here. Dress codes & being politically correct are social norms. Not rights as human beings.

It is same thing. Your freedom of speech is restricted because saying discriminatory thing is bad for society as whole. Therefore, your freedom of speech is restricted.

There is no freedom or rights are you are born with. It is always granted to you and it can be taken away.

True freedom = unrestricted freedom= no law and order = chaos.

Law and order is there to restricted individual freedom and liberty for common good or collective good.

Talking about individual privacy, when it is important for government to intercepting communication to protect nation from terrorist or potential war, individual privacy must be scarfised. Do you really except privacy during war time? No.
 

akash.nu

macrumors G4
May 26, 2016
10,823
16,930
It is same thing. Your freedom of speech is restricted because saying discriminatory thing is bad for society as whole. Therefore, your freedom of speech is restricted.

Why's saying discriminatory thing is bad for society? It's more of a recent trend because we all want to be "politically correct ". There's plenty discrimination going on everyday under the hood.

There is no freedom or rights are you are born with. It is always granted to you and it can be taken away.

Yes there's freedom and rights when I am born, especially depending on which country I am born in. Freedom and rights ain't part of one specific government and if the elected person turns out to be a mindless fool then the people have the rights to take him down. That's what you call a civilised society.

True freedom = unrestricted freedom= no law and order = chaos.

Law and order is required to have an organised society but misusing it to invade in people's personal life is not ethical or civil.
Law and order is there to restricted individual freedom and liberty for common good or collective good.

I agree with this to some extent but the law and order is governed by the people. Not handful of fascists.

Talking about individual privacy, when it is important for government to intercepting communication to protect nation from terrorist or potential war, individual privacy must be scarfised. Do you really except privacy during war time? No.

Interception should be based upon suspicion and solid evidence. Not as a blanket measure to monitor the common citizens as if the people are slave of the elected government.
 

Breaking Good

macrumors 65816
Sep 28, 2012
1,449
1,225
Collective good is good for the nation. You can say Nazi is bad... But it advanced German and brought Nazi from the recession.

So you are saying that it was OK that 60 million people were killed because it pulled Germany out of a recession?
 

827538

Cancelled
Jul 3, 2013
2,322
2,833
Honestly on the whole I think it's a bad idea I favour instead Scotland's 'not proven' verdict which leaves open the possibility of another trial if new information arises. However, in England, a new trial can be ordered even if there is a 'not guilty' verdict. I know it's rare for double jeopardy to be invoked in England, but the mere possibility raises the potential for abuse. The financial resources of the state can withstand the cost of multiple trials, but this is much less true of individuals.



I wish you and your fiancé well. The US is a great country and a wonderful place to live on the whole. :)

Thanks
 

vvswarup

macrumors 6502a
Jul 21, 2010
544
225
It is same thing. Your freedom of speech is restricted because saying discriminatory thing is bad for society as whole. Therefore, your freedom of speech is restricted.

There is no freedom or rights are you are born with. It is always granted to you and it can be taken away.

True freedom = unrestricted freedom= no law and order = chaos.

Law and order is there to restricted individual freedom and liberty for common good or collective good.

Talking about individual privacy, when it is important for government to intercepting communication to protect nation from terrorist or potential war, individual privacy must be scarfised. Do you really except privacy during war time? No.

You say that rights are granted to us and can be taken away? On what basis? The government isn't some benevolent entity that gave us rights like freedom of speech and privacy out of the goodness of its heart. The government exists because of the consent of the governed. The populace gave the government certain powers with limitations in the form of rights like freedom of speech. The government cannot simply take away certain rights for gobbledegook reasons like it's for people's protection. There are very specific circumstances under which rights can be taken away.

Let's talk about privacy. You say it's important for the government to intercept communications to protect the nation from a terrorist attack or war. The government is free to hire computer programmers to break encryption, which is possible to do. For all the talk about governments saying encryption can't be broken, it actually can. Apple, Facebook, Google, and others spend a lot of resources staying a step ahead of hackers. New weaknesses are found all the time, so encryption can be broken.That's not good enough for the government, though. The government wants all of us to live with less secure communication on the off-chance that a terrorist will be dumb enough to communicate over an unsecure channel, all in the name of national security.

You seem to be willing to take it on faith that the government is actually asking for more powers in the interest of national security. I would treat it with a healthy dose of skepticism. Governments throughout history have used the threat of invasion/attack/war to get populaces to hand over powers to the government.
 

Tech198

Cancelled
Mar 21, 2011
15,915
2,151
Its all to easy to say "we want privacy" when u have already gotten use to it

As in "real people" don't use a VPN either ? Of course we have to for remote access to work... Didn't think of that one did ya :D But lets forget that important point, and just focus on hiding :rolleyes:

Just because u use encrypted messages doesn't automatically label u as bad..... no more than drinking automatically labels u as an alcoholic , just forget you've only had 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR

dogslobber

macrumors 601
Oct 19, 2014
4,670
7,808
Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
She's just using psychology as a means to push forward her agenda by presenting an argument that the great unwashed masses don't need 100% always on encryption. By framing it this way and appealing to people's sense of gullibility, that "real people" are you, me, and her, that this other group needs 100% always on encryption to hide their dastardly deeds, then "real people" will see the light in what she's postulating. I don't doubt for a moment she isn't being advised by tech experts so she will fully understand how crypto works. But she's got an agenda to pursue here and this is the strategy to break the stranglehold encryption currently has. You just need to get enough people questioning the position because that will exert more pressure that a tory govt can on tech companies in the USA.
[doublepost=1502049356][/doublepost]
If you want to be an open book, be my guest. But don't try to paint those who value their privacy as abnormal people. Privacy is the foundation of a free society. Without it, there can be no freedom of thought. People will inevitably turn into mindless drones who constantly censor themselves for fear of running afoul of the government.

But Britain isn't really a normal society. It's riddled with class corruption and there are barriers in place to prevent the undesirables from attaining positions of influence they have no heredity right to have. It's just that they try to keep quiert about it. Britain has always tried to portray positions that are counter to the govt's generally held views to be malcontents. In the old days, the KGB-MI5 could spy on anybody without concern and get away with it. Unfortunately, the means to get away with it in today's world is not controllable directly within the UK borders. That's why you have the likes of Rudd doing a public relations push here to win over public opinion by turning them against 100% always on encryption.

The UK govt is just full of corruption and sleaze but the media tries to restrict that info from the general public. Sure, it slips out sometimes when dozens of MPs were caught fiddling their expenses and the momentum was too much to sweep it under the carpet. But that's just because they got caught in a big lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR and arkitect
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.