Your thoughts on Snowden

[Slimebeast]

MTZehvor said:

Slimebeast said:

CityOfNoobs said:

Invasion of privacy to combat crime. I support that.

To me violent crime is far worse than my loss of privacy in front of a bunch of anonymous CIA or NSA agents.

And by its very nature surveillance has to be as secret as possible. If it was totally open and public then it wouldn't be able to combat crime as effectively. This isn't anything new. All nations have always had secret agencies to fight the bad guys.

 

You are, in my view, one of the scariest type of people , and it is people that make such arguments that actually make me very glad that we do not live in any semblance of a democracy.

I am a strong proponent of the non-aggression principle, and a strong opponent of preemptive strikes. These issues are at the core of not only the PRISM scandal but also at the heart of our foreign policy for the last few decades. By sanctioning the idea of preemptively striking a military target, even when no direct threat exists, one creates a dangerous precedent. If the military (president) can strike targets for  reasons other than self defense why cant the rest of the government? The FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the other three letter agencies looked at the examples set by our military leadership through the century and finally decided to catch up with some preemptive strikes of their own, by targeting every single human being they possibly could, regardless of nationality. The recent revelations about our military’s drone strikes, and their reckless nature (killing dozens of innocents because there “might” have bee a target in the area.) show that our country fully embraces the idea that safety and power are its number one goal. To combat many of the ills of our government we as a society need to realize that the ethical thing is not always the safest thing, and that being right is better than being in control.

The argument that no harm is done by the invasions of our privacy is simply terrifying to me, the Constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of our country has made it quite clear that the many cannot simply give away the rights of the few, and that we have certain rights as humans not granted to us by government, but rights that come with existence. To simply throw all of that away because it may help stop the bad guys is not something I would hope many are willing to do.

Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither. 

But what's the principal difference between surveillance and other infringements on our freedoms and rights the government impose on its citizens?

Let's take taxes. I don't know the figure for Americans but the average Swede is forced to give 50% of his income to the state.

You talk about rights that come with existence as a human being. As an individual, when did I give the right over my own labour away to the government? Was I personally ever allowed to make that decision and sign such a contract?

No. The government just decides that I must be part of a system that distributes wealth. It was decided by other people through elections. Not by me individually. No one asked me.

It's the same thing with surveillance and security. They're things decided by other people who are elected because they supposedly know what's best way to run a society.

What's the principal difference between surveillance and taxes? Why does one upset you immensly but not the other? Explain it to me.

Some would argue that taxes fall into the exact same category.

Here's the real difference, though, and since we're talking about inalienable rights, it's fittingly enough found in the Bill of Rights. One of these two issues (taxation) is expressly allowed in the Constitution. "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense." Taxes are explicity mentioned in the Constitution as part of Congress' power.

Now let's look at the issue at hand. The fourth amendment follows: 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Obviously, this is more than a little vague, but the key phrase that I think expressly goes against the idea of nation wide wiretapping is "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." I'm don't know about you, but I would have a hard time feeling secure about anything if I knew that someone was listening in on everything I said. I've yet to hear any sort of decent argument that would show how anyone could feel secure like that.

One could also argue that "searches" would also expand to telephones as well, but that's a drawn out debate that really doesn't accomplish much more at this point.

In summary: on one hand, we have a power that the government is explicity given. On the other, we have a power which the Bill of Rights strongly suggests is forbidden to the government. I think there's a clear distinction to be made here. If we had been born in a country that states "the government has the ability to watch you at all times," then perhaps an argument could be made. However, we have not, and in that regard, I believe the entire basis behind your argument falls to pieces.

I agree that there is a clear difference constitionally, your interpretation is certainly correct there.

But I don't think the objections mainly stem from whether surveillance is constitutional or not, it's got to do with something else. Yes, there are certainly also exists many people who honestly value the constitution highly but I doubt they're the majority, and either way, let's forget them for a moment.

IMO the constitution, at least if the founding fathers would have had the ability to see 200 years into the future, could just as well have included a paragraph about the rights of the government to survey its citiziens in the name of the greater good, to prevent future threats and crime.

So let's assume that for a moment. The constitutional basis for taxation (and all the other infringements on personal freedoms) as well as government surveillance are constitionally equally strong. What would then be the principal difference? That's what I am interested in.

To me it seems liberals and socialists think taxation is an obvious and fundamental principle of the state, whereas surveillance and other measures to combat crime in general are questionable at best. I'd like to know why.