11-09-2015, 11:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-09-2015, 11:57 PM by SteelCrysis.)
I'm going to tell you the following shocking information: I support the NSA, and want to live in a country where it watches everyone's electronics.
How could I possibly do that? Edward Snowden said the NSA has my dick pics! So what? He's the guy who flat out lied about receiving special forces training when he couldn't even get through basic training. Participation in special forces training or basic training is not classified. What else is he lying about in his interpretations of what he's released?
Let me ask you two questions:
Did your life fucking explode because of the NSA? I didn't think so.
What do you have to hide? This is an accusation with two possible meanings. People think it's just an accusation of illegal activity. But it's also a far more plausible accusation of unjustified paranoia. It is: Since you actually have nothing to hide, why are you so scared?
Now for a debunking of privacytard canards:
"B-b-b-b-but the NSA has no accountability!"
The NSA effectively polices itself. How could anyone police themselves? Here's how. They have one purpose: national security from real threats. That thread is the only thing keeping them established and not dissolved or reorganized, and they know it. They have the power they love; they won't damage it by abuse of what they know.
"B-b-b-b-but the NSA breaks or bends laws until they are rewritten!"
Aren't you the same person who whines about corporations writing laws to benefit themselves? You're the person who whines about that, but the moment "muh privacy" gets involved, the relevant laws become perfect, too sacred to be touched, and there's no way they were unreasonably hampering the NSA's work.
"B-b-b-b-but the NSA watches us!"
Aren't you the same person who installs parental control software to watch what your kids do on the internet? If it's fit for your precious kids, it's fit for you.
"B-b-b-b-but the risk of terrorism is so low!"
And the consequences of the long shot hitting are pretty bad. Risk isn't just calculated by odds: it's also calculated based on how bad the long shot hitting will be.
"B-b-b-b-but the backdoors in the encryption get found by bad guys!"
And software today is so full of exploits that the bad guys don't have to rely on encryption backdoors. Not to mention, the solution to this is: build a better mousetrap, with a backdoor only the NSA can access.
"B-b-b-b-but privacy enables good!"
Privacy enables. Unfortunately, unlike with libertarianism, no one aside from a few quickly-shouted-down people thinks: enabling what? Privacy from any surveillance enables the worst among us, who can now hide with ease. It enables drugs that are illegal for a good reason, ranging from whatever obscure drug you can think of to Krokodil; look that shit up and I guarantee that you will willingly give up your privacy to reduce its use. It enables child porn lovers. Anyone who dares bring up the last gets shouted down by the mob as just saying "think of the children!" Unlike the mob, that person is thinking about the children. That person is thinking about how electronic privacy has enabled one of the worst kinds of criminals on earth to engage in their toxic activities more easily than ever before.
Will my NSA electronic Big Brother utopia stop all the horrible crimes I mentioned above? Nope. And neither can anything. What the NSA can do is force the criminality severely underground, greatly hampering their operations. Much like the FBI's extralegal war against the KKK in the 60s and 70s drove it into near oblivion. The FBI went so far that the urban legend persists that they brought in Mafia hitman Gregory Scarpa to track down the guilty in the Mississippi Burning case.
The fact that anyone can advocate privacy when the software to enable it greatly enables some of the worst among us reveals just how selfish and rotten privacy advocates are. They care about "muh privacy" and no one else. They would give enabling to the worst among us just so "teh NSA doesnt hav muh dik pics!"
People who implicitly call for trading freedom to child porn lovers, drug dealers, and more, in exchange for their own security from "teh gubmint" deserve neither freedom nor security, and are bound to lose both. And if I were President of the USA, privacy advocates would lose both and die. Not to mention privacy software would be not only illegal, but blocked at the DNS level. If you were using Tor, you couldn't even access the internet in my USA.
How could I possibly do that? Edward Snowden said the NSA has my dick pics! So what? He's the guy who flat out lied about receiving special forces training when he couldn't even get through basic training. Participation in special forces training or basic training is not classified. What else is he lying about in his interpretations of what he's released?
Let me ask you two questions:
Did your life fucking explode because of the NSA? I didn't think so.
What do you have to hide? This is an accusation with two possible meanings. People think it's just an accusation of illegal activity. But it's also a far more plausible accusation of unjustified paranoia. It is: Since you actually have nothing to hide, why are you so scared?
Now for a debunking of privacytard canards:
"B-b-b-b-but the NSA has no accountability!"
The NSA effectively polices itself. How could anyone police themselves? Here's how. They have one purpose: national security from real threats. That thread is the only thing keeping them established and not dissolved or reorganized, and they know it. They have the power they love; they won't damage it by abuse of what they know.
"B-b-b-b-but the NSA breaks or bends laws until they are rewritten!"
Aren't you the same person who whines about corporations writing laws to benefit themselves? You're the person who whines about that, but the moment "muh privacy" gets involved, the relevant laws become perfect, too sacred to be touched, and there's no way they were unreasonably hampering the NSA's work.
"B-b-b-b-but the NSA watches us!"
Aren't you the same person who installs parental control software to watch what your kids do on the internet? If it's fit for your precious kids, it's fit for you.
"B-b-b-b-but the risk of terrorism is so low!"
And the consequences of the long shot hitting are pretty bad. Risk isn't just calculated by odds: it's also calculated based on how bad the long shot hitting will be.
"B-b-b-b-but the backdoors in the encryption get found by bad guys!"
And software today is so full of exploits that the bad guys don't have to rely on encryption backdoors. Not to mention, the solution to this is: build a better mousetrap, with a backdoor only the NSA can access.
"B-b-b-b-but privacy enables good!"
Privacy enables. Unfortunately, unlike with libertarianism, no one aside from a few quickly-shouted-down people thinks: enabling what? Privacy from any surveillance enables the worst among us, who can now hide with ease. It enables drugs that are illegal for a good reason, ranging from whatever obscure drug you can think of to Krokodil; look that shit up and I guarantee that you will willingly give up your privacy to reduce its use. It enables child porn lovers. Anyone who dares bring up the last gets shouted down by the mob as just saying "think of the children!" Unlike the mob, that person is thinking about the children. That person is thinking about how electronic privacy has enabled one of the worst kinds of criminals on earth to engage in their toxic activities more easily than ever before.
Will my NSA electronic Big Brother utopia stop all the horrible crimes I mentioned above? Nope. And neither can anything. What the NSA can do is force the criminality severely underground, greatly hampering their operations. Much like the FBI's extralegal war against the KKK in the 60s and 70s drove it into near oblivion. The FBI went so far that the urban legend persists that they brought in Mafia hitman Gregory Scarpa to track down the guilty in the Mississippi Burning case.
The fact that anyone can advocate privacy when the software to enable it greatly enables some of the worst among us reveals just how selfish and rotten privacy advocates are. They care about "muh privacy" and no one else. They would give enabling to the worst among us just so "teh NSA doesnt hav muh dik pics!"
People who implicitly call for trading freedom to child porn lovers, drug dealers, and more, in exchange for their own security from "teh gubmint" deserve neither freedom nor security, and are bound to lose both. And if I were President of the USA, privacy advocates would lose both and die. Not to mention privacy software would be not only illegal, but blocked at the DNS level. If you were using Tor, you couldn't even access the internet in my USA.