Abenja,
Stop it. You don't know if it's true or not.
Well, those kind of developments are underway. The odds that they wouldn't be abused are almost too low to calculate. And I'm not talking about minor abuse here, I'm talking about serious, highly dangerous abuse.
Again, the people on this forum explained a type of computer to hold that stuff is nearly impossible.
Nearly impossible is not impossible; also the government has all sorts of classified technology that we don't know anything about.
Unless you're going to back it up with evidence, don't say it.
Even if I don't have evidence I'm allowed to speculate.
You are against progress. Just admit it.
I'm not against all progress, though I am opposed to certain technological developments. This doesn't make me anti-science, it just makes me opposed to specific technological developments. For example, if the means to create viruses was would only kill people with certain genetic traits was discovered it would undoubtedly be considered an major technological advance, but such a development would be so morally repulsive that I'd be against it even if it would be considered
progress.
I know that must come as a surprise, but I actually do read, and I do know a few things about history.
It's one thing to have cameras in locations, it's different to link them all up to a central computer which can monitor everything that moves automatically, and report any suspicious movements, and possibly chronicle information on everybody observed.
The British to my knowledge have never proposed doing this, in the US, this has been proposed. Ray Kelley, the NYPD Police Commissioner actually had considered employing technology of this sort in the future. His idea involved using a series of unmanned blimp-like vehicles with cameras that could place the whole city under surveillance.
The comparison between the UK and NYC being a police state watched by cameras is unfounded. As I said before, the cameras in the NYC are to catch speeders and traffic offenders. The cameras in the UK are EVERYWHERE, streets, alleys, parking spaces etc. The UK has it worst than the NYC.
And I do not think this is a good thing, and I'm not the only one; there are many civil liberties groups that are against it as well.
Unfortunatly, I am not going to take your word for it. Can you back that up with a reliable article, statement, etc?
Which one? The one about the UK planning to archive everything on the internet for a year? I'm trying to find it actually
You're dodging. You are quick to say the US is the big bad wolf, when there are other countries who will never understand the conceptof civil rights.
I'm not really trying to say that. What I'm trying to say is that America will become like those nations if we lose all our civil rights.
My point is don't be so quick to jump on the anti-American bandwagon when there is worse in the world. Trust me. It will help your arguments in the future becase it won't make you look like a person who hates America for the sake of hating America.
Again, that's not what I intended to say. In fact I'm opposed to any nation that has a bad human rights record, but I worry with the state things are going in the US, the UK, and other countries after 9/11 in regards to civil rights, that this is going to become an increasingly global trend. Civil rights will be eroded to nothing everywhere, even in countries where they were previously valued.
No, it's the trendy thing because it's cool.
Maybe after Obama got into office, but under Bush it was not "the cool thing to do", in fact, there were people who practically accused me of being a traitor, and yet despite that, I was complaining even under Bush about his violations of our civil-rights.
Do I honestly believe all those people who protested Vietnam did it for the cause? No, I don't.
I think they were protesting because either, they didn't believe in the war, or most likely they didn't want to risk getting shot.
A few people prominent people started mentioning the Constitution, and then others leeched on to it.
They attached onto it because it was a good point, you idiot.
Oh stop it. You have no authority to say that your Constitutional knowledge is in the same line as those who studied the Constitution their whole lives.
And you say I'm mincing words? I didn't say that, I said that the knowledge I espoused is common knowledge among college-students and college graduates; I stated that most constitutional scholars would probably say the same things I said, not because I have as much knowledge as them, but because I've heard such people say the exact same things.
If you wonder why I believe you are disingenious it's because you're a keyboard warrior. If you really cared about the Constituion, why aren't you out getting a degree in Constituional law or something like that.
So I have to be getting a degree in Constitutional law in order to be concerned about the Constitution, and more importantly civil rights in general?
And yes, you are still fearmongering.
So you believe that if the government was freed from all restrictions there would not be serious abuses of power?
BTW, I noticed you ignored two of my points: My point how people were murdered in broad daylight in Russia
That's true, and that country was a nation that had no regard for the civil rights of its people...
and asking if you would admit to being wrong if nothing came about in a month from this bombing incident.
Probably not. Something could come out of this right away, some of it might come months later. Maybe in 6 months I'd admit I was wrong if nothing happened.
I figured the response I gave was good enough
I ask again, if nothing does come about from this incident in terms of limiting civil rights, will you admit that you were wrong?
I might consider it if nothing happens within 6-months, though I reserve the right to withdraw my "I was wrong" statement if something happened that was initially kept secret and came out after 6 months...
INRM
