Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Snowden

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Snowden

    What I don't understand is that if we have so much surveillance of our day to day activities why can't they use what they are collecting to help solve homicides.

    Nationwide, the rate at which homicides are solved has fallen from about 90% in the 1960s to below 65% in recent years, a Scripps Howard News Service study of FBI records has found.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Snowden

      Originally posted by Plumbus View Post
      What I don't understand is that if we have so much surveillance of our day to day activities why can't they use what they are collecting to help solve homicides.

      Nationwide, the rate at which homicides are solved has fallen from about 90% in the 1960s to below 65% in recent years, a Scripps Howard News Service study of FBI records has found.
      I believe there are many things that factor into answering your question. There is a code of silence among residents of high crime areas which hampers police investigations, available resources to investigate murders is another complication. The increasing number of video cameras may help get a look at a posible suspect but it takes so much more to apprehend the guilty. I hate to say it but society is partly to blame for the rising number of murders. I believe "idle hands are the devils workshop", people need to be working, not dealing drugs and committing violent crimes. Crime and punishment is another issue which fuels the problem, overcrowded courts, plea bargains, overcrowded jails, all lead to the premature release of repeat offenders. Statistically you might find fewer murders in localities where there is both a greater police presence, and greater registered firearms owners. Illegal handguns in the hands of criminals does not make law abiding folks safe, however, law abiding armed citizens seem to be a crime deterent. If you doubt that to be true consider the murder rate of a place like Chicago where there is very little legal gun ownership to any other community where registered gun owners are in higher concentrations.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Snowden

        First round. A win for the American people. It is unconstitutional and the Patriot Act cannot become the new constitutional law of the land.

        Federal judge rules against NSA spying

        Now, when are we going to give Snowden a pardon and a holiday to commemorate him standing alone against a country that threw him away for challenging something they were doing wrong?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Snowden

          You see I don`t mind when Snowden tell`s secrets about the US and of spying on its citizens but when it happens to Australia its another matter so I feel you should give him a pardon and a holiday and then bump him off in a car accident
          But all jokes aside our western governments have made us so scared to live and if they could it would be like the truman show where we are watch and listened to every hour of our lives which I know your fore fathers who wrote you constitution wouldn`t have had bar of and I know ours wouldn`t have so how do we stop it that`s the million dollar question????????????

          Tony

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Snowden

            Tony,

            I guess one has to look at it from more than just a personal angle. What if we could stop it, absolutely stop all the so-called "infringements" on our privacy? What would the results of that be?

            Realize that if we stop anyone from looking at you and me... we also stop looking at ANYONE! So, with absolutely NO serveilance whatsoever, we no doubt would never have caught the Boston Marathon bombers, we would have had no visual identification of them. We would have no trace that they existed, were even in this country, ever bought explosives or anything. What's more troubling, is that we would not be able to stop any past or future terrorist act.

            Along with that, we would not be able to even set up serveilance on any of our streets and it wouldn't be long before we, as individuals, might well be cited for even setting up serveilance within our own homes or businesses.... as it would be an infringement upon anyone's personal right to not be photographed of video recorded!

            I am not so much concernd with appearing on anyone's camera, or having my phone number recorded with millions of others. I am concerned with the "cookies" and other anonymous serveilance of my computer though. While one can worry about the government, I am more concerned with private serveilance... and that of course happens constantly for every second that I am online.

            All you have to do is go into your internet cache, erase it completely and then sign back on for five or ten minutes, sign off and then look at your cache again.... you'll find stuff there that you never visited or even looked at. Everything is linked and every place that could has now deposited some kind of cookie into your system. Some is nondescrip, but an awful lot of it is monitoring your actions and almost every keystroke. Even with a good anti-virus program and good system maintenance you get flooded.

            It's like walking down the street and not only is everyone watching you, but they are also stuffing notes in your pockets and monitor tags all over your body. Everything from merchants to street hookers. We of course wouldn't put up with that, but yet our personal computers get filled with this stuff.

            No, I don't worry about my phone so much, but my computer is something else. I'd hate to see someone deciding what kind of person I am with word exchanges here on the forum, or making decision because of the people I hang out with. I'd hate to have someone make up their mind because I looked at a weapons manufacturer's web page, or delved into a particular news story. In other words, the telephone is probably the least innocuous communicator that I have, and I don't think anyone's interested in the call I made to my son, or that I like peperoni and mushrooms on my pizza. However, I think somebody really ought to be listening when my neighbor is working out a drug deal or the guy across town is putting together his next heist.

            One must realize that there's at least too sides to an issue. We scream about surveilance, but scream even louder about why the government 'didn't catch these guys faster or even before they did what they did'. We can't have it both ways.

            Merry Christmas Tony,

            CWS
            Last edited by CWSmith; 12-23-2013, 11:03 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Snowden

              Hell man, we been spied on ever since George W held his right hand to the bible. This is just an ever increasing level of the intrusion of our privacy. You can't even blame one party or the other either because both have had their fingers in this pie. So is it government paranoia or is it our paranoia? Either way I don't see anything changing.

              The question is, how much liberty are we willing to sacrifice for security? Can the various agencies only do part of their job? When is enough, enough? Tough questions because if you allow too much intrusion into the citizens lives then you come pretty close to being a communist government but too little you run the same risk that the commits will take us over. So was the patriot act a good thing or not and where is it all leading? Remember this. In a democracy, innocent people will die to preserve the liberties of the rest of us. Sounds good until it's a loved one of yours.

              Under today's laws, Snowden can be tried for his crimes. Whether he is morally right or not would never come up in his trial. The judge would not allow his testimony on that point.
              Last edited by NHMaster3015; 12-24-2013, 03:07 PM.
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Snowden

                Originally posted by NHMaster3015 View Post
                Under today's laws, Snowden can be tried for his crimes. Whether he is morally right or not would never come up in his trial. The judge would not allow his testimony on that point.
                Thats where it starts to get muddy which worries me and the future of our democracies a fair trail in our so called western democracies freedom of speech and national security where all our governments hide behind to cover up their wrongs where as you say he is morally right and where a judge would not allow his defence

                Tony

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Snowden

                  .... Under today's laws, Snowden can be tried for his crimes. ...
                  When is 'today'? The last 25 years, the last 300?

                  When you say George W do you mean Washington, because we have been
                  spied on AND spied on others since day one of the existence of this country,
                  and even before.


                  Morally right is shaky ground in a court of law. Its not much more than someones
                  or some groups opinion which may or may not have some basis in fact or a universally
                  accepted truth. Black and white is what rules in the courts, and that's why justice is
                  said to be blind.

                  The evidence must stand on its own. If it requires explanation of ones position then
                  it becomes questionable. And if there is doubt then you've opened the door to grounds
                  for appeals; political activism; civil disturbance; and even war.
                  "When we build let us think we build forever. Let it not be for present delight nor for present use alone. Let it be such work that our descendants will thank us for, and let us think, as we lay stone upon stone, that a time is to come when these stones will be held sacred because our hands have touched them, and that men will say, as they look upon the labor and wrought substance of them, "See! This our fathers did for us."
                  John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Snowden

                    Originally posted by Bob D. View Post
                    When is 'today'? The last 25 years, the last 300?

                    When you say George W do you mean Washington, because we have been
                    spied on AND spied on others since day one of the existence of this country,
                    and even before.


                    Morally right is shaky ground in a court of law. Its not much more than someones
                    or some groups opinion which may or may not have some basis in fact or a universally
                    accepted truth. Black and white is what rules in the courts, and that's why justice is
                    said to be blind.

                    The evidence must stand on its own. If it requires explanation of ones position then
                    it becomes questionable. And if there is doubt then you've opened the door to grounds
                    for appeals; political activism; civil disturbance; and even war.
                    I meant Washington.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Snowden

                      Their turn. Maybe they need a distraction from any Sochi screw ups.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amd4l0OtKkA

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X