Nothing to hide ? Then release all your details publicly and have nothing to fear.
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I have made my standpoint clear, there is a difference between spying secretly on all citizens (read: treat all citizens of the country as terrorists or criminals, not even until proven innocent, but all the time) and and spying secretly on a suspect in a criminal or terrorist case. I will go here with Benjamin Franklin:
Quote:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I see no need to answer to H_TeXMeX_H's thought experiment, since his questions about it were not directed at me, but people with the opposite opinion on this topic.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
I have made my standpoint clear, there is a difference between spying secretly on all citizens (read: treat all citizens of the country as terrorists or criminals, not even until proven innocent, but all the time) and and spying secretly on a suspect in a criminal or terrorist case.
The issue with this is the expectation that it has not been happening and that you, and many others, are in a state of shock to learn that it has. Sorry but this shows, for someone who is in my estimation usually a very clear thinker, that you and many others have been like the 3 wise monkeys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
I will go here with Benjamin Franklin: I see no need to answer to H_TeXMeX_H's thought experiment, since his questions about it were not directed at me, but people with the opposite opinion on this topic.
Of course you will do this but you see my question was directed at anyone, including you, who thinks the way you do? It was also not a thought experiment simply because you should know the answer and not have to think about it at all.
Again, H_Tex's initial post was not a thought experiment because experiments require calm, composure, and clear reasoning non of which are displayed in the initial post. Considering he starts his post of with "I'm sick of", continues on with "go on, go on" and other aspects already pointed out to you it is clear this thread was not started with a clear, calm, and composed thought process.
If you want to keep going I'll start on the fallacies of his initial post next to reinforce that it is not a thought experiment.
Again, H_Tex's initial post was not a thought experiment because experiments require calm, composure, and clear reasoning non of which are displayed in the initial post.
And thought experiments can not be made when not clear or calm? They may be not the best, but possible nonetheless.
Quote:
Considering he starts his post of with "I'm sick of", continues on with "go on, go on" and other aspects already pointed out to you it is clear this thread was not started with a clear, calm, and composed thought process.
Anyone who has seen his [/rant] tag will come to the same conclusion, without analyzing the rest.
Quote:
The issue with this is the expectation that it has not been happening and that you, and many others, are in a state of shock to learn that it has. Sorry but this shows, for someone who is in my estimation usually a very clear thinker, that you and many others have been like the 3 wise monkeys.
I am not shocked that something like that happens. We all know that it happens. What shocked me is the scale of the whole thing, how open the perpetrators admit it, how nothing at all happens to investigate this properly and arrest those people and how the US government now treats the people that uncovered this wrongdoing as traitors and criminals. Not to speak about the war on journalism that now happens in the USA.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
And thought experiments can not be made when not clear or calm? They may be not the best, but possible nonetheless.
Thought experiments require clear, calm process. If they are not clear or calm they are not valid and are therefor not experiments instead they are emotional unstable rants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
Anyone who has seen his [/rant] tag will come to the same conclusion, without analyzing the rest.
Contradicting yourself now Tobi. You analysed it spelling out to me how it was not a problem and then gave it an excuse by calling it a thought experiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
I am not shocked that something like that happens. We all know that it happens. What shocked me is the scale of the whole thing, how open the perpetrators admit it, how nothing at all happens to investigate this properly and arrest those people and how the US government now treats the people that uncovered this wrongdoing as traitors and criminals. Not to speak about the war on journalism that now happens in the USA.
Tobi in 3 sentences you just contradicted yourself. You are either shocked that it happens or you are not. This discussion in this thread was started because of the scale of it and all the other features you mentioned. Considering these things and considering you said "we all know that this happens" you are either shocked or not. If you are shocked then you have been like the 3 wise monkeys, if you are not then what have you as a citizen of any country done to make sure this is not happening. If you have done nothing then you are complicit in it.
Tobi in 3 sentences you just contradicted yourself. You are either shocked that it happens or you are not. This discussion in this thread was started because of the scale of it and all the other features you mentioned. Considering these things and considering you said "we all know that this happens" you are either shocked or not. If you are shocked then you have been like the 3 wise monkeys, if you are not then what have you as a citizen of any country done to make sure this is not happening. If you have done nothing then you are complicit in it.
There is no contradiction at all. It is the same as:" We all know that some people do violate the GPL. that is not shocking. Shocking is when it is done on a massive scale, openly admitted, without consequences but removing the rights to use the software of those who have uncovered it." Exactly the same, with a different topic.
My standpoint on this topic has been mad clear more than one time, regardless how you want to interpret my words. Nothing more to say about that.
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations, for money, and hes Man of the Year. Thanks to Wikileaks, you can see how corrupt governments operate in the shadows, and then lie to those who elect them. Thanks to Facebook, you can finally figure out what Sex and the City character you are." Julian Assange @ SNL http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...t-facebooks-zu
I'm not linked to anything. I did however link to a page on the internet from an Australian Government source. That page then has another link that continues the first page on another page. It says what I quoted.
Should I have been more exact and worded it some other way? "You have provided a link to 'US surveillance program Statement from Australian Privacy Commissioner' in your post". The quote which does not support the statement you made under that quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01
Once they have the information through surveilance they don't need a warrant for "stored internet communications". Why? because they already have it.
'They'? Australian inteligence and police forces cannot legally access stored internet communications without a warrant. I have posted information and a link showing that is the legal suituation in Australia today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01
You've taken the extreme side with this. I never said the Constitution but I do mean the government!
Quote:
(ii) to overthrow by force or violence the established government of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a proclaimed country; or
Our PM (and the entire Labor party, Greens and Independants) knows what I think and so does my local member (one of the so called independants), why? because I have been in contact with them. If what I say or believe is "treason" I'd be in gaol already.
In Australia at this point in time, there is little chance of being arrested for making a limited post on the internet supporting a revolution. In the future this may change. In other countries, this sort of comment could lead to investigation, imprisonment or even execution.
I believe that your posts on the recent threads created by H_TeXMeX_H are obstructionist, use emotionally charged language and is an attempt to limit and control what H_TeXMeX_H and other forum members can discuss.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
There is no contradiction at all. It is the same as:" We all know that some people do violate the GPL. that is not shocking. Shocking is when it is done on a massive scale, openly admitted, without consequences but removing the rights to use the software of those who have uncovered it." Exactly the same, with a different topic.
My standpoint on this topic has been mad clear more than one time, regardless how you want to interpret my words. Nothing more to say about that.
I interpret the words you put online. You said one thing and then said something different. That is a contradiction. You either knew about it and were not shocke or you didn't know about it and were shocked. If you knew about it as you say you did and did nothing about it you are complicit in it. The issue for you now is you wont consider this as an option you can't even think about it so you change your stance and say you didn;t know about it and you are now shocked. Saying you know about it but not expecting it to be as big as it is means you don't know about it but you will continue to claim you did.
Once you wrap your mind around that then you can conduct your "thought experiment".
I believe that your posts on the recent threads created by H_TeXMeX_H are obstructionist, use emotionally charged language and is an attempt to limit and control what H_TeXMeX_H and other forum members can discuss.
Thanks.
I refuse to respond to him directly tho, I'm done feeding trolls.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
Roll your eyes all you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
Should I have been more exact and worded it some other way? "You have provided a link to 'US surveillance program Statement from Australian Privacy Commissioner' in your post". The quote which does not support the statement you made under that quote.
Now my turn to roll my eyes The page I linked to is like the LQ news bot, it gives a brief introduction to an article and has a link at the end to the larger source. I linked to the brief article and took a quote from the larger source, it notes the American situation and explains the Australian one giving an example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
'They'? Australian inteligence and police forces cannot legally access stored internet communications without a warrant. I have posted information and a link showing that is the legal suituation in Australia today.
Stored is not the same as accessed while in transit (i.e. real-time). Work out the difference for yourself and you will understand this. The US government is using survelience so the information they are obtaining is being obtained in real time, our authorities can already do that here and do not require a warrant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
That is still Treachery.
When did I support violence? I said revolution not violence. The Orange revolution in Ukraine was non violent yet it was a political revolution. Do you believe Australia is incapable of this? In 1962 JFK said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." The collapse of the USSR was peaceful, although it could have turned nasty if the tank brigade commander did fire when ordered. Your implied assertion that all revolution is violent has no basis in fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
In Australia at this point in time, there is little chance of being arrested for making a limited post on the internet supporting a revolution. In the future this may change. In other countries, this sort of comment could lead to investigation, imprisonment or even execution.
Only if people take the extreme side of things, just like you have. Extremism vs calm reasoned discussion is the crux of this matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
I believe that your posts on the recent threads created by H_TeXMeX_H are obstructionist, use emotionally charged language and is an attempt to limit and control what H_TeXMeX_H and other forum members can discuss.
You are entitled to believe what you want. As I said before I will continue to post where I want on any topic that interests me, regardless of who is the OP, refuting anything that I believe is wrong or extreme. You accuse me of being obstructionist, using emotionally charged language etc, fine I can take that on board and work with it can you see the first sentence is this thread as using anything but emotionally charged langauge? What makes yo think it is not right for me to use the same tactics as others? Pot meet kettle.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H
Thanks.
I refuse to respond to him directly tho, I'm done feeding trolls.
Interesting point of view you have about trolls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
I don't remember deliberately posting any provocative message yet you post many. I do reply to them in order to refute your stance and I maintain the right to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.netlingo.com/word/troll.php
Online it originally meant the act of posting a message in a newsgroup (and later on a blog) that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic, hoping to trick a newbie into posting a follow-up article that points out the mistake.
In general, to "troll" means to allure, to fish, to entice or to bait. Internet trolls are people who fish for other people's confidence and, once found, exploit it.
Stored is not the same as accessed while in transit (i.e. real-time). Work out the difference for yourself and you will understand this. The US government is using survelience so the information they are obtaining is being obtained in real time, our authorities can already do that here and do not require a warrant.
To access the internet of Australian citizen in Australia by Australian police or inteligence services requires a warrant, no matter if it is realtime or stored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01
When did I support violence? I said revolution not violence.
Quote:
Definition of revolution
noun
1a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system:
You accuse me of being obstructionist, using emotionally charged language etc, fine I can take that on board and work with it can you see the first sentence is this thread as using anything but emotionally charged langauge? What makes yo think it is not right for me to use the same tactics as others? Pot meet kettle.
My 1st sentance on this thread, complete with typos-
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
You're linked to 'US surveillance program Statement from Australian Privacy Commissioner' which IMO at least gives the impression that tyou are refering to Australians rights to privacy online. A warrant is not needed for Australian inteligence agencies or police to preserve internet commuinications-
I dont see any emotionally charged language there, just disagreement with your position.
I could expand my reply, but the post I'm quoting just reinforces my perviously stated position.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
To access the internet of Australian citizen in Australia by Australian police or inteligence services requires a warrant, no matter if it is realtime or stored.
Not correct and the link I provided along with teh quote I provided shows that your assumption is not correct.
But not the only definition of revolution. You have a very singular and limited view of things and this hinders any discussion with you, and others who take a limited standpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
My 1st sentance on this thread, complete with typos-
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
You're linked to 'US surveillance program — Statement from Australian Privacy Commissioner' which IMO at least gives the impression that tyou are refering to Australians rights to privacy online. A warrant is not needed for Australian inteligence agencies or police to preserve internet commuinications-
So in one instance you say a warrant is not needed then you say it is and now again you say it isn't. Make up your mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
I dont see any emotionally charged language there, just disagreement with your position.
Disagreement is fine, that is nothing, but you didn;t read what I said andtook the high moral ground. As far as I can see you did not post the first sentence in this thread. If you believe you did then show proof of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
I could expand my reply, but the post I'm quoting just reinforces my perviously stated position.
Um you got everything twisted with your reply. You appear to believe you were the OP, you are not. Sorry to tell you but you did not make the initial post in this thread. You now say Australian Authorites do need a warrant when you previously state they don't which is what I was saying anyway so you have eitehr changed your mind or become confused with your own discussion. It's neither here nor there, you proved my point that extreme views are not good and have given me all the more reason to refute them whenever I come across them.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.