Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#68 - whizslo (10/12/2013) [-]
I don't know if this is true or not, frankly I don't care. Why do you people care so much about this? If you've got nothing to hide, then you shouldn't worry about NSA spying on you. So again...why do you care so much?
User avatar #72 to #68 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
Give me a list of your credit card purchases, I want to see what you buy. Also where you live, and some names of family members.

You don't have anything to hide do you? You should be fine giving me all of this unless you do.
User avatar #73 to #72 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
You're not the national security administration , I'm fine with them having it, I'm sure they do. Can you give me an example of one way a government can misuse fingerprints? Or how they've misused anyone's information so far?
User avatar #80 to #73 - happyfox (10/12/2013) [-]
Edward Snowden was national security admin. Thousands of others like him have access to that information. You're saying you completely trust these complete strangers with your sensitive information? If Snowden could take that information without the government even noticing, what else could be going on? That's just ******* stupid.

Why do you not value privacy? Trust me, when it's gone completely, which is the direction it's going, you will miss it.
User avatar #83 to #80 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
Edward Snowden is a ******* traitor! He revealed an intelligence operation to the public! The only time that system has been abused has been when HE revealed it! So no, I don't trust ********* like him in the government, but judging by the lack of whistle blowing going on, there aren't many of them.
User avatar #85 to #83 - happyfox (10/12/2013) [-]
It needed revealed. He knew the extent of what was going on, and he didn't think it was right. If they were just targeting terrorists, he wouldn't have. Yeah so, maybe there aren't other whistleblowers, but who knows what someone else that has access to that information is doing with it, NOT publicly. Doesn't that worry you?
User avatar #87 to #85 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
Can you spot a terrorist? Can you pick out a psychopath in a crowd? They had to watch EVERYONE in order to find out who the threats are. And no, I'm not worried about how someone's using that information, because I have not felt any harm as a result of someone having that information. If someone doesn't use information, what's the harm in them having them? Would I walk down the road naked? No; but will I get naked for a doctor? Yes.
User avatar #90 to #87 - happyfox (10/12/2013) [-]
it's the fact they lied about it. That's cool that you're ok with it, but they obviously knew the majority of people would not be, so that's why they lied, and that's why I think they know their reasoning is ****** .

You shouldn't have to give up privacy for protection. Look what good it's done, since the NSA was invented, terrorist attacks seem to have gone up! Especially lone wolf terrorist attacks..great job they've done stopping them!
User avatar #94 to #90 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
Of course they lied about it, THEY'RE SPIES! THEY'RE LITERALLY SPIES! Do you think they lied because they were being petty? Because this government's conscious made them feel guilty and they were afraid of telling the truth? No! There's higher **** at stake than your feelings. Like, say, NATIONAL SECURITY!

And do you think you can keep an entire country relatively safe? 7 billion people in the world, and how many of those do you think have the desire and the power to threaten America substantially? Hell, how many US citizens do you think want to assassinate the president right now?

And no, terrorist activities have gone up since our miilitary started intervening in other countries, which made them evil in the eyes of certain people.
User avatar #74 to #73 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
Everyone is a person, and people are terrible. The government is not some god like entity that does no wrong. They're made up of people, and I, like many others, don't like a large group of people like that just knowing everything about me. Wanting privacy doesn't mean you are a ******* criminal. It just means you'd like to be alone in your life. Not watched, or listened in on.

The questions I asked would make an individual uncomfortable. They're supposed I am someone unknown to you, therefore, you do not want me to know these things. The NSA is unknown to you. Why can they have everything I asked and more, and it's just okay?
#76 to #74 - whizslo (10/12/2013) [-]
Okay, everyone has their own opinion. But mine still stays the same, I don't give a crap if NSA has my fingerprints, credit card purchases, family member names, I really don't give a single crap what ever information they have. I literally don't have a single thing to hide, at least not anything that would put me in a real danger, maybe some piracy and that's about it.
User avatar #79 to #76 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
You don't seem to care about your privacy with them. That's fine. My point was, there are people who do care. I care, not to extreme tin foil hat, hide in the mountains, kinda way. I do, however, find it to be wrong that they do that.
User avatar #75 to #74 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
Because they're the highest tier of government working on NATIONAL SECURITY. They don't give a **** what you or I jack off to, or whether or not you pirate music or some **** . They have an intelligence system in place to look for real threats to national security. And you didn't answer my question to how they have misused your information. Why do you care if someone knows your secret if you know they won't tell anyone? You're latching on to this concept of 'privacy' when I don't think you even know what that means. If nobody said the NSA was keeping tabs on **** , nobody would have known or would have cared, and no bad things have resulted from that program other than a bunch of people bitching about how they don't like it.
User avatar #82 to #75 - happyfox (10/12/2013) [-]
terrorists are always their first response when something goes wrong. If it was such a good and morally just system, why not tell the public and the world that they were spying on them in the first place.
User avatar #84 to #82 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
Because if you tell the public you are spying on them, then they'll be more careful to avoid you when doing terrorist activities, the bad ones.
User avatar #88 to #84 - happyfox (10/12/2013) [-]
dude terrorists already knew this **** . They don't talk about their top secret terrorist plans in chat rooms, they have been communicating in other ways for years. Took them so long to find Bin Laden because he was smart about it. Never communicated on the internet and walked about in a cowboy hat to hide from the spy satellites. Tell me though, if the NSA is only targeting terrorists, why did they bug computers of the UN countries? Countries that they called allies? Surely they are not the enemies...surely the american public aren't enemies...but according to the NSA, EVERYONE is a potential terrorist. The world. I'm sorry but I don't have anything to hide, but the fact I don't want my information to be stored on some data base does not make me a terrorist. I'm just a human that wants to be left peacefully. It's a human right to a private life.
User avatar #89 to #88 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
You were being left peacefully until Snowden waggled his dick in front of a camera! And what is so obsurd about the idea of everyone being a potential terrorist? You think only the guy in the head thing with a beard and brown skin is a gonna be a terrorist? Anyone could be a threat to national security, for reasons other than political.
User avatar #92 to #89 - happyfox (10/12/2013) [-]
so everyone should be treated like one until proven innocent?

I prefer innocent until proven guilty sir, if we didn't have that, we'd be living in a fascist state...oh wait...the US can hold people indefinitely without trial...glad I live in the UK, even though we are basically America's bitch, we aren't half as crazy.
User avatar #95 to #92 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
You think American citizens are being treated like terrorists? Really? Nobody even knew they were being spied on, so how bad was it really? There were no negative effects. You only care because you know about it, otherwise you wouldn't care. You can't cite a bad thing happening from this other than your privacy ideal.
User avatar #78 to #75 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
Of course no one would have cared if the NSA was ever mentioned. You can't care about something if you don't know about it. Once people knew about it, they cared. Imagine that. I don't care if they aren't judgemental about everyone. People don't like the feeling of being watched. It's just a pretty natural occurring thing, for someone to not like the feeling of being watched.

I don't have any examples of wrong they have done. I don't make it a point to bug them and follow everything they do. Do you have any examples of what they do good? National security doesn't seem to be around whenever I hear of a terrorist attack on the news, and I've never heard about the NSA preventing one. All I can tell is that there's some section of the government paid to collect any and all information on everyone because.......?

Maybe if I saw some fruit bear from this invasion of privacy I could feel it be justified, but still as of now, I don't much care for it.
User avatar #81 to #78 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
It was an intelligence operation, spy **** in layman terms, so they couldn't disclose anything they found without revealing the entire system and rendering it useless. So if they had caught on to some terrorist planning activities and detained someone, we wouldn't have heard about it - and I don't think we have a right to hear about it.

And yes, nobody would have cared if it wasn't mentioned, because the system was not harming the lives of American citizens in any way.
User avatar #93 to #81 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
Why do we not have the right to hear about it? It's our government. What is supposed to lead us and make the country work. What our money goes to, and what makes and enforces our laws. I think we all have the right to know what our government does. What would saying "NSA leads caught (x) attempting to do (x) today" it doesn't ruin anything. All it would really point out is that they are working.

It may not hurt average Joe, Citizen directly, but they would be paying for this to happen instead of other things. Why pay to spy on our own citizens when people still live in poverty? Better yet we could just keep that tax money, instead of funding the NSA with it, and ta-daa. We're all slightly more wealthy. Not with the NSA though. There is your example of harm done. They suck up money that could be more helpful elsewhere instead of collecting everyone with an iPhone's finger print because "national security"
User avatar #96 to #93 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
No, we don't have the right to hear about it. Any one of us could be a threat to national security.

And really? You don't think they've prevented any disasters? The National Security Administration? And you think if they had, they would tell us about it? Stop acting so entitled. You're being protected and all you have to say is "BUT PRIVACY".
User avatar #97 to #96 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
Am I being protected? How about that marathon bombing? Were they being protected too? How about the mass public shootings? Those people were protected, right? I mean, those guys were a threat in this nation to people's security. Stop acting so entitled. You're wanting to have everyone spied on and all you have to say is "NATIONAL SECURITY!"

The ******* official sounding name means jack **** . You'll just feel better if they sound important. Now all I see is no successes by them, and only failures. I think it's plenty fair to be presented with no evidence of success, evidence of failures, and rationally think "They're worthless", and that goes with anything in the world. Not just the NSA.
User avatar #98 to #97 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
You always hear about the ones they missed, but not the ones they got - and being a SPY agency, they wouldn't be able to tell you about the ones they caught! So we've had, what, 5 mini-tragedies in the last 2 years? Not bad considering we've pissed off most of the rest of the world. (mini-tragedies considering it's on a national scale, not trying to belittle the deaths of those innocent people)
User avatar #99 to #98 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
I don't see why we can't hear about the ones they catch. It'd give people the evidence of success. Once they catch them they aren't a danger anymore. It's not like they have to reveal every ******* thing stage by stage of how it went down. I think myself and plenty other people would be happy with a plain ******* "hey everybody! We got this guy doing bad stuff. You're welcome." Any other would be terrorists out there aren't given a hand up at that being public knowledge. All they know is that they're being watched, to stop things like that from happening. What is already public knowledge. All it would do is give some sort of feeling that "the government is actually got their ass on straight" to the public, so they can know that what the government is doing, which is still secretive, is working for their favor.

As for how it is now. People doing things like that, need to worry about it. People like me (and hopefully you) that aren't doing terrorist stuff, don't need to worry about the NSA really, but I very much wonder "What the **** do they even do?". Not in the "I want to know information that could cripple our government" kinda way, but rather the "I want to know they do something with that funding that could go elsewhere if it's being wasted there."
User avatar #102 to #99 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
They couldn't tell us of the successes because that would have revealed the program. "We caught this man planning an attack on big important thing"
"Well how did you find out?"
"He was sending encrypted emails to co-conspiritors or something"
"How did you get access to his emails?"
"We monitor all online activity."
*enter situation where we are today*
User avatar #103 to #102 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
I said the stage by stage wasn't necessary. "We caught this man planning an attack on big important thing".

"Well how did you find out?"

"That is classified, but knowing he is in custody you can be sure your government looks out for you well"

Now something different. If we know they monitor everything anyways. How does that give your example any merit? Why do we still not hear about the people they catch? Everyone knows they're there. Everyone knows they're watching. We're in the situation we are in today. We've been in this situation knowingly since George W. Bush. The operation is exposed. So where are the results? What it really looks like, is they catch no one. That leaves a bunch of pissed of people not wanting the NSA to exist because they are shown that they accomplish nothing, but suck up your tax dollars as funding to gather all of your personal data.
User avatar #104 to #103 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
If they say that there were results, people who dislike the system aren't going to see the bright side of it, they'll see those people as victims of an unethical system. People would demand more details about the terrorists, and they would get more attention. Giving attention to terrorists would only give them more credibility to their sympathizers, maybe to an extent of "well doing whatever he did worked for him, maybe it would work for me."

Of course I don't claim for these to BE the reasons, but I'm trying to show that there could be negative repercussions from announcing any success of the system. Either way, I'm not sure it would give them any positivity from the people already in contempt of the situation anyway.
User avatar #105 to #104 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
I dislike the system because it violates privacy and I see no justified cause for it. If there was a justified cause I'd think differently about it all. Right now I dislike them because they collect everyone's personal information, but when it actually comes to securing the nation it goes along the lines of "So....what do you........do..... here..?"

Sure people will bitch no matter what happens, but I think it's fair to show that you are deserving of your pay. The NSA gets paid. I want to see that they actually work, or that they aren't getting paid. I get to enjoy the latter for as long as this government shutdown is active.
User avatar #106 to #105 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
I just don't see how it violates privacy to you. They aren't using the information in any way, it's just filed away somewhere. You could say you don't like it being in that file, but that file is more secure than wherever they got the information from in the first place. How private is anything you put on the internet? It's all practically public anyway.

And when you create a network of spies, you kinda have to trust them to do their job. I know people have come to distrust government, and I think a certain amount of wary is rational, but the NSA isn't a political organization. They don't have any agenda other than national security. Nobody is publicly fighting for votes for the head of the NSA. They're completely tax run, no corporations are lobbying the NSA to do their bidding.

While you should be suspect of other parts of the government, I say worry about who the mouth is picking fights with, who the sword is swinging at, where the legs take us; but let the shield do it's job and block whatever comes our way.
User avatar #107 to #106 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
Even if they don't use it. I don't like that they have it unless it's under good reason, and without any kind of proof that they work at all, they don't have good reason.

They are completely tax funded like you said. I as a citizen, pay taxes. Kind of like your example of the shield. The taxes would hold up said shield. Would you want to expel energy holding up a shield that you don't think is going to block a butterfly, let alone an attacker? I don't.

I didn't build this network of spies. I don't have to trust a damn thing. I will not be okay with the NSA doing what they do, unless I see some basic results that they are actually protecting us. That's all I really think is needed. Some people to be caught and shown. Unless they're shown as working. Every failure makes it look like they are not working at all. Like we are just paying these people to play angry birds or some **** . It's like the police. If you never saw the police deal with someone, but there was crime about. Would you feel like you needed to fund the police with your money? Just because they say they protect and serve you, but you don't see them doing any of that? Let alone experiencing the benefits of them doing it?
User avatar #108 to #107 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
I would rather have them there and not know if they're protecting is from something than for them to stop working and something bad happen. I think it's worth trusting that they're doing their job. And at such a high level of serious organization, I'm sure they're doing SOMETHING. I highly doubt they're protecting us from butterflies.
#109 to #108 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
If they are protecting us there would be evidence that they are doing so. Evidence they could clearly show. If they are not working, which it looks like they aren't, they could stop working and nothing change at all because they wouldn't have done anything about it to begin with. They are doing SOMETHING, just nothing USEFUL, and it will continue to be assumed they are doing NOTHING USEFUL until they show some proof otherwise. Proof that is easily obtainable for them if they've stopped anything at all in their entire time of being around. It's not worth trusting them. They are taking your money to do nothing, but stare at you. I don't need to be paying for that. I can find someone to do that job if I need that position filled later on.

Whatever level they are, high or low, does not matter. A place as high up as congress is doing absolutely nothing right now. It's not hard to believe, and doesn't justify the "oh they're the nsa! They're big and important! Oh god! don't question them! give them anything they want!" attitude about them. You wouldn't hire someone to not show you any results, and the occasional major setbacks. You'd fire that person in an instant unless you were flat out retarded. The NSA are showing no results, and the occasional bombing and mass shooting. They need to be productive with what they are given, or be fired. That is as simple as it is.

The butterfly line was insinuating that they don't stop small things, let alone large things. It wasn't about actual butterflies, you dumbass.
User avatar #110 to #109 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
We're going in circles. Congress is political, ****** lobbied by corporations for agendas. I've already showed that there are possible reasons for them to not show their progress. You're not bringing any new points to the table.

And I don't think you can compare an organization of spies to an employee, they don't deal in trivial stuff. If there's an issue they deem important, it's gonna be extremely important. What if there is no current threat? They're still digging through every file and drawer to make sure there isn't one. It's better to hire someone to make sure there isn't a threat than to be unsure and unprotected.
#100 to #99 - demandsgayversion has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #101 to #100 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
Accidentally did ctrl+enter, which creates a new line in Steam, but here it sends the message.
User avatar #111 to #101 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
Congress is a high point in government. Just like your point that the NSA is high up. One is proved flat out that it doesn't work. That shows the possibility that the NSA can not work. There are no reasons for them to not show us they work. You gave me some points, and they were all ******** . You said that it'd reveal them. They are already revealed. Revealing them again will do nothing. "People will cry out if they know" They cry out now. Nothing would change except us knowing they do their job. People also have the right to know, even if they do not like it, so they may try and change it to what they do like. Everyone has the right to know all that goes on in their lives so they may make informed decisions.

They are paid, by us, to do a job. That IS an employee. I don't care if they have the job of "spy". It is a job. They are an employee of government. All employees of anything need to be worth their pay. Without giving any results that they actually do anything except take our money, they are not worth it. It's not hard, and would harm no one if they said "We protected you from this, it's okay everyone" If there is no current threat, there must have been one in the past. There HAVE been ones in the past. If they didn't stop them all sure, but if they didn't stop any there's a problem. Just because they deem something important doesn't mean it is and we all need to accept it and hand over what they ask. They are not god. They do not get to demand blind trust. They can provide proof that they protect us. They are hired to stop threats. If there is a threat, which there has been before, they need to stop it. There is no proof that they have stopped any threats. Only threats they failed to stop. We are going in circles because you cannot bring down the points I have made against yours. All you do is ask me to put blind trust into people because they have a fancy title and no credentials. My answer is No. We'll stop this now if you cannot go further with it.
User avatar #112 to #111 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
Well if you're not going to take my side of the argument seriously or listen to my points, you have no place in this discussion. It is indeed over.
User avatar #113 to #112 - flemsdfer ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
I took it seriously, and gave my rebuttal. You have nothing more to say to my rebuttal other than what you said at the beginning and the plead to just give blind trust. This went in a circle based on your way of believing. Circular. They should do this because they should because they should because they should. That just doesn't fly for the rest of the world. I do not fit in with your side of the argument. I am not okay with never questioning what the government does, and just accepting these average people's words as absolute because they have a fancy title and organization. It's a pity so much of you are just so accepting of that.
User avatar #114 to #113 - demandsgayversion (10/12/2013) [-]
You don't even listen to anything I say, you just repeat your own argument, forcing me to try to reexplain what I just said, only for you to not listen to that a second time. That's why its circular.
#77 to #75 - whizslo (10/12/2013) [-]
Finally someone with a way of thinking that I like on FunnyJunk. Thank you bro.
 Friends (0)