Obongo. tapping our phones and . THE ' SAYS "IF YOU' RE MT DOING ANYTHING WHITE. YIN] T HAVE ANYTHING Tl] MW' If THAT IS THIN. ' T m EVERYTHING?. TFW they see all the porn you clicked.
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#16 - dstone (06/14/2013) [-]
"If you're not doing anything wrong, then you should have nothing to hide."

Regardless of right or wrong, privacy is a RIGHT. Attempting to infringe on that is what's wrong.

"Those who trade liberties for securities, shall not have and do not deserve either!"-Big Daddy Franklin.
User avatar #132 to #16 - gtk ONLINE (06/14/2013) [-]
Actually there is nothing in the constitution that garrentees (I spell it that way because my name is Garren. . . . Shut up) us the right to privacy. There have been a few supreme court cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut that have referred to privacy as a right, but it is completely at the Supreme Courts digression. If a case came to the SC saying that the government had no right to the constitution you would have to prove that the ninth amendment encompasses privacy as well, which is extremely difficult because in some conditions privacy is not a right (for example filming police officers in public). Its really not black or white, constitutionally speaking of course.

Logically speaking what kind of porn I watch SHOULD be my business. God help the poor NSA agent that was monitoring me.
#212 to #132 - jesuslizardftw (06/14/2013) [-]
Whilst not directly aimed at privacy, the 4th ammendment does protect the average citizen from unjust searches/raids on their persons or belongings. The problem arises when the goverment attempts to make laws which go against the constitution, without the foregoing knowledge and consent of the american people as a whole.
The actual formulation of the 4th ammendment is as follows:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (quoted from the wikipedia page)
To me, that which the NSA is doing, seems to be in clear violation of the 4th ammendment and could therefore be considered unlawful. Now to clarify, I should like to emphasize my conviction that they're actions are executed with the best interest of the USA in mind, but nevertheless I feel that it is wrong, and should be left to the people to decide.
User avatar #218 to #212 - gtk ONLINE (06/14/2013) [-]
Exactly, but as I said that is still up to your interpretation. While I (and the rest of America) agree with you there still has to be some sort of legal precedent that would make the right to privacy an actual right. It could be arguing that "monitoring" is entirely different than search and seizer. The ****** thing is the Supreme Court rules on how they believe the constitution effects it, not necessarily what everyone else wants the outcome to be.
User avatar #219 to #218 - jesuslizardftw (06/14/2013) [-]
btw, I didn't thumb you down. Just in case you were wondering.
User avatar #221 to #219 - gtk ONLINE (06/14/2013) [-]
Those italics got ****** up..
User avatar #220 to #219 - gtk ONLINE (06/14/2013) [-]
No worries, I would expect a political discussion to be well receivedfunny onjunk
#27 to #16 - oxYKellark (06/14/2013) [-]
#40 to #16 - alucord (06/14/2013) [-]
Big Daddy Franklin protecting his little sister rights
#119 to #62 - anon (06/14/2013) [-]
"The government is God and can do whatever it wants to it's citizens with no regulation whatsoever. The only reason we are alive right now is because the government allows us to live."

Is basically what he is saying. That's not how our government was set up, but sadly it's basically true in today's world.

Welcome to the USA, where everything is a lie and the Constitution doesn't matter.
#21 to #16 - thehornedking (06/14/2013) [-]
Dost Big Daddy Franklin have to strike a wench?
#22 to #21 - dstone (06/14/2013) [-]
Verily good sir! For tis truth that hoes be trippin'!
#1 - ariusbrightwing (06/13/2013) [-]
TFW they see all the porn you clicked.
#5 to #1 - anon (06/13/2013) [-]
Don't care they can watch!
#25 to #1 - anon (06/14/2013) [-]
hahah jokes on them their eyes will be burnt from their skulls.
#49 - imonaboatman (06/14/2013) [-]
I have nothing to hide, but at the same time it would be pretty ******* embarrassing if they saw what was on my hard rive. NSA's face when
#85 to #49 - anon (06/14/2013) [-]
"Shower shorts.For the man who has nothing to hide,but still wants too."
- John Michael Dorian

Your quote reminded me of it, and it's somewhat relevant.
#50 to #49 - imonaboatman (06/14/2013) [-]

#34 - gibroner (06/14/2013) [-]
NSA's face when looking through my hard drive
NSA's face when looking through my hard drive
User avatar #3 - xxAnnekaxx (06/13/2013) [-]
All of America should start sending each other really strange porn.
#52 to #3 - redteamgriff (06/14/2013) [-]
Heard of 4chan?
#182 to #3 - harbingerwolf (06/14/2013) [-]
>Implying they arent already.
#61 - vatra (06/14/2013) [-]
Just because I'm not doing anything illegal, doesn't mean I'm okay with people snooping through my 			****		. They know it too, they just don't care.
Just because I'm not doing anything illegal, doesn't mean I'm okay with people snooping through my **** . They know it too, they just don't care.
User avatar #125 to #61 - funnyjunkelite (06/14/2013) [-]
can i look at your **** ? don't worry, i care,
#239 to #61 - anon (06/15/2013) [-]
Indeed, I don't want no cunt searching through naked pics of my gf, it's not on.
User avatar #67 to #61 - yuukoku (06/14/2013) [-]
Well, that's why there's the Fourth Amendment. However, I really doubt even half of the politicians out there today could tell you what that Amendment is without looking it up.
User avatar #68 to #67 - vatra (06/14/2013) [-]
You're probably right.
#129 to #67 - anon (06/14/2013) [-]
Well the Fifth Amendment is actually what is meant to protect us from things like this. The government isn't allowed to just barge in and look at things without a warrant. We are protected from self incrimination, and that includes our own property and even our tax returns. Technically by law you don't have to file a tax return, but you'll be placed under arrest illegally by the government if you don't. But the IRS really doesn't care about the Constitution or any civilian rights.
#135 to #129 - anon (06/14/2013) [-]
Patriot Act, enough said.
User avatar #234 to #135 - yuukoku (06/15/2013) [-]
We made that decision while everybody was all hyped up on the "Her a tururest! Burn her! Burn her!" thing. While I'm not against being prepared for and wary of terrorist threats, that's not justification for arresting somebody without evidence and holding them indefinitely.
User avatar #235 to #129 - yuukoku (06/15/2013) [-]
The Fourth Amendment keeps the government from illegal searches or seizures. The Fifth Amendment keeps the government from forcing people to speak in court. It's the "right to remain silent," thing. The government can't function without taxing people, but it's just done in such a bad way that there's room for all sorts of **** ups and everybody gets pissed. There's discrimination, some people are exempted, there's scandals, the government ends up using the money on useless **** , etc. I honestly don't think about solving things like tax issues because I'm more pulled into foreign policy than domestic policy, but I know that the IRS needs to change or be taken apart.
#217 - garamri (06/14/2013) [-]
Privacy is only for the ruling class. Get back to your daily routine plebs.
User avatar #154 - bullbrigade (06/14/2013) [-]
"If you're not doing anything wrong, then you should have nothing to hide."

By this logic, it would be ok for the government to place cameras in our toilets/bedrooms and watch us masturbate 24/7
User avatar #164 to #154 - sparkyfoxx (06/14/2013) [-]
and if they did that I would give them cameras a show every single day.
#152 - Apes (06/14/2013) [-]
NSA's face when viewing the contents of my hard drive.
#2 - sabat **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#4 to #2 - anon (06/13/2013) [-]
Same argument applies to poeple as well if you actually think about it
#44 - alucord (06/14/2013) [-]
My new plan is to create an entire folder labled "child pornography" and just fill it with the weirdest things possible
#46 to #44 - theincorrigibleone (06/14/2013) [-]
You mean actually fill it with child pornography?
#47 to #46 - alucord (06/14/2013) [-]
maybe i'll keep one or two in there, just to keep them on their toes
#45 to #44 - alucord (06/14/2013) [-]
and things that will haunt them. And they will have to go through every picture, gif and video
and things that will haunt them. And they will have to go through every picture, gif and video
#65 to #45 - anonymouslyawesome (06/14/2013) [-]
His leg!
His leg!
#70 to #65 - alucord (06/14/2013) [-]
shhhh, just let it happen
#78 to #45 - anon (06/14/2013) [-]
i can imagine it now.
a dildo folder.
dragon dildos, ponies, robots, octopus, all the dildos.
all the dildos........ mmmm
#80 to #78 - alucord (06/14/2013) [-]
...I don't have any of those folders already.   
I swear
...I don't have any of those folders already.

I swear
#73 to #45 - merloxbeard (06/14/2013) [-]
Thought of this...
#82 to #45 - anon (06/14/2013) [-]
thenoodleking is the kicker
#166 - cazabrow (06/14/2013) [-]
TFW finally finished searching my hard drive.
TFW finally finished searching my hard drive.
User avatar #185 to #166 - alcoholicsemen (06/14/2013) [-]
they just got a new fetish
User avatar #186 to #185 - cazabrow (06/14/2013) [-]
oooooh boy, you have no idea.
User avatar #188 to #186 - alcoholicsemen (06/14/2013) [-]
is it women with huge strap-on dildos that produce fake cum and they masturbate and **** each other with them
User avatar #237 to #188 - cazabrow (06/15/2013) [-]
Any uhhhh......sauces?
User avatar #238 to #237 - alcoholicsemen (06/15/2013) [-]
google futanaria
User avatar #190 to #188 - cazabrow (06/14/2013) [-]
User avatar #191 to #190 - alcoholicsemen (06/14/2013) [-]
thats just what im into right now
if anything tmi
User avatar #54 - TheSchwartz (06/14/2013) [-]
I have nothing to hide when I'm taking a **** , but I still want my privacy regardless.

inb4 "Ah jus needs ta check insade ja asshowle"
User avatar #109 to #54 - loomiss ONLINE (06/14/2013) [-]
Daily Show?
User avatar #18 - blacksmithgu (06/14/2013) [-]
I see a lot of "oh if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide." A silly statement, to be told. Everyone has done something wrong in their life, or have something(s) they want to hide or would rather people not know about. Now, suddenly, other people know about those things. If they want to use it against you, they have free reign to do so. It doesn't have to be something illegal, it can be something as simple as having a unorthodox belief and suddenly face the prejudice of a often unsympathetic public.

The whole thing I find entirely stupid about monitoring information like this is it is absolutely worthless for trying to "protect" people. Any criminal organization with half a brain isn't going to use some public channel to relay information. All it ends up doing is ruining people's privacy - and I believe everyone is entitled to their own privacy, as an escape from the sometimes aggravating or annoying unspoken laws of public life.

Take it your own way, but inaction in regards to these sorts of thing is often the precursor to worse happenings (the common thought process is "hey, they're not saying anything bad about it, so let's keep going"). This "monitoring of all information" thing sounds like something straight out of a dystopian book.

~ Angry person
#26 to #18 - oxYKellark (06/14/2013) [-]
I agree with what you are saying, people shouldnt be completely ok with this but its the argument that you made in the first parahraph that everyone seems to keep repeating.

"Now, suddenly, other people know about those things. If they want to use it against you, they have free reign to do so."

I can ***************** that no one working for the government gives a submarining **** about who cheated on who or just what really did happen at brads party. Nor would they some how use that against you. It feels like everyone suddenly thinks the government is out to release our private life out into the public domain.

Even if some one has an unorthodox belief the media has that exposure completely covered already, and the only opinions anyone in the U.S. today would give a **** about are from celebrities. Not some John Doe living in his 1 bedroom apartment in New York.

Listen, I dont think what they are doing is right but I dont think its wrong either. Sure the approach of monitoring and storing information seems a bit harsh but I believe that the pros HEAVILY outweigh the cons. Besides what we put on the internet...which is where they are pulling all the info from, was NEVER intended to be private. Its a public domain. Once you post something or send some email, it is literally out there forever. People are now getting upset because the big bad government are the ones looking at it.
Like it even ******* matters what we put online, like it was even important. BUT like you said the majority of CRIMINALS will not email or post their plans or whatever online, although some do, while pehaps being a direct attack plan or whatever some info might provide a lead or add up as clues.
User avatar #30 to #26 - blacksmithgu (06/14/2013) [-]
I'm curious as to what you would consider the pros of internet monitoring.

Furthermore, when I talk about monitoring information on the internet, I'm not talking about people putting information up, which is indeed public domain, but rather people looking at the information others put up. Have the NRA's website as your homepage? Visited a "Terrorist Cookbook" site? Those could all be considered suspicious behavior and you could be questioned for it. It doesn't matter if you were just curious or something - that would do you little good as an explanation.

And, as a side note, what people put on the internet or just plain public media can be very, very damaging. An angry reporter who publishes an article about some company or group of people he doesn't like can hurt the reputation of the company, and so on.

The main problem with information monitoring is, as I see it, the government is not only monitoring mainstream public information like stupid things people put on facebook or blogs - anyone can see that, and that's their own fault. But if the government starts monitoring things like SSH connections (which is hard but possible), telephone calls, and so on - that, I consider private information. The government, or anyone for that matter, have no right to listen in on such information, even if it's for "national security" or something like that lest they have a warrant/outstanding reason to do so for a few people.

Punishing everyone for the actions of the few is something I absolutely despise.
User avatar #48 to #30 - ronyx ONLINE (06/14/2013) [-]
Lots of shady **** goes on the internet, just because you don't know about all the **** you can do on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't agree with your last statement, if it meant your dad or mother could have been saved from for example the Boston attack wouldn't you have agreed with it? Because I'm pretty sure they found in his computer a ******** of how to make bombs.

It's easy for us to say "Hey i don't give a **** about the reasons why the government is doing it, IT'S MY PRIVACY! I don't care if it could prevent or stop somebody from killing somebody else" because we haven't lost someone to an event like that.
User avatar #118 to #48 - chucknorrisTHEGAME (06/14/2013) [-]
No, even in that situation, I wouldn't be okay with it. I'd be terribly upset, but not okay with being stripped of privacy to prevent it, and neither would my parents. Heck, even if I knew it was going to be the cause of my own demise, I think it's safer to have the possibility of small attacks happening than to slowly hand all control over to the government. It's tragic that there has to be a choice like that, and I sincerely wish we could find another way of stopping it, but for now it doesn't seem like there is one.
But in random attacks, in the course of a few years, a couple hundred to a couple thousand are lost. All important, all very sad. But last time people willingly handed their government their freedom step by step, 6-11 million were lost.
User avatar #35 to #30 - oxYKellark (06/14/2013) [-]
#33 to #30 - oxYKellark ONLINE (1 second ago)
Well you mentioned one of my pros, "National Security" take the whole boston bombing ********* for example. About a week after the attack FBI searched thorugh their phones and computers for possible leads to any other people who might be involved. The conversations that they had found on the older brothers phone were rather disturbing.

The point im trying to make is that this could help the government get a better idea of who they need to watch. I am not at all concerned about what they would potentinally find on my history, sure some messed up porn or gore videos whatever they can look if they please but its not people like me they are after its the ones that continually go to certian webistes people who go on pro jihadist websites every week people who watch videos online on how to make bombs or who monitor others.

This would give them a much better picture of who they need to watch more closely, record their phone calls. Track their behavior. Stuff like that.

In my mind its kind of like a strainer, you pour a whole bunch of material into it and the material too big to fall through the holes is more closely inspected. and again and again. Until you get what you were looking for.

This is hardly a punishment. There is not a single thing you are forced to give up, nothing you are now restricted from doing. Nothing has changed.

Some might say "Well actually yes, i am being forced to give up my privacy" nonononononononononononononono, and again NO you are not. You can still do, say, think, and perform any act you want. Its an irrational fear of the government trying to **** over EVERY citizen.

Mother ****** your "privacy" went out the window when you were assinged an IP adress.
User avatar #39 to #35 - blacksmithgu (06/14/2013) [-]
A huge strainer in which information is put through and the big pieces are examined is an accurate comparison, but the problem is you dramatically overestimate people's ability to determine what's "good" and "not good". The context of a conversation can be very important when judging it, and people who are just looking at the information have no idea what the context is. For example, a simple phone call like this could occur:

" Hey, do you have the goods? "
" Yeah, meet me at our normal place."

This probably seems familiar - likely said in a joking matter. The problem is, with the mentality people would have to take in order to "ensure security", they would have to take every one of these cases seriously. It doesn't matter that 95% of these are said jokingly, the people monitoring it don't know that and so suddenly, the two guys, one who might have been borrowing some games from the other (or for a more mature audience, maybe tools or something) get a phone call over suspicious activity.

If they are honest, they'll just say "oh yeah I was going to an intersection near my house", but they could do the same if they are criminals. If the government doesn't trust this, they have no choice but to waste further resources checking information or sending agents - with a 95% dead end case.

No, I do not endorse information monitoring at all. Logistics problems would hinder the system far too much to do anything for anyone.
User avatar #88 to #39 - oxYKellark (06/14/2013) [-]
I think you are over estimating just what the government is going to scrutinize people for. Some drug deal between two kids isnt going to spark a nation wide search and seizure of evidence with everyone linked to their facebook page. Its not like the people sifting through these files or conversations have a big red button sitting next to them that would drop a bomb on the origin. Its a tool, a way of merely narrowing down information. Sure there might be a false positive or two but to really get the governments attention you have to be doing some pretty ****** up **** , and a lot of it.
User avatar #170 to #35 - cabbagemayhem (06/14/2013) [-]
The problem with that, is it might be filtering pro-jihadist content now, but if it invasively spies on citizens, it can easily be turned against any individual who is a threat to any given future agenda. Mining data posted publicly online is one thing, but seizing private information (that was never meant to be published) without probably cause is a violation of constitutional rights.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
#33 to #30 - oxYKellark has deleted their comment [-]
#210 - caplocker (06/14/2013) [-]
My father told me something 20 years ago that stuck with me.

"Don't give your leader the power to alter your freedom even for your own good, even if this leader won't. the next leader that you may not like may abuse the same power"

And look now. While some of you are Obama fans, some of you were Bush fans stop and think for a second. The same laws that people agreed with Bush passing are now complaining about Obama using them. What do you think will happen? When laws are being made, you have to figure for the next 50 years who will be using them. What laws has Obama passed that his fans were happy with that the next president will abuse?

I know I'm entering red thumb hell here, I'm ok with that. GUN RIGHTS. I said it, gun rights. While the current government may have altruistic plans for our society, what about the next president? We seen one president get one over on the American people in the name of fighting terrorism. But look now. The same laws are being used to, for the first time in history since Lincoln, try to arrest members of the press. A decade ago, no one would have thought the government would use the same law to try to convict a member of the press of treason for breaking a story. Yet, here we are.

So I'm asking, what gun rights will you give away during this false flag that a decade from now, with different leadership, you'll regret?
#19 - emperorervinmar **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #167 - ivoryhammer (06/14/2013) [-]
Our forefathers have been spinning in their graves for decades now
#181 to #167 - anon (06/14/2013) [-]
Put a generator on em and get infinite energy
#161 - glasgowrangers (06/14/2013) [-]
NSA's face when caught
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)