181–190 of 494 posts
So if you enable iCloud advanced protection, that is "evidence". We really really need a younger congress.
>This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. (Emphasis mine)
1. https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1857-fred...
"The national security state emerges from war, from fear of revolution and change, from the economic instability of capitalism, and from nuclear weapons and military technology.It has been the actualizing mechanism of ruling elites to implement their imperial schemes and misplaced ideals. In practical terms its emergence is linked to the rise of a bureaucracy that administered things and people in interchangeable fashion without concern for ends or assumptions. This state formation matured during a period in which the office of the President be- came supremely powerful as a broker and legitimating instrument of national security activity."
"...The society is at a turning point. And in this regard so is the legal profession. Either we will surrender representative democracy, embracing instead different forms of corporate fascism and bureaucratic control (military, police, and social) which cannot be halted through citizen action and democratic pro- cesses, or we (including the legal profession) will begin the difficult task of dismantling the national security apparatus. It does not seem likely to me that those who struggled in the sixties to develop a new meaning of democracy will settle for bureaucratic or corporate fascism. And those who are neutral on the question will be less likely to acquiesce in fascist or bonapartist deformations once it is clear that they are inefficient, and that they provide only insecurity, unemployment, imperial wars, a deepening arms race, and a pro- cess of repressive exclusion which reduces politics to an empty game."
[0] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol40/iss3/7/
Plain text at:
https://archive.org/stream/democracy-versus-the-national-sec...
A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power: Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca... [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that they're overlapping sets of concerns, not necessarily identical to or subsets of each other. Off the cuff: * Being an anonymous person walking through a city. This is a privacy concern and only becomes a security concern if I'm a public persona or some kind of person of interest. * Moving to a new school/city/job and not having your social reputation follow you. This allows a lot of people a chance to…
How would you define the terms? IMO these are all 'security' related, just personal security (which is what I define privacy as). The most accurate lines I can draw around either are abstract enough that they end up in the same bucket, but perhaps we're defining them differently
> IMO these are all 'security' related, just personal security (which is what I define privacy as).
I think this level of reduction becomes problematic in scenarios where security>privacy advocates talk about security in the collective sense.
Playing devil's advocate to highlight where I believe this reduction of security->personal security->privacy breaks down: A man borrowed many books from a library on the topic of explosive chemistry. That man later was involved in terrorist acts.
This is a situation where one could argue that less privacy for people in relation to their library borrowing habits may have resulted in greater security.
This is an example of an event that has happened, and while I hate the cliche of terrorism in debates about privacy and feel this particular point can be argued, it's exactly these kinds of scenarios that security>privacy advocates use to push for fewer privacy protections across large groups of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like to ask why they have a door on their bathroom.
I routinely pose that question to my kids. And yet, they still poop with the door open. And without the ventilation fan. I keep hoping that eventually I will get through to them. Maybe I'll just put a spring-loaded hinge on the bathroom doors and a motion-activated ventilation fan.
There is a difference between pooping in front of family and in front of strangers.
A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power: Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca... [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-s…
People abuse their power, but that wouldn't matter if you really had nothing to hide. But everybody has something to hide. Your social security number? Your bank account number? Your debit card PIN? Yeah, pretty sure you have something to hide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like to ask why they have a door on their bathroom.
I routinely pose that question to my kids. And yet, they still poop with the door open. And without the ventilation fan. I keep hoping that eventually I will get through to them. Maybe I'll just put a spring-loaded hinge on the bathroom doors and a motion-activated ventilation fan.
I guess he is a metaphor for the surveillance state. Or the other way around. Dunno.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Thus, as CA is pretty great in general, Feinstein “can’t be that bad,” so why mess up a fine thing. A senator represents the state's views within the federal government, and has next to nothing to do with internal policies within the state. Electing Feinstein or some other person has effectively little-to-no impact on a California citizens daily life. > (Keep your “CA sucks” comments out of here please; your percep…
I agree with everything you said, but you missed my point somewhat. You and I know that a senator is not an in-state representative, and that their work is federal in nature. Most people who vote do not know that, and do not understand the distinction between state reps and federal reps. If you took a poll, how many people do you think would even know CA had a state senate and separate federal senators? I would surmi…
Sadly, agreed. Perhaps this is a component in the ever-growing push of state issues into the federal level.
> ...CA has many issues it needs to address. So does literally every state... instead realize that most Californians like it here...
Well, this is saying nothing at all, is it? We can safely assume citizens of any state generally like where they live, lest they'd move away if they had the means.
However, we rarely see a dogpile of people publicly bemoaning Massachusetts, for example. Perhaps there is something going on in California right now, some sort of breaking point, where people are starting to realize some of the problems California has are unique to California, caused by decades of possibly misguided but well-intentioned policy. Policy does not happen in a vacuum.
It's also interesting to see someone such as yourself feel it necessary to qualify your love for the state you live in. It has a sort of, captive, feel about it.