Yes it was. I was thinking of phone and email records as thry relate to privacy, not items 1 to 3 on your list, which I can take a definitive position on.
-
Linux because it works. No social or political motives in my decision to use it.
Always consider Occam's Razor
Rich -
Terrorism is the catch-all excuse for the privacy invasions we've all suffered from -- whether at the airport, or now in our lives lived increasingly online. If the American government wouldn't have succumbed to the stupid (and unwinnable) "war on terror," then these debates over how much privacy must we give up to remain safe wouldn't even be necessary. This is the reasoning behind structuring my list as I did.Comment
-
I see your connection. However each of those items, in my view, expands the discussion. I was specifically addressing the telephone and email issues in relation to keeping us safe. There are other government actions that fall under that justification, as you pointed out, that have different consequences. You could add regulations on banks to the list, and any number of others.Linux because it works. No social or political motives in my decision to use it.
Always consider Occam's Razor
RichComment
-
EVERY elected official must swear an oath of office which contains, in part, the phrase:
I would be happy if the Congress, the Senate, the judiciary and the President honored their oath of office. If the Bill of Rights were defended and supported by those who swore an oath that they would do so the scandals would never have happened. As it is, the oath of office means nothing to most of them ... just something they say with their fingers crossed behind their backs while their mouth utters phrases they have no intention of keeping. Most should be impeached for lying under oath.“I, ... , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
– John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.Comment
-
If I felt that way I woukd have trouble remaining in this country. Not a reflection on you just me.Originally posted by GreyGeek View PostLinux because it works. No social or political motives in my decision to use it.
Always consider Occam's Razor
RichComment
-
-
@*$^@#%!!
Breaking...
Federal judge says NSA phone surveillance is legal, useful
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us...ules.html?_r=0
Full opinion
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorym...on-lawful-ocr/
So we have two judges with differing views of the Fourth Amendment. Richard Leon (Federal District Court for DC) says phone surveillance is "almost Orwellian," while William Pauley claims "the Fourth Amendment does not apply to data held by third parties."
SMFH.Comment
-
Because if I felt that all the people responsible for government were not faithful to their oath of office I would have no respect for them, and a government I could not respect is not worth living under. The implication was they were all like that. Some are no doubt. If they do not have the welfare of the people they represent at heart, why bother having them.Originally posted by SteveRiley View PostLinux because it works. No social or political motives in my decision to use it.
Always consider Occam's Razor
RichComment
-
I suppose I wasn't sure which part of Jerry's statement you were responding to. Now I see which part you mean.Comment
-
That's a bit of a strange oath, really. I don't get how a country that wrote the separation of church and state into its constitution manages to come up with things like this:
Add that last part on at the end as a personal touch if you like, but making it a part of the "official oath" is just weird. Could you take this oath seriously?“I, ... , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
If the answer is no, then can you see how a significant proportion of public servants who took the oath might not have taken it "without any mental reservation"?“I, ... , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me Flying Spaghetti Monster"
I get how swearing on a bible or qu'ran or whatever may make some people take things more seriously, but it has the opposite effect if you don't happen to believe...Comment
-
I'm having a look at those articles now.Originally posted by SteveRiley View Post
I'm curious, did you self-censor that second link or was it the forum software?Last edited by SteveRiley; Dec 28, 2013, 12:40 PM.Comment
-
The forum software did that. I just now put it behind a TinyURL link.Originally posted by Feathers McGraw View PostComment
-
Clever... but I think KFN should put it all out there! We, the great unwashed, can make up our own minds about this kind of thing
Full disclosure, please! HeheComment
-
Nope. What belongs in the loo stays in the loo.
Windows no longer obstructs my view.
Using Kubuntu Linux since March 23, 2007.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." - Sherlock HolmesComment
-
Good info on the history and development of oaths of office in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_o...#United_StatesOriginally posted by Feathers McGraw View Post
One can substitute "affirm" for "swear," and then omit "so help me God." (Section 7, chapter XX, Judiciary Act of 1789)
It's an example of America's continual flirting with religion. The men who founded this country recognized the damage that state-sponsored religion could cause. But they weren't complete non-believers themselves. So while it's common to see references to some form of almighty ("...endowed by their Creator..."), you also see deliberate attempts to avoid imposing belief or adherence on the general population.Comment
Comment