Can spying be justified?

Timmyctc

Do the ends justify the means when it comes to spying.

I recently heard someone explain their belief that if the NSA spy on millions of people and discover and subsequently prevent a terrorist incident potentially saving lives then the spying is justified and therefore acceptable.

Does anyone agree with the above and would the same logic apply to spying, or an invasion of ones privacy on a smaller scale.
(For example someone reading through their friend, OH's or a member of their family's emails/texts/internet history or listening in on their calls or even following them to spy on them in the traditional sense in order to figure out if they're up to something they shouldn't be, illegal or immoral or what have you.)

The Backwards Man

Justified or not, it has always and will always exist. You can't stop people's curiosity any more than you can stop time.

Royal Irish

I like to mind my own business. I have an ignorance in bliss attitude to other peoples business. What I don't know wont bother me. Now if I looked through the browsing history of a friend or family member, chances are I'd see some porn, possibly even of the weird variety. So knowing other peoples business is just going to create awkwardness. Its better to think someone is a pervert than to check their browsing history to remove all doubt.

Timmyctc

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Justified or not, it has always and will always exist. You can't stop people's curiosity any more than you can stop time.

Yeah I get that its gonna happen. Its sad that we have to accept that. But I was just wondering. Do you think hypothetically that someone or some group could justify a breach of trust/invasion of privacy by what they learn from it; and would they be similarly lambasted if it came out they spied on people and found nothing.

zenno

Timmyctc wrote: »

Do the ends justify the means when it comes to spying.

I recently heard someone explain their belief that if the NSA spy on millions of people and discover and subsequently prevent a terrorist incident potentially saving lives then the spying is justified and therefore acceptable.

Does anyone agree with the above and would the same logic apply to spying, or an invasion of ones privacy on a smaller scale.
(For example someone reading through their friend, OH's or a member of their family's emails/texts/internet history or listening in on their calls or even following them to spy on them in the traditional sense in order to figure out if they're up to something they shouldn't be, illegal or immoral or what have you.)

Right now at this time, a boards member with good hacking skills could find you're ip address and location and information to work out who you are... i.e, if you have a facebook account or twitter account and if you ever posted a photo/picture of yourself online within google or you're home address and all you're other private information.

Over many years of using forums, you would be amazed as to how much personal stuff people forward out online about themselves, it would be easy for a person to be tracked, never mind the NSA, any good hacker could find out all about you in a few hours if needed, so, how safe are you/we really realistically even from the black hat's, discounting the NSA.

Karl Stein

The mad thing is that people they really want to detect will easily avoid being swept up in the spying drift net.

They should be required to justify it without using the excuse of terrorism that they've helped create by their disastrous blood-soaked foreign policies.

Timmyctc

zenno wrote: »

Right now at this time, a boards member with good hacking skills could find you're ip address and location and information to work out who you are... i.e, if you have a facebook account or twitter account and if you ever posted a photo/picture of yourself online within google or you're home address and all you're other private information.

Over many years of using forums, you would be amazed as to how much personal stuff people forward out online about themselves, it would be easy for a person to be tracked, never mind the NSA, any good hacker could find out all about you in a few hours if needed, so, how safe are you/we really realistically even from the black hat's, discounting the NSA.

An even smarter Boards member could go on "About Me" and find my twitter and bypass all that awkwardness :pac:

Sunglasses Ron

Timmyctc wrote: »

Do the ends justify the means when it comes to spying.

I recently heard someone explain their belief that if the NSA spy on millions of people and discover and subsequently prevent a terrorist incident potentially saving lives then the spying is justified and therefore acceptable.

Does anyone agree with the above and would the same logic apply to spying, or an invasion of ones privacy on a smaller scale.
(For example someone reading through their friend, OH's or a member of their family's emails/texts/internet history or listening in on their calls or even following them to spy on them in the traditional sense in order to figure out if they're up to something they shouldn't be, illegal or immoral or what have you.)

Why not?

Why does anyone even care about Edward Snowden and his revelations? The practice of scanning internet and phone traffic for suspect terms and conversations perhaps even pre dates 9/11.

shedweller

All that spying won't stop "terrorism"

Banjo String

I thought this thread was gonna be about voyeurism and boobies.

I am disappoint. :mad:

Sunglasses Ron

shedweller wrote: »

All that spying won't stop "terrorism"

It has in the past, why not in the future?

Corvo Attano

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

It has in the past, why not in the future?

Clearly hasn't. There are still terrorists.

kneemos

Might catch a few loonies.

Sunglasses Ron

Corvo Attano wrote: »

Clearly hasn't. There are still terrorists.

Actually what has been left over from 12 years of intensive efforts against them is the bottom of the barrel. There hasn't been a major terror attack in a Western country in 8 years, while there have been innumerable plots foiled. They seem to be doing something right.

Timmyctc

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Actually what has been left over from 12 years of intensive efforts against them is the bottom of the barrel. There hasn't been a major terror attack in a Western country in 8 years, while there have been innumerable plots foiled. They seem to be doing something right.

But is it justified? And would similar invasions of privacy be justifiable on a smaller scale? Is it only when you potentially save lives that, essentially, being a c*nt becomes justifiable?

Sunglasses Ron

Timmyctc wrote: »

But is it justified? And would similar invasions of privacy be justifiable on a smaller scale? Is it only when you potentially save lives that, essentially, being a c*nt becomes justifiable?

Of course it is justified. If you don't want your phone and internet monitored, don't use them. As late as 50 years ago most people got by without phones, and the internet is a luxury, not a life or death necessity (unless your job relates directly to it). You may have this idea in your head that Homeland Security agents are crowded around six to a desk laughing over the most embarrassing FB chats between couples or the most bizarre porn searches some guy is googling, but the fact is they have already seen them all, this **** probably bores them stiff, and they are simply more interested in scoring a burgeoning plot over you and your missus sex chat.

Timmyctc

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Of course it is justified. If you don't want your phone and internet monitored, don't use them. As late as 50 years ago most people got by without phones, and the internet is a luxury, not a life or death necessity (unless your job relates directly to it). You may have this idea in your head that Homeland Security agents are crowded around six to a desk laughing over the most embarrassing FB chats between couples or the most bizarre porn searches some guy is googling, but the fact is they have already seen them all, this **** probably bores them stiff, and they are simply more interested in scoring a burgeoning plot over you and your missus sex chat.

I'm not entirely sure where you got "Im worreed bout ma sex chats lol" out of "Is it morally justifiable to spy on everyone" but its okay. Take your liberties from what I wrote. Also. Trust me. The way me and the missus chat, Homeland would NOT be bored, more disturbed than anything.

Its a pretty ****ty view on life to have "If I don't want to be spied on, don't do anything essentially" Surely one can find it perturbing that privacy is an unreasonable request in life.

Overheal

whatever I think about the situation, we did spy on cuba once and prevent what could easily be considered the brink of nuclear winter. those were the days

bumper234

America over the last few years has played the "terrorist" card so much to the extent that it means nothing now. They feel that if they throw in the word terrorist/terrorism/terroristic then that gives them the right to do what they want (even going as far as denying their own citizens their rights).

Timmyctc

bumper234 wrote: »

America over the last few years has played the "terrorist" card so much to the extent that it means nothing now. They feel that if they throw in the word terrorist/terrorism/terroristic then that gives them the right to do what they want (even going as far as denying their own citizens their rights).

What is the definition of a terrorist now actually?

Sunglasses Ron

Timmyctc wrote: »

ITrust me. The way me and the missus chat, Homeland would NOT be bored, more disturbed than anything.

]

Of six billion adults in the world I am fairly sure your chats are not the most ****ed up of them all.

Its a pretty ****ty view on life to have "If I don't want to be spied on, don't do anything essentially" Surely one can find it perturbing that privacy is an unreasonable request in life.

The software, both text and voice recognition, filters for certain words, terms, patterns, searches. Only a tiny percentage even ever gets reviewed by an actual person. In 12 years of Homeland Security I doubt the average net user has been reviewed more than once by an actual agent. Can you imagine the amount of potentially flaggable info communicated by even a small percentage of users in Muslim countries?

bumper234

Timmyctc wrote: »

What is the definition of a terrorist now actually?

5 year old with a pink hello kitty plastic gun?


http://jezebel.com/5977807/five+year+old-girl-suspended-for-making-a-terroristic-threat-about-a-hello-kitty-bubble-gun


wearing a pro NRA tshirt?


http://news.yahoo.com/14-old-kid-arrested-over-pro-nra-shirt-071819724.html

Making a stupid comment on a forum/game chat?

http://m.pcgamer.com/2013/07/12/league-of-legends-player-mouths-off-gets-arrested-for-making-a-terroristic-threat/

Sunglasses Ron

bumper234 wrote: »

America over the last few years has played the "terrorist" card so much to the extent that it means nothing now. They feel that if they throw in the word terrorist/terrorism/terroristic then that gives them the right to do what they want (even going as far as denying their own citizens their rights).

I agree in part. I read a report the other day claiming that the recent terror alert was caused by an intercepted conference call between Al Zahahiri and a dozen or so commanders. Plainly nonsense of course, as such a call could enable them to track his location within minutes. Even Bin Laden was known to have no spoken on a phone since the late 90's due to the risk.

But tell me, what rights is the average citizen now denied?

Timmyctc

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

]

Of six billion adults in the world I am fairly sure your chats are not the most ****ed up of them all.

Ye may want to read up on these good man, you take life too seriously.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

]
The software, both text and voice recognition, filters for certain words, terms, patterns, searches. Only a tiny percentage even ever gets reviewed by an actual person. In 12 years of Homeland Security I doubt the average net user has been reviewed more than once by an actual agent. Can you imagine the amount of potentially flaggable info communicated by even a small percentage of users in Muslim countries?

Yeah I get it the Muslims are out to get us. If we have nothing to hide we should just be able to walk around naked and let everyone see us for what we are etc etc etc.

Its justifiable for us all to be spied on and told that its for everyone's safety. One would feel that terrorism in general wouldn't be an issue if this spying network you speak so fervently of was as effective as some may suggest. Perhaps the issue is not in interception, but prevention. Maybe the good ol US of A need to take a long hard look at itself in the mirror and say "Why do people treat me like a c*nt, is it because I am a c*nt or is everyone else the c*nt"

bumper234

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I agree in part. I read a report the other day claiming that the recent terror alert was caused by an intercepted conference call between Al Zahahiri and a dozen or so commanders. Plainly nonsense of course, as such a call could enable them to track his location within minutes. Even Bin Laden was known to have no spoken on a phone since the late 90's due to the risk.

But tell me, what rights is the average citizen now denied?

When was the last time you travelled through a US airport without having your junk groped by the TSA?

Is racial profiling at airports of American citizens ok?

Is it ok to kill someone in a foreign country without trial?

Is it ok to kidnap and move someone to another country and have them tortured?

is it ok to have someone jailed for a decade without trial?

you know...basic rights like those.

Timmyctc

bumper234 wrote: »

When was the last time you travelled through a US airport without having your junk groped by the TSA?

Is racial profiling at airports of American citizens ok?

Is it ok to kill someone in a foreign country without trial?

Is it ok to kidnap and move someone to another country and have them tortured?

is it ok to have someone jailed for a decade without trial?

you know...basic rights like those.

-Well if they didn't want their junk groped, don't try to fly.
-If you don't want to be killed, don't attempt to give medical aid to any children been shot.
etc etc etc

bumper234

Timmyctc wrote: »

-Well if they didn't want their junk groped, don't try to fly.
-If you don't want to be killed, don't attempt to give medical aid to any children been shot.
etc etc etc

Yeah just be a good boy and agree with the gubmint

UCDVet

bumper234 wrote: »

America over the last few years has played the "terrorist" card so much to the extent that it means nothing now. They feel that if they throw in the word terrorist/terrorism/terroristic then that gives them the right to do what they want (even going as far as denying their own citizens their rights).

And the American citizens are happy to give up rights, so long as they mention the word terrorism.

The sad truth is (and it's true in Ireland as much as it is in the US) - people like to think they are for 'freedom', because, as a society, freedom is viewed as a good thing.

But in actual practice freedom isn't wanted. If you give someone freedom, they might do things that we don't like. We'd much rather have laws that protect us and tell us what to do.

Flying into the US is like flying into a military facility. There is nothing free about it.

bumper234

UCDVet wrote: »

And the American citizens are happy to give up rights, so long as they mention the word terrorism.

The sad truth is (and it's true in Ireland as much as it is in the US) - people like to think they are for 'freedom', because, as a society, freedom is viewed as a good thing.

But in actual practice freedom isn't wanted. If you give someone freedom, they might do things that we don't like. We'd much rather have laws that protect us and tell us what to do.

Flying into the US is like flying into a military facility. There is nothing free about it.

Tell me about it. Up until last year i used to fly to the states at least once a week and it just got worse and worse.

UCDVet

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I agree in part. I read a report the other day claiming that the recent terror alert was caused by an intercepted conference call between Al Zahahiri and a dozen or so commanders. Plainly nonsense of course, as such a call could enable them to track his location within minutes. Even Bin Laden was known to have no spoken on a phone since the late 90's due to the risk.

But tell me, what rights is the average citizen now denied?

I'm not an expert on US rights - but....

Their 4th amendment has been trampled on pretty hard in the wake of terrorism. That includes NSA spying and all that jazz. It also includes 'no knock' warrants; where teams of trained 'para-military' invade a 'suspected' wrong-doer's home.

Their 1st amendment rights (freedom of speech) have been pretty restricted too. I think the US is in the mid 20s on international freedom of the press rankings. They've been adding things like 'Free speech zones' and other similar restrictions, often citing 'terrorism'.

After the terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon - they pretty much removed all citizen's rights (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/ron-paul-boston-bombings_n_3179489.html). They forced everyone into their homes and did door-to-door, searches, without warrants and without consent. Pretty scary stuff, the kind of thing you'd expect from North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

The 5th amendment of the US constitution talks about protection from governmental abuse....and well....you don't have to look hard to find examples of that.

The 6th amendment has to do with how prisoners are treated....but again, if they mention the 'terrorist' word, they can pretty much do whatever they want.

http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html does a better job than I could do - but it's pretty straight forward. Following the 9-11 attacks, the Patriot Act pretty much invalidated large sections of the US constitution.

And most US citizens are fine with it, as long as it isn't them getting screwed.

Sunglasses Ron

bumper234 wrote: »

Is racial profiling at airports of American citizens ok?

Yes.

Is it ok to kill someone in a foreign country without trial?

If an American citizen is hiding in a lawless part of Yemen beyond the arrest powers of established law, yes.

Is it ok to kidnap and move someone to another country and have them tortured?

Yes.

is it ok to have someone jailed for a decade without trial?

you know...basic rights like those.

It is not ideal, but I find it hard to have sympathy. It is kind of like saying that technically you should treat travellers as equals and not pre judge, but in reality if they moved next door you would be terrified to go on holiday for a fortnight.

Timmyctc

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Yes.



If an American citizen is hiding in a lawless part of Yemen beyond the arrest powers of established law, yes.



Yes.



It is not ideal, but I find it hard to have sympathy. It is kind of like saying that technically you should treat travellers as equals and not pre judge, but in reality if they moved next door you would be terrified to go on holiday for a fortnight.

I was actually taking your opinion as valid up until this. But its kay now. You've cleared everything up :pac:

bumper234

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Yes.



If an American citizen is hiding in a lawless part of Yemen beyond the arrest powers of established law, yes.



Yes.



It is not ideal, but I find it hard to have sympathy. It is kind of like saying that technically you should treat travellers as equals and not pre judge, but in reality if they moved next door you would be terrified to go on holiday for a fortnight.

And that's why they will keep using the word terrorist for everything because it scares people like you into going along and not rocking the boat. Also believe it or not i am not afraid of travelers and i don't tar them all with the same brush like yourself. Fyi.....travelers ARE my/yours and everyone else's equals.

Sunglasses Ron

bumper234 wrote: »

Also believe it or not i am not afraid of travelers and i don't tar them all with the same brush like yourself.

I don't believe you.


I also don't believe lunatic conspiracy theories that the US government is stitching up its own citizens who are on holidays in dodgy parts of the world to justify extra judicial killing.

bumper234

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I don't believe you.


I also don't believe lunatic conspiracy theories that the US government is stitching up its own citizens who are on holidays in dodgy parts of the world to justify extra judicial killing.

I don't care if you believe me or not suffice to say i know i am not a bigot.

Sunglasses Ron

bumper234 wrote: »

I don't care if you believe me or not suffice to say i know i am not a bigot.

Nor am I. But there's nothing morally wrong with being a realist.

bumper234

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Nor am I. But there's nothing morally wrong with being a realist.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

It is not ideal, but I find it hard to have sympathy. It is kind of like saying that technically you should treat travellers as equals and not pre judge, but in reality if they moved next door you would be terrified to go on holiday for a fortnight.

That line right there makes you a bigot.

hatrickpatrick

Not a chance. If you suspect an individual of a crime get an individual warrant from a court of law with appropriate evidence and search that specific person's accounts. Blanket collection of data from everybody is completely incompatible with living in a free democratic society.

LiberateYa

I dunno to be honest.... They should maybe narrow their spying down to those they suspect and those associated with such people maybe. Are they planning on looking at everybodys emails and stuff ? that's just not on at all ......