What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
123 Comments
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+39When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
__________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
The loss of our freedoms does not come in one giant step, it creeps in very slowly, bit by bit. As lasermike026 said "We went from 'we need a warrant' to 'just your phone records' to 'we are listening to your calls" - chadu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29Is the use of tech in our everyday lives relegated to only the newest case mods and fancy LED bouncy lights?
I welcome the addition of hard news to the site... breaks up the Wii and Apple articles. - Xopl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28All this NSA listening to phone calls, obtaining phone records, scanning internet traffic... none of it is going to do a shade of good anymore now that those treasonous leakers put it out in the open and the terrorists know we're watching them. And you know we've got their houses bugged, and agents in their mosques.
The only place left for these terrorists to plan is in public spaces, in person, like the old days. But we've got cameras in all the public spaces! So we're safe! Go us!
Well, almost all the public spaces. We don't have cameras and microphones installed in public bathrooms or in public gym locker rooms and showers yet. Al Qaeda is going to plot again us in the shower at the YMCA or in the bathroom at the mall, and if we don't put cameras up, the smoking gun this time might be a mushroom cloud. Remember, you can't poop in private if you are dead.
Besides, if you don't have anything to hide, then what are you worried about? You don't really think the NSA is going to go after ordinary Americans for what they are doing in the bathroom and shower, do you?
And hey, lets not forget about all the female terrorists in Georgia, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia. If we ignore the female threat we're just asking for another 9/11. Actually, terrorists are probably more likely to be women next time around for this very reason. We better make double-extra-special sure we've got cameras in womens' locker rooms, showers, bathrooms... you know, all the public spaces we aren't currently monitoring.
These people have sworn to destroy America, people. Can we say that we are doing EVERYTHING we can to stop another terrorist attack? Can Bush? Not until they put these cameras in the women's showers they can't! - lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29Talk about missing it. The NSA is listening in on phone calls without a warrant. That is spying and that is illegal. This has to stop. We went from 'we need a warrant' to 'just your phone records' to 'we are listening to your calls.'
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22We are like the frog that will jump out if thrown into a vat of hot water, but will sit and die if put into a vat of cold water whose temperature is then slowly raised.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -14/+32Yeah, if the government assassinated a mere hundred people ex judicio out of 300 million, it wouldn't be a big deal either. Sieg heil!
- MattLat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"I need someone to protect me from all the measures they take in order to protect me" - Banksy
http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/05.html - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Why are you surprised? Since when have they actually reported news? If it's not Brittney being a bad mom, one of the bettles getting divorced, evil "hackers" stealing peoples ID's, or distorting whats going on in Iraq then they arn't going to run it.
- jessecollins, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22Welcome to 1984.
- dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19I'm not tired of it all. This needs to be exposed in as many places as possible!
- omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17This cartoon sums it up:
http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW05-17-06.jpg - jswensson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I'm not at all surprised.
- Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Here's a question for you:
Would promoting a civil war in the US be an act of freedom? Or terrorism? - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I'm glad you put that quote in, as I think people have really forgotten how easily power strips awawy freedoms. It's easy to sit back and say, "Why should I care; doesn't apply to me," as our selfish Baby Boomer predecessors have, but we have a chance, we being the technology enabled, to do something, and stand up for our rights. With our power of knowledge, we should be fending off the impirical tyranny our government and our country was formed to rebuke.
- lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15No, they are listening. There excuse is they are listening with computers. That is listening to your calls. Too much power and not enough oversight. Time put the dog back in the cage.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Everyone thinks this is justified because it helps capture "Terrorists."
People don't even know what that word means anymore - it's now a blanket term applied to anyone doing something unfavorable in the eyes of the government.
Insurance policies no longer cover arson because it's a "terrorist act". See how that works?
Arsons = terrorists? Nope. Criminals, sure, not terrorists.
This is no exaggeration or lie, but even drug dealers are considered terrorists in the eyes of the govt. Who knows, if they don't like people who speak badly about the govt, you might be one too.
There's no explicit definition for "terrorist", and that's why this is bad.
If you can't follow due process to get your information, then you're ***** out of luck. If that means not capturing a terrorist, then so be it. As the years pass, this country is more and more hated, so expect more and more people to be labeled as such.
Besides, those involved in 9/11 were VERY lucky to have even pulled it off, and if it wasn't them, it would've been someone else in our country (ie another McVeigh). ***** happens. Deal with it. - PDAIsAOk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Not much new information here. The Wired.com leak had much more information. Im surprised I never saw any news on that on the news channels
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It won't be long now before anyone who publicly speaks out against the administration is considered a terrorist. Polish up your jackboots boys. Anyone fancy a shower?
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Why is our government declaring war on it's own citizens?
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Clinton did not create ECHELON. Its believed to have been setup during the Cold War, and it was only used for foreign surveillance. Bush II extended it to domestic - aka citizen - surveillance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON - PhantomTrogdor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I saw that, and there was no evidence supporting their claims. This has evidence. That's the key difference.
- The_Wallbanger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Began listening after extensive data mining showed a link to a known terrorist."
The story indicates that the links only needed to be connected to a region, not necessarily a known terrorist. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6And you can't say for certain that it won't. Nobody can predict the future. The point is that it's a plausible future scenario.
- pr0t0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5
I've always suspected something like this was going on, but I never heard anyone credible back it up. I missed the 60 Minutes report, but I am hearing about and following the story now. Does that make me a hypocrite? Do you find me annoying because I find the illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens worrisome, or because I didn't watch 60 Minutes once in 1997?
I'll tell you what annoys me: someone who clouds a seemingly simple discussion with political rhetoric. If you are fine with this surveillance...you are certainly entitled to your opinion. If are not fine with it, as most of us here are not, why bring up the fact that this came to light under the Bush Administration? What difference does it make? Personally I don't care who is responsible, it needs to stop.
And make no mistake, this is a "big deal". Laws exist not only to protect us from each other, but from our government as well. That's what the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are all about. We didn't like the way government worked in our countries of origin, so we set out to make a new country where citizens were free from tyranny in all its forms. Many liked this idea and came from all over the globe to part of this new country (they still do).
Of course, you are free to speak your mind (see First Amendment), but if you really find the defense of the basic tenants of our country's foundation so annoying, perhaps you should leave. - Sarev0k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Gee wiz, if every year is 1984 I'm going to live forever :-P
- CutthroatMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Who didn't see this coming?
- Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I wonder how long it will be before all the people who have been throwing around the terms "patriot" and "war on terror", etc. etc. stop and think to themselves "Hey, you know, letting anyone encroach on my rights is about as 'unamerican' as it gets, even if it's my own government. *Especially* if it's my own government."
I'm simply amazed that the Republican-majority congress makes a fuss about the 2nd amendment and anyone trying to stomp on that, and on the other hand allows things like NSA spying to go on with the explanation that "It's necessary" (And I'm a member of the NRA.).
I don't care if you are Republican, Democrat, Independent, or even a "guest worker", spying on the public at large is bad. It goes against freedom, and that's what all our television commercials are always saying we are the home of. We are very nearly approaching a flop from "Innocent until proven guilty" to "Guilty until proven innocent." If I'm assumed to be innocent, why are officials hypothetically monitoring what I do? If I'm assumed innocent there isn't a good reason to keep an eye on me. And, as an American, I'd much rather get my ass blown up by some wacko than live in a country where we live in fear. It makes us look like colossal wusses. And besides, in the history of the US, how many people have died as a direct result of terrorist attack? And how many people are there in the US total? I'm more likely to die in a car crash, but I drive my car twice a day at least.
I thought we were always proud of ourselves for kicking ass and taking names when the ***** was really on the line, like the men from many nations who went ashore in Normandy for instance. The Brits who were huddling in bunkers during the blitz and V1/V2 attacks make us look like total Pansies. "Yes, Martha Dear, there appears to be some nasty chaps bombs falling on us, could you pass the brown sauce?".. Meanwhile, we've got soccer moms in minivans locking their doors when they drive by a guy with a turban.. and they've probably got one of those obnoxious magnetic ribbons on the back of it as well. - jgreene777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The real question is whether or not the military personnel at the time of this revolt will follow the current adminstration and crush the people's revolt or follow their vow to uphold the constitution and protect the people from the administration.
- lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The ends do not justify the means.
- Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10You missed the last one...
"Why do you care if we listen to your calls?"
Funny how people rationalize things these days... - goldenbb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So I guess at that point you man up and take a few with you instead of writing useless poetry from your cell while you await your fate.
Give your neighbors the ultimate gesture of goodwill--make the tyrants wonder if they will make it home at all. - PhantomTrogdor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+71.You can't believe every media, that's quite true. A lot of them are influenced by outside sources, and warp the news to their liking. However, when most of them agree on one subject, I think that outweighs one person's opinion.
2.The law allowing this, the U.S. Patriot Act, states that they are allowed to spy on "suspected terrorists". Who defines suspected terrorists? The government. Therefore, they have a free ticket to spy on whoever they want.
3.Did you even READ the article? They present sufficient evidence to prove their point. You can't really ask for any more out of media reports.
4.Who is to say that General Hayden is telling the truth?
5."I seen"? You sound like a hick. - PhantomTrogdor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ummm, bad idea. By the time you gain enough followers, the Gov would have already killed you. But kudos for trying to do something.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Because Bush is no better than Hussein or Milosevic
- antisthenex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm hoping that's just very very subtle satire. If not, I'm seriously worried about this country, with opinions like that existing.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6President Bush has said, "Terrorists hate us for our freedoms." So, using Bush logic, the less freedoms we have the safer we are. But by the time Bush becomes king with the help of his new Supreme Court, the terrorists won't have any reason to hate us because we'll be just like them. So let's all give up our freedoms for the illusion of safety. Let's invade countries, torture people, kidnap people to secret prisons, let the government spy on us, track us, listen in on our phone calls, and reading our email. Bush has made Bin Laden the winner.
http://www.codebot.org/articles/?doc=9458
Oh, and lest I forget, Bush is trying to make reporting on his illegal activities a crime.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@some jingo
"We are at war, and we need to be able to collect intelligence."
Tell me why this allows the exuctive branch to break the law?
Why does it allow the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens, when they are specifically forbidden?
You cannot claim 'we did it because we are at war' when we (the U.S.) don't bother to follow the Geneva conventions. It's just idiotic when you stop to think instead of regurgitating Tony Snow's talking points.
Cheney, Rove and Bush are using the U.S. as a petri dish and the world as lab animals. They contradict and lie even in the face of recorded and written evidence that proves it. They have not made any measurable improvement in the life of most American unless those Americans happen to be too rich to care what their government is doing to the future of their grandchildren.
So, go sip your Starbuck whilst driving your Hummer to Sam's Club and spend more in one day most humans make in a year.
You're so great.
Hooray for you and ***** everyone else.
Lucky for you, some of us actually care that Bush has been ***** on the constitution since the day he took office. We -might- still have a chance to save ourselves from the Fourth Riech. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Note that we do not need a warrant to toss a bomb into OBL's window, because WE ARE AT WAR."
OBL is an enemy combatant. Random US citizens are not.
You're right that we need to collect intelligence. But we also need to uphold the values that this country was founded on; otherwise,what are we even defending? This is a tradeoff between opposing needs, not a one-sided thing -- the need for intelligence does not justify any and all actions in the name of war. - definiteform, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5People who don't care enough or who are too stupid and think well, I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't care.
However, they can also use this database to root out whistleblowers. That's the WORST application of this ***** database. - antisthenex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Tuba, your sniper example is sound, but any crime can be twisted into wishing to cause terror. Think of a serial killer. Do they cut the thumbs off their victims to scare people or bring a revoltuion? I think they do it because they're mentally unsound. However, the current administration could easily claim that it is a terrorist act, trying to ruin current American life. "We need to tap his calls, and everyone he has every spoken to."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10@TheRonald Thanks man. I was wondering how long it would be until someone blamed Clinton. But, but ... Clinton!
- goldenbb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3definitely a slippery slope that we know where it ends. It just reeks of desperation, frankly. East Germany collected tons and tons of data, but the state collapsed anyways.
- actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's easier to get this information circulated globally in the year 2006 than in 1997. And since we didn't have much in the way of blogs, online news houses, or Digg in 1997 you didn't get to hear as many opinions as you do now.
There is no hypocrisy, there are just more outlets for this sort of news and discussion. Saying this is not news makes you look ill-informed and devoid of logic / reasonable thought. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For the answer to all of your civil war questions, please review U.S. history and see what happened the LAST time a large number of U.S. Citizens didn't like the current government.
(Hint, it involves a tall man with a large hat and most of the southern states) - MasterDwarf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Sounds like the administration has a way of doing things in the wrong order. It violates policy, rules, laws, procedures, and checks and balances. Once they do something like this they can't undo it because they knew the way they initially implemented such a plan was done illegally. So then they resort to secrets, resistance, and denial.
But of course its ok, we're at war!! :-P - sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Watch "Real Genius" and get back to me. Contributing to "Fun" projects like this without considering the consequences of what you're working on has led to much evil in the world. I'm quite sure some of the German engineers who designed the WWII death camps really got into their work.
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@dclowd9901 -- If I understand your post correctly, you're arguing that by using convenient communications technology, we're implicitly granting the government permission to spy on us. You further imply that one is a hypocrite if they aren't willing to live without said technology. This is *****. An active and transparent government, reviewed by an independent judiciary, can be made to respect the privacy of its citizens. A Big Brother president committing flagrant violations of existing law can be impeached, and his executive orders overturned. Cell phones and freedom are not mutually exclusive.
- TRexALot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In the past, the government of a nation-state could only legitimately declare war on the citizens of another nation-state-------The Other.
To treat your own citizens like enemy combatants-------Is that tantamount to declaring civil war? - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Would promoting a civil war in the US be an act of freedom? Or terrorism?"
It would be an act of treason, actually. And much more harmful than beneficial -- despite high-profile incidents like this NSA case, the government and its various institutions (police, emergency services, SEC, public schools, etc.) do quite a lot to keep the nation running relatively smoothly on a day-to-day basis. Overthrowing the government would plunge us into chaos. -
Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 