What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
83 Comments
- airwalkery2k, on 11/13/2007, -2/+23Kerr argues that "you need to have both... You can be perfectly safe in a prison; but you certainly aren't free. And you can be perfectly free in an anarchist society; but you certainly aren't safe."
That analogy is flawed. You can live in a free society like what our nation was founded on and be free and safe.
An anarchist society is that which has no police and no defense. Being able to steal, rape and murder are not freedoms. They are crimes, as they infringe on the rights of others.
But being able to travel freely, being able to borrow a book with the government knowing, and being able to communicate with another person freely and without intrusion--those are freedoms. Those are rights. That is American. - inactive, on 11/13/2007, -1/+20No. Not ***** this country...***** this government.
- oxdeltaxo, on 11/13/2007, -0/+18 Collecting information and storing it for future use only really signifies three things to me, only one of which is a good thing.
1.They think you will commit a crime and they will catch you.
2.They think they can make money off this info.
3.They can protect you better.
Still sounds like giving up liberties for security. No need for the quote. True privacy lies in both the government minding their own business and the individual keeping their business to themselves. - cvrti5, on 11/13/2007, -17/+33Read Kerr's speech (the PDF linked in the article). If you do that, you will realize he is not saying "You get privacy when your definition matches ours". Instead, he is saying that Google, your ISP, your credit card company, and your bank, etc, already know waaaay too much information about you, that it is prudent to establish rules and regulations to protect it. Quote:
"Protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won. Anyone that’s typed in their name on
Google understands that. Instead, privacy, I would offer, is a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured. And it is that framework that we need to grow and nourish and adjust as our cultures change."
Read the speach, and don't just listen to the soundbites and knee-jerk reactions. Think! - mcdett, on 11/13/2007, -1/+15"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- voteforblank, on 11/13/2007, -1/+13This is the NWO's next step to destroy another Amendment Under The Bill Of Rights. You Will lose your rights to search and seizure. They would already know everything... for the puppet master (govt) will pull the strings of the puppets (corporations). Or ask your self, is it the other way around?
- inactive, on 11/13/2007, -0/+11"True privacy lies in both the government minding their own business and the individual keeping their business to themselves."
Most excellent. I'll quote that some time. - kinerry, on 11/13/2007, -4/+15*****, it basically says that companies can be allowed to associate your name with what would otherwise be annonymous information
That information can be subpoenaed, or stolen later
***** this country - testcase, on 11/13/2007, -1/+12Anonymity is an absolute essential in a democracy. You cannot have a democracy without anonymity.
Without anonymity, you cannot have political dissent. Dissenters and whistle-blowers must be able to be anonymous, otherwise their first message will be their last. And without anonymity, you cannot have secret ballots. Without secret ballots, it is possible to intimidate voters and completely destroy the electoral process.
Donald Kerr knows this of course. Either he knows this, and he is simply being disingenuous, or he doesn't know this, and he should never be entrusted with high office ever again.
I suspect he does know this, but knowing it, he considers it of only theoretical importance. To him, the dream of Total Information Awareness is probably more real than the notion of Liberty.
Guys like Donald Kerr really frighten me, because every day they come into work grinning from ear to ear, thinking what a service they are performing for their country, while all the time, they're oblivious to the true ramifications of their actions.
Does this guy think he's undermining the foundations of our democracy? No way. Does he thank his lucky stars that he has a chance to secretly do his bit for the World Conspiracy? Hell no. No, he's a good guy. He's just not very bright. Without even realizing what he's doing, he's going to sink the Ship of State as sure as Christmas. But he's going to do it genuinely expecting to be recognized as a hero.
It's never the big ass tyrant sitting in the plush office that gets you, it's the earnest bureaucrat bucking for promotion - these guys are the real killers, the real grinding teeth of empire. It's always the earnest ones who just wanna help, who go the extra mile, and in the process, inadvertently goose-step over the top of things they don't even understand.
If Jefferson and Madison could have conceived of such a beast, they would have warned us of them. But they were fighting Kings and Lords. More dangerous than Kings and Lords however are the half-educated policy dweebs and careerists that carry out their orders, while adding their own 10%. Earnest half-wits who never stop to think that maybe there is a good reason why "anonymity... is an idea that is deeply rooted in American culture." - johndi, on 11/13/2007, -0/+10Kerr's statement is worse than just flawed. It is based on lies, you mentioned on of them. The other one is just as glaring. Even with the level of control imposed in our prisons they are anything but safe. You can not gain safety by giving away freedom. The only way to get safety is to take charge of your own well being.
- richardtallent, on 11/13/2007, -0/+9The funny thing about #1 is that they also get to redefine the term "crime" when it suits their purposes.
- ZachSka87, on 11/13/2007, -1/+9Sounds like something straight out of the Ron Paul campaign. And yes, this IS related, because it's the very thing he takes a stand against.
- j33buscr1p3s, on 11/13/2007, -1/+8Kerr said that "privacy, I would offer, is a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured. And it is that framework that we need to grow and nourish and adjust as our cultures change."
Interesting. Because to me privacy has nothing to do with committees, boards or inspector generals, and it sure as hell isn't a culturally relevant ideal. - rottencod, on 11/13/2007, -1/+7Patrick Henry's famous quote, "Give me liberty or give me death," needs to be heard more in America these days. In today's "post-9/11 world," it would probably sound something more like this:
"I would rather die in a terrorist attack, than stay alive because I surrendered my liberty." - AdamGeld, on 11/12/2007, -5/+11I encourage everyone to educate themselves about Ron Paul's views and opinions. If he is the candidate for president that you would like to support, please check out the campaign website. www.ronpaul2008.com/join
December 16th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party and birth of the American Revolution, is our next major fundraiser event. If Ron Paul is the candidate for you, please donate whatever you wish on that day through the campaign website. Tell your family and friends. www.teaparty07.com
If you would like posters to distribute for our fundraiser, please use this.
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/1551/bostonteapar ... - Drizzit, on 11/13/2007, -0/+6I read it and it changes nothing. He's basically saying it's okay for the government to spy on you since corporations already have this data. You can go ahead with the rest of the sheep and eat the crap that's fed to you. I'll still demand that the government not spy on me.
We are slowly trading terrorists overseas for terrorists in our own government. - mcdett, on 11/13/2007, -1/+7f'ing digg.... the rest of my comment just disappeared. Maybe I typed too many words. Franklin warned us against strong central government not private corporations. Please tell me the last time Coke gunned downed 2 million Pepsi drinkers? Strong central governments are to be feared, not corporations.
- AdamGeld, on 11/13/2007, -1/+7I'm thinking I don't want anyone invading my privacy. Just like how I don't let strangers into my house. They can come in, but I wouldn't recommend it.
- AriaStar, on 11/13/2007, -0/+6What's privacy? I forgot.
- spyd3rweb, on 11/12/2007, -1/+7they're coming for the guns next.
- Rince, on 11/13/2007, -0/+6Reminds me of this one:
"Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purpose is beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."--Louis Dembitz Brandeis - hinchb, on 11/13/2007, -1/+7I like how he said there would be "oversight committees, and privacy boards". Why would we care about these things when the executive branch already ignores the other two?
- savethehobos, on 11/13/2007, -1/+6Whether your doing anything illegal or not isn't the point. It's about being able to live without the government listening in on your conversation. Because this sort of thing just doesn't stop with one freedom being taken away. It can snowball out of control until there are special units of "security" clamping down on how we speak about the government. And if its ok for them to just listen in on our conversations now, whats to stop them from constantly watching us 10 or 15 years from now.
I'm not doing anything illegal either, but its the principal. - JPOOPOO, on 11/12/2007, -1/+6Because guns are a gateway to violence, of course
- AdamGeld, on 11/13/2007, -1/+6Ok, well I'll search your computer anyway! Get in line, citizen. -zap-
- kag9000, on 11/13/2007, -0/+5Exactly! Mr Kerr needs to shift his definition of what a public servant is and shut his mouth.
- bjornski, on 11/13/2007, -1/+6Yeah! The fact that it pertains to large companies which do massive amounts of business on the internet, and using the information gained from it, well, I guess that has nothing to do with technology, or the net at all.
- thebrawl, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4Someone should get that guy's phone number, address, and other personal information and then make it "private"
- inactive, on 11/13/2007, -2/+6No...***** this government. ***** this government at least since 1913 when they screwed us with the Federal Reserve and the 16th Amendment.
And ***** you too. Judgmental ass. - AdamGeld, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4No, your mind is the gateway. The gun is the tool. It can be used to stop violence against you, by using more violence, if necessary.
- inactive, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3A fascinating counterargument to the Surveillance State I had not thought of; thank you.
- zanzzz, on 11/13/2007, -1/+4@ testcase
The problem is that the type of people you describe are very clever. They are not half wits. What they lack is wisdom and so their intelligence is dangerous. Take Bush for example. Many people conclude he is not very intelligent but that is clearly not true. He is not a curious or intellectually ambitious person but still intelligent. What makes him dangerous is the many ways he acts on the profoundly misguided beliefs he holds dear. He lacks wisdom in leadership and for that he becomes more of a threat to this country than the perceived threats he acts against. - williamdyer, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3Seems to me that the Wikipedia entry for Mr. Kerr and his family is woefully underdeveloped.
- inactive, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3What is he gonna do if a state decided to prohibit any form of privacy? It would be unconstitutional for Ron Paul to intervain, his own head would implode, you are *****.
- emt1451, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3Can someone point me in a direction to get complete anonymous web surfing for a mac user? I've had enough of this government spying *****. I don't do anything illegal so I shouldn't be watched.
- bjornski, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3They haven't gunned down 2 million Pepsi drinkers (nice strawman). But you just TRY and get in the way of their profits.
http://lrights.igc.org/projects/corporate/coke/ - inactive, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3I don't recall ever seeing a transcript of any of my telephone calls when I type my name into Google's search bar.
- ZachSka87, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2I agree. ;)
- testcase, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Brilliant!
- williamdyer, on 11/13/2007, -2/+4***** pigs like you. Authoritarian pigs have no place on this planet, except as fertilizer.
- KingGorilla, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2If I'm going to have no freedom whatsoever can I at least be safe from being anally raped
- JoeRW, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Wow, thats frigging shocking.
- inactive, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3Not even a little bit. This administration is the naked and hypocritical face of pure evil.
- testcase, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3If Patrick Henry made a public statement like that now, he would be on a terrorist watch-list so fast it would be ridiculous.
Try this quick quiz: name one Founding Father who wouldn't be doing 20 years as a terrorist under the Patriot Act if he were alive today.
Now try this test: read the Declaration of Independence and tell me what Thomas Jefferson would have to say about the crimes of George W. Bush. Here's a hint - condoning the torture of anyone, let alone persons not convicted of any crime in a court of law is a bit more serious than "taxation without representation". - kreneskyp, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2until they try to change what is and isn't illegal. Before you say "they wouldn't do that they are our benevolent government" it used to be illegal (well enforced at least) to search you.
- thecatcantalk, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Nice.
- thecatcantalk, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1lol bc (fr. Wikipedia) Herostratus (nom de plume 2 entries up) (Greek: ‘Ηρόστρατος) was a young man who set fire to the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus (currently in western Turkey) in his quest for fame on July 21, 356 BC. The temple was constructed of marble and was considered the most beautiful of some thirty shrines built by the Greeks to honor their goddess of the hunt and the wild. The temple was also one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.
Far from attempting to evade responsibility for his act of arson, Herostratus proudly claimed credit in order to immortalize his name in history. In order to dissuade similar-minded fame-seekers, the Ephesean authorities not only executed Herostratus, but condemned him to a legacy of obscurity by forbidding mention of his name under the penalty of death. Obviously, this harsh stipulation did not preclude Herostratus from achieving his goal, as the ancient historian Theopompus recorded the event and Herostratus in his history. - Tabris, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1you mean...fu:hrer?
- Herostratus, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1This is exactly what was meant in the declaration of independance and I quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Primarily I make reference to the line:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
First you must understand the language used.
Usurp:
transitive verb1 a: to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right b: to take or make use of without right 2: to take the place of by or as if by force : supplant intransitive verb: to seize or exercise authority or possession wrongfully
Invariably:
adverb : on every occasion
Evince:
transitive verb : 1: to constitute outward evidence of 2: to display clearly
design: used as synonym of plan
Despotism:
noun : 1: rule by a despot 2: a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power
OK, now that you understand the words go back up and read that line again. Now do you know what it says? Good! Now, go and read the Bill of Rights (get definitions for big words at www.webster.com) make sure you understand, and then move on to the Constitution. Starting to see a trend yet? Good! Now, find your nearest activist group and tell them: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!" (www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ELleCQvew) -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is