The Database State

[»doc flabby]

Where I live we are increasingly turning into a monitored and totalitarian state.

 

laws passed to catch "terrorists" are being used to pusure ordinary people

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7369543.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7341179.stm

 

Yesterday there "representatives" of our country voted to allow someone to be detained for 42 days without charge.

That means you can be locked up for 42 days then released. It allows people to be taken out of society arbitrarily.

 

You might think so what, i'm not a terrorist, i have nothing to fear

pretty much anyone can be detained as a "terrorist" under the terrorism act.

 

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/new...2282045,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579334.ece

http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html

http://blog.penguinpowered.org/2007/12/19/...rist-in-the-uk/

[NBVegita]

V for Vendetta anyone?

[Aileron]

I don't like the conclusion of the first article. They propose a 'solution' of requiring a judge to sign-off before using the system. That will make things worse. Ripa should simply be limited to misdemeanors, no judge required. The task of catching terrorists is something that legal experts are woefully incapable of handling.

 

 

You know while in the UK they voted to put people in jail without charges, in the US the Supreme Court voted to give cons!@#$%^&*utional rights to detainees. In the leftist/rightist mentality there was one step in each direction, but I actually disagree with BOTH decisions!

 

 

The reality is, terrorists are enemies, not criminals. The reason why the terrorist legal definition is dysfunctionally broad is because an enemy is typically someone who hasn't committed a crime, though it is not wrong to lock them up - it's war. Generally the mutual understanding in a relationship between enemies is that we'd kill them and they'd kill us if things were different.

 

On the other, criminals are not terrorists. They deserve to have charges pressed.

[Bak]

perhaps then we should be required to prove they are, in fact, enemies?

[GameTime]

Where I live we are increasingly turning into a monitored and totalitarian state.

 

laws passed to catch "terrorists" are being used to pusure ordinary people

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7369543.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7341179.stm

 

Yesterday there "representatives" of our country voted to allow someone to be detained for 42 days without charge.

That means you can be locked up for 42 days then released. It allows people to be taken out of society arbitrarily.

 

You might think so what, i'm not a terrorist, i have nothing to fear

pretty much anyone can be detained as a "terrorist" under the terrorism act.

 

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/new...2282045,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579334.ece

http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html

http://blog.penguinpowered.org/2007/12/19/...rist-in-the-uk/

 

And people say there is a difference between the USA and UK, seems unlikey from what I see.

[Dav]

Thankfully the government agrees with the concerns raised here, and rightly so!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7468430.stm

 

Nice to see that there is a limit to how far the surveillance state will go.

[FMBI]

And people say there is a difference between the USA and UK, seems unlikey from what I see.

 

Thank you. Thank you. How I have longed to see someone admit it.

 

The USA doesn't have a government camera on every corner, but we do have dozens of security cameras in every store (I remember a 50-year old business my father worked in - small grocery store - that had 8 of them), complete internet logging, and nonexistent corporate accountability (Bush set a jolly precedent with the spying telecoms, didn't he?).

 

Have you ever looked at this? (For those too lazy to click, it's a chart showing the best and worst privacy respecting nations in the world - The USA ranks all the way up with China, Russia, and Taiwan. Nice to see that we're as good as nations that we routinely denounce for being totalitarian, isn't it?)

Edited June 24, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[NBVegita]

but we do have dozens of security cameras in every store

 

Whats wrong with that? You bet your !@#$%^&* if I own a store I'm going to have a security system.

 

And I don't see where corporate accountability falls into your argument.

 

Ultimately I don't think U.S. laws are as "totalitarian" as you're trying to represent them. Yes they do harshly effect a minority which does need to change, but as a whole we still have a lot of the freedoms allocated to us via our cons!@#$%^&*ution. Not to say work doesn't need to be done but that is the problem with a democracy. If 60% of Americans vote to take away the privacy to X, then we lose privacy to X. There is a dual problem with both government and civilians concerning privacy.

[Samapico]

Have you ever looked at this? (For those too lazy to click, it's a chart showing the best and worst privacy respecting nations in the world - The USA ranks all the way up with China, Russia, and Taiwan. Nice to see that we're as good as nations that we routinely denounce for being totalitarian, isn't it?)

!@#$%^&*, Canada is 'decaying'

[FMBI]

Silly me, Veg, you're right. Why would I think that having your name, address, phone number, social security number, purchasing habits, and internet record tossed around to various companies, and being filmed everywhere you go (with no regulations on film disposal) might be kinda, well, invasive?

 

And corporate accountability? Corporate accountability is where if somebody does something illegal, they actually get in trouble - or, in our current situation, things that are illegal stay illegal, instead of being made legal while companies talk about "efficiency" or "helping the consumer."

 

And.. As for the totalitarian part?

 

What's your first thought when you think of the old Soviet bloc or China? Everywhere you go, they're watching - step out of line, you get in trouble. That can't completely happen here until corporations and government become indistinguishable (by 2020 or so), but in the meantime, it's rather disturbing that the government uses corporations to abuse loopholes, while corporations beg government for more access into our lives. If the government (or the corporate-government en!@#$%^&*y of the future) decides to actually crack down, then suddenly we'll go from a rapid decay of privacy to a complete lack of privacy and freedom.

 

I'd call that totalitarian. In this case, no, the camel is not completely under the tent - but we're a long way past the nose.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[NBVegita]

First off your name, address, phone number (unless otherwise requested), purchasing habits as a matter of fact are not private information. Never have been.

 

The only case I've ever seen where someone can "sell" your ss# is your creditor to a debt collector. Any other form of doing that is illegal (so I'm 99% positive, Hoch would know for sure) and would thus be prosecutable.

 

As for your internet records I believe it was verizon who has stalwartly combatted every inquiry into their users browsing habits. Only in criminal suits (ie child porn and the like) do they give up your information. Remember, the internet is not a free public service. You know full well that you are submitting yourself to the whims of multiple organizations when you decide to join the internet. I mean thats like signing up for the biggest loser and complaining about having to exercise.

 

As for being filmed, why as a store owner should I not be able to video tape my own property? Specially in the interest of protecting my own property. The same goes for government buildings. I don't see a problem with the government using security cameras to protect the building and it's employees (whom are citizens if you forgot).

 

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You can stay under the radar in everything but you lose things like credit. My parents don't even show up if you try to run their credit. They have never put any personal information on the internet, that includes credit cards. Yes they've never bought anything over the internet. In fact they've each never owned a credit card, nor have they ever taken out a loan from a bank. The only information you could find on my parents is their address and phone number in the phone book. The only companies that have their ss#'s are their bank, the U.S. post office and the SS administration.

 

Corporate accountability is where if somebody does something illegal, they actually get in trouble - or, in our current situation, things that are illegal stay illegal, instead of being made legal while companies talk about "efficiency" or "helping the consumer."

 

Please elaborate. When has something that was illegal become legal because a company says it would help the consumer?

 

Also elaborate on this corporate/government beast you're so certain is coming.

 

as a whole we still have a lot of the freedoms allocated to us via our cons!@#$%^&*ution

[Aileron]

Bak, the fact that organized international terrorists are enemies of a lot of western countries should be obvious. Criminals are people who don't follow the law. Terrorists generally want to overthrow and change the law. The fact that they intend to overthrow a government's major legal structure through force places them in the 'military' category, as criminals do not engage in that sort of behavior.

 

 

Finland, those people have an agenda. It should be obvious with the blatant lack of teal and green on that map. Generally, they say that there are countries with no cameras at all, but the moment someone puts some up the whole country is a human rights violator. Sure, they have what looks like Greece in the green (hard to see - its a small map), but other than that its alarmist propaganda.

[JDS]

are there even terrorists? probably not... Media is the only terrorist, and pretty much the people that the media says are terrorists are just mean people.

 

 

Cameras on street corners = bad, as people are not going to steal the street corner

cameras in stores = good , as you don't want people stealing your goods

Edited June 26, 2008 by JDS

[AstroProdigy]

Greece for the win. I have no idea how Greece ranked as #1, but it probably is due to a cultural trait of Greeks (which I should know about as a Greek, but unfortunately no (also I'm from Cyprus, which is ranked red)).

[FMBI]

First off your name, address, phone number (unless otherwise requested), purchasing habits as a matter of fact are not private information. Never have been.

 

They might not be "private information" in the sense that they're there for you and you alone, but when you have companies which make millions selling massive lists of this info to anyone with a hefty billfold, then I think that's a problem. It isn't like the "good old days" when you could trust that anyone who had your info had a reason to have your info. Additionally, as far as the purchasing information revolution goes, that was not a major issue until recently. However, now, with such features as RFID, you're going to be "nothing but a statistic" - except, of course, for when some company wants to blackmail you or bombard you with even more advertising.

 

The only case I've ever seen where someone can "sell" your ss# is your creditor to a debt collector. Any other form of doing that is illegal (so I'm 99% positive, Hoch would know for sure) and would thus be prosecutable.

 

ROFL? It's entirely possible (and note that this has been widely confirmed, it's not simply a matter of shocking anecdotes) for virtually anyone to obtain your social security number with almost no effort. Companies make no effort to protect it. And as far as selling it.. You honestly believe they don't do it? If you really want me to, I can hunt up some horror stories, but I don't feel like it atm.

 

As for your internet records I believe it was verizon who has stalwartly combatted every inquiry into their users browsing habits. Only in criminal suits (ie child porn and the like) do they give up your information. Remember, the internet is not a free public service. You know full well that you are submitting yourself to the whims of multiple organizations when you decide to join the internet. I mean thats like signing up for the biggest loser and complaining about having to exercise.

 

Uh, no. When everything you do is sent off to some big server in the sky (or, rather, to Australia), and it's kept there for years (or longer), I think you have a problem. And I wouldn't consider the data very secure. Again, horror stories await your request.

 

As for being filmed, why as a store owner should I not be able to video tape my own property? Specially in the interest of protecting my own property. The same goes for government buildings. I don't see a problem with the government using security cameras to protect the building and it's employees (whom are citizens if you forgot).

 

A store owner should be able to protect the premises, yes, but when there are virtually no regulations on disposal of film or, indeed, of filming the consumer in the first place (changing rooms anyone?) there is obviously quite a breach of privacy. I've never seen a serious proposal made to deal with this sort of thing. I suppose if you really don't mind having vast parts of your public life put on film for an indeterminate period of time, this shouldn't be a problem?

 

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You can stay under the radar in everything but you lose things like credit. My parents don't even show up if you try to run their credit. They have never put any personal information on the internet, that includes credit cards. Yes they've never bought anything over the internet. In fact they've each never owned a credit card, nor have they ever taken out a loan from a bank. The only information you could find on my parents is their address and phone number in the phone book. The only companies that have their ss#'s are their bank, the U.S. post office and the SS administration.

 

No, you can't stay under the radar, actually. Every single thing you do requires massive amounts of data about your personal life. The only way to get around it is to use cash on every single thing. Kind of easy to do when you want to get a car or a house, eh? It's getting to the point where even the survivalist right nuts like Posse Comitatus don't look so crazy anymore. Joining a bank? Why don't you hand over all your personal and financial data! Making a large purchase? Hey, we want to know more about you! Considering joining a club - We won't let just anyone in, prove you're worth it! The list goes on.

 

Corporate accountability is where if somebody does something illegal, they actually get in trouble - or, in our current situation, things that are illegal stay illegal, instead of being made legal while companies talk about "efficiency" or "helping the consumer."

 

Please elaborate. When has something that was illegal become legal because a company says it would help the consumer?

 

Not even going to bother to cite this one, because virtually every corporate privacy violation over the years has been happily attributed to "ease of purchase" and "enhancing convenience." Spend 5 minutes looking through old laws and lobbying arguments - it's quite depressing.

 

Also elaborate on this corporate/government beast you're so certain is coming.

 

That's really a matter for another topic, but, I suppose I should briefly touch on it. Consider this - the top 10 corporations in the world each had income of more than $170 billion in 2006. These (and other) corporations have invested massive sums into lobbying (for laws that benefit them, naturally), dealing with poor and autocratic states (thus enhancing influence and ensuring long-term profit flows) and often have personal representatives who can heavily influence the votes of politicians. The borders between finance and government have been heavily broken down, and within a decade or so they'll probably have collapsed altogether. On the government side, dozens (or hundreds) of government leaders have taken advantages of the services of foreign corporations to enhance internal security, provide services that they refuse to give to their own people, and help them put a brighter face on tyranny. You've got two different groups, steadily working closer together, and, by its nature, this system is non-democratic. And yet, we're supposed to encourage it, because these are the most compe!@#$%^&*ive corporations under the free market. Cool, huh?

 

as a whole we still have a lot of the freedoms allocated to us via our cons!@#$%^&*ution

 

Which have been chopped at for the last 8 (or, some would say, 16) years, and which, to my (and many others') disappointment shows no sign of stopping after Obama crushes McCain in November. At the very most, he'll prevent a "hostile takeover" of the Supreme Court, which would turn it from its present stay-the-course-support-the-Executive pattern to a let's-!@#$%^&*-the-people program.

 

 

Bak, the fact that organized international terrorists are enemies of a lot of western countries should be obvious. Criminals are people who don't follow the law. Terrorists generally want to overthrow and change the law. The fact that they intend to overthrow a government's major legal structure through force places them in the 'military' category, as criminals do not engage in that sort of behavior.

 

That line doesn't really exist anymore. Groups like FARC, the Taliban, SWAPO, the ANC in the good old days, and many other groups pursue criminal activities either as a large part, or as a massive part, of their programs. When you have groups which ship drugs or establish criminal control over large parts of land, that's criminal activity, even if it's being done by a terrorist group. There are still "pure" terrorist or criminal groups, but, seeing the advantages they can gain from "having a foot in the door" in the other category, many of them are blending their activities.

 

Finland, those people have an agenda. It should be obvious with the blatant lack of teal and green on that map. Generally, they say that there are countries with no cameras at all, but the moment someone puts some up the whole country is a human rights violator. Sure, they have what looks like Greece in the green (hard to see - its a small map), but other than that its alarmist propaganda.

 

I'm always amused by how everything in the world is "an agenda" or "alarmist propaganda" when you present it to a conservative. If you had actually read the reports (apparently you didn't even zoom in on the map?) you'd see that they do have good reasons for their selections. And, as one who's looked into the matter, I'm inclined to agree with them on most of their choices.

 

 

Cameras on street corners = bad, as people are not going to steal the street corner

cameras in stores = good , as you don't want people stealing your goods

 

As I said above, not necessarily good, unless there are laws governing the taping. Do you really want shop owners given free rein on who they watch and how long they keep the tape? I'm sorry, but I don't want my friends ending up on porn sites, or my relatives being discriminated against because they're black.

 

Greece for the win. I have no idea how Greece ranked as #1, but it probably is due to a cultural trait of Greeks (which I should know about as a Greek, but unfortunately no (also I'm from Cyprus, which is ranked red)).

 

My guess would be that Greece got attacked from both sides from 476 until 1453, and then it existed under a foreign state system and religion for almost 500 years. Especially when you have people that are renowned for philosophical thought and idealism, it must kinda suck to first be swarmed by enemies and then enslaved for centuries.

[Dav]

are there even terrorists? probably not... Media is the only terrorist, and pretty much the people that the media says are terrorists are just mean people.

 

 

Cameras on street corners = bad, as people are not going to steal the street corner

cameras in stores = good , as you don't want people stealing your goods

 

Of course there are terrorists, 9/11 and 7/7 wuldnt occur without them (also the IRA in the UK before that)

 

The media overhypes the problem though, people want more done though enhanced fear.

 

At the same time givernments want more control and now have a window to do it in the name of "terror prevention" and thats where things have the potential to go very wrong.

 

cameras on street corners arnt always bad, they have convicted people of some pretty terrible crime in the past. Thing is there has to be a limit on these things. There is no point having 12 cameras on one corner or a camera on a corner where not a lot will happen.

[NBVegita]

sigh.

 

First off what's the difference from a company selling your name and address and phone number vs companies buying local phone books and getting it that way? How does RFID make you a statistic? And even with all of the above information how is a company going to blackmail you?

 

It's entirely possible (and note that this has been widely confirmed, it's not simply a matter of shocking anecdotes) for virtually anyone to obtain your social security number with almost no effort.

 

Only if you're careless with your information. I know you're a high conspiracist but tell me if things like this are so easy, why are there not more iden!@#$%^&*y theft/frauds out there. I mean !@#$%^&* why doesn't everyone with bad credit just steal good credit from someone else? I mean its so easy to do. Yes actually I would like you to find me some articles that show that companies are selling your SS#.

 

Yet again with the internet, why is them storing your browsing information a violation of privacy? Where do they ever claim that you have the right to not have that information stored?

 

of filming the consumer in the first place (changing rooms anyone?)

 

That is blatently illegal. As for disposal regulations I don't know enough to say either way, but if some weirdo digs through the trash (which is illegal) and gets years of video with millions of random people on it, by all means what is he going to do with it? Or are you trying to say that the government stores all of the information so that they can create this interactive file that has every last piece of information concerning your life in it? Ultimately why should you care that mixed in millions of hours of footage there is a 2 minute and 37 second clip of you walking into a store and leaving?

 

Well if you want credit you must deal with the consequences. The reason why you need so much information for credit is to that it's harder for someone pretending to be you (with your SS# they bought from your employer) to get credit in your name. As for the bank, they ask to know all of your pertinent financial information concerning the fact that they are in charge of housing said finances.

 

Not even going to bother to cite this one

 

Please do.

 

And again you've shown nothing besides a radical theory that business and government will merge. Very similar to your idea that the president had the power to stop the election. I mean it is amusing that you think all government agencies and large companies are pure evil and have the absolute worst intentions for everything and everyone but lets get real here. The world is not a giant conspiracy.

 

There is little to no foundation for anything you posted. Ironically both items I asked you to cite, you did not.

[GameTime]

I hope there were no cameras in that "toy" store I was in.

 

[PaRa$iTe]

I recently read in a newspaper that the EU and the US are planning an agreement which would let the US get personal information about people from Europe. Hmm. I sure hope this won't happen, the flight passenger thing was bad enough.

[Aileron]

Finland, I'm not trying to pull that crap. What I am saying is that the expected result would be that there would be some countries low on security on one end, some countries invading privacy on the other, but most of them staying in the middle. Those people consider no one to be in the middle. For instance, the 'bastion of totalitarian fundamentalism' known as Sweden is in the red. Really? I thought Sweden was full of a bunch of soft hippies last time I checked! Sorry, the evaluations you cited don't meet a sanity check.

 

Maybe you could argue that they could merely are off-center, thus implying that we could apply a translational affect on the skewed results to get something more reasonable. But, that logic would be flawed because the fact that the UK is over these people's max and China is also over these people's max doesn't imply they are the same.

 

Imagine a bathroom scale designed to measure a human being up to 100 lbs. If a 500 lb. morbidly obese man steps on it, he maxes it out. If a 180 lb. healthy man steps on it, he also maxes it out. The idiot designed scale would register both men as morbidly obese.

 

 

 

Yes, governments want more control. The reason why is that they need that type of control to prove a terrorist is a terrorist in a court of law while preventing the actions of terrorism in advance simultaneously. Here's an example. It is an old one, but it should serve the purpose.

 

On November 5, 1990, a man by the name of Meir David Kahane, an Israeli official with admittingly expansionist views, was on a speaking tour in the United States at the New York Marriott East Side Hotel in Manhattan. During the speech, an Islamic terrorist by the name of Sayyid Nosair walked into the hotel room, pullout out a .357 magnum modified for assassination, and fired two shots into Kahane from point blank range, in front of quite a lot of witnesses, and shot and wounded two more people while fleeing the scene. Forensics was able to find 3 of the 4 shots fired, and match them to the gun in Nosair's possession.

 

Nevertheless, when it came to trial Nosair was found innocent of the murder charge when tried by a jury of his peers, 'jury of his peers' meaning a bunch of terrorist sympathizers pulled out of various third world countries. Apparently, the conclusion the jury came to was that the gun must have flown out of Nosair's sleeve, floated around the area on its own, shot three men out of its own inanimate free will, and then flew back into his jacket.

 

The point the government is trying to make is that if there were a bunch of cameras in the hotel and outside the street, there might have been enough evidence to convict the man.

 

Or, we could accept the reality that the man wasn't a citizen committing murder, subject to a civilian court, but rather an organization-guided !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*in subject to military tribunal. The problem wasn't the lack of monitoring. The problem was that we were trying to use a system designed for petty thieves against an international !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*in backed by a large m!@#$%^&* movement organization.

 

Now, the rest of the story is that Nosair did get convicted on the illegal gun charge. The judge opted to use every legal trick in the book to put Nosair in prison for 20 years on that charge.

 

 

Want another example? How about Obama's favorite serial bomber, the Weatherman Bomber. He started blowing up government buildings left and right, but when he plotted to blow up a military base, our national security forces were on the ball and managed to stop him. That process however involved an illegal wiretap, and the Weatherman Bomber was acquitted because due process wasn't followed. Look, I'm all for Cons!@#$%^&*utional Rights, but when one plots to launch an attack on an Army base, one shouldn't expect to be visited by a suspicious local cop. If you are plotting to attack a military base, it would be fair to expect the CIA, FBI, NSA, BATF, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the United States Postal Service to have enough monitoring wires shoved up your !@#$%^&* that its hard to walk and enough bugs in your home that the local power grid surges every time you fart.

 

Sorry, plotting to blow up an 'enemy' base is an act of war, not the act of a criminal. If he wanted to play soldier he should have been treated like a soldier. At very least I say we should kick him out of the country he hates so much. There are plenty of Mexicans who would love to take his place.

 

Also, let us plan for the future a little. What will happen if we catch Osama Bin Laden alive and try him for Sept 11th and July 7th? He certainly masterminded the attacks, but we can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt in front of a jury of his peers. We'd have to have his whole life on tape in order to do that. However, if we claim he is an enemy of the entire civilized world, we could certainly prove it and convict him on that.

 

 

The worst thing about it is that we do have all the infrastructure we need. The cameras and monitoring ability our governments have is more than enough. We also have the legal system necessary to defeat terrorists already set up - the Geneva Conventions in regards to how spies are treated, which is summary execution. One could argue an international terrorist is a spy quite easily. If we treat terrorists like criminals, governments would need to trample on human rights to stop them. If we treat them like spies or militia, we won't need to monitor our own citizens nor will we need to write laws which can be turned on our citizens later.

[darkhosis]

And people say there is a difference between the USA and UK, seems unlikey from what I see.

 

Thank you. Thank you. How I have longed to see someone admit it.

 

The USA doesn't have a government camera on every corner, but we do have dozens of security cameras in every store (I remember a 50-year old business my father worked in - small grocery store - that had 8 of them), complete internet logging, and nonexistent corporate accountability (Bush set a jolly precedent with the spying telecoms, didn't he?).

 

Have you ever looked at this? (For those too lazy to click, it's a chart showing the best and worst privacy respecting nations in the world - The USA ranks all the way up with China, Russia, and Taiwan. Nice to see that we're as good as nations that we routinely denounce for being totalitarian, isn't it?)

on a side note you dont live in Finland, but it's an interesting name considering that finland has like zero immigration and such a bi-cultural community, what is it, 93% finn, 6% swede, and 99.7% white, well maybe 99.9% (depending on the gypsy population). theyve got some *very open* immigration laws (cough wheeze). i dont understand why ppl continue to promote "diversity" when it's been shown by these propped up "model" scandinavian countries and others like japan where it's beneficial to society to have homogenous populations. also, how can ppl post in an Africa thread about colonial barriers being wrong based on tribal/ethnic lines (hence violence), but also support nearly unchecked immigration and/or "cultural diverseness"? it's just another one of those bizarre liberal hypocrisies.

 

in regards to your reply perhaps you should start directing some of your vitriol towards a place like Canada where if you dare to POST on a site like stormfront you risk going to prison for a few years. only reason that most people know about it now is because of ezra levant and the danish cartoons.

 

security camera in every store? whats wrong with that? what does this mean, i cant have privacy in a public store? what am i gonna do, jerk off in the aisle or make out with someone in the frozen foods section? you can even have cameras in bathroom areas but shockingly enough it's actually illegal to have cameras in stalls. sorry, im not concerned with my privacy in stores.

 

ps - yes, a bunch of the post 9/11 !@#$%^&* bush has passed does infringe on my privacy/liberties. i dont like it either. that's why im a libertarian and not a republican.

Edited July 1, 2008 by darkhosis

[AstroProdigy]

on a side note you dont live in Finland' date=' but it's an interesting name considering that finland has like zero immigration and such a bi-cultural community, what is it, 93% finn, 6% swede, and 99.7% white, well maybe 99.9% (depending on the gypsy population). theyve got some *very open* immigration laws (cough wheeze). i dont understand why ppl continue to promote "diversity" when it's been shown by these propped up "model" scandinavian countries and others like japan where it's beneficial to society to have homogenous populations. also, how can ppl post in an Africa thread about colonial barriers being wrong based on tribal/ethnic lines (hence violence), but also support nearly unchecked immigration and/or "cultural diverseness"? it's just another one of those bizarre liberal hypocrisies.[/quote']

Keep in mind not all liberals have the same exact opinions. We're generally a more free thinking bunch than some other groups and that means differing opinions. I am of the American persuasion on this issue which means I support more of an !@#$%^&*imilationist model to immigration. Multicultural immigration models in Europe have not passed the test of time like America's model and probably won't.

 

However keeping that in mind the current immigration problems in the US are almost identical to the former ones. The problem will literally disappear as immigration from Mexico dries up and that's a guarantee considering Mexico's birth rates are way down and their economy is growing consistently. If you want to reduce Mexican immigration effectively then don't put an expensive wall over the border, but instead end the free trade policies that force Mexican farmers out of business with forced compe!@#$%^&*ion with highly mechanized, highly subsidized American farm goods.

 

Mexicans also !@#$%^&*imilate quite well into American society unlike what we're all led to believe and it has only been the continuous flow of m!@#$%^&* immigration that's caused it to look otherwise.

 

As America has shown when you have immigrant groups coming into a country they tend to want to fit in and !@#$%^&*imilate quite easily if allowed to, however in Africa where the ethnic groups are based they can't afford to !@#$%^&*imilate because that would destroy their cultures. Also the borders were hobbled together by foreign occupiers, further destroying those borders legitimacy in the face of arbitrary inter ethnic divisions and the cobbling together of groups that are incredibly different from each other.

 

ps - yes' date=' a bunch of the post 9/11 !@#$%^&* bush has passed does infringe on my privacy/liberties. i dont like it either. that's why im a libertarian and not a republican.[/quote']

I'm a social libertarian, but I also believe no system could ever be fair to people's merits economically without a strong safety net and heavy investment in infrastructure.

Edited July 1, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aileron]

Um, sorry my last post was so long that apparently no one bothered to read it. I should have known better.

 

Long post short: If we treat terrorists like spies and soldiers rather than criminals, we won't need things like the Patriot Act or whatever similar thing in the UK which started this thread. Most of our need for such acts stems from the fact that we are trying to use our criminal justice system to do a job it isn't supposed to. We need proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' person X was planning a bombing. If we want to be prudent and stop X before he builds the bomb, rather than in between after he builds it but before he uses it, we need to wiretap his whole life in order to get that proof.

 

Now if an international spy gets caught planning a bombing or assassination, all the authorities need to do is catch him, prove he works for someone, and get some indication of the spies' orders, and they are all set. We never needed the Patriot Act to catch spies! All we need to do is approach terrorism as a military threat, and we won't have to sacrifice any of our civil liberties.

[AstroProdigy]

Most of the people in Guantanamo Bay are innocent. Heck we're holding one guy because he supposedly was a driver for Al Qaeda and got him from people who wanted money for turning in "terrorists". Now add to that all of that nice juicy torture that people like you have been denying, but came out after a while as these things always do at great expense to our international standing.

[PaRa$iTe]

You're exaggarating the Scandinavian demographics. As for Finland, according to Wikipedia, "Foreign citizens comprise 2.3 percent of the population." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Population

Also, Sweden, which definitely is a Scandinavian country, doesn't have nearly as strict an immigration policy. According to Wikipedia, 12% there are foreign-born - and I doubt this counts those who were born in Sweden but whose parents were immigrants.

Edited July 2, 2008 by PaRa$iTe