We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Andre Laurin • 10 months ago

At the rate the UK keeps passing such insane laws it won't be long before the people of UK will be moving to North Korea so they can live in a country that has more freedoms and less surveillance. As insane as that sounds and it is insane.

nimbus • 10 months ago

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

TechFan • 10 months ago

I don't blame you, everyone misquotes this, just as much as people misquote Star Wars with "Luke, I am your father" which was never in the movie.

It has zero to to with American's privacy. Not your fault, people that are so pro-privacy, even for Terrorist, have misquoted it for decades now. Don't get me started with the right to bear arms (note, I own a gun, but people butcher what our forefathers meant). I would like to add, those words, even wrong, are great before nuclear and biological attacks :) Anyone intelligent needs to understand there has to be a balance with privacy and security, to pick only one is just stupid.

Bob Grant • 10 months ago

"(note, I own a gun, but people butcher what our forefathers meant)"

So what in your opinion did they mean? It definitely wasn't about hunting. There is plenty of contextual evidence to support the conclusion that they were talking about it for the defense of the citizen against an oppressive government.

TechFan • 10 months ago

LOL - No. Here is a good link. You are correct, but most say they need it for hunting, protection, just because. And then sadly, the ones that do understand it, don't fully. Even deeper, good luck trying to stop any current government with tanks, jets, bombs and so on. Typing fast, late for a meeting.

http://www.truth-out.org/op...

Bob Grant • 10 months ago

And what part of any of that countered my assertion that it was to protect the citizens from an oppressive government? I never specified "from the US government"...

Also, that "you shouldn't even consider going against the US government because you're outgunned" argument gets really old, really fast. You've seen what some nutjob with a semi-auto can do already, what with all the mass shootings around the country. Now amplify that by thousands, all of whom are not batshit crazy, and are targeting nothing but a corrupt government... Predator drones can't do shit when you're standing next to the person that the drone is supposed to be protecting.

PC_Tool • 10 months ago

People seem to rally against being genuine these days. They'd rather hide behind mis-quotes, false implication, and drama than intellect, logic, or reason.

At least this way, when they get laughed at, they can claim, "Well, I didn't say it! Ben did!"

PC_Tool • 10 months ago

And the award for quote most frequently taken out of context goes to...

It was a good sound-byte and got picked up by those who know that high drama generates an emotional, rather than intellectual, reaction - so that few would stop to think about the context.

It almost (but not quite) meant exactly the opposite of how you are using it. It's is pro-tax and pro-defense and had literally fu*k-all to do with privacy or liberty. It was a tax dispute between a family with support of the Governor and the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

...but he used pretty words. (...and that's about as far as most people are willing to think it through)

nimbus • 10 months ago

"I don't think you understand that what Franklin meant one way, we can mean entirely another -- both can be sincere, and both uses are entirely appropriate. Nothing is lost by attributing the quote, either.

The stance that personal liberty and immunity from government oversight of personal and consensual activities is a good thing, and that trading these off for (generally the illusion of, but very occasionally the actuality of) safety is an act so vile that it renders the trader unworthy of those liberties and immunity, is a very well established one. Franklin's words then fit such an outlook today very well, regardless of what he intended them to mean at the time.

Words are like that. When we aren't talking about law, words are tools to be used as we see fit. As they should be."

PC_Tool • 10 months ago

"regardless of what he intended them to mean"

lmao...

Um, okay. Yeah. People *love* it when folks take their words out of context and twist them to mean something entirely different.

"Nothing is lost by attributing the quote"

...and they then really love the tacit implication that they said it to mean exactly what you've twisted it to mean.

Sorry, but if you can't just say what you mean in your own words, then you apparently haven't thought about it terribly much.

Guest • 10 months ago
JasonBorchard • 10 months ago

Only a true moron scoffs at the genius of Benjamin Franklin.

Guest • 10 months ago
JasonBorchard • 10 months ago

Yeah and he was still many times smarter than you are, more accomplished (who isn't), better read, had a better grasp of current affairs. Meanwhile his investigations into electricity paved the way for the internet.

But most of all, human nature hasn't changed much in 200 years. The aphorism quoted above is at least as relevant today as it was in the 18th century. There are still those out there who would seek to use knowlege of your private activities to better control your life, robbing you of liberty. But I can tell you don't care about liberty. You want a leviathan figure to tell you right from wrong. Well, I'm him. You're wrong. If I met you in person I would spit on your face before pummeling it with my fists until you're a bloody pulp

Order_66 • 10 months ago

Coming soon to the USA, we're already 80% there.

Guest • 10 months ago
Order_66 • 10 months ago

What the hell does a mythological character have to do with privacy?

Guest • 10 months ago
Bob Grant • 10 months ago

We can hope... But if Congress gets it in their heads, they can still push it through even with a veto from Trump.

Hall9000 • 10 months ago

""BoltmanLives Order_66 • 2 hours ago

At least it'll be in open with no belief in Santa Claus/Snowden privacy""

Yup, it's true. Now here is my take on it. Instead of saying what I just quoted I would have said Welcome To The Absolute Nanny State.

Remember when you were a kid? Your parents had the right(supposedly) to invade your privacy. As in your closets, drawers, treehouse even. You had absolutely no say, even as teens. Of course, as kids they had this wonderful carrot called Santa to make you behave. Then, one day you became old/wise enough to see through the smoke screen.The real problem is that you believed that since you had finally grown up that you would finally have the holly grail called privacy. WRONG! The State is the parent for the adults around it. The State has the right to wave a carrot in front of you. That carrot is of course "security". Privacy is to be seen as optional.

Orwell's "1984" was a warning, not a how to book. And there lies the problem. Some have decided to see it as a how to book and they are implementing it with a vengeance.

P.S.= Some are asking for BoltmanLives to be banned. That is something I do not support because I do believe in freedom of speech, even if it is extremely controversial, or not. :-P

Azmodan • 10 months ago

The five pillars of evil - Russia, China, USA, UK, Turkey and UK is close to the worst. Good to see UK lost one piece of shit in Cameron to be replaced by another piece of shit in May, that yet again talked utter crap in trying to delude voters how' she'll be different, but just returns the Tories to their true gutter origins.

faze • 10 months ago

This is only the beginning. Why? Because those in power know that a very few individuals can cause extreme havoc. Surveillance is going to be universal, and it will eventually be interconnected among certain nations, even nations that are traditional enemies.

Citizens need to demand transparency from these surveillance networks. If we don't get that transparency, we are heading for uncharted waters.

nOOb • 10 months ago

Now that humans are not needed anymore it's just a matter of completely ignoring democracy or even killing off everyone and there is nothing in this universe that can stop them now and it will happen

baggman744 • 10 months ago

Not that's it's been an impediment to the US government, but last time I checked, we have a thing called "The Bill of Rights." And in that constitutional document is something called The Fourth Amendment. The ongoing debate will continue to be how to balance the right of privacy, with that of security. Welcome to the 21st century folks. Hold to your seats, it's going to be a bumpy ride for the foreseeable future.

Hall9000 • 10 months ago

Really? Why should it be so? Take the idiot that decided to mow down people a few days ago. He wasn't on any list or type of surveillance, none. Supposedly, we are to believe that increased surveillance would protect us from such idiots. That is an absolute lie. The only way it could be done is through actual mind reading and even that could end up as simply a thought crime where one was fantasizing about mowing down people. That balance you speak of is broken and no one wants to admit it.

Zatara • 10 months ago

Minority Report <3

Should be mandatory viewing for everyone who gets elected into public office, really, though most of those idiots are too stupid to even understand the movie in the first place, I suppose.

Hall9000 • 10 months ago

Saw that movie and I'd have to also include Equilibrium. Of course there is the absolute 1984. Point is that it is now the age of the thought police. Just check the following link. http://betanews.com/2016/12...

Zatara • 10 months ago

Oh, yeah, if it's not the State, it's the Social Justice Warriors shaming us for being "wrong" >.>

Good call on Equilibrium, btw.

Guest • 10 months ago
baggman744 • 10 months ago

Privacy died back in the 20th century, and its never coming back. Its our way of life today whether we like it or not.

berlihingen • 10 months ago

At least I can see now why Brits was so eager for Brexit.

PC_Tool • 10 months ago

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the next few years. I believe the entire concept of "privacy" may actually see its end soon. It'll be one hell of ride, I am sure.

JasonBorchard • 10 months ago

Come off it. That's exactly what the oligarchs want you think. There will still be privacy for those competent enough to get it. The deals that run the world will still get made behind closed doors. Not that they should.

What you are describing is the "asymmetry of information". The powers that be want to have as much information about the populace as possible, while they want to the populace to be as ignorant as possible. Don't go willingly into the world of Orwell's 1984. Don't let them rope you into a comfortable bliss, because after that, your life as a creative being is over. They might as well be lulling you off to an early death, except it will just be parking you in a VR tank and occasionally coercing you to vote for the demagogue of the hour.

PC_Tool • 10 months ago

lmao...

The Drama is strong with this one...

Guest • 10 months ago
JasonBorchard • 10 months ago

Strong encryption my friend

TrickyDickie • 10 months ago

That's no good here in the UK... You can get 2 years of porridge if you fail to or refuse to hand over keys lol

Bob Grant • 10 months ago

Play dumb... "What keys?"

TrickyDickie • 10 months ago

Apparently not a good enough excuse lol

Guest • 10 months ago
JasonBorchard • 10 months ago

It's an interesting point you make. I think the danger of hardware / firmware backdoors are in the CPU, RAM, I/O layers, drivers, things like that. The HDD and SD card in theory just see blocks of binary bits. If the data's already been encrypted by the time it hits the storage media, you're good.

Fantasm • 10 months ago

We are definately in an age when sensitive data should be encrypted everywhere, including at home...

Guest • 10 months ago
PC_Tool • 10 months ago

Here's a thought: If you don't like what he has to say, block him.