1) Yes. I wanted to share my improved tin foil hat design but fear that it might be compromised if it goes public.
2) No. I have nothing to hide and I'm quite certain that the shadowy government agencies spying on me are sufficiently restrained by secret and democratically unaccountable courts. They all have my best interests in mind.
3) I choose to self-censor this response.
I propose the following be applied to posts predicting racist posts:
Incidentally, this was a new one for me: "Whoever thunk it stunk it."
Not only that, but tech stuff commonly has a price drop in January...
Want to give tech stuff to a loved one for Christmas? Russian Orthodox Christians have got this thing figured out.
Why, that's lunacy! That's nothing but a bunch of [right wing conspiracy theory/left wing agitation, depending upon which audience we're dealing with]! Such a thing would never happen.
According to President Harry S. Truman, Hoover transformed the FBI into his private secret police force; Truman stated that "we want no Gestapo or secret police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him".
Why would congress or the president want to stop this? It's a serious question because I don't understand how any adult in the US today honestly thinks that any of the powers that be have any interest in stopping any of this.
Because the people in power are self-interested and as much as they despise complaints from the plebs they don't want to be treated like them. They (the Congress more than the president) have a very good reason to want this stopped and that's so it won't be used against them.
That is not to say they'll act to stop it, but you only asked why they might want to stop it. Whatever they might individually want, they won't do anything to stop it. They've the wolf by the ears.
It's difficult to imagine how the NSA can possibly survive all of this.
Well Mr. Congressman, we understand your concerns. But before you vote to restructure the agency, we've some material you might like to see. Now, don't ask how we got our hands on your browsing records, records which will offend the religious sensibilities of your conservative voters and the racial sensitivities of your liberal voters, but we just wanted you to know that our agency is doing everything in its power to make sure such things don't become public record.
How would the NSA prove that the "private" browsing activity that they are exposing is really their activity and not something they made up?
We can't tell you. National security.
Oh, by the way, your family might find your browsing history from last week interesting. You wouldn't want to change your publicly stated opinions on our programs would you?
In reality, you'll just be convincing the people who already don't like that person that he is a filthy disgusting bad person. And the people who approved of his ideas will claim it is a conspiracy by the NSA/FBI/CIA/whatever to discredit him and that those pictures were planted.
And that's one of the (many) problems with this whole system. Here it wouldn't be a question of agents having to sneak into a guy's house and plant the material. They'll just claim that he browsed such sites and the rest of us will be expected to take their word for it. "Where's the evidence to support this claim?" "We can't tell you. National security."
Sure. But notice the timing. Enclosure became increasingly common during the same period that groundwork was laid for the bourgeois economic revolution. This was not so much a feature of the system as it was a sign of its demise. No system lasts forever. But traditional rights had greater staying power than, say, unions.
There's a basic problem with any system of "obligations and rights" against a class that relies on a political system in the hands of that same class for its enforcement.
I agree. But that's also what we have now, just without the meager constraints of tradition. The governmental system we have, the one we expect to defend the rights of the worker, is largely subservient to the same worker's employer. A given politician may claim to care about an "associate" at Walmart, but he depends upon the wealthiest shareholders for campaign contributions and lobbyists to write legislation.
In any case, my purpose is not to say, 'Wouldn't it be great if we were all serfs?' The disappearance of serfdom was no great loss, so long as it was replaced by something better such as a free peasantry, skilled laborers owning their own capital, and a wide distribution of real property. My purpose was to say that the direction we're going points to something worse than serfdom. It points to an ever growing class of people who own nothing, whose lives depend upon a paycheck which can disappear in a moment, and who will not therefore be in a position to object to ever greater abuses. If this seems a little extreme, I would point out that in the U.S. the government forcing people to buy insurance from private corporations is decried by the opposition as socialism. In a system where the left demands you give money to the corporations and the right regards this as an abuse of business interests, where will one find the political will to oppose anything a corporate lobbyist demands?
The democracy has been captured by plutocrats and, what is worse still, the populace is suffering Stockholm syndrome.