Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What is so sacred about privacy? (Score 1) 511

I have nothing that I need to hide.

Just like all the people throughout history who were horribly abused or massacred by corrupt governments had 'nothing to hide.' Even if you believe that you've done nothing insidious, those in power may have a different opinion of you. What you fail to realize is that governments aren't made up of perfect beings; they can, have, and will harm you if they so feel like it. History provides ample evidence of this, and so I think you have plenty to hide, but that doesn't mean you've done anything wrong.

And since I believe privacy is a basic human desire, I'll have to reject your other ideas.

Comment Re:Read the opinion (Score 1) 511

His ruling was based on similar case

...In which the government once again undermined the constitution and people's rights. I do not think it's a good idea to allow the government to let corporations spy for them.

You willfully use Facebook and Google's services

No, I don't. Also, giving information to private companies != giving government thugs permission to collect it also.

Comment Re:Useful vs Legal? (Score 1) 511

If you believe the government should be able to violate the constitution, then you believe the government should be able to do as it pleases.

If you do not like the constitution, try to amend it. Do not just ignore it. The constitution does not give the government the power to ignore it, so it doesn't have any authority to do so.

Comment Re:Now if the shoe was on the other foot... (Score 1) 224

It's objectively bad to live somewhere that can see you stoned to death because you were raped by somebody else.

It's objectively bad to live somewhere that sees schoolteachers dragged out into the street and shot in the head for teaching girls to read.

Neither of those things are objectively bad, and there is no magical opinion fairy who decides such things. Pretty much everyone would agree with them, but popularity does not make those things objective facts.

Comment Re:Dramatic nonsense. (Score 1) 224

No, their complaints aren't private...because they post them immediately to Facebook, snapchat them to someone else, or can't help but tweet their latest crisis to their 465 followers. Surprise, announcing your private thoughts and feelings to hundreds if not thousands makes it unlikely your thought is "private".

You do realize this is about surveillance, right? Even if you have nothing to do with Facebook, your communications are still being monitored.

They can have "private thoughts".

Oh, that's nice.

There are even lots of opportunities for actual privacy

And thanks to modern technology and governments that are willing to use said technology to infringe upon people's rights, the number of such opportunities is decreasing.

(unless you choose to avail yourself of modern communications).

Well, that's kind of the problem, isn't it? This is the information age, and I don't exactly expect people to abandon modern communications just so they can ensure that their corrupt governments aren't spying on those sorts of communications.

Comment Re: Easy answer (Score 2) 224

I am failing to see the difference between distributed mass surveillance and a centrally operated one.

You honestly don't see the difference between the government installing surveillance equipment everywhere in public places that gives them the ability to 'be' in many places at once and collect all the data with a high degree of certainty and some random person who may or may not have a camera recording you and then perhaps uploading the footage to Youtube? Even if someone happens to record you, there is little reason they'd bother uploading the video unless something interesting happened. The government, however, collects the data to get a list of targets they can harass.

The differences are pretty clear to me, and I don't see why you would fail to see them.

Comment Re:Enough (Score 2) 224

There are whistle blower laws that would have protected him if he'd played by the rules.

Funny indeed. If he'd played by the rules, the American people, in all likelihood, would still be ignorant of what their government is doing. When the government is violating the constitution and people's rights, I think the people need to be the first to know. Forget idiotic rules.

Comment Re: Easy answer (Score 3, Insightful) 224

No, it isn't. Even in public places, you have some degree of privacy.

And mass surveillance is far, far different from some random person seeing you in a public place. I don't think they should even be compared. Privacy in regards to someone seeing you in a public place and privacy in regards to mass surveillance are two different things.

Comment Re:Congratulations! (Score 1) 312

Anyone will know, it will take one other attack for the General public to go up and screaming back at the NSA for not doing its job, if because they didn't see it coming.

That has more to do with their lack of principles (Whatever happened to "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? It never existed.) than what Snowden has done.

Slashdot Top Deals

A freelance is one who gets paid by the word -- per piece or perhaps. -- Robert Benchley