I can tell you every one of them says they believe it is needed because the IC tells them there are just too many domestic terror threats that need to be monitored.
It's a complicated issue, because as individuals get more destructive power some freedom has to be curtailed or we're in a Great Filter situation. The destructive power an individual today has vs somebody from say the 50s is immense, both from technology and information.
For example, right now any person in the country in their own home can print a smallpox virus using commercial available gene printers for a small amount of money that anyone who knows how can afford. It still takes some technical skill to accomplish, but not really that much.
Unfortunately the people keeping us safe (in government and Big Tech) are also techno fascists.
The real problem with spying on Americans is there's no real oversight to it. One solution is to have like a freedom of information act process where anyone can request information on anyone else, but the process is somewhat costly and open to curtail abuses.
For example, right now any person in the country in their own home can print a smallpox virus using commercial available gene printers for a small amount of money that anyone who knows how can afford. It still takes some technical skill to accomplish, but not really that much.
How many times have they prevented this sort of thing via mass spying?
The real problem with spying on Americans is there's no real oversight to it.
I think the real problem is that it's unconstitutional, and oversight wouldn't change that, nor would it keep them in check. They'd either corrupt the oversight board, or simply ignore them.
There's even a name for it working: parallel construction.
Of course it works. Believing the dogma that they haven't caught anybody is like saying "but torture doesn't work!" or "lie detectors don't work!". All of them work, in their own way, but not in some perfect strawman way you might want them to.
And it's only unconstitutional if it's "unreasonable" and they're searching your person, house, papers, or effects. Your internet electrons leave your vicinity and they're not your personal effects. Whether it's "unreasonable" is for society and the courts to decide.
Really it's a simple question, do you trust every capable person in the country not to produce and distribute smallpox or do any other way of mass destruction? If so then you're nuts, but ok. If you don't then you either somehow prevent crazies from acting out or you restructure society to protect against all likely events like that.
Or you do nothing and wait for your inevitable end.
Spying has successfully halted exactly zero of those type of plots, nor are they capable of doing so, nor are the people pushing them interested in doing so.
Your idea is based on a false premise: the "Great Filter" does not exist because the Fermi Paradox is wrong.
Ask yourself: "What is the range in lightyears that our strongest radio telescopes can detect our strongest outbound radio transmitters?
The answer is any of our radio telescopes could not detect an omni directional transmission from even Proxima Centauri. There is no way we can ask "Where is everybody?" when we can't even see them. And because of that there is no reason to consider that every single civilization has somehow been filtered out, because we couldn't detect them even if they were at our closest neighbors.
It's possible for undetectable aliens to exist AND for us to extinct ourselves through technology or other mass destruction.
It's not a false premise at all, you're simply grasping for any means not to address the real issues (because you know I'm right).
I used homegrown smallpox as an example because it's a real possibility today, this moment. Are you're going to be okay with your 'eccentric' neighbor working away in total privacy on his hobby nuclear bomb, or would you insist something be done about that?
As I said initially, every year individuals become more powerful and so more dangerous to even civilization itself. At some point even a nuclear bomb will be an easy build, so your position surely cannot be "for all time". How long can we allow individuals to do whatever they want in private?
Are you're going to be okay with your 'eccentric' neighbor working away in total privacy on his hobby nuclear bomb.
I am absolutely ok with that, because there needs to be a massive reduction in population, and at least small pox doesn't care who dies.
More importantly, a society that keeps kicking people out and hurting them until they have nothing but hatred left deserve to end. A society that keeps bringing diverse groups together, which inevitably results in conflict deserves to end. But none of those things will end humanity. At most they might destroy a nation.
The only thing that can end humanity is exhaustion of easy energy leaving humanity trapped at the bottom of the gravity well. And that problem is solved by removing useless eaters, the services circlejerk, and the brown swarm.
I am absolutely ok with [my 'eccentric' neighbor working away in total privacy on his hobby nuclear bomb]
Well you're insane then. A nuclear bomb going off in a city is likely to end civilization.
You guys have apparently no concept of how close to armageddon we are. You should read up on history where one Soviet commander just refused to launch nuclear weapons even though he was trained and required to in response to an alert. These close calls have happened several times and that's with whole governments working to prevent them. Put that power into your random mental case and it's game over.
Also biological agents destroying America or other major power could easily lead to the end of civilization.
But even so you think with technology 200 years from now we're going to have the same privacy we do today? I sure hope not because we'll all be dead.
It's a complicated issue, because as individuals get more destructive power some freedom has to be curtailed or we're in a Great Filter situation. The destructive power an individual today has vs somebody from say the 50s is immense, both from technology and information.
For example, right now any person in the country in their own home can print a smallpox virus using commercial available gene printers for a small amount of money that anyone who knows how can afford. It still takes some technical skill to accomplish, but not really that much.
Unfortunately the people keeping us safe (in government and Big Tech) are also techno fascists.
The real problem with spying on Americans is there's no real oversight to it. One solution is to have like a freedom of information act process where anyone can request information on anyone else, but the process is somewhat costly and open to curtail abuses.
How many times have they prevented this sort of thing via mass spying?
I think the real problem is that it's unconstitutional, and oversight wouldn't change that, nor would it keep them in check. They'd either corrupt the oversight board, or simply ignore them.
There's even a name for it working: parallel construction.
Of course it works. Believing the dogma that they haven't caught anybody is like saying "but torture doesn't work!" or "lie detectors don't work!". All of them work, in their own way, but not in some perfect strawman way you might want them to.
And it's only unconstitutional if it's "unreasonable" and they're searching your person, house, papers, or effects. Your internet electrons leave your vicinity and they're not your personal effects. Whether it's "unreasonable" is for society and the courts to decide.
Really it's a simple question, do you trust every capable person in the country not to produce and distribute smallpox or do any other way of mass destruction? If so then you're nuts, but ok. If you don't then you either somehow prevent crazies from acting out or you restructure society to protect against all likely events like that.
Or you do nothing and wait for your inevitable end.
You can't trust the government to watch itself. The proscribed oversight is:
They can ask for a warrant with probable cause.
They can ask the American people to change the Constitution if it's really that important.
We boogaloo.
It's illegal for the agencies to spy domestically, in some cases, but it's not unconstitutional.
Only the law would need to change, which is why the agencies so badly want somebody who won't work to get the law to expire or be repealed.
Spying has successfully halted exactly zero of those type of plots, nor are they capable of doing so, nor are the people pushing them interested in doing so.
In short. Please commit neck rope.
Your idea is based on a false premise: the "Great Filter" does not exist because the Fermi Paradox is wrong.
Ask yourself: "What is the range in lightyears that our strongest radio telescopes can detect our strongest outbound radio transmitters?
The answer is any of our radio telescopes could not detect an omni directional transmission from even Proxima Centauri. There is no way we can ask "Where is everybody?" when we can't even see them. And because of that there is no reason to consider that every single civilization has somehow been filtered out, because we couldn't detect them even if they were at our closest neighbors.
I said "a" Great Filter situation.
It's possible for undetectable aliens to exist AND for us to extinct ourselves through technology or other mass destruction.
It's not a false premise at all, you're simply grasping for any means not to address the real issues (because you know I'm right).
I used homegrown smallpox as an example because it's a real possibility today, this moment. Are you're going to be okay with your 'eccentric' neighbor working away in total privacy on his hobby nuclear bomb, or would you insist something be done about that?
As I said initially, every year individuals become more powerful and so more dangerous to even civilization itself. At some point even a nuclear bomb will be an easy build, so your position surely cannot be "for all time". How long can we allow individuals to do whatever they want in private?
I am absolutely ok with that, because there needs to be a massive reduction in population, and at least small pox doesn't care who dies.
More importantly, a society that keeps kicking people out and hurting them until they have nothing but hatred left deserve to end. A society that keeps bringing diverse groups together, which inevitably results in conflict deserves to end. But none of those things will end humanity. At most they might destroy a nation.
The only thing that can end humanity is exhaustion of easy energy leaving humanity trapped at the bottom of the gravity well. And that problem is solved by removing useless eaters, the services circlejerk, and the brown swarm.
Well you're insane then. A nuclear bomb going off in a city is likely to end civilization.
You guys have apparently no concept of how close to armageddon we are. You should read up on history where one Soviet commander just refused to launch nuclear weapons even though he was trained and required to in response to an alert. These close calls have happened several times and that's with whole governments working to prevent them. Put that power into your random mental case and it's game over.
Also biological agents destroying America or other major power could easily lead to the end of civilization.
But even so you think with technology 200 years from now we're going to have the same privacy we do today? I sure hope not because we'll all be dead.