Bush: Inaction on FISA endangers US

[Logan13]

My beef with the Iran deal is that the world isnt consistent, Iran is complying with the NPT, if that isnt good enough we should change the NPT. If we are going to have a working global proliferation prevention the same rules must apply to all countries without exception and regardless of their political relations with the US.

I am all for changing the NPT btw in such a way so that situations like this doesnt happen.

When evidence is presented that shows Iran has a weapons program I will support any messure to prevent them. I am not giving Iran the benefit of a doubt, I belive they are up to something fishy. But my belife is not more important than internationall treaties.

When it comes to the surveillance it comes down to individuals. I do not trust that every individuall working with such a system is honorable, its a impossibility. Power is always abused. There is also the simple thing that anyone up to something bad will probably use encryption rendering the whole system completely and utterly useless in preventing terrorists. So the system is crap and it infringes upon individuals. The mere fact that they can read what I write is a insult towards my privacy. Its no different from opening my mail, would you agree if the post office started to open and read letters to se if anything illegal is written?

all that typing and you still have not answered the question:
"Why do you give Iran more of a benfit of doubt than Sweden or the US?"

[Kärnfysikern]

all that typing and you still have not answered the question:
"Why do you give Iran more of a benfit of doubt than Sweden or the US?"

Its not about benifit of a doubt, it is about following the international treaties put into place. Its also that it is simply impossbible for Iran to build a bomb within a short timeframe with the equipment they have unless they are hiding huge installation somewhere, something no expert seems to belive. But if they are hiding installations the entire Iran discussion is moot because all talk is about the known installations.

When it comes to surveillande there is no doubt whatsoever that if there is no public insight the system WILL be abused. You said earlier that you break no law by posting here, well you aint breaking the law when discussing bombs either.

Yet you are willing to put anyone under surveillance because they say or write something someone higher up find suspicious and you dont have a problem with not having any insight whatsoever in that system.

Answere just this one question. Would you have no problem with the postoffice opening all your outgoing and incoming letters and packages just to make sure your not writing anything suspicious?

[Logan13]

Its not about benifit of a doubt, it is about following the international treaties put into place. Its also that it is simply impossbible for Iran to build a bomb within a short timeframe with the equipment they have unless they are hiding huge installation somewhere, something no expert seems to belive. But if they are hiding installations the entire Iran discussion is moot because all talk is about the known installations.

When it comes to surveillande there is no doubt whatsoever that if there is no public insight the system WILL be abused. You said earlier that you break no law by posting here, well you aint breaking the law when discussing bombs either.

Yet you are willing to put anyone under surveillance because they say or write something someone higher up find suspicious and you dont have a problem with not having any insight whatsoever in that system.

Answere just this one question. Would you have no problem with the postoffice opening all your outgoing and incoming letters and packages just to make sure your not writing anything suspicious?

I will not answer a "what if" theoretical question. This is not the case, so it has no bearing on the discussion. The fact that you are so concerned about all of the hypotheticals is what I find alarming.

[Kärnfysikern]

I will not answer a "what if" theoretical question. This is not the case, so it has no bearing on the discussion. The fact that you are so concerned about all of the hypotheticals is what I find alarming.

So you dont se the symmetri if the situation. What is the difference betwen a email and a posted letter. None at al. I require the same privacy with my emails that I do from my "real" mail.

The fact that you seem completely unable to answere questions about analogus situations is a bit odd.

Once again, how do you prevent a system from becoming corrupt if there is no public insight?

[Logan13]

So you dont se the symmetri if the situation. What is the difference betwen a email and a posted letter. None at al. I require the same privacy with my emails that I do from my "real" mail.

The fact that you seem completely unable to answere questions about analogus situations is a bit odd.

Once again, how do you prevent a system from becoming corrupt if there is no public insight?

Again, I have no time to debate the theoretical.

[thegodfather]

I will not answer a "what if" theoretical question. This is not the case, so it has no bearing on the discussion. The fact that you are so concerned about all of the hypotheticals is what I find alarming.

It is not a theoretical question really... Your ELECTRONIC MAIL is mail, no different than if it was written on paper and you put a stamp on it. You have the exact same expectation of privacy in that correspondance as you do in other correspondance. You have one intended recipient, and if any 3rd party violates that privacy, they need to do so following due process of law with a warrant, as is clearly stated in the 4th Amendment.