The discussion revolves around the implications of a domestic intelligence apparatus being developed in the United States for monitoring citizens, particularly in the context of terrorism prevention. Participants explore the subjective nature of "suspicious activity" and its interpretation by authorities, as well as the broader political and ethical concerns regarding privacy and government surveillance.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the monitoring practices or the subjective nature of "suspicious activity." Multiple competing views remain, with some advocating for privacy concerns and others questioning the OP's framing and evidence.
The discussion highlights limitations in clarity and focus, with participants expressing differing interpretations of the OP's intent and the broader implications of the topic. There is an acknowledgment of the subjective nature of the terms being debated.
Washington Post said:Nine years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States is assembling a vast domestic intelligence apparatus to collect information about Americans, using the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators.
The system, by far the largest and most technologically sophisticated in the nation's history, collects, stores and analyzes information about thousands of U.S. citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing.
The government's goal is to have every state and local law enforcement agency in the country feed information to Washington to buttress the work of the FBI, which is in charge of terrorism investigations in the United States.
Other democracies - Britain and Israel, to name two - are well acquainted with such domestic security measures. But for the United States, the sum of these new activities represents a new level of governmental scrutiny.
russ_watters said:Maybe - but what's your point?
1) A clear statement of purpose written by the person starting the thread and contained in the opening post of the thread.
mheslep said:Why should someone have to read eight third party pages at your direction before asking for clarification of the point in a thread you start?
"[URL
[/URL]
Is a person's "suspicious activity" another person's "normal behavior?"
Seriously? For one thing, if the question is only the text you quote then it has no political content and should me moved to General Discussion. Second, without context the question can have almost any interpretation, completely without scope. But we know glancing at the title and the reference that the OP has some political point in mind that the OP wants us to infer. He should state it.lisab said:What's not clear about:
Is a person's "suspicious activity" another person's "normal behavior?"
Correct. So what? Again, what is your point?Mathnomalous said:An individual's personal information may be collected and stored based on a subjective interpretation of "suspicious activity" by a local observer. Afterwards, that personal information may be connected in varying degrees to other individuals's personal information by an analyst searching for any kind of pattern that may "fit" the initial subjectively interpreted "suspicious activity."
Oh, it's much worse than you think, Mathnomalous: I didn't even read the entire quote you posted! There is no reason to read the back-up to a nonexistent point. You need to provide a point to this thread or it will be locked.Btw, good job on reading an 8-page article in 3 minutes...
If you know what the OP's point is, please share. A few questions immediatly pop to mind:lisab said:What's not clear about:
Incorrect. The correct general answer is maybe (in other words, sometimes yes and sometimes no). I'm sure, for example, that you and I sometimes agree on what "suspicious" is (and that it isn't "normal") so sometimes the answer for you and me would be "no".drankin said:I've read a few pages but I'm not reading it all. To answer your question, "yes", one persons suspicious activity is another person's "normal behavior", and visa-versa.
russ_watters said:Incorrect. The correct general answer is maybe (in other words, sometimes yes and sometimes no). I'm sure, for example, that you and I sometimes agree on what "suspicious" is (and that it isn't "normal") so sometimes the answer for you and me would be "no".
So now that that's clear, is there anything else to discus...?
That's not how this forum works (a link to/quote from the rules is posted above). The originator of the thread must provide the point themself.Mathnomalous said:My assumption was that the 8-page report had a clear thesis and I did not have to provide a "point" since any such thing would amount to opinion.
Well that's a point! Not well focused or very clear, but a point nonetheless. Ok, so along with providing a point, you have to prove it. You'll have an uphill climb ahead of yourself to prove any of those assertions (except probably the second) - and you must do it: we require it here. Otherwise, you're just making-up an forwarding your own conspiracy theories and flinging propaganda with nothing behind it. For example, no variant of the terms "Orwell..." or "police state" appear anywhere in that article. This is your thesis, not the thesis of the article and you need to explain/defend it or this thread will be locked. You also still have not explained what your point was with the sentence you wrote in the OP. It almost reads like you think criminals should be making the rules. Is that what you meant?The US Government, State Governments, and Local Governments are violating the privacy of US citizens under the false premise of "terrorism prevention." Taxpayer moneys are being used to conduct surveillance and collect personal information on law-abiding US citizens. Furthermore, the United States is gradually becoming a police state. Finally, American citizens who hold right-wing political ideologies do not care or understand that the US Government is violating the privacy of American citizens and is increasingly becoming an authoritarian State.
Evidence? Reports such as the one by the Washington Post detailing the Orwellian activities of government at all levels.
Mathnomalous said:How would you know those words do not appear in the article if you had not read it? Might as well lock the thread; this subforum is not so much about rational debate as it is about people trying to score points. I think I will limit myself to other areas where people are not so emotionally invested.
Even more reason to condemn the casual use of the term as pejorative against that which is disliked for this or that political reason without support.Proton Soup said:"Orwellian" is perfectly obvious if you are high school-literate.
mheslep said:Even more reason to condemn the casual use of the term as pejorative against that which is disliked for this or that political reason without support.
Who cares?Proton Soup said:what political reason is that?
No.is your use of pejorative pejorative?
I ran a search to be sure.Mathnomalous said:How would you know those words do not appear in the article if you had not read it?
[blink] Your leaving the politics forum will increase the rationality coefficient and decrease the "emotionally invested" coefficient. I've given you every opportunity to be rational instead of emotional and you've declined. For you to suggest the opposite is ridiculous.Might as well lock the thread; this subforum is not so much about rational debate as it is about people trying to score points. I think I will limit myself to other areas where people are not so emotionally invested.
mheslep is correct: without a logical argument behind it, calling something "Orwellian" is just namecalling. I'm perfectly well aware of what the OP meant by it (I'm partial to "Animal Farm", myself...) and I wanted to give him the opportunity to back away from the namecalling and actually make a logical argument substantiating it.Proton Soup said:"Orwellian" is perfectly obvious if you are high school-literate.