Non-Islamic Terrorism

while I'm against bringing in hoards of Islamic refugees, the likelihood of being a victim in the US of Islamic terrorism is practically nil. You have a far greater probability of encountering a flash mob at Walmart or as in the linked story, a flash mob robbery/assault on the public transportation system. Maybe we should all be made to take off our shoes before riding the subway.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...er-robbery-of-passengers-at-coliseum-station/

 

You're right, right now they are just a tip of the iceberg. But it's time to think about 50 or 100 years from now as they populate more and more that those odds increase for our great grandkids. Why would we even chance it for people we don't even know. There is "nil" logic to this thought process.

 

It's the BART. My mother used to ride the BART all the time, and in about a six month period, she got punched in the face, robbed, and saw the dude sitting across from her whip it out and start "enjoying himself," and when she got up and went to a different seat, he followed her around and kept enjoying himself. She complained to security all three times. That was 35 years ago, and nobody gave a crap. I'm sure they give even less of a crap now. If you're a bad guy, I don't know why you wouldn't rob people on the BART.

 

Or, we could deport everyone from Oakland and San Francisco back to their families' countries of origin.

 

Even if you deported every illegal immigrant in California, you'd still have major crime problems in cities like Oakland where this happened. This is the home of the original Black Panthers, and they were one of the more civilized and "conservative" criminal enterprises in the area. Illegal immigration has certainly contributed to their crime problem, but they definitely didn't start it, and it wouldn't go away if they were gone.

I think you'd be better off supporting California's nationalist movement and making them deal with their problems on their own. You'd also pretty much guarantee that the Democratic Party never holds the White House again, at least not without a major ideological transformation.

 

No Deez, I meant deport EVERYONE in Oakland and San Fran. We could throw in Detroit too. Just a happy thought.

 

Ok, that's not a bad idea.

 

See Sweden. They've brought in so many muslims, Swedish women are now afraid to go out alone in broad daylight.

Are you a globalist?

 

Even though the odds of you being a victim are low, the odds of "someone" being a victim is high. The quote basically states that it is okay if someone else is an unnecessary victim of a terrorist act.

 

The intent of my original post was to show how fear drives policy - or perhaps the other way around. We now have a global, comprehensive surveillance state that captures virtually all digital communication and transactions, a geospatial facility capable locating the position of any device containing GPS, a multi-billion dollar homeland security beauracracy that scans you at airports, infrared devices which see through buildings, and cameras that take pictures of nearly everything. This is the trade-off for "keeping us safe." We have become a paranoid nation of cowards willing to give up freedom after freedom.

 

I disagree in part. Rising security fears weren't the catalyst for loosened attitudes towards spying. The blame falls on the abrupt realization one can no longer avoid it.

Most don't live daily life with any more fear of being a part of a terrorist attack than 5+ years ago. Americans were willing to raise hell over invasion of privacy in the past.

In the last few years a new awareness has taken place. Countless examples brought to light just how deep technology is interwoven into nearly every action we take in daily life.

With such an understanding came the sobering acceptance it's virtually impossible to prevent being tracked without becoming a dark web Sith Lord. Even then resistance is futile. Tech has moved past the point of being able to avoid this for most people.

It's not submission from fear, but simply being wise enough to realize anything said or done while using tech devices should be under the guise that others may hear/see it. I'm a big boy and can accept and defend my words/actions if needed, is what it is.

 

You say that now. This is a similar attitude to the person that says it's ok if the police search his property because he has nothing to hide. When the police come up with a bag of cocaine, he is shocked at the discovery.

Also, the taxpayer is paying hundreds of billions for these programs. The recent election should provide evidence that the government can't be entrusted with unlimited power. None of this bothers you?

 

What are you going to do to stop it, Mus? Pass laws? You think the viruses attacking your computer are mostly American delivered? smh That's the prob, every device is susceptible to every other person in the world with a device.

American laws won't protect your tech behavior. It's over, Bro...tech has passed the anonymous or secretive phase. I agree we must curb as much as we can in the spying area...but don't be naive enough to think it's gonna make a dent.

 

Of course hacking and so forth is inevitable. Constructing multi-billion dollar tax funded domestic spy agencies is not.
Passing laws that give private companies the right to sell your information is not inevitable.

 

Too late to fit that full grown monster back into baby clothes. Maybe we could clean up some of the abuse and force more oversight, but pandora's box is already open.

I agree 100% and this one pissed me off as it was an easy fix. However, even if laws prevented them from selling it, they wouldn't prevent collection.

And with collection comes vulnerability, hacking, and info sold anyway. My info has been hacked with at least 5 online companies in the last 5 years. Collection is inevitable which means your info is always in danger, period. There's no stopping it.

Anybody who didn't have an "oh sh*t" moment when they first encountered 'the cloud' truly had no concept of what it was.