Pay no heed, Im just disabling javascript

>Pay no heed, Im just disabling javascript

Kill yourself

>Adblock hurts nobody

>Just installing Gnu/Linux, nothing suspicious to see here

Pay no heed, while I play this nasheed

>disabling js
>90% of web stopped working

wow u r so aware

>The goverment shouldn't know what chil-... content is on my hard drive

If the government wants to know, they should get a warrant. I believe you have a right to privacy, user

> I believe you have a right to privacy

Sorry, rather I believe I do not have a right to infringe upon your, or any other person's, privacy without a warrant. It's a subtle difference but it's important

So, i'm the bad guy, huh?

>Sorry, rather I believe I do not have a right to infringe upon your, or any other person's, privacy without a warrant. It's a subtle difference but it's important

kek

>Why are you scared? You dropped this out of your shopping bag, here, you can take it back. Have a good day *tips privacy*

>I believe you have a right to privacy, user
Even in America where that SHOULD be technically true by law it is not true at all after the Patriot Act.

Supreme court did say that that it was against the law for the NSA to "unlawfully search" and spy on the population in general after the Snowden leaks, but the government just implemented the CISA act which allowed companies to sell and give away any info that their customers added to their services without asking the customer for consent. So now the NSA just buys or extort the info from companies directly which is legal.

People don't have a right to privacy and we Europeans never had either. Right to privacy is a sharia law anyway (based on the verse “O you who believe! Avoid much suspicions, indeed some suspicions are sins. And spy not…” and the punishment against looking into someone's house can be as strict as getting your eyes poked out and even apply to the government)

So it does not belong in the west anyway.

what we need is right to transparency. otherwise we're lost behind the curtain, mired in deception.

right to privacy is a red herring.

Don't mind me, just using an ad blocker.

>sharia mentions something about privacy, therefore privacy is bad
Holy shit is this the level of "argument" that big government shills have to resort to now?

What the population believe is the laws.
You can be the fittest president in the world, if 100 million people want you dead, you will die.

>the basic human desire for privacy is a thing that only Muslims believed
>And their influence put it into law
>There is no way people without Muslim influence could have thought up and supported the idea of a right to privacy
Yeah nah, you're delusional. And regardless, the 4th amendment is still a part of the Constitution. It should be respected. And regardless, my own personal belief system says that I and others have a right to privacy, and I do my best to not infringe upon others as I trust they won't infringe upon mine
We could use both, to be honest. I do agree though, the government could use more transparency
It's pretty bad

>not taking what is offered to you is considered stealing
that's not how it works. here's an example of what you're saying
>go to the supermarket
>see one of those stands with people handing out X Newspaper
>one of them hands one out to you
>you decline
it's not stealing, you just don't want the paper. You went to the store for food, not news

>actually taking anything said in this shitposting thread seriously
Hello plebit friend.

>taking my reasonable response to a shitpost as me being from reddit
hello, Sup Forumsfriend

>this guy

...

>Right to privacy is a sharia law anyway
wtf I love Islam now

It's a sharia law, any more privacy is just sneaking sharia law into our laws and who would win then? Terrorists (who is the main group who benefit from privacy anyway)

>And regardless, the 4th amendment is still a part of the Constitution. It should be respected.
Well, they have found ways to work around that because the 4th amendment only applies to the government. Companies are allowed to do that on their OWN servers on things that their customers willingly put on their own servers. If companies are incentivised to sell that information off to the government then that is legal and should be respected.

People can easily get used to losing privacy. many countries have lost privacy several times through history without ever endangering the government. Why should it be different now? The government is not in danger and Americans have less privacy now than East Germany under Stasi. If you lost more privacy then nobody will notice

>this entire post
holy fuck. Okay then, if privacy is a terrorist plot to take over the western world, why the fuck are our governments so secretive about their programs? by your own logic our own governments are terrorists.
>if companies can say 'fuck you' to privacy, they should be lauded and encouraged
because that worked out so well for equifax. Privacy doesn't just protect you from law enforcement, it also protects you from people and entities that DO want to do wrong by you. if it doesn't protect against everything equally, it's useless.
>people have lost privacy without endangering the government
privacy is to protect the people from the government and other malicious entities both local and foreign. Why the fuck would the metric for privacy being good be if the government is impacted by it?

>holy fuck. Okay then, if privacy is a terrorist plot to take over the western world,

It is. Less privacy is the only way to fight terrorists.

>why the fuck are our governments so secretive about their programs? by your own logic our own governments are terrorists.

Well... At least it's not islamic which they would be if they were imposed with more demands for privacy.

>Privacy doesn't just protect you from law enforcement, it also protects you from people and entities that DO want to do wrong by you.

Sounds to me that the hackers just had too much privacy.

>less privacy is the only way to fight terrorists
what about those that communicate in plaintext? we should ban phones. I'm sure, also, that you're an EXPERT on anti-terrorism so you've definitely exhausted all of your resources and decided removing privacy from everyone is the best way to fight a very, very, VERY, small % of people.
> Well... At least it's not islamic which they would be if they were imposed with more demands for privacy.
they continually increase privacy on their own servers and sites though, making laws that punish those who breach that privacy much more strict and punishing. that sounds pretty islamic supporting to me.
>hackers had too much privacy
yeah, and now the people who were affected have no say in where their data goes, how it gets used, and by whom.
Why dont you dump your browsing history (all of it), your name and address here for us? maybe your credit card and CCV number too. you don't have anything to hide, do you? you fucking terrorist

>they continually increase privacy on their own servers and sites though, making laws that punish those who breach that privacy much more strict and punishing. that sounds pretty islamic supporting to me.

Punishing people who breach privacy is pretty islamic, but it would be more islamic if the government was punished for breaching the privacy of it's citizens. It's a secular country and the government should not be bound by any higher rules than what the government makes up itself.

It's a democracy and the government are voted in by the people. So the government should be able to do anything it wants without consideration to religious superstitions like privacy, morality or that sort of thing which would just make it a theocracy. They need to be pragmatic.

>punishing people (civilians) for breaking the privacy (of the government) is pretty islamic
>but it's more islamic if the people punish the government for the government for infringing upon the privacy of the citizens.
So basically, you're fine with some islamic influence in the goverment, but as long as it's not TOO much, it's okay? but earlier you said that privacy is used by da ebul terrorists to push their agenda. Yet now it's okay to push the agenda a little?
are you serious? the US government was created by the people to work for the people.
>it's a secular country and the goverment should not be bound by any rules higher than those it creates itself
By your own admission, privacy is a religious superstition. so clearly the government isn't secular if it's using religion as a basis for its actions in this case. so it is bound by a higher rule.
>government should be able to do anything it wants ... morality or that sort of thing makes it a theocracy
you honestly, truthfully, believe that morality is only a religious thing? I need privacy more than ever, since your government isn't bound by pesky things like morality. I do not agree with them, and you think they are within their right to skip due process and fuck anyone who disagrees with them up.
Also, you failed to dump all of your personal info, you hypocrite.

>So basically, you're fine with some islamic influence in the goverment, but as long as it's not TOO much, it's okay?
Well you have my side which is not TOO much, and then we have your "more privacy" side which is too much.

>but earlier you said that privacy is used by da ebul terrorists to push their agenda. Yet now it's okay to push the agenda a little?
It's less privacy than what you want.

>are you serious? the US government was created by the people to work for the people.
No, it was created by the government (the people who invented the government and wrote the constitution were part of the government. The people in general had no say until many years later)
>By your own admission, privacy is a religious superstition. so clearly the government isn't secular if it's using religion as a basis for its actions in this case. so it is bound by a higher rule.
Can have privacy without basing it on religious superstition. But fighting for making privacy a right makes no secular sense for a government to do because you control the people better if they have no privacy.

>you honestly, truthfully, believe that morality is only a religious thing?
It's not a belief, it's a logical conclusion because any moral claim makes no logical sense from a secular perspective because:

1. Moral claims apply regardless of your desires
(when we condemn a criminal, do we change our minds if we learn it was in his self-interest to commit it?)

2. If we morally ought to do something, we have a reason to do it.
(If we ask "why am I morally required to vote?", we couldn't take seriously someone who had no other response than "well you simply *musn't*!)

3. So, if we morally ought to do something, we have to have a reason to do it that applies regardless of our desires.
(Another way of saying both 1 and 2 needs to be true)

4. Such reasons don't make sense.

(because reasons only apply if it corresponds with desires. For example "You should not run into the street because you might die or endager other people" is a reason that only applies to people who don't want to die and who don't want to endanger other people.)

5. Therefore, moral claims make no sense from a secular perspective.
(religions have certain beliefs that makes number 3 moot for example one of the many things in religions that can support it is the idea of heaven and hell which has a quality that ALWAYS fit with people's desires. Hell as a concept is something that everyone would hate and heaven something everyone will love so even though number 3 is also true for the religious it is not relevant to them. So morality can only be defended from a religious view and needs to be based on some sort of religious superstition.)

>I need privacy more than ever, since your government isn't bound by pesky things like morality.
Well do what the government tells u and stop being a terrorist or a danger to the government.

>I do not agree with them, and you think they are within their right to skip due process and fuck anyone who disagrees with them up.
'due process' can be many things

>don't mind me, just "pirating" your car ;)

>implying this isn't an improvement

...