Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The U.S. Government Wants To Read Your Messages..." video.

@PhrozenFox "I already know all my devices record everything I say" - it was the apathy that ushered in the concept in the first place
26
@alexubel no offense but people like you who don't care about their rights and thus others' rights are exactly why we'll all end up under tyranny.
12
@calenhoover1124 "but that doesn't actually hold any weight other than in your conspirator mind" - lmao it's a "conspiracy" to be against government granting itself more power "would bet my left and right nut that our government never devolves into tyranny." - If they wanted to they could right now. "Our balance of power strictly forbids that," - lmao and you think the balance hasn't been subverted? "we will just use that thing we have called democracy to repeal that law." - Then why didn't you use it to repeal the PATRIOT Act?
4
@calenhoover1124 "Do you know the insane requirements to devolve into tyranny here in the U.S?" - They're not insane at all. "If the balance of power has been so heavily subverted as you've said, republicans and/or democrats wouldn't have issues getting laws passed" - the fact that there's different corporate interests fighting over differences doesn't mean anything. They have no issue getting laws passed whenever it's about fucking you over. They call that "bipartisanship". "Do you honestly think they would ever relinquish their own power to bestow all of it upon a tyrant?" - Who said anything about relinquishing anything? They're happy to share. "there's a reason that tyranny almost always evolves into a democracy," - What? Please name all the tyrannical regimes that "evolved" naturally without coups or revolutions. "the reason we havent completely repealed the patriot act(even though parts of the patriot act did expire at the end of 2019) is because of the balance of power(duh)" - You said democracy would save us, turns out it can't. Take the L. Also, the government retaining excessive power is somehow reflection of a "balance", that's a big brained take. "that debate has been going on in government since it was passed" - According to you democracy would solve it. Solve it. "same reason we wont devolve into tyranny." - So the government gives itself power and is unwilling to get rid of it. The power it amasses continues growing because there's an institutionalized inertia to giving up power. Somehow this isn't gonna devolve into tyranny even though the democratic process is unable to contain it.
4
Snowden exposed how the government reads the messages. This is about the messages the government can't read because of encryption.
3
@calenhoover1124 "same tired old arguments that hold no grounds"- Says whom? "I actually dont have time to be arguing with somebody who doesnt understand the basics of how government or the people within it operate" - You understand what is taught on a civics class, which is different from how it actually works. ""Government bad democracy bad," is your only argument and its getting stale." - No, it isn't. There's plenty of proof why and I offered some. I can continue all day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNtKk2EmI-o < one 1 hour lecture on why government programs don't actually do good for the people like you claim
3
No, they had to ask for backdoors to the companies and possibly go to court over it. Now they're just gonna make it law that companies have to let the government read everything by default.
3
@M4TTYN "US is separate from all else on this giant rock" - two words: Five Eyes
3
@calenhoover1124 "Your issue is that you think free communication means completely and utterly unchecked, and unregulated" - You don't get to pretend you know what I think. "This will change absolutely nothing about your life." - It does because I use a end-to-end encrypted chat platform and this law might expose some people I work with to their country's authorities. "This aint 1984 bud, and like every other industry in this country our democratic process will decide" - Dude, the democratic process hasn't done shit. "if it ends up being a catastrophic failure, they can repeal it" - Name a law comparable to this that got repealed by democratic means. "Nice anecdote there, but plenty and plenty of bipartisan bills are actually to promote social and civil welfare, not just to "fuck you over"" - Here's the secret: they don't actually promote social or civil welfare. "The issue is, is that a lot of people don't think its a problem" - Then you just admitted that democracy doesn't work because most people don't pay attention. Take the L. "Sorry thats just not how democracy works. Democracy isnt what you think is best, its what the collective deems to be best, and sometimes having a collective agree on something so controversial is hard and takes effort and time." - It's been almost two decades since the state started restricting freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. We gave it time. We gave it effort. Obama was essentially elected to reverse the Bush-era measures and he simply signed every extension to those laws. When people were mad at Bush they voted to change things around, and when things didn't change the narrative was twisted. "It sounds like youd prefer a monarchy" - Nice strawman. When you do this, it's just an admission that you're losing. "So are you suggesting they are gonna rip up the constitution that strictly limits the powers the governmetn has over civilian rights" - That's the issue bucko, they don't need to. Look at the Second Amendment - it says that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. What does infringed mean? Broken, limited or undermined. Supposedly, the government cannot do ANYTHING that undermines gun ownership. But there's gun laws. Supposedly, the government cannot break the Fourth Amendment. But they do. Hell, it could be argued that with police militarization the government is even breaking the amendment everyone forgets about, the Third. The government wipes it's ass with the constitution, but because it puts it back in a display case with skid marks you think everything's fine because they're not actually tearing it into pieces. "Because an election and elected officials would mean its inherently not a tyranny" - You do realize that there were tyrannical states that held elections, right? "Most militaries, made up of working class soldiers will eventually if not immediately rebel against a tyrannical government thats hurting the people." - Then explain China or North Korea. Why haven't their military forces risen up against the government?
2
@calenhoover1124 I understand better than you, which is why I pointed out the problems. You refuse to debate because you realized you had no arguments.
2
No, he exposed the program and fled to Russia to avoid being arrested. Nothing stopped, he just made sure the people knew.
2
@LitEmbers No, I say this because there was an investigation. I think we kinda know for sure. Although there was an intrusion on the electoral system the evidence points to just hackers snooping around the voter database, no changes were made and the election results were not in that database so they weren't tampered with. The investigation also shown that not all ads bought by Russians on social media were pro-Trump, and the amount of people exposed to them was too small to sway an election.
2
Did you watch the video? They are watching, so people ENCRYPT messages so that they can't be read. This is an attack on encryption itself so that you can't hide.
1
First, there's linux users in the world. Second, this isn't about windows but the encryption of messages.
1
Because people didn't understand Net Neutrality. This is about encryption.
1
@themanwhospeaks8010 people were running around like headless chickens about NN like it would end the internet if we ended government regulation. This is about intrusive government regulation. More in line with SOPA and PIPA protests, which did succeed in holding back the laws.
1
You don't understand. If you encrypt messages they can be seen, but they're ENCRYPTED so they can't be read. They want to make cryptography itself illegal.
1
@youruncle2 If encryption was that easily defeated we'd know about it. We'd have hackers busting into the systems of every bank, government, etc. as the entire concept of security crumbled into nothing.
1
@youruncle2 You don't understand encryption, full stop. Even if you create a type of encryption that doesn't mean you can solve it. Encryption is essentially a maths problem. Government's can't break maths and somehow make the problem easier to solve.
1
They could, unless you encrypted them. Now they're after encryption too.
1
How did they break the encryption, then?
1
Not breaking encryption. If encryption had been broken, we'd have known about it.
1
@calenhoover1124 "why do you think expanding to internet is going to make them somehow totalitarian?" - because it's removing another avenue of free communication
1
@calenhoover1124 The rules of economics haven't changed in thousands of years but sure let's pretend a lecture being 40 years old makes it irrelevant. "your argument still falls flat in the face of hundreds of years of democratic and civil advance in the U.S." - How has there been any democratic advance? Ever since the beginning the power is less and less in the hands of the electorate. "The United States ranks at the top in housing...." - You're doing the same as the CCP paid shills. Who cares that there's a tyrannical government and power and there's no freedom? The rankings say the economy is great! The fact that you can amass greater wealth in the US doesn't mean that the US is democratic. "Do you really believe that one of the most powerful countries on earth that has an incredible economic winning streak is going to risk flip flopping to a tyranny" - The Empire always comes home. That question required a pinch of self-awareness. Power corrupts. This is like a Roman scoffing at the thought of the Roman Empire ever crumbling down. Tyranny isn't throwing the power away. It's the way to maintain it during times of crisis. "i've provided quotes from peer reviewed studies" - You didn't, but that's fine. "to exemplify to you that the U.S has no motive for your claims" - But you aren't even able to question the fact that the US government is growing in power and unable to stop. ""More Power" isnt a motive either because the senators and even the president themselves are subject to any laws they write or pass" - 1) this wasn't true until the 90s and caused a huge stir in the 80s 2) it's us the little people who need things like encrypted communications to prevent spying from the government, not politicians 3) they can staff the agencies with partisan hacks 4) in cases like these they are sort of exempt because they can prohibit companies from providing us end-to-end encryption while they contract a security company to provide them encryption services for "national security". "Let me know when that happens and we can talk" - Okay. Do you think the military, secret service, everyone who receives classified emails, etc is gonna be forced to work without encryption? "Please provide some proof or arguments that arent a 40 year old ted talk." - That was only about how government action doesn't improve the country, wealth generation does. Government action may actually do the opposite of what it attempts to do. Like rent control being responsible for rents increasing.
1
@calenhoover1124 Nice strawman argument. Now go on and use democracy to repeal the PATRIOT Act.
1
@calenhoover1124 All your arguments are "trust the plan bro" and "it doesn't work because people don't want it". Oh, and you brought up some irrelevant shit about the US economy, as if that's gonna matter to the topic of government control. "posting 40 year old lectures that are philosophical in nature" - Which contained hard facts about the blowback of government central planning. This was a response to ONE claim you've made about government doing things for the people and you're still butthurt about it. "not grasping the basics of democracy" - I have, to the point I explained to you it's downfalls. "like the fact that democracy doesnt mean you get what you want all the time" - We're not talking about what I want. We're talking about governments turning tyrannical. You're completely fucking dishonest, my guy.
1
@AlexanderMartinez-kd7cz "just vote for the least shitty one and go ask for what you want" - this is exactly what people have done and it doesn't work
1
Okay, and encryption was a way to evade the spying by making your communications unreadable. They want to make it illegal.
1
@huracan360 worse, making it illegal for any service (be it VPN or chat app) to encrypt your data in a way that doesn't allow governments to see it.
1
How are they breaking the encryption, though?
1
@dasderpdood228 "if they did skew the 2016 elections" - they didn't.
1
You think this a) won't affect all the services you use that will have to comply with American law and b) that European governments aren't reading online activity or even asking the US for intelligence.
1
@PhrozenFox The government is trying to ban blinds/shutters.
1
@The_Primary_Axiom I am against net neutrality because it stems from the fallacious premise that the internet is neutral. I do mind about information being watched online. The two subjects are completely unrelated.
1