Author Topic: Annoying Orange wants to restrict internet usage  (Read 2510 times)

im voting for Annoying Orange because ik everyone hates Annoying Orange and i hate all of you so hahahahahaha >:))
omg i reporte dyou for Annoying Orange-voting D:

omg i reporte dyou for Annoying Orange-voting D:
ye ah hesk bieng mean!!! :(

omg i reporte dyou for Annoying Orange-voting D:
hahahaha u thought i was joking huh

Rand shut him the forget down and gave all his supporters a reality check
It's too bad he doesn't get more support

You know typically I back Annoying Orange in arguments just to be a devil's advocate or get people heated, and occasionally because I agree with him. But this is intolerable. There isn't even a Annoying Orange side to this, you cannot touch the Internet or people will end you.

Monitoring the Internet is very different from restricting Internet usage. American intelligence agencies use the Internet as a platform to hunt down terrorists and retrieve info about criminals. None of that goes against a person's freedom. In my opinion, terrorists are not people and should not be treated as such. They're not worthy of court cases either. Guantonomo is an oasis for a certain kind of POS savage.
Terrorist are most definitely people.

This is a problem with humanity. Everyone is human. It is just that these terrorists are cruel due to ideology and twisted views of religion.

Some people in Guan aren't even terrorists, they are just POW or farmers who were given a gun, haha. Which is why we need a POW court martial of sorts.
They don't even call these people "prisoners" because if they call them prisoners they will be breaking the Geneva Convention. They call them detainees.

Monitoring the Internet mean WARRANTLESS MASS DATA GATHERING, in order for said data to be brown townyzed for terrorist links. Of course, anything on the internet that is a public page doesn't need a warrant, but if you hack and gather data off of computers without a warrant, tisk tisk. The government will be shooting citizens in the foot if they don't specify that any "non-terrorist" crimes will be ignored and not pocketed for blackmail. Simple enough, Donald Annoying Orange is simply speaking of "infiltrating" or having spies in these forums. If the government has the resources to target obvious terrorist forum groups and compromise those groups, they should be able to.

His argument of "they kill us we kill them" is horrible. Jeb brought forth an apt description of Annoying Orange: a future president of chaos. He's gonna fight fire with fire and only give the terrorists reasons to recruit more people. When we kill civilians who just want to be left alone, even if it was "misfire" or wrong tips w/e, the brothers and uncles and fathers of those killed will have enough of a reason to fight against Western oppression, giving CIA much more manpower.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2015, 11:27:41 PM by Swat 3 »

Monitoring the Internet is very different from restricting Internet usage. American intelligence agencies use the Internet as a platform to hunt down terrorists and retrieve info about criminals. None of that goes against a person's freedom. In my opinion, terrorists are not people and should not be treated as such. They're not worthy of court cases either. Guantonomo is an oasis for a certain kind of POS savage.
Hah. Hah hah. There's so much wrong with this it's not even funny.
Okay first off, you're totally ignoring all of the arguments against internet surveillance, which is:
1. It violates essential human rights and the constitution1 3
2. Even with all this power there has been absolutely no evidence provided that it's stopped even a single terrorist attack, leading to the only reasonable conclusion which is that it more than likely hasn't stopped a single one. Even if it has (which it most likely hasn't), that's absolutely no justification whatsoever for the human rights violations.
3. The power gained is easily corrupted and leads to extensive censorship like in Russia and China. And that DOES go against personal freedoms, the entire purpose of the internet and does a lot of harm to society in general.

Second, just because they've done bad things doesn't make them inhuman. They are homo sapiens, just like you and me. By treating them like animals you're no better and you're literally furthering the problem that caused all this in the first place: Irrational reasons to hate the US. It gives them more reason to attack us. And don't tell me that it doesn't matter because they'd find other reasons.

Third, guantanamo bay is a bunch of bullcrap.
The first gigantic problem with it is that half the time they take people there they have absolutely no good reason to believe that they're actually terrorists. They've tortured dozens upon dozens of absolutely innocent people for no reason, which is a blatant human rights violation.2 In fact, the MAJORITY of the people that were put into it were completely innocent!4
Second, enhanced interrogation doesn't work.5 The entire premise of enhanced interrogation was based upon fallacious and completely unsupported assumptions.
Third, it hasn't even stopped any terrorist attacks!6 That's right, bin laden wasn't caught because of gitmo. Nor were any other attacks.

I think Jeb Bush put it right for once at the final debate last night, he would be a "President of chaos" if elected.
Didn't jeb bush turn right around and say "ENCRYPTION NEEDS TO BE BANNED HURR DURR" or was that cruz? And don't get me started on that, because we'll be here all week.

1 2 http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html Articles 3 and 5 respectively.
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
4 http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/dead_drop/counterterrorism/lots-of-people-knew-there-were-innocent-people-imprisoned-at-guantanamo.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Post-Bush_statements
5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques#Effectiveness_and_reliability
6 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/oct/03/world.guantanamo

some of the stuff Annoying Orange says is so unintelligible that i secretly hope that one day he perishes so the president election for him can be null and he doesn't have to ruin america entirely


Hah. Hah hah. There's so much wrong with this it's not even funny.
Okay first off, you're totally ignoring all of the arguments against internet surveillance, which is:
1. It violates essential human rights and the constitution1 3
2. Even with all this power there has been absolutely no evidence provided that it's stopped even a single terrorist attack, leading to the only reasonable conclusion which is that it more than likely hasn't stopped a single one. Even if it has (which it most likely hasn't), that's absolutely no justification whatsoever for the human rights violations.
3. The power gained is easily corrupted and leads to extensive censorship like in Russia and China. And that DOES go against personal freedoms, the entire purpose of the internet and does a lot of harm to society in general.

Second, just because they've done bad things doesn't make them inhuman. They are homo sapiens, just like you and me. By treating them like animals you're no better and you're literally furthering the problem that caused all this in the first place: Irrational reasons to hate the US. It gives them more reason to attack us. And don't tell me that it doesn't matter because they'd find other reasons.

Third, guantanamo bay is a bunch of bullcrap.
The first gigantic problem with it is that half the time they take people there they have absolutely no good reason to believe that they're actually terrorists. They've tortured dozens upon dozens of absolutely innocent people for no reason, which is a blatant human rights violation.2 In fact, the MAJORITY of the people that were put into it were completely innocent!4
Second, enhanced interrogation doesn't work.5 The entire premise of enhanced interrogation was based upon fallacious and completely unsupported assumptions.
Third, it hasn't even stopped any terrorist attacks!6 That's right, bin laden wasn't caught because of gitmo. Nor were any other attacks.
Didn't jeb bush turn right around and say "ENCRYPTION NEEDS TO BE BANNED HURR DURR" or was that cruz? And don't get me started on that, because we'll be here all week.

1 2 http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html Articles 3 and 5 respectively.
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
4 http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/dead_drop/counterterrorism/lots-of-people-knew-there-were-innocent-people-imprisoned-at-guantanamo.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Post-Bush_statements
5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques#Effectiveness_and_reliability
6 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/oct/03/world.guantanamo

I never ignored anything, I simply stated my own opinions about the matter. You’re wrong about these methods not working to hunt down terrorists, as several terrorists (specifically in New York City) were planning on perpetrating massacres, however thanks to our most brilliant intelligence organizations — we were able to stop them using our sophisticated technologies. Ultimately, without them and without giving these agencies the right to track those down (only if they’re under suspicion and have legitimate evidence proving that they’re about to do something) we’re doomed. Many of these attacks have been prevented as a result of our highly advanced intelligence agencies. If it weren’t for us catching on quickly enough (like we’ve been doing for a few years), these attacks would go on.  

I’d also like you to rethink one of your statements for a moment. Are you suggesting that if a criminal perpetrates a mass massacre (say this criminal kills hundreds of innocent people), that they should still be given a fair trial and treated just as every other individual would be treated?

If so, I think your character has to be questioned.

Also just so you know, in this particular example that I gave, the inhumane thing would be the crime he or she committed, not refusing to give this criminal a trial.

Also if you believe that a person who murders hundreds of innocent people deserves to be treated like everyone else, that’s your prerogative whether I think your view is absolutely insane or not. However, since you are for human rights — wouldn’t it be much more humane to keep these criminals alive rather than putting them down? If we’re going to discuss human rights abuses, that is.

REFERENCE: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pr/plots_targeting_nyc.shtml, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/06/18/nsa-head-surveillance-helped-thwart-more-than-50-terror-attempts/,
« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 12:01:08 AM by Bear_Tracks »


It's not like the internet isn't already monitored in several ways. Google, Bing, and many search engines track your search history and methods to deliver ads. Most YouTube videos have to be approved before they are even public.
Facebook basically knows everything about you if your actively on it, liking pages, posts, games, and whatever else

The internet started as a "top secret" military intelligence database for not only data, but also communication.
If you think about it, in the past 4 years, the internet has gotten even more strict than it ever has been (since it's unintentional leak) and it will probably continue to get more strict laws until entirely "regulated".
They already have data plans available! Nice.

Law enforcement have already used social media as a way to catch potential "criminals" or "terrorist organizations" but I ask you this: Should a person be charged a crime they could "potentially" commit? I could tell 100 people I was going to go on a killing spree, but if I never did, does that make me a criminal? What if I had a bad day and was just ranting on facebook/twitter/blforums??

I feel like there is a fine line between "how to catch a predator" and "watch everyone"
???
« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 12:37:03 AM by Goth77 »

Most YouTube videos have to be approved before they are even public

hey man, I've seen some stuff show up on YouTube that doesn't get taken down for a good couple of minutes ;^)

You’re wrong about these methods not working to hunt down terrorists, as several terrorists (specifically in New York City) were planning on perpetrating massacres, [useless loaded language fluff removed].
Which ones? There were a whole bunch: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nyp---

REFERENCE: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pr/plots_targeting_nyc.shtml,

Oh. I see. I had literally googled "nyc terror attack" to try and see which one you were referring to and found that exact link, but turns out, all of them! So, first off, if you're trying to prove that guantanamo bay and warrantless internet surveillance have stopped terrorists attacks then you've not done so. Everything listed in there looks like the pinnacle of purely conventional police work and intelligence gathering through warrants. Nobody is arguing this is a bad thing, absolutely nobody! It's what we already have.

There were only two quotes that came remotely close to implying warrantless internet searches, but neither of them actually imply it.
"The plot was uncovered in its early stages through a year-long FBI investigation that included the monitoring of internet chat rooms frequented by extremists"
Joining an internet chat room doesn't require a warrant of any sort.

"His social media activity and internet searches became increasingly consumed by jihadist propaganda"
No warrant is needed to get social media data. Warrants are normally required to get internet searches, though jihadist propaganda on his social media is definitely more than enough to convince a judge of probable cause for a warrant.

Ultimately, without them and without giving these agencies the right to track those down (only if they’re under suspicion and have legitimate evidence proving that they’re about to do something) we’re doomed. [More loaded language fluff] If it weren’t for us catching on quickly enough (like we’ve been doing for a few years), these attacks would go on.
Again, nobody is arguing against what's already fundamentally allowed and has been done before. People are arguing against warrantless invasions of privacy and censorship. You're right that if we literally shut down the FBI's ability to do anything at all we would be screwed, but nobody is saying we need to do that.

I’d also like you to rethink one of your statements for a moment. Are you suggesting that if a criminal perpetrates a mass massacre (say this criminal kills hundreds of innocent people), that they should still be given a fair trial and treated just as every other individual would be treated?

If so, I think your character has to be questioned.
Everyone deserves a fair trial, no matter the person. This is, again, a fundamental human right, article 10 in my previous source if you want to look it up. When the US chooses to completely ignore this human right is completely subjective, and, as I clearly provided evidence for, it has only led to hundreds of people being needlessly tortured, often for several years on end. Imagine that, being plucked out of your home town for absolutely no reason and held against your will in a prison where you're relentlessly tortured for years and years, when you've done absolutely nothing and know no information. Only with a fair trial and evidence being presented to a court can it be determined if further investigation is justified, that's why it's a damn human right in the first place.

I did not address the following statement as that's a discussion for a different topic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/06/18/nsa-head-surveillance-helped-thwart-more-than-50-terror-attempts/,
This is clearly cherrypicked evidence. If you just google "Has nsa spying stopped terrorist attacks" you get thousands upon thousands of results that say no, and a few that say yes. Either way, the claim that it's stopped 50+ terrorist attacks is completely baseless.

http://www.propublica.org/article/claim-on-attacks-thwarted-by-nsa-spreads-despite-lack-of-evidence
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/902454-judge-leon-ruling#document/p62

It's not like the internet isn't already monitored in several ways. Google, Bing, and many search engines track your search history and methods to deliver ads. Most YouTube videos have to be approved before they are even public.
Facebook basically knows everything about you if your actively on it, liking pages, posts, games, and whatever else
And that's why so many people refuse to use many google services (like searching) and facebook, including myself. I don't really see why anyone would try to put legitimately private videos on youtube, I mean... you can just upload it to literally any file sharing site, lol.

Personally I don't use facebook very often either. The last time I logged in was the first in like 90 some days, but I got on there to find my friends phone number I had lost. Stuff like that makes facebook useful. Or just to keep in touch with a family member ya know?

I made a facebook around when it first came out. I only made it because everyone else was and it was "popular" which was a stupid thing to do. It's really hard to just "not" use internet services that are seemingly helpful or fun but are secretly collecting information about you. Think about all the apps people use everyday, without knowing exactly how much of their data is being tracked.

It's liberating to think the internet could get "more strict" than it already is