@ Sic,

You think I trust the *government*? HAH!

I more than understand. I guess I just trust blind belief, no matter what the stripe. In general, it tends to indicate a lack of critical thinking skills.

I also dislike arguments that do more harm than good to those views which I hold, one of which is that keeping tabs on what the government is up to is a damn good thing, and apathy is one of the most dangerous things in a political system.

and I admit it - I view the way you present your arguments to do more harm than good to those who attempt to watchdog our (semi) elected officials.

@ Draugnar:

>the law may not stop CIA abuses from happening, but do you really think the CIA would be *that* blatant, knowing that it would come out and put many of them in jail?

What do you mean, ‘that blatant’? If they really are funding Facebook in return for data like Sicarius suggests, and the only evidence is that they funded a company that was worked for by somebody who ran a company that funded Facebook, then there's nothing blatant about it!

I don't see how a conspiracy theory can be silly, both because there's no evidence for it, and also because the conspirators wouldn't do it for fear of being caught.

And what do you mean, put them in jail? Nobody went to jail for the CIA's involvement in COINTELPRO; why would they go to jail for this?

COINTELPRO was run by the FBI. Yes, they clearly broke privacy laws and used scare tactics to subvert and restrain many "questionable" (and that was their term, not mine) groups rights to free speech. But it was as much a policy as a program. It was not a single action, but a methodology. Although Hoover should have gone to jail for it.

An outright funding of a social community to spy on American citizens can be tied to one person (someone has to authroize the outlay of cash) and would therfore probably result in someone actually going to jail. Although, if the outing of Valerie Plame didn't send Karl Rove to jail (and Libby got his sentence commuted by Dubya), then you may have a point... I can't believe I just came around to agreeing with you on the possibility that someone in the CIA may be arrogant and stupid enough to do it...

arrogance in the CIA?
GASP! NEVER!

whoa my gosh, the US government would never spy on its own citizens. it certainly wouldnt lock up thousands of us citizens because of their ethnicity (let alone kill them for it) and it certainly wouldnt harm us citizens, or break US laws, or sell drugs, or assassinate dissidents, or do anything... gulp... immoral.

oh wait, yes they would, they did.

The CIA was also involved in COINTELPRO; they opened mail with the FBI and shared their data.
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIh.htm

I agree that Hoover should have gone to jail for it; he didn't. The agents (CIA and FBI) who broke the law as soon as they opened a USPS letter didn't go to jail. As you said, Libby didn't go to jail for what he did; Rove didn't even get indicted.

So why do you think that anybody in the CIA, if they had the idea to undertake something like the Facebook charge, would worry about going to jail?

A good question.
waiting for the answer...

Wait all month, Sic. I already turned around and admitted it was possible, you twit. Or did no one read this:

"Although, if the outing of Valerie Plame didn't send Karl Rove to jail (and Libby got his sentence commuted by Dubya), then you may have a point... I can't believe I just came around to agreeing with you on the possibility that someone in the CIA may be arrogant and stupid enough to do it..."

See, I said mayb e Toby (and, DASP!, you) could be right. So stop being an arrogant fucking prick, and go blow you dad.

*DASP! = GASP!

Sorry, Draugnar, I think that somehow I read ‘I can't believe I just came around to agreeing with you’ as ‘I can't believe I ALMOST came around to agreeing with you’ for some reason.

That I ‘could be right’ is good enough for me! (^_^)

Thanks Toby. Sic was the one got smart with his "waiting for an answer" crap and pissed me off. I hope he doesn't do that to a person face to face or he might have his question answered with a mouth full of blood and his teeth lying on the ground.

It certainly possible that the CIA is secretly using Facebook to gather information on Americans and other people, but in the absence of real evidence we can't actually say that. Although people here might have made up their minds on the matter, in our legal system the accused in innocent until proven guilty, and that counts even for the CIA or people who are allegedly associated with it.

Sicarius can be a pretentious twit. I might do so far to say he's the most indoctrinated one of us all with his radical anarchist dribble.

Sicarius, can you honestly not see the flaw in this logic?

Actor 1 performed action A
Action A was bad
Action B is bad too
Therefore Actor 1 performed action B?

The fact that past actions by the CIA are morally (and qualitatively?) similar to actions you suspect them of now has nothing to do with whether they are actually performing these actions. Serious logical fallacy dude. :)

When presented with a controversial claim and no hard evidence, I tend to err on the side of skepticims until demonstrated otherwise. The alternative would be a frigging stressful life. ;)

@ Draugnar

>I hope he doesn't do that to a person face to face or he might have his question answered with a mouth full of blood and his teeth lying on the ground.

And if he does, I'll come to his defence. Overreacting in speech is nothing compared to overreacting with physical violence.

Or overreacting to hyperbole...

just saw that commercial
WTF how does this make coke better

>Or overreacting to hyperbole...

That's the worst of all. Somebody punch me, quick!

@ draugnar, does it make you feel less insecure to threaten people on an internet forum? Does it make you feel tough? hmmmm?

Yes Friendly, I see the flaw. invictus put it best "It certainly possible that the CIA is secretly using Facebook to gather information on Americans and other people, but in the absence of real evidence we can't actually say that"
I'm not claiming it as fact. I made clear before that it was a theory. I'm not trying to convince anyone thats it's happening, (I can't even convince myself of that) I'm just saying that it's possible, plausible, and looking at past CIA programs, maybe even likely.

Possible in the sense that anything's possible, Biff. In the sense that it's possible that Barack Obama, the George Bushes, and the Queen of England are blood-sucking reptilian aliens.

Likely? No. Plausible? Not really. Backed up by any evidence? No.

I didn't threaten. I mearly suggested that you might do that to the wrong person face to face. It's called hyperbole, you twit. I know your education is lacking, but surely you saw that as the exagerated end meant to bring you back to the concept that you can win more people to your side with a well documented case and current evidence of the current crime being committed, than with radical rhetoric backed by youtube fabrications and a little past anecdotal evidence of similar crimes gone before.

@Sic, i think the likelyness is in question.

ie other people don't think it is at all likely that the CIA are using facebook to gather inteligence, and the so-called evidence that the CIA provided funding to a company is really rather weak. Basically saying it is likely is jumping to conclusions. I'm not saying it is difficult to believe, it's entirely plausible, but so is saying God created the earth in 6 days, precisely 10,000 years ago. Entirely plausible because God is defined as being omnipotent and thus can do anything, unlikely because there is no first-hand evidence to support the theory, and the evidence can be interpreted by different people in many different ways.

If you feel that God is real or that the CIA are evil and out to get you, then you are likely to come to different conclusions than those people who give the CIA/science the benifit of the doubt.

You could have stated at the top, "I feel the CIA are untrustworthy, and the could very plausibly be using Face-book and social profiling to gather intel on the american people even though this is against US law - however I have no evidence either way."

no-one would have gotten into this pointless arguement with you over a statement if you had worded it like that.

and you would have gotten your point across without sounding like you are crazy. Even made a few people think about it, and about whether they trust the federal government, or it's agencies.

but it was never my point. I mentioned it in passing, never intending to really disscuss it, then I got baited into a debate and put on the defensive. sortof the norm for me here.

fairy nuff

You used it as evidence that something voluntary could be intrusive. If you're not prepared to back up your evidence than your main point is even more meaningless.

It's not my 'evidence'.
I just said that I had no evidence for it. just said.

Anyway there are lots of things that are voluntary but intrusive. CCtv, Ip address/internet tracking, red light cameras/security cameras in general, etc.

With respect Sic, asking for you to back up a claim is not "baiting" you. If you don't want to discuss X, Y, or Z, you shouldn't bring them up - and you especially shouldn't make statements that imply that not only are the 'facts' you are discussing accurate, they're so obviously correct that disagreement about them is foolish.

You should *expect* people to call you on crap that they don't perceive as accurate - isn't that the kind of behavior you'd like to see more people demonstrate when it comes to the government?

Yes I suppose thats true, common sense even (how common is it?) don't talk about what you dont want to talk about lol.
absolutely. thanks for bringing this up without telling me to suck someones cock. I'm alot more receptive that way you know

Can anybody think of other things that are voluntary, but are/could be intrusive?

Colonic irrigation?