Bill Gates Says Government Spying Isn’t Always Bad

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Bill Gates says he believes there should be a balance between government spying and the privacy concerns of the American people.

“At the end of the day...we want to stop terrorism, we want to see if someone’s talking about nuclear weapons, or bioterrorism or various bad things,” Gates said. “So it’s not as though government surveillance is absolutely bad in all cases…I think it’s a valuable debate and I do think we can balance the two goals.”
Click to expand...
 
It isn't bad when the government is looking for something specific such as a known criminal or terrorist, and doing so with a warrant.

The way they are going about it now is more of a guilty until proven innocent approach. Collect all data, even unnecessary data, then parse through it to find potentially useful info.

I would have much less problem with how much spying power they were capable of if they were only collecting the info as needed. If collecting every goddamn email, phone call, text message, etc. is what they claim they need to do their job, then they need to find another way of doing it.
 
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
 
maybe, they should stop this warmongering and put an end to this constant state of fear that is induced by putting out all these lies. the only reason this exists is to give those with power even more power. there aren't that many terrorists to require such an infrastructure. it's just about industrial espionage and power over the population. the whole meaning of the word "terrorism" has been perverted over the last ten or more years. after all the pentagon re-branded the constitutional right to protest as "low-level terrorism". it's disgusting.
 
mr_zen256 said:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Click to expand...

Although I agree with the sentiment the reality isn't so black and white.
 
Of course it's not always bad. Just do it legally and have respect for those that put you in office and pay your wages.
 
Indeed it isn't "always" bad. But mass collection vs a target you've identified as a terrorist are 2 different things.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
It isn't bad when the government is looking for something specific such as a known criminal or terrorist, and doing so with a warrant.

The way they are going about it now is more of a guilty until proven innocent approach. Collect all data, even unnecessary data, then parse through it to find potentially useful info.

I would have much less problem with how much spying power they were capable of if they were only collecting the info as needed. If collecting every goddamn email, phone call, text message, etc. is what they claim they need to do their job, then they need to find another way of doing it.
Click to expand...

Amen brother, I couldn't have said it better.
 
mr_zen256 said:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Click to expand...

Stop parroting internet memes that the person purported to have made the statement never actually said.
 
odditory said:
Stop parroting internet memes that the person purported to have made the statement never actually said.
Click to expand...

LOL, I have a copy of the letter he wrote in 1755, on behalf of the Pennsylvania legislature to the colonial governor, with that very statement.

Why are the least informed always the most arrogant?
 
Of course it's not always a bad thing. Things need to be done to catch the bad guys, those that would hurt others. However, the spying, investigating, and data tracking needs to be targeted and with cause. This generalized catch-all method the NSA is using right now is way out of line.
 
mr_zen256 said:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Click to expand...

Ughhhhhhhh

Regardless of one's stance on this issue: just because likable someone said something, doesn't make it absolutely correct. When you simply post a quote without offering an actual argument, you're doing it wrong.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Actually, the premise is the same. It can applied to a broad range of scenarios. One blogger's opinion is hardly the final word on the subject.

There's a reason why so much of Franklin's writings are quotable....it's because they cut right to fundamental truths
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't care enough to do significant research to determine if he was on point or not. I was just providing a link that gave more than just "yes, B Franklin said this", while confirming that it was indeed his words.

And it's not just Ben Franklin, our founding fathers in general provided some wonderful "fundamental truth guidance" in their writing, works and research.
 
Spying is something that every country does. What happened was the NSA got caught overreaching in data collection well outside the scope of what's necessary. Don't link for a second Russia and China don't do the same thing.

Many would joke about how the communist governments watched every move of their citizens. Only for us to find out the Representative Republic Government of the United States (I hate when people call the US a Democracy because it's not) was doing the same thing. What's even worst is not much has been done about it because people rather follow Justin Bieber's self destruction.

Bill Gates is right in the sense that a certain level of spying is needed. What's not needed is far reaching level of spying in the name of stopping terrorism. It's been shown time and time again to not have much effect on stopping significant terrorist activities. Instead it's just lead to abuses of the collected data.
 
Terrorism is literally less of a danger than your average police officer or your shower. You're about as likely to be killed by lightning. We really need to put an end to this BS. With a warrant, and not by secret court order, I have no problem with electronic surveillance, but they need to demonstrate probable cause to spy on a US citizen.
 
If I knew for a certainty another 9/11 would happen if we got rid of this all-pervasive surveillance, I would still want it gone.
 
mr_zen256 said:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Click to expand...

I always thought it was funny when people quote that guy. It was a good thing back when the US' founding business owners wanted to motivate Joe Average into fighting for them so they didn't hafta pay taxes to the King like every other colony, but catchy slogans they used to gather meat shields for war need to be kinda looked at and analyzed with a more open minded perspective now that the wealthy people the common folk put into power are long gone. I mean really, we're all just paying taxers again anyhow which is exactly what people rebelled against then and will probably do again just to end up in the same situation all over despite making a huge mess on the way there.
 
dgingeri said:
Of course it's not always a bad thing. Things need to be done to catch the bad guys, those that would hurt others. However, the spying, investigating, and data tracking needs to be targeted and with cause. This generalized catch-all method the NSA is using right now is way out of line.
Click to expand...

How would you efficiently perform targeted spying on everyone, though? Yes...
 
45163685.jpg
 
Collect all data, even unnecessary data, then parse through it to find potentially useful info.
Click to expand...

You mind showing me where they are collecting content and searching through it? It's a new one on me, been watching the reports close and none of the Snowden Documents say this.
 
mr_zen256 said:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Click to expand...

"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

""But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,' then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.…"

Something also not entirely applicable to today's world as it was written so long long ago...I believe what Ben Franklin was referring to was more akin to the type of injustice that would occur if you gave up a lot of your constitutional rites and/or allowed Martial Law to occur. I don't think Ben Franklin was attempting to say 'Whatever you do, never create a police department that limits your freedom by making rules, like you can't drink and drive, as arguably a police department gives temporary safety and therefore the people protected by said department deserve nether safety or liberty.'

As long as the surveillance is used appropriately and ONLY used to search for very specific keywords such as ...bombs, explosive chemical names, nuclear weapsons, etc I dont think that limits our freedom too much. I guess we are less 'free' to talk about planning domestic terrorism but that's not a freedom I use very often; if ever.

I do think it's a slippery slope as I think the process has to be pretty open to prevent those keywords to moving into the range of political party supporters or members, etc.
 
bpmurrGT said:
Only for us to find out the Representative Republic Government of the United States (I hate when people call the US a Democracy because it's not) was doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

So, the people do not vote in their representatives? Who then gives us our representatives?

Our basis of power is all the people here, hence Democracy. But not a pure democracy for sure.

We are an Extended Limited Commercial Federal Democratic Republic, as said by James Madison, the guy that took Montesquieu's ideas and put them into a constitutional form which is the basis of the US Constitution. But who wants to say that all the time? :)
 
On thing to keep in mind, if a terrorist group were to ever successfully detonate a nuclear device with tens of thousands of deaths as a result, the game is over. It will be a very difficult conversation to have about privacy with that many casualties caused by one of the most powerful weapons of man.
 
heatlesssun said:
On thing to keep in mind, if a terrorist group were to ever successfully detonate a nuclear device with tens of thousands of deaths as a result, the game is over. It will be a very difficult conversation to have about privacy with that many casualties caused by one of the most powerful weapons of man.
Click to expand...

I'd say propaganda is a much more devastating weapon.
 
"At the end of the day...we want to stop terrorism,
Click to expand...
Too bad though that they have done almost nothing to actually stop terrorism. They "may have" stopped one or two incidences of it, if you even believe them. And it came at the cost of billions of dollars, and millions of violations of the constitution.
 
I like Bill, but when his dad was pushing hard to have a state income tax imposed, on top of our 10% sales tax, and 1+% annual propery tax; I realized that his family was completely out of touch with reality.

Your the father of a multi billionaire, and you think I'm the one who should pay more taxes?
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I'd say propaganda is a much more devastating weapon.
Click to expand...

And just think how devastating the propaganda would be if the scenario I described ever occurred.

I remember September 11, 2001 very well. I was home sick, suffering from some really bad back spasms. Right after the first plane crashed my wife called me from work and told me, and I turn of the TV and for the next 20 hours I watched and knew that life going forward was going to be different. How I did not know, but I knew it would be different.

I guarantee that if a terrorist group ever successfully detonate a nuclear device, all of our lives would be different in ways we would not like.
 
I quoted Ben because I happen to believe the statement is valid in this particular context. I would still agree with the statement even if it wasn't someone of historical importance.

Also, just because I happen to agree with this particular statement, doesn't mean I agree will all other statements Ben has made. Nor does his other statements invalidate this one in any way.

I just feel that destroying freedom to protect freedom is fundamentally flawed.
 
Parmenides said:
Combined with a culture fostering people who don't want to think critically, who are won over by slogan and repetition.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps seeing two of the worlds tallest buildings crumble like a sand castle. I saw both towers collapse on TV as they did in real time. Even from just seeing it on TV, that event changed me.
 
mr_zen256 said:
I just feel that destroying freedom to protect freedom is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

Freedom cannot coexist with fear and uncertainty. That is why terrorists do what they do. Maximum visceral damage and body count and 9/11 was a doozey in that department. If events like 9/11 happen more than once in lifetime, you can forget a whole lot of freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top