Bobbins’s Techdirt Profile

bobbins

About Bobbins




Bobbins’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 14th, 2013 @ 11:09am

    (untitled comment)

    Time for a game of guess the politician, today's clue comes from a speech as recent as 2007.

    "Politics is a trust.

    In a representative democracy, politicians hold power in trust from the people.

    It is not our power but yours that we exercise.

    We exercise it on your behalf and we are accountable to you for how we use it.

    Accountability means more than standing for re-election once every five years.

    It means transparency during your term of office too the obligation to explain what you are doing openly and honestly.

    When politicians betray the trust they have received from the public, the public loses trust in them."

  • Nov 8th, 2013 @ 8:26am

    (untitled comment)

    It's evident they have shat all over the Constitution and by extension federal law.

    Through these programmes they have all of your personal information and they just need to interpret it in such a way as to create a criminal, so technically Greenwald may not be arrested for the Snowden leaks but arrested nonetheless.

    What was once innocent until proven guilty is now innocent until an inconvenience.

  • Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:02pm

    (untitled comment)

    The way these terrorism laws are being interpreted coupled with Cameron's ruthless approach to censorship is doing more damage to the UK than any terrorist cell could ever realistically achieve.

    It's alarming that UK politicians and senior civil servants will employ any mechanism available to ensure their own self preservation even if it is achieved through oppression.

  • Nov 4th, 2013 @ 12:11pm

    (untitled comment)

    Wow, I think Rep. Rogers has cleared up all of my concerns about the collection of metadata, I don't know why I didn't see it sooner.

    The metadata is only collected if the information is read and I have no way of knowing if it's been read therefore the metadata hasn't been collected. I am once again ignorant of the fact that my privacy may have been violated and so it hasn't been violated.

    If I consider that my private communications being stored without my knowledge is a violation of my privacy I am told that what I have heard and/or read isn't true and/or accurate which means I don't know what I know and if I insist I know what I know I simply don't understand what I know as it hasn't been explained clearly.

    After this I am back to square one, I remain ignorant and my privacy hasn't been violated so I don't feel the need for anybody to be held accountable for illegal mass surveillance.