Reply to post: Re: Blathering Bernie Boring Bernie linicks Haven't a clue

How NSA continued to spy on American citizens' email traffic – from overseas

Bernard M. Orwell

Re: Blathering Bernie Boring Bernie linicks Haven't a clue

Mr. Bryant

While I wait patiently for you to reply to my evidence of harm, I thought I'd go through your latest rant and point some things out.

" Firstly, let's debunk that part of your circular non-argument"

You should do some reading and learn what a circular, or self-referential, argument actually is. Then read some of your own posts again. My argument is not a circular one.

" When did they start taxing your benefits? Joking aside..."

Oh yes, how droll. Your usual ad hominem followed by "I'm just joking". I think I mentioned in a previous post how that reminds me of the argument that children make. I am beginning to think you're some pimply faced teenager in your mothers basement.....Taking a break from playing WoW are you? Just joking!

"You will probably require the help of an educated adult, though finding one may be a problem in the circles you seem to move in."

Yawn. Ad hominem. When are you going to learn that those kind of statements just make you look petty?

"The rest of your circular non-argument is an attempt to insist that unless the "system" is perfect it cannot be justified."

Ooh look! A straw-man instead of an ad hominem. Perhaps you are learning after all?

"You are the perfect example of the failure of birth control, a system as simple as using a condom (though that might have been a challenge for your parents),"

Ah. No. Back to the usual type... That was a particularly choice one. I note you don't follow it with "Joking aside". I'm certain you didn't mean it though. Just kidding. Of course you did.

"why would you insist such a vastly more complex system must be 100% effective?"

I didn't. That's just a straw man again. You know, putting words into peoples mouths so you can tear down the very argument you just created?

"How do you expect the authorities to find those "real" suspects before they act, by an honour system?"

A little more complex an argument from you this time; a vague sort of false dilemma; if I am against mass surveillance then I am against all investigative methods? No. No, I am not. I am in favour of a legal and judicial process that allows the monitoring and surveillance of criminal suspects. You know, like the ones we've always had for doing such things? I am not in favour of mass surveillance, secret police, arrests without judicial process or legal representation, or any such powers being in the hands of government alone, with no recourse or accountability to law. I am not in accord with the idea of everyone being a suspect. You know, all the things the terrorists are in favour of.

Also, here's something for you. The French authorities recovered phones from the perpetrators of the Paris attack during the aftermath. From these it became apparent that the terrorists used clear text SMS to communicate. As you have stated in previous posts, the authorities were already monitoring these suspects prior to the attack. Forgive me for saying so, but from those two facts it would appear that all the mass surveillance in the world didn't help and wouldn't help. Why then do we need state surveillance, which clearly wasn't used to monitor these suspects, and why do we need to think about putting backdoors in encrypted comms? Even if we do, why can't we have independent judicial oversight?

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/2015/11/19/paris-terror-attacks-is-encryption-beirut

Now, stop the manic laughter and wipe the foam from your chin before replying, and when you do reply, please don't neglect to answer my "evidence of harm" posts.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon