"Big Brother: Afghanistan"

[Twiddly]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47399515...cid=todmsnbc11


Kind of funny how it is considered appropriate to do to another country what we would not stand for here. Hovering a freaking dirgible over us 24/7, infrared camera's watching every move we make?

Why is it ok to do it to other countries in the name of safety? I feel for the innocents in the afghan population, having to put up with this kind of bullcrap.

[Kuntantee]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47399515...cid=todmsnbc11


Kind of funny how it is considered appropriate to do to another country what we would not stand for here. Hovering a freaking dirgible over us 24/7, infrared camera's watching every move we make?

Why is it ok to do it to other countries in the name of safety? I feel for the innocents in the afghan population, having to put up with this kind of bullcrap.

Because people hardly give a shit to people in poor/3rd world countries. Humanity lacks empathy

[Dezerte]

It may be worse in Afghanistan but "Big Brother" is with us here as well in Europe/NA. Only a question of time before we too are monitored 24/7.

[Stanton Biston]

And the military is building a bigger, 300-foot, untethered airship with more powerful surveillance capabilities intended for use here.

Airships, man.

Cid Highwind, AWAY!

[Twiddly]

You know my biggest problem with this is not even the fact that they are constantly watching, even at night with infrared...it is the fact that they are using dirigibles. really? Is this like an old timey black and white movie or something?

[Jeleh]

This doesn't make sense to me, wouldn't you think a blimp is kind of an easy target?

I don't agree with the big brother methods even if it is in a warzone like afghanistan, things like this just alienate the people.

[Dezerte]

You know my biggest problem with this is not even the fact that they are constantly watching, even at night with infrared...it is the fact that they are using dirigibles. really? Is this like an old timey black and white movie or something?

So you'd be okay with it if they used cameras instead (like we do).

I get that it feels more "comfortable" to be monitored by a camera rather than a blimp. But come on, how can you be more worried about that than actually being monitored?

[Deleted]

To play Devil's Advocate (partially pro bono), it unfortunately makes sense to have pretty strict surveillance in territories which have only recently been liberated from warlord-esque feudalism and had the Taliban with their guests al-Qaeda, which held the country under a boot for so long, vanquished finally (for the most part).

Previous US regimes may have helped with their installation as overlords, but this one and the previous have been working, at times, extremely haphazardly, to amend that. Realistically, despite going against rights to privacy, this could help secure a quicker reduction of foreign forces in the area.

[mik11231]

Well to be fair it's still a volatile zone, It most likely does more good than bad in the current situation. The problem will be if they remain like that when the threat is over.

[Dezerte]

To play Devil's Advocate (partially pro bono), it unfortunately makes sense to have pretty strict surveillance in territories which have only recently been liberated from warlord-esque feudalism and had the Taliban with their guests al-Qaeda, which held the country under a boot for so long, vanquished finally (for the most part).

Previous US regimes may have helped with their installation as overlords, but this one and the previous have been working, at times, extremely haphazardly, to amend that. Realistically, despite going against rights to privacy, this could help secure a quicker reduction of foreign forces in the area.

Installing cameras in your apartment/house would also increase security (monitored by the gov.), it sounds ridiculous but so did monitoring your e-mails, internet traffic & phone calls.

The question is: How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice to gain safety?

I think the deciding factor is going to be; is the value of the increased safety bigger than the loss of liberty. If so, who determines the values of them?

[mik11231]

Installing cameras in your apartment/house would also increase security (monitored by the gov.), it sounds ridiculous but so did monitoring your e-mails, internet traffic & phone calls.

The question is: How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice to gain safety?

I think the deciding factor is going to be; is the value of the increased safety bigger than the loss of liberty. If so, who determines the values of them?

last time there was a bomb in my own house or a house near me or a street near me is never, It's not the same case in Afghanistan. Quite frankly, if it was as bad here as it is there I would be willing to sacrifice a lot more liberty with my life in that kind of immediate danger. Obviously I wouldn't want to be monitored like that in my current situation tho.

[Dezerte]

last time there was a bomb in my own house or a house near me or a street near me is never, It's not the same case in Afghanistan. Quite frankly, if it was as bad here as it is there I would be willing to sacrifice a lot more liberty with my life in that kind of immediate danger. Obviously I wouldn't want to be monitored like that in my current situation tho.

The reason why'd they would install cameras in your house is not because they suspect you have a bomb. The cameras are there "just in case". I wouldn't put it past our politicans to think something like that would be a good idea, just look at some of the recent scary proposals like CISPA.

[jazen]

they should arm the serveilance platforms, and blast whatever looks like a threat to the civilians. Random acts of violence typically works well in putting down an insurrection.

[mik11231]

The reason why'd they would install cameras in your house is not because they suspect you have a bomb. The cameras are there "just in case". I wouldn't put it past our politicans to think something like that would be a good idea, just look at some of the recent scary proposals like CISPA.

the bomb thing was just something i used as an example. What I mean was simply that I wouldn't mind having a camera "just in case" if the probability of that "just in case" thing was high. It isn't so I obviously don't want that. In that region tho the probability of events that are preventable by those surveillance devices is quite high so having them there "just in case" makes more sense.

[Deleted]

Installing cameras in your apartment/house would also increase security (monitored by the gov.), it sounds ridiculous but so did monitoring your e-mails, internet traffic & phone calls.

The question is: How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice to gain safety?

I think the deciding factor is going to be; is the value of the increased safety bigger than the loss of liberty. If so, who determines the values of them?

Well, I'm not a full-on Libertarian, so I have room to be pragmatic about this. I'd say it makes more sense and feels less 'wrong' to keep Afghan hotspots under strict surveillance, when compared to most areas in a 'Coalition' country (I limit my example to just those nations for the sake of comparing the belligerent states), because it is highly probable that forces (non-military) which pose a threat, not only to citizens of their own country, but the citizens of all nations around the world, are far more likely to be assembling and conspiring in areas of Afghanistan.

This would not be hypothetically the same as say heavier surveillance in London (which is already pretty high), it would be like the British government placing surveillance equipment in Belfast in the 60s, 70s and 80s, when the IRA were a real threat, not only to other Irish people, but people abroad as well.

Even then, the Taliban and al-Qaeda operate quite differently from a group like the IRA. They are quite a bit less meticulous in choosing their targets and are generally more chaotic. It's not ideal, but I think it's wise. Afghanistan will be volatile for quite some time and when international, not just national, security is at stake, I think it's the right precaution to take.

[Dezerte]

Well, I'm not a full-on Libertarian, so I have room to be pragmatic about this. I'd say it makes more sense and feels less 'wrong' to keep Afghan hotspots under strict surveillance, when compared to most areas in a 'Coalition' country (I limit my example to just those nations for the sake of comparing the belligerent states), because it is highly probable that forces (non-military) which pose a threat, not only to citizens of their own country, but the citizens of all nations around the world, are far more likely to be assembling and conspiring in areas of Afghanistan.

This would not be hypothetically the same as say heavier surveillance in London (which is already pretty high), it would be like the British government placing surveillance equipment in Belfast in the 60s, 70s and 80s, when the IRA were a real threat, not only to other Irish people, but people abroad as well.

Even then, the Taliban and al-Qaeda operate quite differently from a group like the IRA. They are quite a bit less meticulous in choosing their targets and are generally more chaotic. It's not ideal, but I think it's wise. Afghanistan will be volatile for quite some time and when international, not just national, security is at stake, I think it's the right precaution to take.

I agree with the security measures taken in the article. I was more interested in discussing the latter part of my post.

"The question is: How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice to gain safety?

I think the deciding factor is going to be; is the value of the increased safety bigger than the loss of liberty. If so, who determines the values of them?"

[Deleted]

I agree with the security measures taken in the article. I was more interested in discussing the latter part of my post.

Ah, I see. Well, I am gonna be a bit of a dick and say that it is not 'our' freedom that is being given up for international safety here. Cheap, I know, but as I said, I have room to be pragmatic.

[Deleted]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47399515...cid=todmsnbc11
Kind of funny how it is considered appropriate to do to another country what we would not stand for here. Hovering a freaking dirgible over us 24/7, infrared camera's watching every move we make?
Why is it ok to do it to other countries in the name of safety? I feel for the innocents in the afghan population, having to put up with this kind of bullcrap.

I don't have a single issue with camera's watching what we do outside the home as they are there for our safty, however Putting Camera's inside a home to watch us is some scary Orwellian shit.

[Deleted]

It seems like another case of punishing the majority due to the actions of a minority, though with the direction recent world events have taken I wouldn't be terribly surprised if we saw more and more 'security' measures cropping up in the western world.

[Dezerte]

Ah, I see. Well, I am gonna be a bit of a dick and say that it is not 'our' freedom that is being given up for international safety here. Cheap, I know, but as I said, I have room to be pragmatic.

Do I understand you correctly if I say that you are willing to give up privacy to gain safety then?

Privacy is a part of liberty, but I realize there's more to liberty than that. Right now I'm thinking that maybe I should of rephrased my question