Sign in to follow this  
Bull Gator

Domestic spying

Recommended Posts

Feinstein is complicit with this. She's going to pay because of this.

 

She is no more complicit than anyone else on and connected to the Intelligence Committee. As far as getting her at the polls, good luck, she just won her 2012 election to the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

Feinstein is complicit with this. She's going to pay because of this.

 

Ok, I'll agree that you are stupid and I'm still being nice.

 

As head of the Senate Intelligence committee she knew about this - per Chris Hayes this evening on MSNBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of "teams", congratulations to the NYT Editorial Board for seeing the light --

 

Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability.

The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. (More here - link)

 

 

I completely agree. I don't care what Graham or Feinstein think about it. I don't care that Congress passed laws that allowed these things to happen. I don't care if Bush set the precedence. These violations of privacy appear to be completely out of control.

 

Hope and change, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Feinstein is complicit with this. She's going to pay because of this.

 

Ok, I'll agree that you are stupid and I'm still being nice.

As head of the Senate Intelligence committee she knew about this - per Chris Hayes this evening on MSNBC.

So did chambliss you specious cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Obama is completely unaware of this.... he knew nothing about this.

 

Regatta Dog, these people know no shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Feinstein is complicit with this. She's going to pay because of this.

 

She is no more complicit than anyone else on and connected to the Intelligence Committee. As far as getting her at the polls, good luck, she just won her 2012 election to the Senate.

 

I agree. And with 98% of the senate supporting the Patriot Act, the same thing could be said of that....though certain people tend to ignore that little fact.

 

These are not party issues, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Feinstein is complicit with this. She's going to pay because of this.

 

Ok, I'll agree that you are stupid and I'm still being nice.

 

As head of the Senate Intelligence committee she knew about this - per Chris Hayes this evening on MSNBC.

 

In related news, Mike Rogers knew about it too. He's going to pay. Well, maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Sorry - but who was the Party in Control?

 

Who was the group that was all about CHANGE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Sorry - who is the party for Hope and Change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

You're forgiven.

 

Still no answer..

 

Who is the party for Hope and Change? Who is the Party in Charge of the Senate and the Executive Branch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no Hope and Change party. That was a campaign for a candidate in 2008 who was re-elected in 2012.

Both parties are in charge of the Senate as neither has a filibuster-proof 60 votes.

The Republicans are in charge of the House and it shows.

The Kenyan is a Democrat.

 

You really should already know these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're forgiven.

Still no answer..

 

Who is the party for Hope and Change? Who is the Party in Charge of the Senate and the Executive Branch?

Owned by the same people that own the other party; how many times must I say it? Government does not return our rights to us after we give them away willingly. I warned back when we were giving them away in the name of patriotism and understanding the world in which we live, that there would come a day when the WH was occupied by the party that didn't share Bush's steadfast dedication to small government, the rule of law, and human rights.

 

I hate to say I told you so, but that day has arrived. Don't blame the people who opposed it then and oppose it now. Blame the people who excused it then and oppose it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing that those who granted the government these powers are shocked, shocked I say, that they utilize these powers. And they want them held responsible for exercising the power we gave them. Shocked I say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure am enjoying watching the hypocritical pearl clutching, but I think long term I'd get more satisfaction if we could all just agree that this shit is bad and needs to stop.

 

Maybe have an adult discussion where we all agree that the price of living in a free society might be that we suffer a few terrorist attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I can't record a cop but public servants can monitor the private sector as they please.

Screw these folks. They gotta go. This has been going on since the Red Scare and just getting worse.

 

But the politicians don't care. Citizens United gets a vote way before we do, so we don't matter, unless we get uppity.

They'll know when that happens and have the records to prove it. JFC.

 

I just paid my 1st installment of real estate taxes on the farm yesterday. Yeah, that felt good.

I kept thinking to myself as I wrote the ginormous check that if they were a business, I'd refuse payment and sue for dereliction of services rendered based on that MSA called the Constitution and the SLA rider called The Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G000359.jpg

 

Sorry Y'all had to get upset about nuthin:

 

 

"Frequent critic of the White House Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is defending the National Security Agency’s reported collection of millions of Americans’ phone calls, saying he’s more concerned about terrorism.

“I’m glad the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our country,” Graham said Thursday morning on “Fox & Friends.

As a customer of Verizon, the subject of the court order, Graham said he and others had nothing to worry about.

 

“I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.”

And Graham assured the hosts that the surveillance was limited to terrorism.

 

“I’m glad that activity is going on, but it is limited to tracking people who are suspected to be terrorists and who they may be talking to,” Graham said. He was asked whether he was sure: “Yes, I am sure that that’s what they’re doing.”

Prodded further by Gretchen Carlson as to whether the report of millions of phone calls being collected was true, Graham said: “I’m sure we should be doing this.”

The supportive remarks from the Republican stand in contrast to a number of Democrats who have been highly critical of the administration in light of the report".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say I told you so, but that day has arrived. Don't blame the people who opposed it then and oppose it now. Blame the people who excused it then and oppose it now.

 

I think the majority of people who excused it then will be the majority of people who excuse it now. I'd rather that weren't the case but once again, we have met the enemy and he is the majority of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe have an adult discussion where we all agree that the price of living in a free society might be that we suffer a few terrorist attacks.

 

The TSA tried to allow knives on planes again. Airlines and crews went batshit crazy. I got annoyed when they confiscated my toothpaste from my carryon baggage. But I haven't figured out why the govmint wanted to give me the right to carry on knife onboard back. Security theater is funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I hate to say I told you so, but that day has arrived. Don't blame the people who opposed it then and oppose it now. Blame the people who excused it then and oppose it now.

I think the majority of people who excused it then will be the majority of people who excuse it now. I'd rather that weren't the case but once again, we have met the enemy and he is the majority of us.

I'd like to think that but I am afraid that President Washington's parting warning about allegiance to faction has come home to roost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry Y'all had to get upset about nuthin:

 

 

"Frequent critic of the White House Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is defending the National Security Agency’s reported collection of millions of Americans’ phone calls, saying he’s more concerned about terrorism.

“I’m glad the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our country,” Graham said Thursday morning on “Fox & Friends.

As a customer of Verizon, the subject of the court order, Graham said he and others had nothing to worry about.

 

“I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.”

And Graham assured the hosts that the surveillance was limited to terrorism.

 

“I’m glad that activity is going on, but it is limited to tracking people who are suspected to be terrorists and who they may be talking to,” Graham said. He was asked whether he was sure: “Yes, I am sure that that’s what they’re doing.”

Prodded further by Gretchen Carlson as to whether the report of millions of phone calls being collected was true, Graham said: “I’m sure we should be doing this.”

The supportive remarks from the Republican stand in contrast to a number of Democrats who have been highly critical of the administration in light of the report".

I don't agree with Senator Graham, but I do respect him highly for taking this position.

 

Unless he walks it back in a few days...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sorry Y'all had to get upset about nuthin:

 

 

"Frequent critic of the White House Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is defending the National Security Agency’s reported collection of millions of Americans’ phone calls, saying he’s more concerned about terrorism.

“I’m glad the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our country,” Graham said Thursday morning on “Fox & Friends.

As a customer of Verizon, the subject of the court order, Graham said he and others had nothing to worry about.

 

“I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.”

And Graham assured the hosts that the surveillance was limited to terrorism.

 

“I’m glad that activity is going on, but it is limited to tracking people who are suspected to be terrorists and who they may be talking to,” Graham said. He was asked whether he was sure: “Yes, I am sure that that’s what they’re doing.”

Prodded further by Gretchen Carlson as to whether the report of millions of phone calls being collected was true, Graham said: “I’m sure we should be doing this.”

The supportive remarks from the Republican stand in contrast to a number of Democrats who have been highly critical of the administration in light of the report".

I don't agree with Senator Graham, but I do respect him highly for taking this position.

 

Unless he walks it back in a few days...

 

Like this?

 

In a 2008 position paper, then-candidate Barack Obama wrote: "“There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties. ... As president, Barack Obama would revisit the Patriot Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.”

Three years ago, the editors of The New York Times -- recalling that promise after Obama's White House seeking to obtain the broadest possible application of these national security letters (which allowed the FBI to obtain "electronic communication transactional records" from Internet service providers upon request and without judicial oversight -- were inspired to ask, "Where is the 'robust oversight' that voters were promised?" As it turns out, the "oversight" was far more "robust" than the Times' editors imagined, though obviously not in the way they intended. (HuffPo)

 

 

I'd like to see some leadership on this from the WH, and I'm willing to give him time to turn on the TV so he can find out what's been going on.

 

Jay Carney is on suicide watch right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Sorry Y'all had to get upset about nuthin:

 

 

"Frequent critic of the White House Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is defending the National Security Agency’s reported collection of millions of Americans’ phone calls, saying he’s more concerned about terrorism.

“I’m glad the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our country,” Graham said Thursday morning on “Fox & Friends.

As a customer of Verizon, the subject of the court order, Graham said he and others had nothing to worry about.

 

“I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.”

And Graham assured the hosts that the surveillance was limited to terrorism.

 

“I’m glad that activity is going on, but it is limited to tracking people who are suspected to be terrorists and who they may be talking to,” Graham said. He was asked whether he was sure: “Yes, I am sure that that’s what they’re doing.”

Prodded further by Gretchen Carlson as to whether the report of millions of phone calls being collected was true, Graham said: “I’m sure we should be doing this.”

The supportive remarks from the Republican stand in contrast to a number of Democrats who have been highly critical of the administration in light of the report".

I don't agree with Senator Graham, but I do respect him highly for taking this position.

 

Unless he walks it back in a few days...

 

Like this?

 

In a 2008 position paper, then-candidate Barack Obama wrote: "“There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties. ... As president, Barack Obama would revisit the Patriot Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.”

Three years ago, the editors of The New York Times -- recalling that promise after Obama's White House seeking to obtain the broadest possible application of these national security letters (which allowed the FBI to obtain "electronic communication transactional records" from Internet service providers upon request and without judicial oversight -- were inspired to ask, "Where is the 'robust oversight' that voters were promised?" As it turns out, the "oversight" was far more "robust" than the Times' editors imagined, though obviously not in the way they intended. (HuffPo)

 

 

I'd like to see some leadership on this from the WH, and I'm willing to give him time to turn on the TV so he can find out what's been going on.

 

Jay Carney is on suicide watch right now.

See where I said I don't agree with Graham that we should be doing this stuff?

 

That mean I don't think we should be doing it, which means I don't agree with the actions of the administration.

 

See how that works now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Sorry Y'all had to get upset about nuthin:

 

 

"Frequent critic of the White House Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is defending the National Security Agency’s reported collection of millions of Americans’ phone calls, saying he’s more concerned about terrorism.

“I’m glad the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our country,” Graham said Thursday morning on “Fox & Friends.

As a customer of Verizon, the subject of the court order, Graham said he and others had nothing to worry about.

 

“I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.”

And Graham assured the hosts that the surveillance was limited to terrorism.

 

“I’m glad that activity is going on, but it is limited to tracking people who are suspected to be terrorists and who they may be talking to,” Graham said. He was asked whether he was sure: “Yes, I am sure that that’s what they’re doing.”

Prodded further by Gretchen Carlson as to whether the report of millions of phone calls being collected was true, Graham said: “I’m sure we should be doing this.”

The supportive remarks from the Republican stand in contrast to a number of Democrats who have been highly critical of the administration in light of the report".

I don't agree with Senator Graham, but I do respect him highly for taking this position.

 

Unless he walks it back in a few days...

 

Like this?

 

In a 2008 position paper, then-candidate Barack Obama wrote: "“There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties. ... As president, Barack Obama would revisit the Patriot Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.”

Three years ago, the editors of The New York Times -- recalling that promise after Obama's White House seeking to obtain the broadest possible application of these national security letters (which allowed the FBI to obtain "electronic communication transactional records" from Internet service providers upon request and without judicial oversight -- were inspired to ask, "Where is the 'robust oversight' that voters were promised?" As it turns out, the "oversight" was far more "robust" than the Times' editors imagined, though obviously not in the way they intended. (HuffPo)

 

 

I'd like to see some leadership on this from the WH, and I'm willing to give him time to turn on the TV so he can find out what's been going on.

 

Jay Carney is on suicide watch right now.

See where I said I don't agree with Graham that we should be doing this stuff?

 

That mean I don't think we should be doing it, which means I don't agree with the actions of the administration.

 

See how that works now?

 

I was simply providing an example of how someone "walks it back".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most important thing to call for immediately. is oversight. Something that our trusting Senators felt wasn't important back in December.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was simply providing an example of how someone "walks it back".

That's just lying from Obama.

 

By "walks it back" I mean like what happens when a member of the GOP says something ill of Rush and then has to give him a big ol' smooch on the balloon knot a few days later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most important thing to call for immediately. is oversight. Something that our trusting Senators felt wasn't important back in December.

 

I know you are not a big fan of him, and he's far from the top of my list, but Rand Paul has an even better idea, IMO --

 

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul will introduce legislation to prevent the government from searching the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause when the Senate returns to session Friday.

“The revelation that the [National Security Agency] has secretly seized the call records of millions of Americans, without probable cause, represents an outrageous abuse of power and a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution,” Paul said, announcing his intent to introduce the “Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013.”

“I have long argued that Congress must do more to restrict the Executive’s expansive law enforcement powers to seize private records of law-abiding Americans that are held by a third-party,” he said.

It probably doesn't go far enough, but it is a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the most important thing to call for immediately. is oversight. Something that our trusting Senators felt wasn't important back in December.

I know you are not a big fan of him, and he's far from the top of my list, but Rand Paul has an even better idea, IMO --

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul will introduce legislation to prevent the government from searching the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause when the Senate returns to session Friday.

“The revelation that the [National Security Agency] has secretly seized the call records of millions of Americans, without probable cause, represents an outrageous abuse of power and a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution,” Paul said, announcing his intent to introduce the “Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013.”

“I have long argued that Congress must do more to restrict the Executive’s expansive law enforcement powers to seize private records of law-abiding Americans that are held by a third-party,” he said.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/06/paul-to-introduce-legislation-to-prevent-phone-surveillance-restore-fourth-amendment-rights/#ixzz2VUknIcNs

It probably doesn't go far enough, but it is a start.
That's a start, but we must be mindful not to allow us to allow terrorists to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm frankly surprised at Paul since supposedly all Senators were read in on the details of this program. That said, here is a clip from Foreign Policy mag that attempt to explain things:

 

[T]his is not some warrantless or extra-statutory surveillance program. The government had to persuade up to a dozen life-tenured members of the federal judiciary that the order is lawful. You may not like the legal interpretation that produced this order, but you can’t say it’s lawless.

In fact, it’s a near certainty that the underlying program has been carefully examined by all three branches of government and by both parties. As the Guardian story makes clear, Senator Ron Wyden has been agitating for years about what he called an interpretation of national security law that seems goes beyond anything the American people understood or would support. He could easily have been talking about orders like this. So it’s highly likely that the law behind this order was carefully vetted by both intelligence committees, Democrat-led in the Senate and Republican-led in the House. (Indeed, today the leaders of both committees gave interviews defending the order.) And in the executive branch, any legal interpretations adopted by the Bush administration would have been carefully scrubbed by President Obama’s Justice Department.

The two other questions about the program are why such a sweeping collection and how can something that broad be lawful. Here’s my guess about answers to the first question:

Imagine that the United States is intercepting al Qaeda communications in Yemen. Its leader there calls his weapons expert and says, “Our agent in the U.S. needs technical assistance constructing a weapon for an imminent operation. I’ve told him to use a throw-away cell phone to call you tomorrow at 11 a.m. on your throw-away phone. When you answer, he’ll give you the number of a second phone. You will buy a phone in the bazaar, and call him back on the second number at 2 p.m.”

Now, this is pretty good improvised tradecraft, and it would leave the government with no idea where or who the U.S.-based operative is or what phone numbers to monitor. It doesn’t have probable cause to investigate any particular American. But it surely does have probable cause to investigate any American who makes a call to Yemen at 11 a.m., Sanaa time, hangs up after a few seconds, and then gets a call from a different Yemeni number three hours later. Finding that person, however, isn’t easy, because the government can only identify the suspect by his calling patterns, not by his name.

So how does the NSA go about finding the one person in the United States whose calling pattern matches the terrorists’ plan? Well, it could ask every carrier to develop the capability to store all of their calls and to search them for patterns like this. But that would be very expensive, and its effectiveness is really only as good as the weakest, least cooperative carrier. And even then it wouldn’t work without massive, real-time information sharing — any reasonably intelligent U.S.-based terrorist would just buy his first throwaway phone from one carrier and his second phone from a different carrier.

The only way to make the system work, and the only way to identify and monitor the one American who is plotting with al Qaeda’s operatives in Yemen, is to pool all the carriers’ data on U.S. calls to and from Yemen and to search it all together — and for the costs to be borne by all of us, not by the carriers.

In short, the government has to do it.

And here’s my guess about how to answer the second question:

>

The technique that squares that circle is minimization. As long as the minimization rules require that all searches of the collected data must be justified by probable cause, Americans are protected from arbitrary searches. In the standard law enforcement model that we’re all familiar with, , privacy is protected because the government doesn’t get access to the information until it presents evidence to the court sufficient to identify the suspects. In the alternative model, the government gets possession of the data but but is prohibited by the court and the minimization rules from searching it until it has enough evidence to identify terror suspects based on their patterns of behavior.

That’s a real difference. Plenty of people will say that they don’t trust the government with such a large amount of data, that there’s too much risk that it will break the rules, even reules enforced by a two-party, three-branch system of checks and balances. Even I, when I first read the order, had a moment of chagrin and disbelief at its sweep.

But for those who don’t like the alternative model, the real question is “compared to what?” Those who want to push the government back into the standard law enforcement approach will have to explain how it will allow us to catch terrorists who use half-way decent tradecraft — or why sticking with the standard approach is so fundamentally important that we should do so even if it means more acts of terror at home.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/06/why_the_nsa_needs_your_phone_calls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is completely unaware of this.... he knew nothing about this.

 

Regatta Dog, these people know no shame.

 

Well, it's in the newspaper now so, I think he might now be aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is completely unaware of this.... he knew nothing about this.

 

Regatta Dog, these people know no shame.

What people, the folks who oppose this now, who also opposed it when the Americans were in the White House, or the people who thought this was fine when their team was doing it, but are outraged about it now that the fascist communists are in power?

 

When I think "no shame", I think of the people whose lack of principle allows them to look the other way when their party does something to which they object, instead of calling for an end to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I hate to say I told you so, but that day has arrived. Don't blame the people who opposed it then and oppose it now. Blame the people who excused it then and oppose it now.

I think the majority of people who excused it then will be the majority of people who excuse it now. I'd rather that weren't the case but once again, we have met the enemy and he is the majority of us.

I'd like to think that but I am afraid that President Washington's parting warning about allegiance to faction has come home to roost.

I can think of a remarkably simple political system without all these messy factions. No disagreement at all. No partisan bickering whatsoever. As you please, I'll stay here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link

DNI Statement on Activities Authorized Under Section 702 of FISA
Thursday, June 06, 2013
  • pdf_button.png

June 6, 2013

DNI Statement on Activities Authorized Under Section 702 of FISA


The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.

Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.

Activities authorized by Section 702 are subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. They involve extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.

Section 702 was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.

Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.

The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.


James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

###

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sunday talk shows are going to be pretty crowded with damage control experts from both parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sunday talk shows are going to be pretty crowded with damage control experts from both parties.

It will be the new senators vs the old ones. Freshmen vs seniors. I can't wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sunday talk shows are going to be pretty crowded with damage control experts from both parties.

 

When does Obama's new National Security Adviser get sworn in? This seems to fall within her domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were hoping. The NSA is run by a three star director and headed by the DNI,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were hoping. The NSA is run by a three star director and headed by the DNI,

 

So? She'd be a hell of a lot closer to this situation than she was to Benghazi, and she knocked that ball out of the park, didn't she?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link

DNI Statement on Activities Authorized Under Section 702 of FISA
Thursday, June 06, 2013
  • pdf_button.png

June 6, 2013

 

DNI Statement on Activities Authorized Under Section 702 of FISA

The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.

 

Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.

 

Activities authorized by Section 702 are subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. They involve extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.

 

Section 702 was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.

 

Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.

 

The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.

 

 

James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

###

 

See, it cannot be used INTENTIONALLY so collecting phone records on 300 million americans is just collateral damage. And, by taking it all, They didn't intentionally target an individual.

 

It's like a drone really.

 

Want to get around it? Think of Skyking and do not answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You were hoping. The NSA is run by a three star director and headed by the DNI,

 

So? She'd be a hell of a lot closer to this situation than she was to Benghazi, and she knocked that ball out of the park, didn't she?

 

But James Clapper would be even closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You were hoping. The NSA is run by a three star director and headed by the DNI,

 

So? She'd be a hell of a lot closer to this situation than she was to Benghazi, and she knocked that ball out of the park, didn't she?

 

But James Clapper would be even closer.

 

Good point -- and he's shown on more than a few occasions that he hasn't got a clew as to what's going on. Excellent choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps we can get some kind of consensus about how wrong this crap is.

 

Now.

Never. If Obama is for this, they will be against it. If he's against it, they will be for it.

 

Stop being such a fucking partisan cunt and instead of telling us what you think we think about it, why don't you tell us how YOU feel about it. Is it right or wrong at this moment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're just waking up...

 

“The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time”.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the left was motovated by principal, they would be up in arms about numerous circumstances where warrantless searches are permitted. They would also have objected when previous presidents asserted the authority to conduct warrantless searches. They did not and they do not.

 

In this debate the left is motovated not by what they stand for, but by what (read who) they stand against. In the process their hypocracy is exposed for all to see.

 

 

It seems some at the NYT are getting it...

 

"The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad."

 

Meanwhile this debate reminds the public of the administrations effective efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and Bush's ratings continue to climb.

 

 

If you're just waking up...

 

“The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time”.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

 

Glad to have you on board with those of us who have opposed this crap for quite some time. Better late than never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're just waking up...

 

“The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time”.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

 

Now we are getting much closer to disclosure of the full level of monitoring the govt is doing. I tried making that point months ago, but probably just looked like a paranoid nut at the time. It will be an interesting week, as it is going to be much harder for Americans to live under the illusion that the govt is not actively monitoring all of us. And I do mean all of us, because not showing up in their database regularly throws up a flag too, it just throws up a unabomber flag, not an al queda flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It seems some at the NYT are getting it...

 

"The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad."

 

Meanwhile this debate reminds the public of the administrations effective efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and Bush's ratings continue to climb.

 

 

>If you're just waking up...

 

“The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time”.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

 

Glad to have you on board with those of us who have opposed this crap for quite some time. Better late than never.

 

 

Do you not see a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It seems some at the NYT are getting it...

 

"The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad."

 

Meanwhile this debate reminds the public of the administrations effective efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and Bush's ratings continue to climb.

 

 

>If you're just waking up...

 

“The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time”.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.ht

ml

 

Glad to have you on board with those of us who have opposed this crap for quite some time. Better late than never.

 

Do you not see a difference?

 

Why don't you explain it, Mr. Minister. You may want to switch the login back first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're just waking up...

 

“The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time”.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

 

 

Even more reason to gradually go more and more off the grid.

 

But if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about - right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you're just waking up...

 

“The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time”.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

 

 

Even more reason to gradually go more and more off the grid.

 

But if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about - right?

Now that principled people are opposed to this crap too, perhaps we can get to some consensus about letting portions of the USA PATRIOT act ride off into the sunset on June 1, 2015 when they expire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you're just waking up...

 

“The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time”.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

 

 

Even more reason to gradually go more and more off the grid.

 

But if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about - right?

Now that principled people are opposed to this crap too, perhaps we can get to some consensus about letting portions of the USA PATRIOT act ride off into the sunset on June 1, 2015 when they expire.

 

Fine by me..... I've been opposed to many of the provisions of the USAPA as serious over-reach. There are some good things as well, so I'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water. But just like Obamacare, I doubt many lawmakers actually read it and knew what was in it before they passed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - but who was the Party in Control?

 

Who was the group that was all about CHANGE?

 

 

When it comes to the Surveillance State, I'd say the answers are:

 

The Duopoly Party

 

and

 

A motley collection of anarchists, libertarians, and the extreme left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're just waking up...

 

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a persons movements and contacts over time.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

Yes, I'm sure all this touchy feely "rights" stuff sounds good when you're talking to your liberal friends in the comfort of your vegan lesbian fair trade coffee shop, but there is a real world out there and it is very scary and you just don't understand it. Don't you realize there are people trying to kill every single one of us for our freedoms!

Dirge. As far as I'm concerned there was no speeding. Only a bunch of whiners who flop flop on the speed limit pointing fingers and crying "Bush is speeding". Sinner is right, this is little shit, there are bastards out there who want us dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you're just waking up...

 

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a persons movements and contacts over time.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

Yes, I'm sure all this touchy feely "rights" stuff sounds good when you're talking to your liberal friends in the comfort of your vegan lesbian fair trade coffee shop, but there is a real world out there and it is very scary and you just don't understand it. Don't you realize there are people trying to kill us!

>Dirge. As far as I'm concerned there was no speeding. Only a bunch of whiners who flop flop on the speed limit pointing fingers and crying "Bush is speeding". Sinner is right, this is little shit, there are bastards out there who want us dead.

 

 

Ouch. But its interesting that as much as we lament the fact that few people change their minds here or are influenced by the discussion and debate - when someone actually shows some ability to see both sides and their positions evolve over time.... we seem to take great joy in hammering the fuck out of them. I wonder why that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 anonymous users at this instant in time

I'll admit that one is me, but who are the other three?

 

End secret, anonymous users spying on threads, boycott this forum until transparency is instituted. Who are they, these anonymous users, why are they reading this thread in secret? Demand answers, require openness, get to some consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the left was motovated by principal, they would be up in arms about numerous circumstances where warrantless searches are permitted. They would also have objected when previous presidents asserted the authority to conduct warrantless searches. They did not and they do not.

 

In this debate the left is motovated not by what they stand for, but by what (read who) they stand against. In the process their hypocracy is exposed for all to see.

I

t seems some at the NYT are getting it...

 

"The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad."

 

Meanwhile this debate reminds the public of the administrations effective efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and Bush's ratings continue to climb.

If you're just waking up...

 

“The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time”.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

Glad to have you on board with those of us who have opposed this crap for quite some time. Better late than never.

 

As far as we know this has never been done before and this is clearly not a case of collecting foreign intelligence. But I do have to tip my hat to you Sol, you have been consistant on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If you're just waking up...

 

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a persons movements and contacts over time.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

Yes, I'm sure all this touchy feely "rights" stuff sounds good when you're talking to your liberal friends in the comfort of your vegan lesbian fair trade coffee shop, but there is a real world out there and it is very scary and you just don't understand it. Don't you realize there are people trying to kill us!

>Dirge. As far as I'm concerned there was no speeding. Only a bunch of whiners who flop flop on the speed limit pointing fingers and crying "Bush is speeding". Sinner is right, this is little shit, there are bastards out there who want us dead.

 

 

Ouch. But its interesting that as much as we lament the fact that few people change their minds here or are influenced by the discussion and debate - when someone actually shows some ability to see both sides and their positions evolve over time.... we seem to take great joy in hammering the fuck out of them. I wonder why that is?

 

 

I think it's when that evolution seems to be more partisan than principle.

 

Heck, you have some folks that won't even admit they evolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you're just waking up...

 

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a persons movements and contacts over time.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

Yes, I'm sure all this touchy feely "rights" stuff sounds good when you're talking to your liberal friends in the comfort of your vegan lesbian fair trade coffee shop, but there is a real world out there and it is very scary and you just don't understand it. Don't you realize there are people trying to kill us!

>Dirge. As far as I'm concerned there was no speeding. Only a bunch of whiners who flop flop on the speed limit pointing fingers and crying "Bush is speeding". Sinner is right, this is little shit, there are bastards out there who want us dead.<

/p>

Ouch. But its interesting that as much as we lament the fact that few people change their minds here or are influenced by the discussion and debate - when someone actually shows some ability to see both sides and their positions evolve over time.... we seem to take great joy in hammering the fuck out of them. I wonder why that is?

 

It's preferable to confronting the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If the left was motovated by principal, they would be up in arms about numerous circumstances where warrantless searches are permitted. They would also have objected when previous presidents asserted the authority to conduct warrantless searches. They did not and they do not.

 

In this debate the left is motovated not by what they stand for, but by what (read who) they stand against. In the process their hypocracy is exposed for all to see.

>I

t seems some at the NYT are getting it...

 

"The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad."

 

Meanwhile this debate reminds the public of the administrations effective efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and Bush's ratings continue to climb.

lockquote>

>If you're just waking up...

 

“The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time”.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

Glad to have you on board with those of us who have opposed this crap for quite some time. Better late than never.

As far as we know this has never been done before and this is clearly not a case of collecting foreign intelligence. But I do have to tip my hat to you Sol, you have been consistant on this one.

 

 

We let them do this. Our representatives passed the USA PATRIOT Act and our President signed it. They have since extended it, albeit with government control under different gang colors. We made a mistake in trying to trade liberty for security. Governments don't willingly give rights back to us, once we've given them up.

Perhaps this would be a good time to dispense with partisan outrage and/or partisan apology, and build a coalition to try to get this law changed or let it expire in June of 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps this would be a good time to dispense with partisan outrage and/or partisan apology, and build a coalition to try to get this law changed or let it expire in June of 2015.

 

+69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Perhaps this would be a good time to dispense with partisan outrage and/or partisan apology, and build a coalition to try to get this law changed or let it expire in June of 2015.

 

+69

It was necessary to exercise the overreaching power the PATRIOT act provided and be exercised by both sides of the aisle before consensus could be reached at the outrageousness of the act. My heart sings that even those who called us unPATRIOTic and not understanding the world we live in are now joining us. My position hasn't changed. But I'm sure glad others have seen the error of their ways. Welcome aboard the Freedom Express.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Perhaps this would be a good time to dispense with partisan outrage and/or partisan apology, and build a coalition to try to get this law changed or let it expire in June of 2015.

 

+69

It was necessary to exercise the overreaching power the PATRIOT act provided and be exercised by both sides of the aisle before consensus could be reached at the outrageousness of the act. My heart sings that even those who called us unPATRIOTic and not understanding the world we live in are now joining us. My position hasn't changed. But I'm sure glad others have seen the error of their ways. Welcome aboard the Freedom Express.

 

Only one person in the Senate voted against the Patriot act, and Russ Feingold was not sitting all by himself in the chamber that day while the other Senators doubled up by sitting on each others laps.

 

Quick jump to the present - Both Senators Feinstein and Chambliss defend collecting phone records, as does the White House.

 

As much as you would like it to be, this has never been an issue divided by "the aisle".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Petraeus At Bilderberg to Craft “Big Data” Spy Grid

 

Paul Joseph Watson

Infowars.com

June 7, 2013

Former CIA Director David Petraeus is in attendance at the 2013 Bilderberg Group conference to help construct the “big data” spy grid, which is set to become the new frontier of clandestine statecraft as Internet connectivity becomes ubiquitous.

070613pet.jpg

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Bilderberg’s official agenda for 2013 lists one of the areas of discussion as, “How big data is changing almost everything,” a reference to how the “Internet of things” along with the ubiquitous growth of social media is transforming the world of surveillance and the ability to foresee and manipulate future events.

At almost the exact same time, a Homeland Security subcommittee in the United States will also be discussing “big data” and its implications in the context of social media.

Bilderberg’s effort to push the “big data” agenda ties in with the secretive organization’s close relationship with Google, which as we documentedis now merging with and taking over from Bilderberg in many aspects.

The discussion about “big data” is also likely to cover how social media can be used to launch more faux revolutions and social movements as it was in Egypt, which was aided in no small part by Google.

As we have documented, the Internet of things is the process of manufacturing every new product with a system that broadcasts wirelessly via the world wide web, allowing industry and the government to spy ubiquitously on every aspect of your existen

  • Petraeus has previously hailed the “Internet of things” as a transformational boon for “clandestine tradecraft”. In other words, it will soon be easier than ever before to keep tabs on the population since everything they use will be connected to the web, with total disregard for privacy considerations. The spooks won’t have to plant a bug in your home or your vehicle, you will be doing it for them.

It’s ironic that Petraeus is helping bolster the very same surveillance system that brought him down last year when details emerged of his extra-marital affair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm just trying to sort out how someone who claimed to be so "different" has done more against our civil liberties than Bush the Stupid ever could have.

 

This was supposed to be a different and transparent Administration in a "Progressive" direction. I see nothing that would indicate this.

 

Please, I'm a Republican and therefore stupid - educate me.

 

Olsonist? Mitch? Mark? Sol? How about it? Is there any integrity in your position and can you condemn this?

 

I hope it's a "Yes We Can!"

Per

 

well you see, I must be stupid, cause I don't see the condemnation. Same with Olsonist. C O N D E M N A T I O N.

 

But you'll find some smart ass way to make yourself look good about this. Carry on mocking people. It looks soo good.

 

Why do you waste your time reading their posts? Let me know if you find something relevant in one of them. Funny how it takes 5 of them to "mock" you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting perspective (Forbes) -

 


Tim Worstall, Contributor

I write about business and technology.

Follow (641)

Tech | 6/07/2013 @ 7:02AM |25,102 views

 

NSA's PRISM Sounds Like A Darn Good Idea To Me: This Is What Governments Are For

 

There’s been a joint investigation by the Washington Post and The Guardian into an NSA program called PRISM. The allegation is that the National Security Agency (NSA) has backdoor access to the systems and data of the major internet firms, Microsoft , Google , Apple, Facebook FB and so on, and they routinely use this to monitor what people are saying and doing. With one caveat this is in fact what governments are supposed to do so I’m at something of a loss in understanding why people seem to be getting so outraged about it.

The WaPo piece is here, a couple from The Guardian here and here.

It’s worth pointing out that the companies themselves are vehemently denying that the NSA has such backdoor access to the data.

"However, senior executives from the internet companies expressed surprise and shock and insisted that no direct access to servers had been offered to any government agency.

The top-secret NSA briefing presentation set out details of the PRISM program, which it said granted access to records such as emails, chat conversations, voice calls, documents and more. The presentation the listed dates when document collection began for each company, and said PRISM enabled “direct access from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo YHOO +1.71%, Google, Facebook, Paltalk, AOL AOL +3.05%, Skype, YouTube, Apple”.

Senior officials with knowledge of the situation within the tech giants admitted to being confused by the NSA revelations, and said if such data collection was taking place, it was without companies’ knowledge.

An Apple spokesman said: “We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers and any agency requesting customer data must get a court order,” he said."

Whether the claim of direct access is true or not is one thing. But the much larger point is that this sort of behaviour is not something that we should be shouting about government doing. It’s something that we should be shouting about government not doing. The crucial point is here, from the DNI:

"Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States."

 

As I say that’s the important part of it all. The information, the data, may be in the US as a result of the global spread of the internet and the physical location of servers. But the information cannot be about either a US citizen or someone who is in the US. And, if we’re prepared to be honest about matters, we do actually want the government to be keeping an eye on foreigners in foreign lands. Which is what they’re doing.

 

Take a step back for a moment. The purpose of the State, the first job it is tasked with, is the protection of that State from external enemies. This is the first principle of even having a State in the first place: to make sure that the populace is protected from the depredations of the foreigners who would do them harm. So the idea that the spies would be attempting to look at the telecoms data of said foreigners shouldn’t really surprise us. Indeed, this is something we actually want said State to be doing: this is rather the purpose of having both it and the spies it employs.

 

The matter is entirely different when such a State uses the same methods to look at its own citizens: this is a gross abuse of power and a serious threat to any form of liberty or freedom. Which is why there are legal protections against it in most free and liberal states. And as we can see with PRISM those safeguards are in place. Data on US citizens or residents might be collected but only as a by-product of collecting it on those foreigners. Who do not have any of those legal or constitutional protections.

 

It should also be noted that many governments are trying the same thing. I’m sure that the UK’s spies at GCHQ are keeping an eye on the Old Enemy across the Channel in France. China certainly seems to be running around the internet looking to see what it can find. And Russian state backed (if even by a blind eye if not actual encouragement) attempts to rootle through the data are well known.

 

In my native UK there’s also an attempt (known as the “Snoopers’ Charter” colloquially) to push through government having the powers to do this sort of monitoring on UK citizens and residents. Something to which I’m vehemently opposed as should we all be. But while I’m opposed to my government spying on me I rather assume that foreign governments are going to spy on me*. Just as my own government spies upon foreigners. That’s rather the point of having a government in the first place.

 

That the NSA is looking at as much information and data it can get on what those nefarious foreigners are up to outside the US doesn’t seem objectionable to me in the slightest. Indeed, I rather think that that’s the purpose of government, to protect us, and it’s the reason we hire the spies in the first place. They’re doing exactly what they should be: looking for those who would do us, the citizenry, harm and then attempting to prevent them doing so. Sure, the foreigners aren’t going to be very happy about it all: but their own governments (or perhaps I should say “ours”) are doing as much of it to US citizens as they can. The dividing line, the where it moves from being entirely reasonable and sensible to being an outrage that must be prevented, is when governments do this sort of thing to their own citizens.

 

* No, this isn’t paranoia or personal aggrandisement. I’ve had licences for nuclear and dual use goods several times. There will indeed be files on me in several basements around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Perhaps this would be a good time to dispense with partisan outrage and/or partisan apology, and build a coalition to try to get this law changed or let it expire in June of 2015.

 

+69

It was necessary to exercise the overreaching power the PATRIOT act provided and be exercised by both sides of the aisle before consensus could be reached at the outrageousness of the act. My heart sings that even those who called us unPATRIOTic and not understanding the world we live in are now joining us. My position hasn't changed. But I'm sure glad others have seen the error of their ways. Welcome aboard the Freedom Express.

 

Only one person in the Senate voted against the Patriot act, and Russ Feingold was not sitting all by himself in the chamber that day while the other Senators doubled up by sitting on each others laps.

 

Quick jump to the present - Both Senators Feinstein and Chambliss defend collecting phone records, as does the White House.

 

As much as you would like it to be, this has never been an issue divided by "the aisle".

Are you with us RD or are you with the domestic spys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps t

 

+69

It wa

 

Only one person in the Senate voted against the Patriot act, and Russ Feingold was not sitting all by himself in the chamber that day while the other Senators doubled up by sitting on each others laps.

 

Quick jump to the present - Both Senators Feinstein and Chambliss defend collecting phone records, as does the White House.

 

A much as you would like it to be, this has never been an issue divided by "the aisle".

Are you with us RD or are you with the domestic spys?

 

bif_bi3ceaarpnq.jpg?w=655

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps this would be a good time to dispense with partisan outrage and/or partisan apology, and build a coalition to try to get this law changed or let it expire in June of 2015.

 

+69

It was necessary to exercise the overreaching power the PATRIOT act provided and be exercised by both sides of the aisle before consensus could be reached at the outrageousness of the act. My heart sings that even those who called us unPATRIOTic and not understanding the world we live in are now joining us. My position hasn't changed. But I'm sure glad others have seen the error of their ways. Welcome aboard the Freedom Express.

 

Only one person in the Senate voted against the Patriot act, and Russ Feingold was not sitting all by himself in the chamber that day while the other Senators doubled up by sitting on each others laps.

 

Quick jump to the present - Both Senators Feinstein and Chambliss defend collecting phone records, as does the White House.

 

As much as you would like it to be, this has never been an issue divided by "the aisle".

Are you with us RD or are you with the domestic spys?

 

From my posts you should be able to deduct that I am against domestic spying, but I am open minded and willing to consider all points of view - including what I find compelling argument in the Forbes article above.

 

We are currently looking at a variety of very different privacy issues here that can be taken as a whole or looked at individually. Collecting metadata phone records are not the same as naming Rosen as a co-conspirator.

 

I'll look at them individually and make up my mind on each. Sorry - but I'm not a band wagon kind of guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If you're just waking up...

 

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a persons movements and contacts over time.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-prism-data-mining_n_3399310.html

Yes, I'm sure all this touchy feely "rights" stuff sounds good when you're talking to your liberal friends in the comfort of your vegan lesbian fair trade coffee shop, but there is a real world out there and it is very scary and you just don't understand it. Don't you realize there are people trying to kill us!

 

>Dirge. As far as I'm concerned there was no speeding. Only a bunch of whiners who flop flop on the speed limit pointing fingers and crying "Bush is speeding". Sinner is right, this is little shit, there are bastards out there who want us dead.<

/p>ockquote>

Ouch. But its interesting that as much as we lament the fact that few people change their minds here or are influenced by the discussion and debate - when someone actually shows some ability to see both sides and their positions evolve over time.... we seem to take great joy in hammering the fuck out of them. I wonder why that is?

It's preferable to confronting the issue.

 

I have confronted the issue. Right here Dog: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=147451&page=2#entry4167719

Just pretend I didn't, if that makes you feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason this Verizon domestic spying case will come to nothing is Facebook. Zuck is a billion times worse than Obama+Bush yet people are inured. If anything, people are more annoyed with the FB stock price (23.48) than the intrusion they're complicit with.

 

I'll even go out on a limb and say that this is the libertarians' Benghazi. Much will selectively be made of little while conveniently ignoring much worse until they get bored and find another toy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

the govm't has access to the Facebook data too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason this Verizon domestic spying case will come to nothing is Facebook. Zuck is a billion times worse than Obama+Bush yet people are inured. If anything, people are more annoyed with the FB stock price (23.48) than the intrusion they're complicit with.

 

I'll even go out on a limb and say that this is the libertarians' Benghazi. Much will selectively be made of little while conveniently ignoring much worse until they get bored and find another toy.

 

Honestly curious - why do you consider Facebook worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason this Verizon domestic spying case will come to nothing is Facebook. Zuck is a billion times worse than Obama+Bush yet people are inured. If anything, people are more annoyed with the FB stock price (23.48) than the intrusion they're complicit with.

 

I'll even go out on a limb and say that this is the libertarians' Benghazi. Much will selectively be made of little while conveniently ignoring much worse until they get bored and find another toy.

 

How so? What is the something much worse?

 

I don't like how much data facebook collects, but there are a few significant differences with what they do and what the NSA is doing. First, facebook does not collect any data unless you are on facebook. It is up to you to decide if you want to participate, and the rules for participating are pretty clearly spelled out. Second, facebook does not also have access to your cell phone call history, text messages, IM messages, emails, and search history to append on to their profile of you. Each data source that gets appended to the warehouse has the potential to dramatically increase the value of the warehouse to it's owners. Third, all Facebook is going to do with the data is spam you with ads or emails. The govt on the other hand uses this data to create lists. Lists of people to watch more closely for terrorist activity. Lists of people who should not be allowed to fly. Lists of people who need closer inspection when leaving or entering the country. Lists of people who should not own firearms. They are only getting started. The number of lists never goes down, and the number of people included only goes up. Tell me that it will not have a chilling effect on free speech when social network activity supporting the occupy movement suddenly gets you on a no fly list or gets you awarded a full baggage search every time you fly. What we have right now is the something worse that some of us warned about years ago, and if I describe the something worse that is coming in the next 10 or 20 years I would only sound like a crazy person today. But it is coming and will be much worse than anything you can imagine accepting today. The only way to stop it is with a massive concerted effort to roll back things like the Patriot act. Sol is right in his comparison to the AWB, but that extreme don't give an inch, take back ground at every opportunity approach that gun rights groups like the SAF and NRA have taken is the only thing that will work to get us back what never should have been taken. It means having a group or groups who we rally behind and where we say no compromise, no domestic spying, no reading my emails, no, no , no. It means that the next time someone bombs a parade or a marathon, and the president stands up and says that if they could read our email this tragedy would have been avoided, we all in one voice say no. It means that when the president says it is a day of shame because we value our email privacy over the baby killed in a parade bombing, we say too bad, no spying. Because that is the only way we get any ground back. Otherwise, be prepared to be living with not just the wages of the Chinese in 20 years, but the same level of freedoms as them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FB tracks and keeps much more than Los Federales. It's possible to get a copy of it from them if you want. Like Google they track you on other sites for the purpose of aggregating data about you for the purpose of selling ads targeting you. Google's Adsense started that. Target (the store) is famous for knowing if there is a pregnant woman living at an address and when she is expecting within a week.

 

This all is just conventional data mining. It's the real world we actually live in rather than the fantasy libertarians don't.

 

Selling ads is good. Finding terrorists is good. Your privacy is monetized and invaded at will by both corporations and the govmint. The first is much much more invasive than the second and neither is going away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

That's very good Olsonist.

 

Couple this data mining with a government organization that seeks to suppress dissent... ya know, like the IRS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My participation in FB's intrusions is voluntary. I do not volunteer my privacy to the government. I don't trust the government to make benign use of my private information.



Is the formatting of this thread screwing up for anyone else? Everything after RD's post at 166 is screwy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Yes Sol, it's all over the place. I'm using an old browser though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Len, you are quite mistaken about what FB, Google etc are capable of. For example, both know that you are on SA right now. They can infer from that whether you are a sailor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Len, you are quite mistaken about what FB, Google etc are capable of. For example, both know that you are on SA right now. They can infer from that whether you are a sailor.

 

I am not wrong, I know they can see that if a site has FB code on it's page. Code like the little row of share icons at the bottom of this page. I work in the industry and have friends in the industry. I worked building data warehouses and helping to figure out how to maximize their value. I have helped to negotiate data sharing agreements between data owners. I know what happens in the private sector, what is possible with large data warehouses, and that is exactly why what the govt is doing scares the crap out of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

He's completely correct and they collect the data and analyze it - they then resell it. The search engine was just the beginning.

 

Len, you are quite mistaken about what FB, Google etc are capable of. For example, both know that you are on SA right now. They can infer from that whether you are a sailor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

I know what happens in the private sector, what is possible with large data warehouses, and that is exactly why what the govt is doing scares the crap out of me.

 

and for those who thought are government was just benign - look at the IRS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My participation in FB's intrusions is voluntary. I do not volunteer my privacy to the government. I don't trust the government to make benign use of my private information.

 

 

Is the formatting of this thread screwing up for anyone else? Everything after RD's post at 166 is screwy.

If you use the web EVEN WITHOUT AN FB ACCOUNT, then your participation in FB's intrusions are of your own volition. They track you from site to site to site. Just like the govmint.

 

It's possible to reduce your exposure somewhat with a modest effort. Installing AdBlock goes a long way. It's possible to block tracking but I wonder how effective it is. But Google still knows quite a bit about me because of gmail and search.

 

You can become your own personal Bruce Schneier. But realize that they have thousands of Schneiers and they making money off you. They're gonna win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

and the cell phone companies in conjunction with Apple are not only looking at what you buy, sites you visit but where you go down to 9 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My participation in FB's intrusions is voluntary. I do not volunteer my privacy to the government. I don't trust the government to make benign use of my private information.

 

 

Is the formatting of this thread screwing up for anyone else? Everything after RD's post at 166 is screwy.

If you use the web EVEN WITHOUT AN FB ACCOUNT, then your participation in FB's intrusions are of your own volition. They track you from site to site to site. Just like the govmint.

 

It's possible to reduce your exposure somewhat with a modest effort. Installing AdBlock goes a long way. It's possible to block tracking but I wonder how effective it is. But Google still knows quite a bit about me because of gmail and search.

 

You can become your own personal Bruce Schneier. But realize that they have thousands of Schneiers and they making money off you. They're gonna win.

 

If you don't have a fb account, then they don't have the personal details to match up against. They just know John Doe xxxxx visited this site, then that site, then another site. That information is still valuable in some way, but it is not personally invasive in the way it is if you have a FB account, and again it is opt in by visiting sites that put FB code on their site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

if they know your ip address it's just as good as a cookie or an id.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they know your ip address it's just as good as a cookie or an id.

 

Yes to some degree, but without personal data to append to, it is limited in what it can tell the owner. Multiple people often share an IP, so that makes it difficult to know if you are looking at one person's traffic or a group of people. Is it one pregnant chick into justin bieber who likes to watch midget porn, or is it a family with three distinct people with different interests. That is one of the problems with looking at IP only tracking. Cookies are specific to computers and logins, so they can much more reasonably be assumed to be one person, although sometimes people do have computers where they share a single login for the computer and use the same web browser. In that case, traffic analysis gets muddled but it is a small number of cases. The other thing is that if you in the future create a facebook account, there is the potential to look backwards and match up old browsing and search history based on IP and/or cookies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My participation in FB's intrusions is voluntary. I do not volunteer my privacy to the government. I don't trust the government to make benign use of my private information.

 

 

Is the formatting of this thread screwing up for anyone else? Everything after RD's post at 166 is screwy.

If you use the web EVEN WITHOUT AN FB ACCOUNT, then your participation in FB's intrusions are of your own volition. They track you from site to site to site. Just like the govmint.

 

It's possible to reduce your exposure somewhat with a modest effort. Installing AdBlock goes a long way. It's possible to block tracking but I wonder how effective it is. But Google still knows quite a bit about me because of gmail and search.

 

You can become your own personal Bruce Schneier. But realize that they have thousands of Schneiers and they making money off you. They're gonna win.

 

If you don't have a fb account, then they don't have the personal details to match up against. They just know John Doe xxxxx visited this site, then that site, then another site. That information is still valuable in some way, but it is not personally invasive in the way it is if you have a FB account, and again it is opt in by visiting sites that put FB code on their site.

 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites