NSA collecting phone records of millions of Americans daily

[laklak]

I used to live in fear, worrying about terrorist bag boys at Publix. Now I know I'm safe, because Dear Leader has destroyed the Imperialist Running Dog Terrorists. Now I am safe when I go to Publix each week to get my cabbage and potato.

Thank you, Dear Leader!

[Tero]

Field agent: monitored e mails led us to investigate suspect Mohammad's domestic relations. He is beating up his wife and daughter daily. The son goes to a friend's house as soon as dad is sighted. Should we contact social services?*

Handler: Negative, not related to national security.

*would have to be anonymous tip

[camoguard]

Go Obama! Matter of fact, I'd Roosevelt him and vote him in a few more times. At least until the Right side of Congress realized their job depended on working with him.

Why? Seems he is no less intrusive than the right side of congress, eh? Is this just about whose ox is being gored?

I don't think he's more intrusive.

Not sure how you can say that. His Admnistration had an IRS use its power to target conservative groups, and seized phone records of the Associate Press reporters in scattershot fashion on a fishing expedition to find out who in the Admnistration "leaked" information to the public. They issued a warrant against a news reporter who had not actually committed or even arguably committed an offense and grabbed his and his parents' phone records, dubbing him an "unindicted coconspirator." They seize all phone records nationwide from Verizon and other carriers, and demand the power to read anyone's emails anytime they want. How is that not "more intrusive"?

I don't see that as more intrusive. I can see it as intrusive. More? Maybe. I don't really care that much about private information so much as a jury of my peers. I think those kinds of things work themselves out.

But I think it comes down to whose ox regardless. I'll vote party line Democrat -- except for one nutjob we have in Tennessee who is just a weird radical Right wing nut. I don't understand how he got into the party. -- until religion loses privilege. Specifically, I want to see more tolerance of no religion stances. I want to see zero tolerance for homophobia. I want arguments for gender roles to be subject to the most intense scrutiny so that we err on the side of viewing people of different genders as similarly as possible. I want support for transgendered recognition. I want a dedicated effort to analyze and improve our upward mobility so that children of the poor can become adults of an economic standing more befitting their efforts than their origins. I want universal healthcare. And I want people to have an easier time becoming American. I'd like to improve the ease at which we can leave America too but that's not something entirely in American control.

After that happens, I'm willing to look at parties for their other values.

Fine if you vote for them -- gotta vote for somebody. But, can you consistently oppose policies that are objectionable? Or, do policies become not objectionable because the guy you voted for does them?

I'll let you know when I see something objectionable. I could use a better balanced budget. Health care reform isn't what I wanted. The IRS is being looked into. It all sounds like due process to me. In return, Obama's done more to notice nonbelievers in conversation and to open the door wider for women's issues and gay issues. I got what I wanted in general.

[Tero]

They do not have the manpower to look for milions of pot stashes! LOL

The NSA might not have time, but when they share the information with local law enforcement, it'll be open season.

These are NSA agents. They barely know themselves who they are, they will not contact random police stations.They contact the FBI when something is up. Secret spy stuff. They don't talk to regular cops.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

It's pretty straightforward, really.
If you want to know what covert shit any government is pulling on it's citizens just assume the worst and you'll probably be right.
There's no real news here. They'd have spy cameras in every room our homes if they thought they could get away with it.

[Tero]

At least they are looking for WMD in the right place (fireworks store), instead of Saddan's fox hole in Iraq.

[Warren Dew]

They do not have the manpower to look for milions of pot stashes! LOL

The NSA might not have time, but when they share the information with local law enforcement, it'll be open season.

These are NSA agents. They barely know themselves who they are, they will not contact random police stations.They contact the FBI when something is up. Secret spy stuff. They don't talk to regular cops.

Who said anything about agents? There are plenty of initiatives for sharing databases without any human intervention.

[Tero]

You don't have the instructions they have, in fact no one does. But HINT: National Security. What do you think they monitor?

They monitor communications on a 20 million budget for 300 million americans. How many phone calls of yours do you think have been tracked?

[Azathoth]

20 million my arse. That wouldn't even cover the electricity bills on their computers

[klr]

It's pretty straightforward, really.
If you want to know what covert shit any government is pulling on it's citizens just assume the worst and you'll probably be right.
There's no real news here. They'd have spy cameras in every room our homes if they thought they could get away with it.

Or, as we like to call them, telescreens. Or webcams - take your pick.

[Tero]

I think the way it works is they ask Verizon for all phone call data for 10 or 20 people related to the case. Verizon sends it within 24 hours and they analyze it. No court order needed as it is a standing order. But they do not read servers at Verioizon on tbeir own. Their budget is not enough. Verizon has to comply and waste their time to get NSA the data.

The data leads to a new lead and they ask for more data from a person discovered in the previous bunch.

[pErvinalia]

After all, government is supposed to be for and by the people.

I said it's "supposed to be". I don't see what's so funny about that. If you want to be a sheep, then good luck to you. But there's a growing number of us who are determined not to be thus.

Good article on this spying. Relevant to your apathetic stance on it.

The reaction to the National Security Agency (NSA)’s secret online spying program, PRISM, has been polarized between seething outrage and some variant on “what did you expect?” Some have gone so far as to say this program helps open the door to fascism, while others have downplayed it as in line with the way that we already let corporations get ahold of our personal data.

That second reaction illustrates precisely why this program is so troubling. The more we accept perpetual government and corporate surveillance as the norm, the more we change our actions and behavior to fit that expectation — subtly but inexorably corrupting the liberal ideal that each person should be free to live life as they choose without fear of anyone else interfering with it.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... ?mobile=nc

[JimC]

From rEv's article:

The more we accept perpetual government and corporate surveillance as the norm, the more we change our actions and behavior to fit that expectation — subtly but inexorably corrupting the liberal ideal that each person should be free to live life as they choose without fear of anyone else interfering with it.

Give surveillance and information gathering, surely the critical aspect in terms of one's personal freedom is the government actions that may follow their intelligence gathering...

Or perhaps more precisely, the constraints on that action, and whether there is judicial oversight on such action.

I really don't care whether the government knows which brand of gin I buy, as long as they don't use that information in a way that has a negative impact on me. And if the information they gather allows them to arrest an Islamic nutter before he blows up my favourite liquor store, I'm happy...

[pErvinalia]

I don't think you can separate the collection from the subsequent action. If you could, then there wouldn't be much point collecting it. It's collected so that it can be actioned on (whether that is an actual action, or no action). The state should have a justifiable reason before it collects information about its citizens. Carte blanch isn't acceptable for a liberal democracy.

[JimC]

I don't think you can separate the collection from the subsequent action. If you could, then there wouldn't be much point collecting it. It's collected so that it can be actioned on (whether that is an actual action, or no action). The state should have a justifiable reason before it collects information about its citizens. Carte blanch isn't acceptable for a liberal democracy.

All states gather information about their citizens, for a variety of reasons. There will be a spectrum of extent, with various countries being at different points, and different people will be comfortable at different points in the spectrum. One person's "prudent intelligent gathering to protect the state from enemies" will be another's "big brother is watching you".

And I think you can (or at least should) separate the gathering from the action. There must be some limits on the gathering, of course, but even more on the action - this is where the judicial arm would be important.

Ultimately, the extent of the gathering (not the detail) should be made available for citizens to comment on - if not by government, then by a free press. Then it can be part of the mix for voters to mull over before the next election...