NSA collecting phone records of millions of Americans daily

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Only, the program only analyzes for terrorism and security items. That is what they would share. It's not going to share you secret cookie recipe or porn.

Sure ... "terrorism" or "security" issues like whether you're a member of an opposition political group, which seems also to be guiding IRS decisions.

When you have a sudden spate of similar sounding names for groups all claiming tax exempt status at almost the same time you would not want to check to see if they're legit, would you?

I'd want to check and see if every group is legit - not do it only for Tea Party groups while allowing progressive groups or groups led by Obama's brother to get through with minimal scrutiny. And I'd want it done promptly, and not serve as an excuse for years long delay.

The reason they spot check is because they can't check every single group. Unless you want the department to expand dramatically? Are you a fan of More Big Government?

[Seth]

I don't know if this is the case, but I would like to see specific legislation from Congress stating that ANY information gathered by the government for national security purposes can ONLY be used for specified national security purposes such as tracking and apprehending terrorists...and NOTHING ELSE.

...and NOTHING ELSE.




You, of all people, are this naive?

No, I'm just speculating. Since the programs aren't likely to go away, I'll take any steps towards protection of the public I can get.

[Tyrannical]

Honestly, did anyone find this whole snoop thing surprising? I'm surprised it started as recently as it did and no in the 50's.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, sue the Gubment. Prove to the jury that them storing, and never reading, your e mails brought youendless weeks of worry, disgust and insomnia.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, since you have no porn and no inventory of guns in your e mails that Obama stole, why worry?

1. I'm not just worried about me.
2. The issue is not about individual people having to worry or not having to worry, it's about the integrity of the system as a whole, the fairness of the system as a whole, and limits on government power - we are not a police state; I would like to keep it that way.
3. I don't think a person with an inventory of guns in their emails should have to "worry", except to the same extent that anyone else who is reasonably suspected of having committed a crime or having possession of evidence of a crime would have to "worry."
4. I don't think people with porn on their computers should have to "worry", except to the same extent as specified in #3 above.
5. This is not about Obama. This is about who comes after Obama.

I don't believe you.

[Coito ergo sum]

But they do have a warrant. Your name and mine are on it.

Middle school civics: warrants are to be based on probable that the person or place to be searched contains evidence of a crime.

[Coito ergo sum]

And you have evidence they do this?

You might be right, and they may, at the moment, not do the sort of things CES is suggesting with the information gathered.

But the potential, and the temptation is there...

Given that their may be huge benefits to a nation's security against terrorism from such information, the challenge is to have a very robust oversight process that strictly limits the use to which such information is put...

Always tricky, throwing out the bathwater without the baby...

It is also big problem when people's stuff is searched without demonstrable reason/cause for believing that the stuff searched contains evidence of a crime. Searching all phones is like searching all houses in a city because there are criminals in the city. It's basically an unconstitutional "dragnet" technique. It doesn't require additional "misuse" of the information to be wrong -- it is wrong because the dragnet itself is wrong -- it is its own wrong. It is an invasion of privacy.

Like -- if your neighbor takes pictures of you surreptitiously, while masturbating, by sneaking into your house and planting a hidden camera -- the invasion of privacy is wrong even if he doesn't look at it or show it to anyone else. If he uses a listening device to listen to you and your wife fucking, that alone is a misuse and an abuse. It does not matter that he tapes it only for posterity and never listens to it or distributes it. The recording itself is a wrong. It is not any less of an abuse if a cop does the recording, or a computer commissioned by the cops.

[Coito ergo sum]

Only, the program only analyzes for terrorism and security items. That is what they would share. It's not going to share you secret cookie recipe or porn.

Sure ... "terrorism" or "security" issues like whether you're a member of an opposition political group, which seems also to be guiding IRS decisions.

When you have a sudden spate of similar sounding names for groups all claiming tax exempt status at almost the same time you would not want to check to see if they're legit, would you?

The IRS did not say this it what they were doing. The IRS said that they used improper means to identify groups for additional scrutiny and that they should not have done it. They hedged, though, and said "no harm no foul" because they said that nobody "intended" that the groups be predominantly conservative, and they have made the silly assertion that in the end, had the corrrect criteria been used, the same groups would have been scrutinized.

Whatever your theory is has not been advanced by the IRS, so the answer to your question is irrelevant.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But they do have a warrant. Your name and mine are on it.

Middle school civics: warrants are to be based on probable that the person or place to be searched contains evidence of a crime.

And a "want" is what I used to use to return deserters to Navy custody. Cops liked them, they got a check in the "federal cases" box.

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem for me is not so much that they are hoovering up the data for analysis and anti-terrorism as it is what they are allowed to do with it once they have it.

I don't know if this is the case, but I would like to see specific legislation from Congress stating that ANY information gathered by the government for national security purposes can ONLY be used for specified national security purposes such as tracking and apprehending terrorists...and NOTHING ELSE.

I don't care if they intercept Pablo Escobar's drug cartel planning to import two tons of cocaine, the use of any information so gathered should be legislatively declared "fruit of the poisonous tree" and not to be used in any court whatsoever for anything OTHER THAN a terrorist threat affecting national security.

The problem there is that there are lots of people who think importing two tons of cocaine IS a national security issue, and even if information is not used in court it will be used for investigation purposes - to reverse engineer an investigation. Once you have found out the information, you can't "unknow" it, so the cops will just use that information to go out and gather additional information to back a conviction. They won't introduce the ill-gotten evidence, but they will make the point that just because Escobar happened to get caught in the national security dragnet, he is not immune from prosecution. So, they'll use the information they have to go get information that they can colorably argue was not obtained through the PRISM system.

What does this mean for the "little guy?" It means that if they hear you talking about selling pot in the recordings, then they can forward that info on to an investigator who will then set up surveillance based on that information, or they go out and interview people mentioned in your phone calls or traced through their phone surveilance and set up a case against you.

[Coito ergo sum]

I wonder how much those people who are seeing massive violations of the Constitution and the impending demise of democracy are aware of far, far worse instances in 20th century US history? Bulk collection of electronic data is a negligible abuse of power, if we even want to call it that, compared to Cointelpro, just to name but one example.

1. Nobody here is supporting COINTELPRO, which was exposed, rightly so, and ended. The President in charge of it was impeached. The existence of COINTELPRO in the 1960s and early 70s doesn't justify other abuses.
2. Arguably, COINTELPRO was a much lower level abuse, because COINTELPRO -- Counter Intelligence Program -- was a program which did not impose a dragnet that swept up ordinary citizens. COINTELPRO identified certain individuals who were considered subversive or communist, etc, and "countered" them -- surveilled them, etc. However, it was far more limited in scope. So, what we have with PRISM is every American being treated like a suspect, whereas in COINTELPRO only a few prominent folks were targeted.

Moreover, using information gleaned from such activity in order to prosecute (or, *gasp*, persecute) someone still requires due process if it hopes to go anywhere in court.

So? Due process after one's 4th Amendment rights have been violated? It's it's like saying, "it's o.k for the cops to search every house in the city, as long as any arrests coming out of it have due process."

I'm literally shaking my head here that you're defending this. I would have thought you'd be dead set against this sort of thing.

Moreover, I have a hard time imagining that most of the people claiming imminent fascism these days were getting themselves hysterical when the Patriot Act was passed.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I have a hard time imagining that the people who were raising objections to the Patriot Act being passed are not also objecting to PRISM. But, it is happening. Where are all the folks who objected to the Patriot Act on this? They don't object anymore? Why? Why do you think that is?

That act (thankfully watered-down since 2005),

When and how?

[Coito ergo sum]

The Germans weigh in -- http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/ ... T820130611

German outrage over a U.S. Internet spying program has broken out ahead of a visit by Barack Obama, with ministers demanding the president provide a full explanation when he lands in Berlin next week and one official likening the tactics to those of the East German Stasi.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman has said she will raise the issue with Obama in talks next Wednesday, potentially casting a cloud over a visit that was designed to celebrate U.S.-German ties on the 50th anniversary John F. Kennedy's famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech.

[Tero]

Big Brother is watching you. He may be
the only one reading your blog or FB rantings at all. He has 300 other Merkins to follow.

Well, you have to compete! Every Observer has 300 Americans to observe. 100 of those do not use the Internet more than once a week. You have to compete with 200 to get your Observer to pay attention to you. Using Obama or NSA in text no longer works. If you say "i'm getting some fertilizer today" they have to follow you to Home Depot. He will follow the security cameras there and match the number of 40 lb bags you buy to the size of your property.

[Coito ergo sum]

Big Brother is watching you. He may be
the only one reading your blog or FB rantings at all. He has 300 other Merkins to follow.

Well, you have to compete! Every Observer has 300 Americans to observe. 100 of those do not use the Internet more than once a week. You have to compete with 200 to get your Observer to pay attention to you. Using Obama or NSA in text no longer works. If you say "i'm getting some fertilizer today" they have to follow you to Home Depot. He will follow the security cameras there and match the number of 40 lb bags you buy to the size of your property.

Was this intended to make sense?

[Tero]

I can only answer with a question: do you have a sense of humor?

If not, that would explain a lot. You see, it's a kind of filter most of us use, otherwise your life us continuous suffering.