| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
They're not censoring it, they're asking them not to use the network because it may create alerts within the system that monitors its use. They would have to investigate each alert. Note that they are not blocking news sites, they are asking people to not use the military's network to read about this. I think the author is reading WAY too much into this. As are most. I think the guy who disclosed this classified program should be shot for treason. We are, after all, at war. | ||
| Sifo |
We are, after all, at war. Are we? According to the CIC as of just a few weeks ago, we are not. I'm not sure that our enemies are not at war with us though. At war or not, it's a broad overreach to collect data on all citizens. This is being done by an administration that is already being investigated for many instances of using it's power against it's political adversaries. This is a man who said while campaigning that he would reward his friends and punish his enemies. Given all of the stuff coming out right now, I'm not exactly feeling like we should be accepting of them simply saying "trust us". Quite the opposite. | ||
| Macbuell |
These programs are complete bullshit, IMO. These agencies should be able to get the information they need on the people of interest without having to listen into every citizens calls or tracking our internet activity. To me it's just another example of government overreach, one more step towards a police state, and laziness. | ||
| Reindog |
 | ||
| Blake |
I'm still weighing the issue. Not sure one way or the other yet on the 4th amendment violation versus vital national security deal. One point that seems pertinent is that of the 22 terrorist domestic threats claimed as thwarted by the Feds, 14 of them were pseudo-artificially produced by sting operations. Meaning the Feds promoted/instigated the threats at least in part. Prefer freedom. Big brother is now much more than fiction. The IRS, DOJ, EPA, ICE, BATF, LRB, NEA, and possibly NSA are all complicit. But who is responsible? :\ | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
The One is responsible. He is the President, right? Or at least he is giving a pathetic imitation of being one.  | ||
| Reepicheep |
I thought understood the problem balancing liberty and safety on 9/12. Now, I'm not sure I did then as well as I thought I did. I don't know how anyone was surprised that this was happening. The simple size and scope of the NSA data center being built was scaled to the degree that it was obvious they will be getting... everything... As a security professional, I also understand the careful needle they are threading. They capture everything, index everything, all without a warrant. Index just means organize efficiently so you can do quick searches against massive data sets. You have to do it this way because once the data is gone, the data is gone, and in order to search it efficiently, you have to pre-organize all of it (as you don't know what you have to search ahead of time). Then they do queries (presumably under some kind of court oversight) against this data. So was our privacy violated because a computer captured and indexed the data? Or does the privacy issue come only when that data is searched? On 9/12, I would have answered "pffft... the privacy issue doesn't happen until somebody searches, and if it is done appropriately under good oversight and it stops terrorist attacks then we should do it". Now, with obcvious steps towards tyranny coming SO soon (Chicago politic misusing the IRS, manipulating the media, clear criminal behavior in the department of justice, etc) I am pretty sure that the cure is worse than the disease. Terrorists and Tyrannical governments will both eventually want to kill me. But history is very clear.... Tyrannical governments scale better and kill a million times more effectively than terrorists could ever hope to achieve. Let me also say I'm a bit annoyed by the UK "outrage" over this monitoring. They have cameras on every corner constantly monitoring... do you believe they aren't using facial recognition to track every person and every movement? And tracking license plates everywhere they go? At least here in the states, I can have some privacy if I shut down my electronic devices. | ||
| Hootowl |
"without having to listen into every citizens calls " They're not doing that. | ||
| Jb2 |
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Lest we forget the words created by our founding fathers. Simple and timeless. To bastardize them by saying we need to "balance" freedom and security is a joke. That balance is supposed to favor the people, NOT the government. | ||
| Macbuell |
You're taking what I am saying out of context. I only wrote that because it was late at night and I didn't want to type a really long, time consuming post. I know they are not "listening" into the calls but to me that is splitting hairs. They are capturing every other piece of data and they don't need to know what you are saying when they have all that data. The problem with these programs is they are Top down programs rather than bottom up. They capture everything and then after that they decide who is good and who is bad and go on from there. That isn't how our rights were constructed and developed. I don't care what their motivations are, I have a right to privacy even from a metadata standpoint. Investigations and police work are supposed to build from the button up. You find targets and you use those targets to determine their associations and you get warrants and that information expands the list of targets like a vine. What they are doing is the complete opposite. Follow and track everyone and then needle it down. Complete bullshit, IMO. | ||
| Fdl3 |
"without having to listen into every citizens calls " They're not doing that. That's right. Transcripts are much better. | ||
| Hootowl |
They're not doing that either. They know that a call took place, that's it. When a known terrorist calls the same group of people every day, and those people call other known terrorists, they use that fact to get a warrant to intercept the calls and listen in. That's all that is happening. I think you guys need to take off your Obama blinders. You're getting to be just as bad as the Bush haters. If this had happened under Bush (and it probably did), you'd be on the other side of the argument. As much as I loath everything Obama stands for, I'm trying to remain objective when it concerns national security. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350673/pick- your-scandal-victor-davis-hanson | ||
| Reindog |
You guys are not looking at the bigger picture. The question is not whether it is Bush or Obama that is at fault. They have simply laid the foundation that future Executives will build on. Once people get "used" to what the Federal Government is doing, then the next step will be taken to lead us to the next "new" normal. Your phone calls are solely being cataloged and not listened to? That may be true today but it certainly won't be true tomorrow if the American People don't wake up. Our Founding Fathers knew the nature of Man which is to assert power over other men. We have not progressed one ten-thousandth of an inch in the past 6000 years in this regard. This is precisely the reason why we have our wonderful US Constitution that creates a three way eternal power struggle that prevents despotism. The Federal Government's Fourth Estate must be pared down if we are to survive as a Free People. ProGlibs, are you ready to stand side by side with us Conservatives to restore Freedom and Liberty? If not now, when? | ||
| Hootowl |
"You find targets and you use those targets to determine their associations and you get warrants and that information expands the list of targets like a vine" That is precisely what they are doing by determining who these known terrorists are communicating with. | ||
| Macbuell |
That is precisely what they are doing by determining who these known terrorists are communicating with. BS. If that was the case they would need the phone number of that individual and then use the calls made by that individual to widen the net. They are doing the exact opposite by collecting data on everyone instead of the specific targets. Once again, these programs are Top down rather than bottom up ... rather than starting with the terrorist and moving up, they are starting with everyone and filtering down. | ||
| Hootowl |
OK. I might agree with that. However, the program is lawful. You can't say NSA is breaking the law. The courts are involved, and all the people in congress who have oversight say the program was run correctly and in accordance with the law. This is not a scandal. If what they're doing is scandalous, it is the law that is the problem, not the organization that is acting within it. | ||
| Macbuell |
I agree it is lawful as it was passed as part of the Patriot Act. That being said, I find the whole thing unconstitutional and I think that part of the Patriot Act needs to be overturned. And maybe, if everything wasn't done behind closed doors in secret courts I might be ok with it. But that isn't how it's done. And I am of the opinion if you give the government an inch they will take a mile. All this is done in the name of security. What will they think up next in the name of security? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
It has been done for decades that cell phone is a FCC radio transmit device; that is the bread and butter charter of the NSA - has been since day one of cellular technology. (domestic and foreign) In God we Trust - in all Others we MONITOR. welcome to the show. pft - On-Star too; and that was over ten years ago. | ||
| Hootowl |
The constitution allows for secrecy to protect the state and its interests. It specifically says that congress can keep secrets. The establishment of a secret court with congressional oversight to prosecute terrorists is in line with the constitution. Your argument to the contrary has not held up in court, as the secret courts have been found to be within the law. There's a fine line. I personally think that we're walking it appropriately. At least in this case. I hope they find a nice dark hole to throw the bastard who violated the trust that was placed in him by spilling the beans about sources and methods of a perfectly legal terrorist surveillance program. I think they should shoot the sum bitch. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
ah, but who is a 'terrorist' ..... remember this administration has labelled Vets as enemies to the state with a broad brush of white washing. F- them. every last f'n one of them. You KNOW this guy is not using it against his muslim 'brothers' | ||
| Macbuell |
It specifically says that congress can keep secrets. The establishment of a secret court with congressional oversight to prosecute terrorists is in line with the constitution. Your argument to the contrary has not held up in court, as the secret courts have been found to be within the law. Maybe. But in this case they are spying on US Citizens and not foreign nationals ... big difference, IMO and where it loses me. And please stop calling it a terrorist surveillance program when they are spying on everyone. If it was a surveillance program isolated to spying on terrorists, I wouldn't have a problem with it. | ||
| Reindog |
Hoot, I agree that this is a tough issue but the Federal Government must, must, must never have such overreaching power without specific court orders against specific individuals. Or in wartime with an overt Declaration of War by Congress. Anything else leads to one simple question eventually. What is 2+2, Winston? | ||
| Sifo |
I'm still weighing the issue. Not sure one way or the other yet on the 4th amendment violation versus vital national security deal. And that is the crux of the issue. I'm all for national security, but it needs to be done within the Constitution. I'm not clear at this point that this was done withing the bounds of the constitution. They're not doing that either. They know that a call took place, that's it. Not totally accurate either. They also know where you were when the call took place as well as things such as the time and duration of the call. Tracking where you are is getting dangerously close to watching you 24/7. Then it gets more serious. As with most scandals, you initially only know a few things. Then you find out just how bad things really are. We are now finding out that they are also tracking our internet use and copying out emails. This goes way beyond simply data mining who called who. With all of this going on, am I really to simply believe that they are not also tracking where you go via the GPS built into your phone? It's a fine line if this guy is a traitor who gave up national security secrets, or if he is a hero outing an out of control tyrannical government. If the allegations prove to be true, it's looking like it's the latter. Of course the government will throw their full weight into showing that it's the former. Given the other major scandals that demonstrate the government has taken a turn to tyrannical, it doesn't seem hard to imagine this to be the case once again. I thought understood the problem balancing liberty and safety on 9/12. Now, I'm not sure I did then as well as I thought I did. I feel much the same way. I want security. At the same time, a tyrant will never let a crisis go to waste in grabbing yet more power. A few will even tell you that they are doing so. I think it worth taking them at their word when they say they are doing so. | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, keep in mind that our government flat out lied about collecting all this data on innocent citizens. Clearly we can not trust the government to tell us the truth about if they are operating withing the bounds of the Constitution. | ||
| Reepicheep |
That is the one part that I am outraged over. "We can't comment on the grounds of national security" is one thing. A flat out lie is another. Campaigning against something to later embrace and extend it without recognition or apology? And campaigning on a platform of transparency only to run the least transparent adminstration in history? You should be fired immediately, then prosecuted for all criminal violations. | ||
| Sifo |
 Just imagine a government that might both collect data on innocent civilians and use the power of the IRS to coerce it's advisories. Imagine combining the power of both of these programs. Given that the government has flat out lied about both of these, is it a stretch to imagine that they might also lie about using these together? If not now, how long until they do? Or have they already? | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Amazing to me people know so little about what is going on with their own government. I knew about this years ago. It's been reported on if anyone cared to pay attention. Super computers with sophisticated algorithms searching out keywords and phrases. The ability to see what's on your computer monitor, remotely, from a distance, without an internet connection. I recall a benign news story some years back in regards to the Maryland State Police having a relationship with the NSA whereby the MSP provides security adjacent to the facility and in return the NSA provides the MSP with "information". Anyone with half a brain knows the "information" being provided isn't the weather report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_center | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Wasn't one of the reasons it was so hard to find Osama was because he didn't use technology that would make him vulnerable to being tracked. Only the most inept imbecilic terrorist would openly discuss their intentions over any electronic medium. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Government can be trusted....yea, sure |
