U.S. is spying on its citizens and others

[Michael Hardner]

Complete nonsense. His message was being heard,

I think one thing that's being missed is that offside, rogue communication has MORE of an audience now as the web offers less control by the government than television and the press ever did. This is why we're subjected to conspiracies of every damn sort - mostly imagined - every time anything happens.

[Guest American Woman]

I think what we are seeing is a transition from a Cold War footing when it comes to expectations for information security. These kids think they will be international heroes, not traitor spies like John Walker or the Rosenbergs.

I wondered about the whole "hero" scenario, too. Snowden certainly is being treated like a hero, and I have to wonder if there isn't a bit of a celebrity status for the likes of him among the ex-pat population in Ecuador, as it seems to be the country of choice for WikiLeaks. I can't help but wonder if it may be a popular trend to cut down the U.S. on the world stage; why else would someone who genuinely is concerned about human rights re: privacy cozy up with China, for example? It's Snowden and China against the wrongdoing U.S.?

I have to wonder if he gave any thought to the ramifications of his actions; if he even considered the Big Picture at all. I think it takes a great deal of ego on his part if he thinks he alone can determine what it best for the country, if he believes that he knows what might or might not compromise security, and to me his actions show that he does not have that ability.

If Snowden broke the law, then he should have his day in court.

Agreed.

[The government really wants him back to debrief what has been compromised.

Understandable, and, I might add, likely quite necessary.

[Guest American Woman]

I think one thing that's being missed is that offside, rogue communication has MORE of an audience now as the web offers less control by the government than television and the press ever did. This is why we're subjected to conspiracies of every damn sort - mostly imagined - every time anything happens.

I agree. It's why so many people can make mountains out of molehills, too, IMO; and it's the new 'in thing' - instant internet celebrity. Edited June 24, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

I agree. It's why so many people can make mountains out of molehills, too, IMO; and it's the new 'in thing' - instant internet celebrity.

While the governments actions are lawful (they changed the rules for their benefit), they are not constitutional at all. So toss out that document, no longer applies.

Anything that marginalizes the Constitution of the United States of America is also marginalizing freedom and rights of Americans.

[Michael Hardner]

While the governments actions are lawful (they changed the rules for their benefit), they are not constitutional at all. So toss out that document, no longer applies.

Anything that marginalizes the Constitution of the United States of America is also marginalizing freedom and rights of Americans.

And people will make a big deal of smaller things too. You have to acknowledge that.

[Guest American Woman]

And people will make a big deal of smaller things too. You have to acknowledge that.

Brings to mind Chicken Little; "the sky is falling!!"

Edited June 24, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

And people will make a big deal of smaller things too. You have to acknowledge that.

I acknowledge that people like to deal with the small things because they have no capacity to understand the larger picture here.

The constitution is not a small deal. One of the founding documents of a once great nation no longer applies. That is the impact here. If the constitution no longer has weight, then you are at risk of losing ALL your rights. ALL of them.

You still trust the government after denying the program exists? How many lies would you take before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?

[bush_cheney2004]

And people will make a big deal of smaller things too. You have to acknowledge that.

Right....how many Canadians were crying over lost American "constitutional rights" during WW2 ? Not many....

[GostHacked]

Right....how many Canadians were crying over lost American "constitutional rights" during WW2 ? Not many....

If most of us were alive during that time, we might have come out against it.

[Argus]

His goal was to try to get through to people like you who seem to not quite understand where the USA is heading, or more to the point, where the USA is now. That, to me was his intention.

The message is being ignored while the messenger is getting slaughtered.

The message was stupid, like the messenger. The only direction America is headed which anyone should be worried about is a corporate state with a faux democracy where most of the people get crumbs while the corporate leaders live like kings. The NAS scanning your phone number is pretty bloody unimportant compared to that.

During the last federal election in the US 0.01% of the population made 28% of all campaign donations.

Every member of Congress elected in 2012 received some money from these donors, and 86 percent of House members received more money from these wealthy givers than from all of their small-dollar donors -- those giving less than $200 -- combined.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-24/elite-donors-comprising-dot-01-percent-of-population-gave-28-percent-in-2012-race

Think about that. Eighty Six percent of the House members got more money from this tiny group of wealthy elites than from everyone else combined. Where do you think that puts their hearts when it comes to voting on bills? Kinda makes you understand their focus on cutting taxes for the rich, eh?

Edited June 24, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

While the governments actions are lawful (they changed the rules for their benefit), they are not constitutional at all. So toss out that document, no longer applies.

Point of order. They can't be lawful if they're unconstitutional.

[Michael Hardner]

The constitution is not a small deal. One of the founding documents of a once great nation no longer applies. That is the impact here. If the constitution no longer has weight, then you are at risk of losing ALL your rights. ALL of them.

Constitutional infringement happens throughout history, though. How people react is what I'm talking about.

It seems to me that people are more upset about the fake FEMA camps that conspiracy types talk about, that do not exist than they were about internment camps during WW2.

You still trust the government after denying the program exists? How many lies would you take before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?

I don't think I believed the government the first time. The thing is, every time you DEMAND rights, there are 50 or 500 million others who have to get them too.

It's a trade off - privacy vs security. I'm perfectly willing to allow keyword searches and meta data in return for additional security. It's pretty hard to come up with a tangible disadvantage to the so-called lost of rights - although I get that there doesn't have to be.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't care what you are not interested in. You will get my opinion anyways.

And I will respond to said opinion as I see fit.

You do that often to others, so I would suggest not crying about it.

No, I don't do that to others. I often let others know when they don't understand what I am saying, but that's completely different scenario than telling someone that they don't "understand where the world is headed" just because they don't agree with your take on it. "Understanding where the world is headed" and agreeing with you are not synonymous. Furthermore, making a statement and "crying" are two different things, and I would think it's important to know the difference if one is intending to engage in discussion.

Calling him a traitor, and charging him for treason, that is what we have heard from several in the US government. You sure we are paying attention to the same scandal?

Calling him a traitor and charging him with treason are reactions to what he has done/is doing. Once again. That's what it's about.

Whatever he does now or in the future is irrelevant to the information that has come out about the NSA spy programs.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that we don't know what effect the sum of all of this type of behavior will ultimately have.

I"m curious, though, in light of the fact that you've said that you think Saddam, a cruel, brutal dictator, is better for the Iraqis than fighting to secure democracy because he "kept the people in line," would you support what the government is doing if they were doing it to "keep people in line?"

[dre]

The message was stupid, like the messenger. The only direction America is headed which anyone should be worried about is a corporate state with a faux democracy where most of the people get crumbs while the corporate leaders live like kings. The NAS scanning your phone number is pretty bloody unimportant compared to that.

The NSA scanning your phone numbers is PART of that. Its part of the general lack of respect for the will of voters, and their rights, and the rules the government is supposed to follow. And its a babystep towards something else, which will be a baby step towards something else... And when considered in a vacuum each of those steps might seem "unimportant". The worry is that the path to a police/nanny/big brother state will happen in tiny little increments, each small enough to not cause outrage, and that liberty will die a death by 1000 cuts.

This kind of thing is exactly why modern democracies have constitutions, and bills of rights etc. Even the government then knew that future governments could not be trusted.

[dre]

It's a trade off - privacy vs security. I'm perfectly willing to allow keyword searches and meta data in return for additional security. It's pretty hard to come up with a tangible disadvantage to the so-called lost of rights - although I get that there doesn't have to be.

Its NOT a tradeoff. Liberty doesnt come at the expense of security... the countries with the most personal freedoms and individual liberty, and governments that respect the rule of law both international and domestic are the safest and most secure countries in the world. That way of thinking doesnt make you more secure it actually CAUSES your insecurity. The government breaking domestic and international law in secret puts you in danger it doesnt keep you safe.

And mining content for keywords requires a database of the content, so if thats what you support it is NOT just the metadata. Youre talking about an extremely invasive and expensive piece of government bloat in response to a threat that you have a 1 in 20 million chance of dying for. What is "more secure"? 1 in 21 million? How much would you give up to get to 1 in 25 million? How much would you pay for insurance against lightening strikes, which are 72 times more likely to kill you than terrorists.

You are one of the safest and most secure people in the history of the human race, yet you are willing to tear down one of the pillars of free society over nothing. Im worried what people like you will do if theres real danger some day...

Edited June 24, 2013 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

The worry is that the path to a police/nanny/big brother state will happen in tiny little increments, each small enough to not cause outrage, and that liberty will die a death by 1000 cuts.

I think Argus' point is that the tiny increments aren't as important as the big economic impacts - which are also ignored.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think Argus' point is that the tiny increments aren't as important as the big economic impacts - which are also ignored.

meh...the same people would gladly take away 2nd Amendment rights to firearms. Until the political posturing is lost, it's just the same old song, and Americans just don't care as much about the NSA doing what the NSA is paid to do.

[Michael Hardner]

Its NOT a tradeoff. Liberty doesnt come at the expense of security...

I think it likely does in this case. Neither of us can prove it, though, so we have to go with our best estimation.

And mining content for keywords requires a database of the content

I outlined a scenario where that wouldn't be necessary - and you said you'd comment on it but you didn't.

a threat that you have a 1 in 20 million chance of dying for. What is "more secure"? 1 in 21 million? How much would you give up to get to 1 in 25 million?

Exactly what I said I'd give up.

Im worried what people like you will do if theres real danger some day...

Don't worry about me - I'm not the enemy. Imagine if our open society let it be known that they were not going to subject people to invasive searches of either persons or their data. Maybe the number would go up to 1 in 2 million then. So, that would be fine then - basically a 9/11 every ten years ? And for what ? So that a phone company isn't running a search algorithm on my texts ? Not a trade off worth making in my books.

But, again, just make your decision and I'll make mine. I will frame it as a 'peace of mind' issue, which weighs off a robot algorithm searching my data for keywords vs. having to turn on the television every few years to see horror, coupled with economic and political uncertainty, ethnic tensions and so on...

[Michael Hardner]

and Americans just don't care as much about the NSA doing what the NSA is paid to do.

I'm comforted by that. Freedom of expression was developed in an era where the king could freely shut down all media with a few soldiers breaking printing presses. Benjamin Franklin hardly ever checked twitter.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm comforted by that. Freedom of expression was developed in an era where the king could freely shut down all media with a few soldiers breaking printing presses. Benjamin Franklin hardly ever checked twitter.

Good point...if the U.S. government wanted to shut down modern communications it could easily do so as is done in other "dictatorships". There has never been more access by more people in history, thanks in large part to government investment.

[Michael Hardner]

Good point...if the U.S. government wanted to shut down modern communications it could easily do so as is done in other "dictatorships". There has never been more access by more people in history, thanks in large part to government investment.

To add: 'freedom' is defined by far more than what the government is interested in at the moment. There's economic, religious, sexual freedom also known as the pursuit of happiness. Many of these are in better shape today (everywhere) than in any time in history.

It's great to be vigilant but you have to relax and enjoy life sometimes... even the Unibomber put salt on his potatoes...

[cybercoma]

Point of order. They can't be lawful if they're unconstitutional.

In the strictest sense, no they're not. In practical terms, they're lawful until there's a constitutional challenge that is won.

[dre]

I think it likely does in this case. Neither of us can prove it, though, so we have to go with our best estimation.

I outlined a scenario where that wouldn't be necessary - and you said you'd comment on it but you didn't.

Exactly what I said I'd give up.

Don't worry about me - I'm not the enemy. Imagine if our open society let it be known that they were not going to subject people to invasive searches of either persons or their data. Maybe the number would go up to 1 in 2 million then. So, that would be fine then - basically a 9/11 every ten years ? And for what ? So that a phone company isn't running a search algorithm on my texts ? Not a trade off worth making in my books.

But, again, just make your decision and I'll make mine. I will frame it as a 'peace of mind' issue, which weighs off a robot algorithm searching my data for keywords vs. having to turn on the television every few years to see horror, coupled with economic and political uncertainty, ethnic tensions and so on...

Ok is that the idea where you said the carrier would maintain the index and run the searches? Thats marginally better, as long as the government has to get a warrant to search it and another warrant to actually see any of the content after the search. Still a terrible idea though.

BTW... what you are describing is almost exactly what was in the Internet Surveillance Bill that almost passed. The government was going to set up hardware in every ISP to warehouse all the data so they could mine it. Canadians were outraged, and they had to retract the thing, and the folks who you would be entrusting with this called us a bunch of pedophile supporters.

We dont want it Mike. If you want the government to have your data then put YOURS on a thumb drive and march down to the police station. And if you succeed in getting your database, then me and a lot of other people will build businesses around secure encrypted communications, and then youll lose the window into the data that you already have now.

Exactly what I said I'd give up.

So how safe you want to be depends on what youre willing to give up? What if you could be even safer if you give up a little more?

If you want to give up your right to privacy because of some vague unsupported feeling you have about not being safe, thats fine. The problem is you want me to give up mine as well... over a threat thats not statistically significant.

And I dont trust this not to be a step towards something else... IN FACT... given the fact you are willing to make this tradeoff for security, you could probably get a lot better results by focusing on a statistically significant threat. Let me ellaborate on that...

Even though your risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack is 1 in 20 million... The chances of you being the victim of violent crime are about 1 in 100... The chances of you being murdered are about 1 in 20 thousand. In other words you would get WAY more security out of this hypothetical program if you just give it to police as a general crime fighting tool... and that is exactly where this will go next. Once we are doing it for terrorism you will be able to make a quite reasonable argument from utility that we use it for other crimes.

This is exactly why we draw constitutional lines in the sand. Government will take as much power as we let them, and they almost never give any back. Thats why I oppose this. Im just as boring of a guy as you are Mike... I dont do anything against the law, and theres absolutely nothing incriminating in my emails, texts, or phonecalls.

Edited June 24, 2013 by dre

[GostHacked]

Point of order. They can't be lawful if they're unconstitutional.

The NDAA allows for indefinite detention of Americans without charge under the auspice of terrorism. Care to show me how that does not violate the constitution?

[Shady]

Looks like the next destination of concerned citizen Snowden's dictator tour is now Cuba.