U.S. is spying on its citizens and others

[bush_cheney2004]

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

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise...surprise...surprise."

[Guest American Woman]

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

From what I'm reading, he wasn't on the flight. I'm still hearing Ecuador.

[dre]

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

Well he probably would have ended up there anyways if he stayed in the US, but this way he doesnt have to wear an orange jump suit.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

That's where I draw my line.

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,

Why are you still talking about 'my database' like the first part of your post doesn't exist ? I thought we established, now, what I want. Also - I don't want the government to have "my" data - I want security services to have access to all of the data, including yours, with the restrictions already stated.

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?

That's a theoretical discussion. You can't predict what threats would require what level of intrusion.

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.

That's academic, since we're talking about the same rules for everybody. I could frame this as you wanting to give up my security because of a vague non-tangible threat to privacy that can't be quantified.

You keep coming back with new ways to describe the problem that aren't helping us get anywhere, IMO.

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.

Not really. Murders, even premeditated murders, aren't planned in the same way ie. over long distances, with financial transactions to fund the attack etc. What about CCTVs though ? They are an intrusion on privacy that can prevent crime, record license plates to stop speeding and red light running... Another trade off.

[dre]

That's where I draw my line.

Why are you still talking about 'my database' like the first part of your post doesn't exist ? I thought we established, now, what I want. Also - I don't want the government to have "my" data - I want security services to have access to all of the data, including yours, with the restrictions already stated.

That's a theoretical discussion. You can't predict what threats would require what level of intrusion.

That's academic, since we're talking about the same rules for everybody. I could frame this as you wanting to give up my security because of a vague non-tangible threat to privacy that can't be quantified.

You keep coming back with new ways to describe the problem that aren't helping us get anywhere, IMO.

Not really. Murders, even premeditated murders, aren't planned in the same way ie. over long distances, with financial transactions to fund the attack etc. What about CCTVs though ? They are an intrusion on privacy that can prevent crime, record license plates to stop speeding and red light running... Another trade off.

Not really. Murders, even premeditated murders, aren't planned in the same way ie. over long distances, with financial transactions to fund the attack etc. What about CCTVs though ? They are an intrusion on privacy that can prevent crime, record license plates to stop speeding and red light running... Another trade off.

But getting murderers and violent criminals off the street prevents murder and violent crime and makes people safer. Why not do that? Why isnt using this database to prevent non-terrorist crimes a logical extension of your argument.

Why are you still talking about 'my database' like the first part of your post doesn't exist ?

Because even in the scheme you describe, the database still exists. Its just managed by the ISP... which is another problem. Now we go from infringing on peoples right to privacy to forcing private companies to purchase expensive hardware, or forcing the government to allow them install their own hardware.

They are an intrusion on privacy that can prevent crime, record license plates to stop speeding and red light running... Another trade off.

Yup! Forcing vehicle manufacturers to put breathalizers on the ignition of all vehicles would prevent thousands of drunk driving deaths, and only provide a little inconvenience to people when they start their cars. Another trade off!

I could frame this as you wanting to give up my security because of a vague non-tangible threat to privacy that can't be quantified.

The threat to privacy is tangible and easily quantified. Theres a database of communications for the government to mine, and it sounds like you want to do away with judicial oversight. And Im not proposing anything at all... you are advocating giving the government massive new powers.

[Guest American Woman]

“Mr. Snowden’s claim that he is focused on supporting transparency, freedom of the press and protection of individual rights and democracy is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen: China, Russia, Ecuador, as we’ve seen,” Mr. Carney said. “His failure to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the United States not to advance Internet freedom and free speech.”

Well said, and exactly as I see it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/world/edward-snowden-nsa-surveillance-leak.html?_r=0

[cybercoma]

Why are we still talking about Snowden's character? It's utterly irrelevant and painfully naive to believe he would flee to any country that has a good relationship with the US. He's not going to head to the UK, Canada, or Germany. He would be extradited in a heartbeat. He's fleeing persecution.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why? Did he do something wrong ? Did he commit a crime ?

[Hudson Jones]

Ron Paul speaks the truth.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[Hudson Jones]

It's amusing how Snowden buys a plane ticket from Moscow to Havana and over 30 journalists pay last minute airfare for a ticket on the same flight. But then, the plane takes off and Snowden never gets on the plane. Enjoy the 16 hour flight.

[Michael Hardner]

But getting murderers and violent criminals off the street prevents murder and violent crime and makes people safer. Why not do that? Why isnt using this database to prevent non-terrorist crimes a logical extension of your argument.

In my previous post, I talked about framing my argument in a context that isn't helpful, and here's another. It may be the 'existential fallacy' listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

It goes something like this - because I believe in allowing keyword searches (not a database, as I've already said repeatedly) why not allow them to prevent murders, robberies, vandalism, petty crimes...

Because even in the scheme you describe, the database still exists. Its just managed by the ISP... which is another problem. Now we go from infringing on peoples right to privacy to forcing private companies to purchase expensive hardware, or forcing the government to allow them install their own hardware.

You're making assumptions about how the law works, what the ISPs have today and so on...

Yup! Forcing vehicle manufacturers to put breathalizers on the ignition of all vehicles would prevent thousands of drunk driving deaths, and only provide a little inconvenience to people when they start their cars. Another trade off!

As with the extreme examples above, I wouldn't support that trade off.

The threat to privacy is tangible and easily quantified. Theres a database of communications for the government to mine, and it sounds like you want to do away with judicial oversight. And Im not proposing anything at all... you are advocating giving the government massive new powers.

"Sounds like" - why ? And it seems like they have these powers already.

I think you and I have now expressed our preferences, and you're not going to convince me of your position, based on the trajectory of your posts here. Am I going to convince you ?

[cybercoma]

why not allow them to prevent murders, robberies, vandalism, petty crimes...

You ever see or read Minority Report?

[Shady]

Why are we still talking about Snowden's character? It's utterly irrelevant and painfully naive to believe he would flee to any country that has a good relationship with the US. He's not going to head to the UK, Canada, or Germany. He would be extradited in a heartbeat. He's fleeing persecution.

We're talking about him because he's a traitor. Leaking classified information to hostile foreign governments. That's why.

[Michael Hardner]

You ever see or read Minority Report?

Yes... I'm AGAINST IT.

[GostHacked]

Yes... I'm AGAINST IT.

I'd take a chance and say you are against SOME of it.

[GostHacked]

We're talking about him because he's a traitor. Leaking classified information to hostile foreign governments. That's why.

Foreign governments already have much of this information. China and Russia would already be quite aware of this program as well.

Let's connect a couple dots.

So we have a company like Google taking part in the NSA spy program. Google denies it, but I would too knowing the backlash. This same company Google helped develop the Great Firewall of China. Google works WITH the Chinese government to accomplish the goals. Google also helps the US government achieve their goals with the spy ring.

Google is also facing backlash in Europe with collecting data off open and secured wifi networks when they were war driving ... er sorry, updating Google Maps.

What Snowden would have to offer is really nothing compared to what other countries have obtained through cyber attacks. Unless the information is on an isolated system and not connected to the net, the risk of a cyber attack to steal the information is quite high.

[cybercoma]

We're talking about him because he's a traitor. Leaking classified information to hostile foreign governments. That's why.

What you're missing, and has been said repeatedly, is that the Snowden issue is separate from the privacy issue. Snowden very well could be a spy that is bent on selling information to the United States' enemies. That's a completely separate issue from what he revealed. People ought to be upset that their privacy has been invaded, that the government can gather and use their personal information without their knowledge or consent. The issue of Snowden potentially being a traitor and a serious threat to the United States is something else entirely that needs to be addressed. They're two completely separate issues.

[cybercoma]

What Snowden would have to offer is really nothing compared to what other countries have obtained through cyber attacks.

We should reserve judgment one way or the other on Snowden because he very well could be a traitor. He allegedly left with much more data than he has revealed at this time. He could very well be selling off information to China and Russia, perhaps eventually Cuba and elsewhere.

Again, that doesn't take away from the serious issue that he revealed about the American government's potentially illegal data collection program.

[GostHacked]

Again, that doesn't take away from the serious issue that he revealed about the American government's potentially illegal data collection program.

Well that has been one point I have been making all along.

[cybercoma]

Well that has been one point I have been making all along.

It's frustrating that posters like Shady continue to ignore it.

[Michael Hardner]

I'd take a chance and say you are against SOME of it.

So, you think I'm in favour of Minority Report ? Um. It's science fiction, so...

[Shady]

Well that has been one point I have been making all along.

Like I've already said. His initial action was constructive, but his subsequent actions are desrictive.

[GostHacked]

Like I've already said. His initial action was constructive, but his subsequent actions are desrictive.

It's like me punching you in the face, and then when I punch someone else, you forget all about the punch I gave you.

[Shady]

It's like me punching you in the face, and then when I punch someone else, you forget all about the punch I gave you.

Huh?

[Wilber]

We should reserve judgment one way or the other on Snowden because he very well could be a traitor. He allegedly left with much more data than he has revealed at this time. He could very well be selling off information to China and Russia, perhaps eventually Cuba and elsewhere.

Again, that doesn't take away from the serious issue that he revealed about the American government's potentially illegal data collection program.

I agree. Law abiding citizens are entitled to know if their governments spy on them but that doesn't make Snowden a good guy.