U.S. is spying on its citizens and others

[cybercoma]

I have lots of fellow Americans. Over 312 million to be exact, so I'm not sure why what one anonymous American said on a site I don't visit is supposed to mean anything to me; especially one that I don't think comes off as particularly intelligent/knowledgeable.

If what he said means nothing to you, then that's your problem. His post argues pointedly against the nonsense posts by people who keep shrugging their shoulders and saying it's not surprising that the US government is doing these things. Of course, it's your prerogative if you want to attack the poster instead of playing the ball. Notwithstanding, his post completely slaps down these idiotic arguments about the US government's spying program being "obvious" or "unsurprising" or "expected" or whatever other way you want to say "who cares".

More to the point, you continuously put forward arguments in this sub-section of the forums about other countries do the things that America does. Perhaps you should take a look at the top of the page and note that this is the section of the website devoted to discussing United States Politics. So your dismissals of people's discussions of US politics is not only obnoxious, but completely disregards the purpose of this part of the forum.

[Guest American Woman]

If what he said means nothing to you, then that's your problem. His post argues pointedly against the nonsense posts by people who keep shrugging their shoulders and saying it's not surprising that the US government is doing these things. Of course, it's your prerogative if you want to attack the poster instead of playing the ball. Notwithstanding, his post completely slaps down these idiotic arguments about the US government's spying program being "obvious" or "unsurprising" or "expected" or whatever other way you want to say "who cares".

So being naive is better than being realistic? As I said, I can't understand why one American out of 312 million on a site I'm not even on would mean anything to me. It's hardly my "problem" that I don't see things the way he does; ie: the way you do.. Perhaps it's his problem that he's naive enough to think governments don't "spy." And fyi, "unsurprising" and "expected" are not synonymous with "who cares." I expect and am not surprised by many things that go on in many parts of the world. Doesn't mean "who cares."

More to the point, you continuously put forward arguments in this sub-section of the forums about other countries do the things that America does. Perhaps you should take a look at the top of the page and note that this is the section of the website devoted to discussing United States Politics. So your dismissals of people's discussions of US politics is not only obnoxious, but completely disregards the purpose of this part of the forum.

Where did that off-the-wall rant come from??

[GostHacked]

Wait.......I remember that thread from a year and half ago.........several posters suggested I was full of beans on the subject of "domestic spying"......anyways, carry on:

Yep, I recall much of that. Toews used fear tactits to get people on board with the program. In a way using a terrorist like tactic to scare people into supporting a piece of legislation.

We need to spy on you to protect you. Sure you do.

They would have told you to put your tinfoil hat back on too. Now we get 'why did we not know about this before!?' People tried, but since there was no official thing said about it, people don't accept the information as even possibly being legit. Even now that it is admitted, the reaction is still 'meh'.

"Character" and "breaking the law" and "risking the security of one's country" are very different things.

But nay a word against the USA spy program. Unconstitutional hence unlawful.

The way it has been put forth by some in these two threads we have seen it this way.

Snowden leaking information on government illegal activity > government illegal activity.

[Guest Derek L]

Yep, I recall much of that. Toews used fear tactits to get people on board with the program. In a way using a terrorist like tactic to scare people into supporting a piece of legislation.

We need to spy on you to protect you. Sure you do.

They would have told you to put your tinfoil hat back on too. Now we get 'why did we not know about this before!?' People tried, but since there was no official thing said about it, people don't accept the information as even possibly being legit. Even now that it is admitted, the reaction is still 'meh'.

I find it hilarious, even the link posted just today referencing the former Bush Administration and domestic “spying” and the formal beginnings during the Nixon Administration………Groundbreaking news…..I’m just shocked:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/20413-anonymous-gives-toews-7-days/page-8

My reference to CSEC though is a demonstration to those unaware that past Governments (since the 70s) have already the ability to spy on their respective populations and that Bill C-30 will only make the process legal for our Government to spy on us directly.

Clearly, aside from the principle and the associated costs, nothing will change in the day-to-day lives of the majority of Canadians. There won’t be a sudden spike of sightings of black helicopters on “whisper mode” or visits to the citizenry by the door kickers from Dwyer Hill.

All the “outrage” and condemnation directed towards the Bill is a futile and wasted effort, since in practice, “They” have been already doing this long prior. Any changes made to C-30 will be a result of the opposition to said bill by the majority membership of the Conservative Party of Canada and will be for the purpose of purely political optics.

I’m also forced to laugh when people reference groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Alex Jones etc as being a saviour to or a plight on society……“They” already know who these groups are, who finance them and who support them and if these groups were a threat, “They” would/could have already shut them down……But “They” have more grown up concerns to deal with first, and once these groups become more than a nuisance, they are quickly dealt with. {see Julian Assange}

I suppose we can add Snowden to the "list"......

And it's rather shocking to see their methods too!

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/20413-anonymous-gives-toews-7-days/page-9

As was mentioned prior by myself and Argus, the Government, if it so desired, via foreign Governments (Namely the USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand directly, and via working relationships with Israel, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Norway, Denmark and the Dutch) are capable of “listening” and storing the cell phone conversations and internet traffic of any individual within Canada. As for the “agents” involved, quite clearly, the equivalent agencies of the RCMP, CSIS and CSEC from all the above mentioned countries.

As was mentioned by Argus though, they don’t monitor every person due to lack of need and resources, and are generally concerned with Terrorism and the actions of other “unfriendly nations”………but that’s not to say if a individual or group became, as I said, more than a nuisance, they are quite capable of monitoring them.

For example, and since they are mentioned in the OP, let’s use a group like Anonymous. Now every couple of months local (Greater Vancouver FYI) members of the group perform a legal protest in front of the Church of Scientology in downtown Vancouver. They come wearing their best Guy Fawkes garb, armed with signs and slogans, but are namely peaceful, but they do draw local uniformed (usually bicycle) cops to ensure everyone stays safe and peaceful (and doesn’t interrupt traffic on West Hastings street)

Unknown to the Anonymous members, they also draw plain clothed members of the RCMP “E” Division. Some of these RCMP members might be dressed as city workers, businessmen/women, curious on looking families or tourists or even Anonymous members themselves.

Once the protest has ended, and the Anonymous members head off to their cars, public transit, Starbucks or the local pub, they are quite obviously trailed by the RCMP, photographed and/or followed home so as (with the aid of a facial recognition system) to be Identified.

Now fast forward to the next couple of protests of the Church of Scientology, or even your standard protest of a visiting Foreign dignitary (Let’s say Bush or Cheney, since they’ve both recently visited Vancouver), the Olympics, Oil pipeline,G8/20 and the Occupy movement……….. “E” Divisions starts a process of trending protestors and identifying those that are most vocal and never miss one. Up to now, the RCMP doesn’t require a warrant or conduct any actions that would be worthy of Jack Bauer.

Now fast forward to the next headline grabbing action undertaken by Anonymous, be it hacking a public/private website and obtaining credit card information, leaking damning information of a Government official etc……..Now a senior member of “E” division, acting on a request from a senior official in Ottawa, with all the previously compiled information on person’s of interest heads down to the American consulate (several blocks away from the Church of Scientology and location of Occupy Vancouver funny enough) and gives said information to the resident CIA/FBI/Homeland Security attaché with a formal requests for extensive electronic signals surveillance.

Said request, is forwarded to the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade Maryland, and once resources are available, the surveillance of said persons of interest begin. Their cellphone conversations are monitored as are their emails and internet usage, and in some case more importantly, with whom they are in contact with.

Now obviously any contacts within the United States will not be legally monitored by the NSA, but a reciprocal requests is made to CSEC for the very same.

Now let’s say said persons of interests are in contact with numerous other members, located throughout Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Said member countries, if anything of real concern is found, will then create a “international taskforce” made up of various national police forces, intelligence agencies and most importantly, legal advisors.

Once said taskforce finds enough information, it’s handed over to local, parent nation, police forces, to conduct further local investigations to obtain enough evidence to either obtain a warrant or charges themselves.

Oh well

[cybercoma]

AW, you insist on characterizing Snowden as unlawful and criminal, while refusing to insist on the programs that he exposed as being unconstitutional and therefore unlawful. That's the problem with your arguments that people keep trying to point out, but you so far have yet to admit. A single individual's crime of exposing a massive program is completely inconsequential by comparison. That kind of approach can only be attributed to a nationalism bias that sees Snowden's crimes as worse because they were against the State, while seeing the State's crimes as not even meriting discussion.

Edited July 15, 2013 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

His post argues pointedly against the nonsense posts by people who keep shrugging their shoulders and saying it's not surprising that the US government is doing these things.

Since we're talking 'meta' here (my favourite kind of discussion), I suggest that we should speak with our own voices here on MLW. What I mean by this is that we shouldn't be pretending to be talk-show panelists, as I sometimes have seen.

This means, to me, not pretending to be a jaded expert who knows everything that goes on, nor pretending to be outraged at behavior that is understood to have gone on.

These are revelations, there's no denying that, and so we should consider them as having been released in the public domain IMO. Otherwise, there would be no reason for Snowden to be sought by authorities.

[cybercoma]

Exactly, MH. If this was "common knowledge" the government would have no case against him. Saying it's common knowledge then criticizing him for revealing secrets is logically inconsistent at best.

[Guest American Woman]

AW, you insist on characterizing Snowden as unlawful and criminal, while refusing to insist on the programs that he exposed as being unconstitutional and therefore unlawful. That's the problem with your arguments that people keep trying to point out, but you so far have yet to admit. A single individual's crime of exposing a massive program is completely inconsequential by comparison. That kind of approach can only be attributed to a nationalism bias that sees Snowden's crimes as worse because they were against the State, while seeing the State's crimes as not even meriting discussion.

You can't "attribute" anything to my views. You are not in my head. You do not know my mind. So please, again, try to refrain from doing that as you have a real habit of trying to speak for me and of trying to attribute what I say to whatever is in your head. It's quite annoying, especially since you are always so far off the mark.

I could counter your claim of "nationalism bias" by saying your approach can only be attributed to anti-Americanism. Makes for a great discussion, eh?

Edited July 16, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Exactly, MH. If this was "common knowledge" the government would have no case against him. Saying it's common knowledge then criticizing him for revealing secrets is logically inconsistent at best.

You mean common knowledge of the extent/scope of the spying? Or how long it's been going on?

Mark Klein back in 2004-5 was a tech for AT&T and helped build the NSA data collecting spy rooms on the major hubs for AT&T. Many who follow the technology have understood and seen this progression over the past decade or so. So yeah the government would be hard pressed to find any fault in what Snowden revealed because this information is available.

[cybercoma]

You can't "attribute" anything to my views. You are not in my head. You do not know my mind. So please, again, try to refrain from doing that as you have a real habit of trying to speak for me and of trying to attribute what I say to whatever is in your head. It's quite annoying, especially since you are always so far off the mark.

I could counter your claim of "nationalism bias" by saying your approach can only be attributed to anti-Americanism. Makes for a great discussion, eh?

I addressed your arguments and their inherent bias. I'm only off the mark in addressing your arguments insofar as you're off the mark in presenting them. If you don't like that, then don't post them. Edited July 16, 2013 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

I addressed your arguments and their inherent bias. I'm only off the mark in addressing your arguments insofar as you're off the mark in presenting them. If you don't like that, then don't post them.

I'll post my views as I like. Address my arguments to your heart's content, but "attributing" MY views to what you have in your head is not addressing my views; it's putting your views on mine and attributing it to me. As I pointed out, that's no different from my attributing your views to anti-Americanism.

So for the record, my views have nothing to do with "nationalistic bias." How am I supposed to refute such a claim? Say "no, it's not?" Then you say, "yet is it," and then I say "no it's not?" Again. Address my views, my opinions, without attributing your mindset to them.

Edited July 16, 2013 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

Let's not try to guess at where each others' biases come from. I doubt that the target of such an inquiry will respond with anything like::

"My God, you're right ! I now see the error of my ways and will reconsider all of my opinions."

[Guest American Woman]

Let's not try to guess at where each others' biases come from.

Who says there is a bias involved? You think people can't just have differences of opinion, different priorities? This is what I find most annoying about others "attributing" what's in their head to my views. My views on this have nothing to do with "nationalistic bias," or any bias at all.

[dre]

Who says there is a bias involved? You think people can't just have differences of opinion, different priorities? This is what I find most annoying about others "attributing" what's in their head to my views. My views on this have nothing to do with "nationalistic bias," or any bias at all.

Nobody with a brain is going to believe that because your record as an apologist for every single the US government does is literally unblemished. No matter WHAT the criticism is you immediately jump in and either defend it, or start pointing out other countries that do the same or worse. It comprises almost your entire posting history.

It is your shtick... if you will. Theres nothing really wrong with that per say, but it is what it is.

[Charles Anthony]

Sorry, folks. There are too many personal attacks going on here. You all need some more training in ignoring eachother.

The thread is locked and it will re-open later.

Ch. A.

[kimmy]

Michigan's Justin Amash is a Republican who actually believes in small government. Amash just sponsored an defense appropriations amendment, intended to defund NSA mass collection of data. The amendment was narrowly defeated in a vote, 217-205.

Amash's amendment received support from both parties: 94 Republicans, 111 Democrats.

The amendment was fiercely opposed by the Obama administration.

White House spokesman Jay Carney:

We look forward to continuing to discuss these critical issues with the American people and the Congress.

However, we oppose the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Community’s counterterrorism tools. This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process. We urge the House to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation.

"not the product of informed, open, or deliberative process"? "the need for a reasoned review?"

WTF, Jay! You mean like the "informed, open, deliberative process" and "reasoned review" that spawned this massive surveillance program in the first place?

-k

[cybercoma]

To say "informed, open, and deliberative" is just flat-out insulting. Obama's administration has become a running joke.

[bleeding heart]

"not the product of informed, open, or deliberative process"? "the need for a reasoned review?"

WTF, Jay! You mean like the "informed, open, deliberative process" and "reasoned review" that spawned this massive surveillance program in the first place?

-k

Well said.

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57596728/n.y-.couple-gets-scare-over-simple-google-search/

It's just metadata right?

It's something you probably do a dozen times a day -- jump on your computer and enter a search into Google.

One Long Island couple did just that, and then heard a knock on the door from police, CBS New York reported.

It is your average home on your typical Long Island street. Michele Catalano and her husband live inside.

Not sure how the following was accomplished but ....

Two separate searches of the words "backpack" and "pressure cooker" conducted days apart on her husband's work computer were reported to police by the husband's employer, and then Suffolk County police showed up to investigate.

In a statement, authorities said: "Suffolk County Criminal Intelligence detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore-based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee."

Not good!

[guyser]

Not good!

Yes and no.

Not good because this pretty much assures everyone that those doing the spying are lying thru their teeth,

Good because now every tom dick and harry will enter that combo of words into a computer just to piss them off.

NSA 1- Hey Joe, how many people are we going to see today?

NSA 2- Well after last nights media release? We have 23,399,104 to visit

NSA 1- Oh....never mind.

[dre]

Yes and no.

Not good because this pretty much assures everyone that those doing the spying are lying thru their teeth,

Good because now every tom dick and harry will enter that combo of words into a computer just to piss them off.

NSA 1- Hey Joe, how many people are we going to see today?

NSA 2- Well after last nights media release? We have 23,399,104 to visit

NSA 1- Oh....never mind.

A couple of years ago I thought of doing a social/security experiment, and saying certain things online, and seeing how long it would take for someone to show up at my door. I would have documented the project with witnesses ahead of time to make sure I could easily prove later what I was doing.

I decided it was too risky... Maybe woulda done it if I was young and single.

[kimmy]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57596728/n.y-.couple-gets-scare-over-simple-google-search/

Yay!

"Mostly I felt a great sense of anxiety. This is where we are at. Where you have no expectation of privacy. Where trying to learn how to cook some lentils could possibly land you on a watch list."

If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear!

-k

[GostHacked]

Yay!

If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear!

-k

Yes an absolute bullcrap line we here all the time. Throw that in the same bucket as 'yer with us or yer with the terrorists.

[GostHacked]

Also .. can they hear me now??

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/03/feds-move-to-surveillance-tactics-associated-more-with-underworld-computer/

A former U.S. official told The Journal that some of the technology allows the FBI to remotely activate the microphones in phones running on Google Inc.’s Android software to record conversations.

Some the hacking tools were purportedly developed internally while others were bought from the private sector.

As I glance over at my Android HTC phone.....

I don't like 'anon' sources, but it's not outside of reality.

[GostHacked]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/22/20131077-secret-court-scolded-nsa-over-surveillance-in-2011-declassified-documents-reveal?lite

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has given up more of its surveillance secrets, acknowledging that it was ordered to stop scooping up thousands of Internet communications from Americans with no connection to terrorism — a practice it says was an unintended consequence when it gathered bundles of Internet traffic connected to terror suspects.

One of the documents that intelligence officials released Wednesday came because a court ordered the National Security Agency to do so. But it's also part of the administration's response to the leaks by analyst-turned-fugitive Edward Snowden, who revealed that the NSA's spying programs went further and gathered millions more communications than most Americans realized.

The NSA apparently fixed somethings, but I have my doubts.