Edward Snowden

[Scotty]

No sorry this is completely wrong. Here is how Snowden himself described things...

I'm not interested on how the drama queen spun things. We know that prism required warrants. We know it because Verizon had to cooperate and turn over information due to a warrant signed by a federal judge. We also know it's overseen by all three branches of government and that both parties have been adamant that it is both necessary and legal. We also know it is all aimed at foreigners and terrorists. Could it be abused? Of course! But any such system could be abused. The police could be abused. The military could be abused. That's why you have oversight.

[jbg]

If the courts decide the government can sieze your mail/email/phonecalls/skypecalls etc without a specific warrant for your person thats a very dangerous piece of judicial activism that clearly violates the constitution.

The purpose of the law is to have at least some neutral decide if surveillance is O.K. The background is the Watergate scandal where the "White House Plumbers" and assorted CREEPS (acronym for Committee to Re-Elect the President, pun intended) made that decision, along with perhaps Nixon himself.

No one would have the fortitude to ask a Judge for permission to spy on the rival major political party. Thus, the requirement of a Judge is a substantial protection against abuse.

In a perfect world such surveillance would not be necessary. However the West's enemies have decided correctly that a frontal or electoral challenge to the government of the U.S. is futile. Thus they battle from the shadows, by means of 9/11 or Boston Marathon type attacks.

[GostHacked]

I'm not interested on how the drama queen spun things. We know that prism required warrants. We know it because Verizon had to cooperate and turn over information due to a warrant signed by a federal judge. We also know it's overseen by all three branches of government and that both parties have been adamant that it is both necessary and legal. We also know it is all aimed at foreigners and terrorists. Could it be abused? Of course! But any such system could be abused. The police could be abused. The military could be abused. That's why you have oversight.

The courts that are handing out the warrants are the FISA courts. Not the typical federal courts. The intelligence community is writing their own warrants.

Oversight?

[jbg]

The courts that are handing out the warrants are the FISA courts. Not the typical federal courts. The intelligence community is writing their own warrants.

Oversight?

Read post above yours. The purpose is to screen out blatantly political espionage of the type in which Richard Nixon engaged.

[dre]

I'm not interested on how the drama queen spun things.

You said...

The program, as described by him, through the media, grabbed metadata only.

I just pointed out thats not how he described it at all.

We also know it's overseen by all three branches of government and that both parties have been adamant that it is both necessary and legal.

Of COURSE the government is going to say these things, and OF COURSE they would love to have access to all these communications.

Thats why theres a constitution... Because the people that wrote it knew government could not be trusted... even though they were the government.

And the program can be considered neither legal or illegal under the constitution until the USSC rules on a case.

[GostHacked]

Read post above yours. The purpose is to screen out blatantly political espionage of the type in which Richard Nixon engaged.

This is a parrallel court that works separately from the rest of the federal judges and even separate from the Supreme court in the USA. It is a separate entity issuing out warrants.

Oversight?

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

1979 to 1999 - aprox 12,000 warrants issued.

2000 had about that number for that single year.

2012 and the number more than doubles, almost triples the year 2000 stat with over 33,000 warrants issues.

Warrants denied .. 11?? I'd like to see the rubber stamp they are using!

Oversight?

[jbg]

2012 and the number more than doubles, almost triples the year 2000 stat with over 33,000 warrants issues.

Warrants denied .. 11?? I'd like to see the rubber stamp they are using!

Oversight?

You are ignoring the fact that if the Government is forced to bring these matters before a neutral body, it will refrain from bringing CREEP-type requests. As a practical matter, I agree that if warrants are requested they are issued. But I doubt any political actor would have the courage to submit a request purely to learn if their political opponent is having sex outside his marriage.

[dre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsrEqC2ABlg

Good interview from former senior NSA executive and whistle blower, Thomas Drake.

He talks about the industrial scale surveillance machine that has emerged post 911, and the false "security or liberty" dichotomy that millions of frightened drones have been dumb enough to buy into it.

Edited July 22, 2013 by dre

[dre]

Hedges and Stone.

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsrEqC2ABlg

Good interview from former senior NSA executive and whistle blower, Thomas Drake.

He talks about the industrial scale surveillance machine that has emerged post 911, and the false "security or liberty" dichotomy that millions of frightened drones have been dumb enough to buy into it.

That was a complete waste of 5:49. Just another interview with somebody telling me what his values are, with no effort at all to persuade me on the facts of the matter. If I'm not upset by the infringements on privacy, then how could anybody expect this to change my mind ?

Furthermore, this was labelled as Drake talking about the "false dichotomy" of "security or liberty" - yet he HIMSELF makes that trade-off in the interview. He says "for me, it's not worth it" - indicating that he himself is weighing security vs liberty, although he is deciding more in favour of liberty than I am. Nevertheless, he is making the trade-off. (Added: so there is no false dichotomy - ie. it is a choice to be made individually and therefore collectively)

This interview is proof that the debate has been had, nothing much more to add now...

[GostHacked]

You are ignoring the fact that if the Government is forced to bring these matters before a neutral body, it will refrain from bringing CREEP-type requests.

A 3-fold increase since 1999 is not creeping. Also the FISA courts are NOT a neutral body. This is the secret court that issues out these warrants, not the regular federal courts that everyone else has access to.

As a practical matter, I agree that if warrants are requested they are issued. But I doubt any political actor would have the courage to submit a request purely to learn if their political opponent is having sex outside his marriage.

With the revelations of the IRS targeting tea party and other conservative groups, your caveat about the extra marital affairs being targeting is not far off the mark. Think blackmail.

[dre]

That was a complete waste of 5:49. Just another interview with somebody telling me what his values are, with no effort at all to persuade me on the facts of the matter. If I'm not upset by the infringements on privacy, then how could anybody expect this to change my mind ?

Furthermore, this was labelled as Drake talking about the "false dichotomy" of "security or liberty" - yet he HIMSELF makes that trade-off in the interview. He says "for me, it's not worth it" - indicating that he himself is weighing security vs liberty, although he is deciding more in favour of liberty than I am. Nevertheless, he is making the trade-off. (Added: so there is no false dichotomy - ie. it is a choice to be made individually and therefore collectively)

This interview is proof that the debate has been had, nothing much more to add now...

No what he says is theres not reason to choose liberty or security, you can have both. This of course is backed up by the fact that people in the world with the most liberty and the most transparent governments are also the most secure.

So it most definately IS a false dichotomy. Your liberty is not the reason we face threats to our security from abroad. The actions of our own government, often decided in secret are. They could attach a camera to your arse and record every single thing you do 24/7 and that would not change the fact that theres a handful of people out there that wish us harm, and once in a while they get lucky and do some. You would still have the same 1 in 20 million chance of dying in a terrorist attack.

In reality the exact opposite is true. The best way for us to stay safe from foreign threats is to have as much transparency and control over the inner workings of our government as possible. You need look no further than 911, which was perpetrated by people trained by the CIA, who got angry about the US propping up a middle eastern totalitarian regime and building military bases all over the place. The idea that reading the email of Americans is going to fix this is perverse.

And that 5 minutes was no more wasted than the rest of the time you have spent in these surveillance threads. Youve made up your mind already based on some unsubstantiated fears, and unfounded assumptions. There is absolutely no argument or evidence thats going to sway you.

[Michael Hardner]

So it most definately IS a false dichotomy.

It's not a false choice if he admits to making the choice.

You would still have the same 1 in 20 million chance of dying in a terrorist attack.

Roughly the same but not the same.

And that 5 minutes was no more wasted than the rest of the time you have spent in these surveillance threads. Youve made up your mind already based on some unsubstantiated fears, and unfounded assumptions. There is absolutely no argument or evidence thats going to sway you.

You need to understand that fear is an emotion. It does not come after a calculation is done with actuarial tables.

3000 people dead may be a drop in the bucket statistically but to say that security is the same whether or not that happens ignores the human factor completely.

Let's move on - I don't agree with your POV on this topic. My POV is that everybody should know where they stand, and the government will set policy based on some kind of average of what plays on the political chessboard. That's effectively what happens now, anyway.

I only dug up this corpse of a topic for myself because I thought that this expert was going to explain how it is truly a false dichotomy. Instead, he himself indicates that he is weighing security versus liberty so I have no use for him.

[dre]

Let's move on - I don't agree with your POV on this topic. My POV is that everybody should know where they stand, and the government will set policy based on some kind of average of what plays on the political chessboard. That's effectively what happens now, anyway.

Sorry, this just isnt true. Theres absolutely no political support for this, but the government has decided to try to ram it through anyways. Not only do 8 in 10 Canadians want the government to have NO WARRANTLESS ACCESS to metadata or content, but 83% of Canadians dont even think the ISP's themselves should be allowed to keep track of this information.

More than eight in 10 Canadians oppose giving government the power to access Internet usage data without a warrant, a fact that may put a crimp in the Conservative government's plans to give police a much freer hand in monitoring the Internet.

A survey released Thursday by the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada reported that 82 per cent of those polled "opposed giving police and intelligence agencies the power to access e-mail records and other Internet usage data without a warrant from the courts."

The Harper government has said it plans to introduce an omnibus crime bill this fall which is expected to include provisions to greatly expand police power to collect data about web surfers without court oversight.

The 2011 Canadians and Privacy Survey found that not only do a vast majority of Canadians want court-ordered warrants for online surveillance, most (83 per cent) even want their Internet service providers to ask their permission to track any of their online behaviour.

The survey found a Canadian populace that is growing increasingly aware of privacy problems online, and increasingly active in protecting that privacy.

It appears that Canadians arent buying any of this fearmongering any more than I am.

We want stronger privacy laws not weaker ones.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, this just isnt true. Theres absolutely no political support for this, but the government has decided to try to ram it through anyways. Not only do 8 in 10 Canadians want the government to have NO WARRANTLESS ACCESS to metadata or content, but 83% of Canadians dont even think the ISP's themselves should be allowed to keep track of this information.

Link ? I saw numbers like 50/50, in the US, which is (again) the subject of this thread.

[GostHacked]

You need to understand that fear is an emotion. It does not come after a calculation is done with actuarial tables.

And the government benefits from keeping you in fear. I hear more about the terrorists wanting to kill us from the government than from the actual terrorists.

We need to spy on you to keep you safe from terrorists. Yet our governments are sponsoring and in some cases directly involved in what would be classified as terrorism. But we use slightly different terms like 'kinetic military actions' ect ........

As a line goes from a slick rapper from Cali ... MC Frontalot.

"that democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun

is terror elsewhere on the world I’m from."

As dre was explaining our governments are involved in things that create much angst towards us. It's not your freedom or my freedom they hate. That's just a slick trick the government uses to distract from their own contribution to your insecurity, so they need to spy on you.

I only dug up this corpse of a topic for myself because I thought that this expert was going to explain how it is truly a false dichotomy. Instead, he himself indicates that he is weighing security versus liberty so I have no use for him.

Why would you dismiss that when you yourself have weighed the security vrs liberty? The scale just tips in a different direction from you.

[dre]

Link ? I saw numbers like 50/50, in the US, which is (again) the subject of this thread.

There was a link in my post.

[Michael Hardner]

Why would you dismiss that when you yourself have weighed the security vrs liberty? The scale just tips in a different direction from you.

Because the only reason I read the post is that I thought the person would explain a 'false dichotomy'. He doesn't think it is, and neither do I.

[Michael Hardner]

There was a link in my post.

Ah, Sorry - the 2011 survey. It had this section on Privacy and Security right ?

National Security and Public Safety

Half of Canadians felt they understood how the information they provided at borders and airports was used, either very well (18%) or fairly well (30%). The rest indicated they either did not understand this very well (31%) or did not understand this at all (17%).

Three in ten Canadians said they were concerned about the personal information they provide at borders or airports being used by other Canadian government agencies, while concern about this information being shared between the Canadian government and foreign authorities was higher.

More than four in ten (44%) of Canadians were concerned about Canada sharing more information with the U.S. in the future.

[dre]

Because the only reason I read the post is that I thought the person would explain a 'false dichotomy'. He doesn't think it is, and neither do I.

This is just dishonest. Oh well...

[dre]

Ah, Sorry - the 2011 survey. It had this section on Privacy and Security right ?

And more wierdness, dishonesty. Huh.

[Michael Hardner]

And more wierdness, dishonesty. Huh.

I'm sorry ?

[Michael Hardner]

This is just dishonest. Oh well...

dre, I don't remember you accusing me of being dishonest before. I make mistakes but I don't lie on here.

I saw the phrase 'false dichotomy' under the video and clicked on it for that reason. Why would a lie about such a minor thing anyway ?

If you're starting to doubt my sincerity in these debates, we should just move on. I don't think I doubt yours.

[Michael Hardner]

As a general note - if you are getting to the point in a debate where you think the person is lying to you, without evidence to support that, then it may be time to move on to another discussion.

This is referred to in the rules, I believe.

I myself have been accused of calling somebody racist in the past, when to my mind I was asking a poster to give the difference in logic between his point of view and a racist point of view. My question was sincere, as I didn't see any difference in the rationale. He read it as me calling him a racist - mostly due to the heated nature of the debate.

I discuss things on here to learn, and to challenge and strengthen my views - or if they're wrong, to change them. And to find out how the other half thinks.

[dre]

I'm sorry ?

Well you quoted a part of the survey that has nothing to do with what we are talking about (information at borders, sharing with the US). At 7 in the morning before my first coffee I just assumed you did it because that part showed that people were more accepting.

Still... I should have given you the benefit of the doubt, Im sorry I used "dishonest".

I discuss things on here to learn, and to challenge and strengthen my views - or if they're wrong, to change them. And to find out how the other half thinks.

I agree... youre a good poster, and I cant remember another topic besides this one where youve been irrational/illogical.

I think thats why I keep trying

Edited July 23, 2013 by dre