ADDED: Just because they can doesn't mean they do. You only have to trust thousands of analysts. Janet Napolitano says:
"I think people have gotten the idea that there’s an Orwellian state out there that somehow we’re operating in. That’s far from the case"....So it's not simply going willy-nilly and using any kind of data and it's far from Orwellian. That is, it's something less than the ultimate extreme. That's not reassuring at all. Even if I take Napolitano at her word: She's not saying much. It's just not utter and complete abuse.
"[T]here are lots of protections built into the system,” Ms. Napolitano said, pointing to a privacy office embedded in her own department that is “constantly reviewing our policies and procedures.” She further stressed the court review system.
“No one should believe that we are simply going willy-nilly and using any kind of data that we can gather,” she said...
And what are the protections? There's a "privacy office." You know, in "1984," if there were something called the "Privacy Office," its job would be to invade our privacy. (Recall "The Ministry of Truth.")
Who could possibly feel protected by Napolitano's own privacy office "constantly reviewing our policies and procedures"? That sounds — even as she puts it — like it's about seeing what they can get away with. She brings up judicial review, but we know that those courts have no power/inclination to stop anything the government says it needs to do.
ADDED: They can see you naked.
Posts
201 comments:
1 – 200 of 201 Newer› Newest»I can vouch for each and every one of them.
Awesome. They're the KGB now. Outstanding.
Got to love that "secret" briefing. Maybe they'll arrest the Congressman for being a traitor, too.
So now we know that
a) Congress did not know
and
b) they are still trying to hide what they are doing from the American people.
They have the right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing.
The following is a verbatim transcript of "Filthy Words" (the George Carlin monologue at issue in the Supreme Court case of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation) prepared by the Federal Communications Commission:
Aruba-du, ruba-tu, ruba-tu. I was thinking about the curse words and the swear words, the cuss words and the words that you can't say, that you're not supposed to say all the time, ['cause] words or people into words want to hear your words. Some guys like to record your words and sell them back to you if they can, (laughter) listen in on the telephone, write down what words you say. A guy who used to be in Washington knew that his phone was tapped, used to answer, Fuck Hoover, yes, go ahead. (laughter)
"Fuck Obama"?
I hope some of these slobs (the congresscreeps that may have used some of this "data" to electoral advantage) now realize they are at much at risk as their erstwhile opponents.
The conspiracy theorists must be getting hoarse from all the I told you so's.
They're not listening to you. It's too boring.
The thing to watch out for is political listening.
This is totally what the Bush NSA did so if you didn't criticize these non-existent actions under Bush, you're a hypocrite!!!
ADDED: Just because they can doesn't mean they do. You only have to trust thousands of analysts. Janet Napolitano says:"
Trust is earned and this Administration hasn't earned it.
What worries me is that this kind of arrogant high-handed behavior is going to incite domestic terrorism. It's not that difficult to conceive of McVeigh type terrorism from extremism on both ends of the political poles doing that as more revelations keep coming out.
Well, can we withdraw those Benefits of the Doubt yet?
EDH: "Fuck Obama?"
It's the terro-racists like you that they are trying to root out. This time our magnanimous Dearest Dear Leader, may Allah be with him, will let you be. Mind you, not again.
In your long life, hope you still have a little longer to go, you must have missed reporting something in your tax returns, or we can find something in our law tomes to nail you. One of these days you will have to amuse yourself watching the videos made by that lousy so-called filmmaker. He didn't really cause Benghazi, you know. But he's nailed. So will you.
Jay said...
"This is totally what the Bush NSA did..."
Really, accusation without proof.
That will send you to jail, or may be the accused to jail.
Guess you accused Bush, that should send the accused to jail. If you have accused our magnanimous Dearest Dear Leader, may Allah be with him, then you will watch some video with EDH.
If thousands of low level analysts can indeed listen in in real time then the potential for blackmailing of their masters is immense.
If that's all true, we have a problem after all. I hate it when the paranoids get one right. Also, the terrorists.
Because the NSA is collecting meta-data on phone calls does not mean they are getting your naked pictures. And I doubt they could. Sending pictures and phone calls use two entirely different sets of technologies.
And Prism now seems to be more what I thought it would be, which is something government has to ask companies like google to obtain. All it really is a mechanism to make it easier to transfer the data, and doesn't provide a mechanism to the NSA or anyone else an ability to on demand download information, let alone get all the data, which is simply not technically practical.
The phone call meta-data bothers me as a violation of the fourth amendment. As I understand it, the fourth amendment was designed to obtain particular information for named individuals.
However, I read an article a few years ago where some local law enforcement obtained records, looked for a pattern, and were able to catch some serial bank-robbers by looking at cell phone calls in the vicinity of the banks. It caught the bank-robbers. Their lawyer argued this was a violation of the 4th amendment, but it was struck down.
So if you think that's OK, then you also have to agree with the NSA getting meta-data all US phone subscribers.
I'm not expressing an opinion, here, just some food for thought.
Hey, I'm still cool with trusting them to do the right thing. Obama said we could.
she's as weird as J Edgar Hoover and as hyper partisan as Obama.
Oh, and I'm taking off my tinfoil hat now that nothing is going on.
Look wingnutz, this is totally what Bush did (he even had earphones in the Oval Office!) and if you didn't criticize it then, you need to shut up now!
PS: the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Or those who slander Barack Obama!
Big Sis, the same Big Sis with 2 billion rounds of ammo and 600 MRAPs, does her Chip Diller thing.
How much of that "data" have her slugs seen, dare I ask?
If we get much more truth coming out, we're gonna have to seriously reconsider Mick's birther points.
There are lots of protections, says Napolitano.
And since the IRS lawlessness, we know that those protections mean nothing.
We now know that the federal government does not regard the Fourth Amendment as a part of the Constitution they have to respect.
Here is a small discussion of the FBI's use of phone records to capture bank robbers.
Also, while I have never been stopped at a sobriety check-point, and do not drive over the legal limit, I think those checkpoints are a violation of the constitution (though I think the Supreme court said they weren't).
I was also incensed to learn that 31 of 32 Duke Lacrosse players were ordered to give up their DNA in a fishing expedition. I wonder where the ACLU was on that one. I suppose if the 31 were black and the one were white, they would have sued.
"I think people have gotten the idea that there’s an Orwellian state out there that somehow we’re operating in."
Lets just say that if there was, we don't think you would have a problem with it.
Hey, how is that FBI investigation going into the admitted Orwellian IRS, because the guy in charge of it doesn't know nothing about no investigation.
Hey, Obama! Fuck off, mother fucker.
If we get much more truth coming out, we're gonna have to seriously reconsider Mick's birther points."
God almighty! I was thinking the same thing. Where is Mick? Has he been sent to a secret rehabilitation camp? If by some amazing turn of events it turns out he was right how can anyone ever assume they are sane? I mean how crazy will it be if the tin-foil crazies turn out to be right in the end?
Let's be honest. Clearly what we can say about the Obama Administration is that they have attempted through the U.N., through Hosanna-Tabor, through the HHS mandate, through their PR campaign for the equality of sexual acts, and condoning the act of abortion, to set precedent in order to limit our Religious Liberty, to squash our founding Christian principles in the public square. This does not change the fact that there is only one way for Congress to make a Law respecting an establishment of Religion:
http://votesmart.org/education/how-a-bill-becomes-law#.Ub3aCMu9KK0
Let no one deceive you. If our Founding Fathers did not believe that Religion would serve to complement and thus enhance the value of the State, they would not have protected Religious Liberty, to begin with. Let no one deceive you, although it is true that our Founding Fathers did not establish a particular Christian denomination, such as Anglicanism, to be this Country's National Religion, this Country, was, in fact, founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
So am I correct it concluding that we are now no longer in favor of the Patriot Act?
Let's be honest. Clearly what we can say about the Obama Administration is that they have attempted through the U.N., through Hosanna-Tabor, through the HHS mandate, through their PR campaign for the equality of sexual acts, and condoning the act of abortion, to set precedent in order to limit our Religious Liberty, to squash our founding Christian principles in the public square. This does not change the fact that there is only one way for Congress to make a Law respecting an establishment of Religion:
http://votesmart.org/education/how-a-bill-becomes-law#.Ub3aCMu9KK0
Let no one deceive you. If our Founding Fathers did not believe that Religion would serve to complement and thus enhance the value of the State, they would not have protected Religious Liberty, to begin with. Let no one deceive you, although it is true that our Founding Fathers did not establish a particular Christian denomination, such as Anglicanism, to be this Country's National Religion, this Country, was, in fact, founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
So am I correct it concluding that we are now no longer in favor of the Patriot Act?
No, we object to its abuse and the violation of our Constitutional rights.
(Lefties are so dense)
You nearly want to believe her.
I may have it wrong, but my recollection is that Janet Napolitano said in 2009 that the greatest terrorist threat we faced was right wing extremists, including ex military members. Maybe she still believes that.
Nothing to see here, move along. Just order another double cheeseburger, large fries and a Coke.
If they'd monitor WWVA 1170 Wheeling WV, they could inform them that they run station promos and Fox news at the same time for two minutes at the top of each hour on weekends.
The station can't afford monitors of its own.
Back when I worked in IT I had the ability to proxy to anyones computer. We set it up where we could often login without even prompting them. Additionally, many companies routinely read workers email and check what they're viewing online.
And if you wanted to go on the internet you can download Team Viewer, or VNC and be able to access someone else's computer.
Technologically, this capability is there. And has been for a long time.
So don't gasp at what govt can do as if the technology is somehow magic.
Once again, thank God for the ACLU.
And this whistleblower shit was in IT. Surely, he was aware that such technology exists.
Yet he has to become a spy for CHina to show because he's scared of the technology and the ability to abuse that technology.
"Did you know that they can look at your PC in REAL TIME?" Gasp!
Yeah, it's called proxying. And you had that power as an IT admin since you were an IT admin, you shmuck.
somefeller said...
Once again, thank God for the ACLU.
/sarc
FIFY
I can see the need for making sure that the technology is not being abused. There are safeguards, but if people think there should be more safeguards, then that is a debate worth having.
But the idea that we aren't aware that there is such technology is laughable.
Yes, it's a double edged sword, but such is the world we live in. And when has technology not been so?
You can't have the Googles of the world able to gather so much data, and expect govt to still use abacuses.
"This is totally what the Bush NSA did so if you didn't criticize these non-existent actions under Bush, you're a hypocrite!!!"
Well, yes.
Dante wrote:
However, I read an article a few years ago where some local law enforcement obtained records, looked for a pattern, and were able to catch some serial bank-robbers by looking at cell phone calls in the vicinity of the banks. It caught the bank-robbers. Their lawyer argued this was a violation of the 4th amendment, but it was struck down.
Yes, this type of search has been used by law enforcement, outside of the NSA, for decades. And in fact, didn't the Supreme Court address this back in 1979 and say that this type of monitoring was not a violation of the 4th Amendment?
Because this type of search doesn't actually listen to the calls.
Dollars to donuts, like the IRS warehouse, some of these analysts have built a man-cave in the office where they get together and brag about what they've heard and seen.
Jay wrote:
This is totally what the Bush NSA did so if you didn't criticize these non-existent actions under Bush, you're a hypocrite!
I saw Donna Brazille on Fox, and she was saying that this is a necessary program.And didn't the Supreme Court already settle this back in 1979?
Yet, when Bush initiated the NSA program was she saying that the program was necessary and not being abused and that the Supreme Court already settled this?
I VAGUELY remember her insinuating that Bush was setting up 1984. And if she didn't say that outright she certainly didn't defend Bush's programs from the Robert Cooke's of the world.
So there's a lot of hypocricy going around. Republicans who defended Bush on this should now not be saying this is 1984, lest THEY be accused of hypocricy.
Code Napo:
Please ignore all the scandals that relate to our corruption and ignore the fact that we would never use our information gathering powers/ spy powers against our political enemies.
Not Orwellian. Promise.
"I am not a dictator."
-Barack Obama
OK.
"You can't have the Googles of the world able to gather so much data, and expect govt to still use abacuses."
Nice strawman. In the meantime, government can use whatever it likes on whatever data it got thru a warrant and none else.
Yes, it's a double edged sword, but such is the world we live in. And when has technology not been so? You can't have the Googles of the world able to gather so much data, and expect govt to still use abacuses.
Absolutely true and a point worth making. That's why we need to have the specifics of these sorts of things litigated in a timely manner. Whether or not these sorts of data mining operations are Fourth Amendment violations (and I'm not a Fourth Amendment expert, but this all smells bad to me) can only be determined via litigation and public debate. Bring on the ACLU, and for that matter the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Reason Magazine and the Cato Institute.
@Nancy Danielson at 10:48 and again at 10:52
Let's be rational.
The founders did not establish just religious freedom, but also freedom from religion. This is why this country was not founded as a Christian nation or any other kind of theocratic state.
We are each free to practice the religion of our choice or be renounce religion entirely, to believe in a divine realm and being, either from the perspective of organized religion or not, or to renounce such beliefs.
The religious are not privileged over the irreligious, or the believers over the unbelievers.
It a good thing our government is completely trustworthy and would never abuse its immense power for partisan political ends or for personal attacks against citizens. We have nothing to worry about.
Terrorism "threat" largely a fraud intended to justify the implementation of a national security state.
Though if it's true that NSA agents are doing more than data mining and are listening to domestic calls without a warrant or national security letter to authorize that listening, that is more than just a bad smell and their lawyers better have some precedent that I'm unaware of to justify that.
Robert Cook said...
Terrorism "threat" largely a fraud intended to justify the implementation of a national security state.
Yeah, that World Trade Center is still there.
Just look at "Trading Places".
The poster "Simon" is conspicuously silent but in every other thread since the news on the NSA first broke he has defended the program and attempted to explain that the govt. wasn't doing what we claimed it was doing.
It is a balance. Up until very recently it have been those on the left who have been most skeptical that we have the correct balance. I welcome our freedom-loving brothers from the right to join us on this issue. Together we will march forward to create an ever more perfect union.
By the way, here are some words you should avoid using too much in you emails from now on:
dictionary
sweeping
ionosphere
military intelligence
Steve Case
Scully
trust who?
Robert Cook said...
Well, yes
Well, no.
You don't seem to understand the Bush NSA didn't do this.
Not entirely OT:
Would the promised (if, of course, implemented) E-Verify in AmnestyCare create a National ID db?
Sounds like a deal-breaker to me, if we're smart.
somefeller said...
Yes, it's a double edged sword, but such is the world we live in. And when has technology not been so? You can't have the Googles of the world able to gather so much data, and expect govt to still use abacuses.
Absolutely true and a point worth making. That's why we need to have the specifics of these sorts of things litigated in a timely manner. Whether or not these sorts of data mining operations are Fourth Amendment violations (and I'm not a Fourth Amendment expert, but this all smells bad to me) can only be determined via litigation and public debate. Bring on the ACLU, and for that matter the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Reason Magazine and the Cato Institute.
And Larry Klayman.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
It is a balance. Up until very recently it have been those on the left who have been most skeptical that we have the correct balance. I welcome our freedom-loving brothers from the right to join us on this issue. Together we will march forward to create an ever more perfect union.
Cute with the passive-aggressive Mr Rogers there.
The Left has not only been ignoring the abuses of the system in their quest for more power, they've instituted many of them.
And they'll pull the same act Choom did when he "opposed" all this as Senator until they can get the issue off the front pages.
MCD wrote:
"I may have it wrong, but my recollection is that Janet Napolitano said in 2009 that the greatest terrorist threat we faced was right wing extremists, including ex military members. Maybe she still believes that."
And this is the REAL problem. This administration views Tea Partiers as The Enemy. And what is justified when dealing with The Enemy?
When it comes to the IRS, this administration has been proven to be untrustworthy and actually using the office to target their political opponents for political purposes. And not just with the IRS. This administration, and dems/libs in general have been trying to turn Tea Party opposition into racists and terrorists by association so that they can be marginalized. The administration is perhaps the most political administration in my lifetime. Certainly since Nixon.
That being said. We still need to have a surveillance program for terrorists, since that is a real threat. And we shouldn't give up a fundamental program for our security simply because the current president is an asshole. And he sure is. Biggest hypocrite as a president in modern times.Worse at economics than Carter. Worse at foreign policy since Carter. I can't express enough how odious this current president is.
The extended list of keywords @ Nonapod's link is informative.
Not on the list: allah, bomb, fatwa, madrassa,
On the list: freedom, government, hate
AReasonableMan said...
So am I correct it concluding that we are now no longer in favor of the Patriot Act?
You voted for this, twice.
"That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too."
So was this part of the examination & studying you did of Obama, Ann?
So, how do we know that he isn't abusing THIS program? Well,one thing is that the critics of this type of surveillance are overstating the case on what this program is. Rational people will recognize that this is the same stuff that law enforcement has been doing, in the drug war since the 80's and that the Supreme court already said that this type of surveillance is allowed and not a violation of the 4th amendment. You may not like it, you may think that it shows we've been going down a slippery slope for a long time. But that is the current reality.
But look at who is defending this program. People like Lindsay Graham. Is he defending Benghazi or the IRS targeting of conservative groups? If Obama were targeting conservatives with this, wouldn't he use this as yet another example of how Obama is politicizing govt against Republicans?
He is aware of the program, and it's safeguards and is saying its still necessary. If it means that we need to get an outside group to monitor all the warrant requests to make sure that they are only being directed at terorists and not Tea Partiers (or liberal groups)then that should be done. But not at the expense of ending the program. Unless it can be determined that data mining is unecessary when it comes to tracking terrorists.Even here though, you'd have to do it a bunch and then conclude that it wasn't worth it before you could say that its not worth doing.
In 3 years Obama will not be in the White House.And the next President will need to monitor terrorist activity. So, he should have the tools available that best do that.
Thousands of analysts who got their jobs solely on merit and have absolutely no political axes to grind operating under perfect management structures, processes and controls.
Connect the dots. The Obama campaign had all of Romney's phone calls and emails.
Maybe the smart terrorists will circumvent all this digital surveillance by placing cryptic messages in the classifieds.
Jay wrote:
You don't seem to understand the Bush NSA didn't do this.
Yeah, but what the Bush NSA DID do was still enough to get the Glenn Greenwalds of the world to shout about how it was the implementation of a police State.
Why was Glenn Greenwald wrong then, but right now?
He [Lindsey Graham] is aware of the program, and it's safeguards and is saying its still necessary.
Or he's been shown his surveillance file.
Didn't Janet herself refer to Christians, Tea Partiers and the NRA as, ya know, borderline terrorist?
Senator Barack Obama at the Woodrow Wilson Center on Terrorism, 8/1/07:
“This Administration puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide…I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our Freedom”.
“That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens, no more National Security letters to spy on American citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient”
Laugh out loud funny.
Why was Glenn Greenwald wrong then, but right now?
I'm not necessarily saying Greenwald is "right"
I'm pointing out that these two things - the Bush NSA program and the Obama NSA activities - are different.
So your question has no relevance at all.
I agree, Jay. Obama is perhaps the greatest hypocrite in modern times. But that's what I'm talking about.
Back then Obama was taking the Glenn Greenwald position because he thought it would be better to get elected. Was he right though about Bush illlegally wiretapping Americans, or is that the argument that Obama used to get himself elected?
Michael Hayden oversaw the NSA under both administrations. Why was he trustworthy under Bush but suddenly untrustworthy under Obama?
The Republican side will have a big problem if we suddenly become Glenn Greenwald. Since Bush had his "NECESSARY" program outed by the NYT. and it showed he was surveilling terrorists. Since it was covert, we were in the dark about the proper safeguards there as well. Were they enough? Did Bush bypass the safeguards to spy on his enemies? How do we know?
Chip S. said...
Or he's been shown his surveillance file.
I would bi-curious to see that file myself.
I hope Janet protects us from those freaks who are all hungup on the Constitution. They could just 'splode at any moment.
Jay, you say that waht Bush did wasn't the same or wasn't as bad as what Obama did. Yet, even though it wasn't as bad, critics of it still said it was akin to Bush implementing a police state.
So, Jay, you're going to have a hard time defending what Bush did while at the same time criticizing Obama, since critics will say, that both went too far.
Even if you just went as far as Bush, but not as far as Obama, Glenn Greenwald, and candidate Obama would say you were "illegally spying on Americans".
If I give housekeeper A my house key and I have no problems, and then when she retires I give it to housekeeper B, and housekeeper B uses it to steal my identity, it's not hypocrisy to say housekeeper B can't be trusted with the key.
Fredka asked where Simon was.
It's Sunday. Simon is either (1) attending Mass or (2) on a flight to Hong Kong with an ice axe and an umbrella.
"In 3 years Obama will not be in the White House.And the next President will need to monitor terrorist activity. So, he should have the tools available that best do that."
Let me finish that for you, "...within the confines of the Constitution."
" Did Bush bypass the safeguards to spy on his enemies? How do we know?"
The better question is why is that relevant now? Is Bush the standard by which he Left hopes to judge Obama? That's rhetorical, so don't bother answering seriously.
"If I give housekeeper A my house key and I have no problems, and then when she retires I give it to housekeeper B, and housekeeper B uses it to steal my identity, it's not hypocrisy to say housekeeper B can't be trusted with the key."
Thread winner.
If I give housekeeper A my house key and I have no problems, and then when she retires I give it to housekeeper B, and housekeeper B uses it to steal my identity, it's not hypocrisy to say housekeeper B can't be trusted with the key.
For your analogy to be apt, you would have had to have agreed to give your keys to all future housekeepers when you gave it to the first one. So, yeah, hypocricy.
"This is totally what the Bush NSA did so if you didn't criticize these non-existent actions under Bush, you're a hypocrite!!!"
"Well, yes."
------------
YES, absolutely..
So we are being ruled by thousands of anonymous people... not a single Big Brother. I think Orwell understood that one.
But Big Sis that doesn't sound like we the people are ruling ourselves by voting at a SECRET ballot box.
Inga said...
YES, absolutely..
Hilarious.
You have to pretend what the Bush NSA did is what the Obama NSA is doing in order to justify your stupid political beliefs.
Of course this is easy for you because you're really, really fucking dumb.
Carry on
For your analogy to be apt, you would have had to have agreed to give your keys to all future housekeepers when you gave it to the first one.
Nope.
You'd have thought, "I'm a little worried about giving a key to any housekeeper, but right now the benefits of doing so seem to outweigh the costs." And maybe that worked out, or at least you didn't have any evidence that it didn't
Then you found out that your next housekeeper was selling your furniture on craigslist.
B/c you were worried about somebody with a deficient ability to draw distinctions calling you a hypocrite, you didn't dare take back your key.
I love watching the low information voters like inga in action.
Comedy gold.
Inga, responding to Jay wrote:
YES, absolutely..(i.e. those who were supportive of Bush's NSA but not Obama's are now hypocrites)
-----------------------
So, Inga. By the same token, all the dems who are now NOT criticizing Obama are also hypocrites? No?
And Obama himself who uttered what is now comic gold about how we have to stop illegally wiretapping Americans when he was a candidate, is perhaps the biggest hypocrite? Correct?
Have you seen the polls? Now suddenly the majority of Dems think it's ok for the NSA to spy on people. Whereas, when it was the BUsh administration, the vast majority of dems said that it was Big Brother, and Nazi Germany.
So, I probably wouldn't go calling people hypocrites anytime soon, Inga. Considering how many dems are suddenly going along with an expansion of Bush's NSA program. Hypocrites.
Jay, I would argue it this way.We need to be able to surveill communications of potential terrorists be they domestic or abroad.
If Bush's surveillance program was not adequate to deal with terrorists calling people domestically then the NSA should have the capability to deal with those type of phone calls.
The Marathon bombers spring to mind here. We know one of the brothers went to Russia. But what if the majority of his communications was domestic and not abroad. What if he never called his handled on the phone? Should we then not be able to monitor his phone conversations?
Perhaps Bush's program didn't go far enough, if it didn't deal with domestic terrorists adequately.
Assuming of course that all of the surveillance was done after getting the requisite warrants and dotting the t's and i's. Which I'm assuming was done under Bush and under Obama.
Outside of the "Warrant less phone listening," I suspect everything is within the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
As I recall, under Bush, the big scary thing was that phone calls were intercepted in the US, as being intercepted overseas. That is, supposedly, they were intercepting international calls. But so what? Didn't the US tap into soviet lines near West Berlin for years and listen into those calls? Of course some of the calls were going to terminate in the US.
So I've never been a big fan of "Well, they did the tapping inside the US, instead of say in international waters." But people seem to ignore that, for some reason.
So while I hate government surveillance, I have to wonder if it is cheaper to do it, and you can do it legally for more $, why not do the cheaper thing?
I love watching the low information voters like inga in action.
Yes, Inga, the one who once argued that sugar was more dangerous than sugar. And went on to say there was an article by a well known nutritional journal that said it.
Mogget wrote:
Nice strawman. In the meantime, government can use whatever it likes on whatever data it got thru a warrant and none else.
Well, what if govt did get the warrant when it actually wanted to monitor phone calls? Or what if they got the warrant to start the process of monitoring call records emanating from a specific number. In both cases, that is something that is supposed to happen.
If all goes according to plan, and they get the right warrants, or go through the proper channels, then do you still have a problem with the NSA program?
Dante, what the hell are you blathering about?
Rush Limbaugh and naked.
Ewwww.
Chip S. said...
"The extended list of keywords @ Nonapod's link is informative.
Not on the list: allah, bomb, fatwa, madrassa,
On the list: freedom, government, hate"
Informative, indeed. It's a matter of the government's perspective of the threat, and from whom it comes.
Obviously, since they are monitoring your emails, cellphone calls, texting and internet usage, as well as mine, and not those affiliated with Mosques, clearly then the government, our government, considers US the potential terrorists.
NOT anyone who may be regularly visiting a Mosque or Islamic center of some kind, just for comparison purposes only.
And, for comparison purposes only, I don't know anyone who knows anyone who knows anyone who knew any of the 19 Saudi al Qaeda members who perpetrated 9-11.
But here I am, with the NSA monitoring my cellphone calls, texting, emails and internet usage.
Dante wrote:
So I've never been a big fan of "Well, they did the tapping inside the US, instead of say in international waters." But people seem to ignore that, for some reason.
I'm ok with govt spying on China or the Russians or terrorists. That's what they're supposed to do. I'm even ok with govt spying on domestic terrorists, like Bill Ayres. But no so much on people who aren't terrorists, like tea partiers. Unless it can be proven that they are. i.e. attempts to overthrow govt or planting of bombs etc.
Not simply because the Obama administration says that tea partiers are like terrorists.
But if we have the ability to spy on our enemies, we will also have the ability to abuse that technology and also spy on non enemies. You can't have one capability without the other. Do you give up your capability to snoop on your enemies because some unscrupulous president might use those powers for evil instead of good?
Dante said...
"...And Prism now seems to be more what I thought it would be, which is something government has to ask companies like google to obtain."
"Because the NSA is collecting meta-data on phone calls does not mean they are getting your naked pictures."
Ah, but Google is, with those balloons they are sending up there, you know, to give you always on Wi-Fi everywhere. Those balloons are so huge, they can hitch some Hi-Def cameras to give you real time pictures... Er, for your Google map.
It may be scandalous for the NSA to peeping tom you, but Google is doing that, and Google loves to support its partner, our Dearest Dear Leader.
So I must now give my key to every housekeeper and let them rob me. I can't change my policy, or even suggest it's not working out, because "hypocrisy".
This actually makes sense to people on the left who believe not learning from mistakes is progress. Being a leftie means never having to say you're sorry.
I think Janet Napolitano is right; they are not running an Orwellian state, in fact, they are not running any kind of a state, but the thing is, they are supposed to, that is what they were elected or appointed to office for.
This thing of "I only know what I read in the paper" won't do.
We've got the makings of an Orwellian state happening all right; it is jus that no one in particular seems to be running it.
bagho20 wrote:
So I must now give my key to every housekeeper and let them rob me. I can't change my policy, or even suggest it's not working out, because "hypocrisy".
What if you never give out your key again because someone robbed you one time,and then one day you need a spare key?
Jay wrote:
I love watching the low information voters like inga in action.
Inga loves Big Brother, and she didn't even need to visit Room 101 to gain that love.
Inga wants to blame the NSA thing on Bush (without evidence, I must add) and accuses those who do not condemn Bush for the NSA thing of hypocrisy. However, to avoid a conviction in the Court of Intellectual Honesty for the offense of rank hypocrisy, Inga herself must condemn Obama for at least continuing the surveillance, if not greatly expanding it, which he did, and herself for voting for the motherfucker twice. Think carefully Inga, you're integrity (pathetically picayune as it is) is at stake.
"The Republican side will have a big problem if we suddenly become Glenn Greenwald. Since Bush had his "NECESSARY" program outed by the NYT. and it showed he was surveilling terrorists. Since it was covert, we were in the dark about the proper safeguards there as well. Were they enough? Did Bush bypass the safeguards to spy on his enemies? How do we know?"
We don't know.
But given the ideological impetus of the DC apparat, it seems a reasonably safe assumption that had Bush been abusing the program to monitor the phone calls of suspected, foreign, al Qaeda or other terrorist affiliated persons to spy on his political enemies, we'd know about it by now.
The absence of such evidence, while not exculpatory, is not meaningless either.
bagoh20 wrote:
f we get much more truth coming out, we're gonna have to seriously reconsider Mick's birther points.
I have to say, I think he may have actually been right. I'm just not going to beat a dead horse at this point. Obama already got away with it, we'll only uncover it after he's not president anymore.
"Inga loves Big Brother, and she didn't even need to visit Room 101 to gain that love."
Oh Lord Jesus, someone is trying to make sense of Inga.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
Can we get a link to the Napolitano comments?
Also--
In a world where Holder only had to lie to three federal judges to get what he wanted, how can we possibly trust thousands of analysts to do the "right," apolitical thing? How can anybody in the government be trusted at all?
I feel like I have vertigo. Things are so much worse than I could have ever imagined. The scandals are all of a piece. "Trust us, we know best, it is for your own good."
Today I put electrical tape over the camera on my computer. It isn't much, but it's a start.
"I have to say, I think he may have actually been right. I'm just not going to beat a dead horse at this point. Obama already got away with it, we'll only uncover it after he's not president anymore."
I disagree.
If Hillary! couldn't prove it, it can't be proven.
elkh1 wrote:
It may be scandalous for the NSA to peeping tom you, but Google is doing that, and Google loves to support its partner, our Dearest Dear Leader.
At least when the NSA does this they have to go through a court and get a warrant. When Google does it it's just Googe being Google. And who doesn't want their Google Maps?
This data collection will not stop terrorist attacks, it will only change how they're planned. We won't even get the house cleaned. So how many keys do you want to give out for that?
I'm ok with govt spying on China or the Russians or terrorists. That's what they're supposed to do. I'm even ok with govt spying on domestic terrorists, like Bill Ayres. But no so much on people who aren't terrorists, like tea partiers.
Of course. I'm merely saying it's easier to get the international with local taps. I think the argument against Cheney's push for intercepting international calls is the taps were on US soil, because the US had been doing this kind of thing for years, and year overseas.
So here is the argument. The NSA has responsibility for US security, so they can use the same argument the FBI has to successfully obtain all phone records around robbed banks, to get the meta-data for All US citizens.
The taping into international calls was done by Cheney, and has been done in the past, though I understand Bush ended up stopping it because someone offered the opinion it wasn't legal. But if we can do it in Germany for all international calls, why not put the tap where it is cheaper to do so?
That's what I don't understand.
Note, I'm not making the argument I like any of this stuff, or think it is OK. Only that there seems to be a lot of precedence for it. And frankly, I think it is a huge shot from getting records and tapping phone calls for national security purposes to getting that organization to tap say Tea Partiers.
Prism is going to end up being a complete smoke-screen. It's simply a transfer mechanism for lawful intercept. The over-reaction of "We can see you naked body" and all that stuff is going to look silly once the dust settles, is my guess.
bagoh20 wrote:
This data collection will not stop terrorist attacks, it will only change how they're planned. We won't even get the house cleaned. So how many keys do you want to give out for that?
I don't know if the NSA program was ever designed to STOP terrorism. It was to give us a better picture of who might be involved in a plot. And then we would use other tools to go after terrorists. Even with those other tools there is never a guarantee that we will stop all terrorism.
BUt the question is, is it better to try to monitor or stop terrorism with less information or more.
Leave aside terrorism for a second. Why is law enforcement using the same technology to track non terroristic crimes? I would think because there is some usefulness in doing that.
Could you imagine Limbaugh's enormous man boobs and ginormous gut covering his tiny peepee and his hig white ass with pimples on it. The thought of it turns me straight.
And all that fat flapping and fat sweat flying as he thrusts into you? Dear Lord.
What about having to get on your knees and raise the fat huge gut in order to blow him? Maybe they have some sort of device to lift the gut to unveil the old shriveled hog. Otherwise, the woman's arms would need to be incredibly muscular.
No money in the world girls.
Those sister wives he has had must be able to endure hardcore torture.
Tim wrote:
Oh Lord Jesus, someone is trying to make sense of Inga.
I know it a quixotic exercise, but damn it, there are dangerous windmills running around, and somebody's gotta tilt at 'em. Gallop on, Rocinante!
Inga,
You claimed:
"Fructose [A SUGAR] is more dangerous than sugar."
You went on to say that a journal of nutrition made that statement, and I needed to "read the article," which I already had. Anyway, it's off topic, but it's obvious you are very difficult to discuss facts with. The charitable view is that they sometimes confuse you, and you can't deal with exceptions, etc., but have to stick to absolutes.
You end up getting stuck in obscure corners in which you look like a person who is a partisan brat, holding on to untenable positions. The uncharitable view is that you hold on to your absolutes because you are a partisan brat, and merely want to cause trouble and not add to the discussion.
I'm not saying I'm immune to throwing out snark, or once in a while when I've had a drink too much letting some unsavoury comment out (putting in place the filter has been very challenging for me), but in general, I come here to understand the many perspectives of people. But nonesense isn't worth listening to. It's not worth trying to discuss with a closed mind.
I bet inga was all proud to be voting for the candidate that was going to end all that illegal Bush wiretappin'!!!
Inga,
You claimed:
"Fructose [A SUGAR] is more dangerous than sugar."
You went on to say that a journal of nutrition made that statement,
She makes these bizarre claims about nutrition and in some sort of effort to prove she's a nurse.
There are a lot of really weird and stupid people on the Internet and lefty dimwit inga is one of them.
If the next president is a Republican he should demand that the NSA turn over info on all searches done during Obama's administration. then go to the courts that approved the warrants. ANd then cross reference the numbers and see if they are in fact tied to terrorism and/or Tea Partiers.
If Tea partiers he should then go before the country and say that Obama's administration did do these things and then go after them. Or alternatively simply say, you did this against right wing groups, now you're going to do it against left wing groups. And if you complain about it we are going to out you for targeting Right Wing Groups under the Obama administration.
"A guy who used to be in Washington knew that his phone was tapped, used to answer, Fuck Hoover, yes, go ahead. (laughter)"
Thanks for a useful reminder that this is not new in principle. The FBI was very much into tapping phones and surveillance of people like Nixon. How do you think Mark Felt was able to destroy Nixon for passing him over for Director ?
The difference now is that everyone is suspect. The West Point cadets are getting lectures on how dangerous right wing terrorists are. No discussion of Muslim terrorists because that's "Islamophobic."
This data collection will not stop terrorist attacks, it will only change how they're planned. We won't even get the house cleaned. So how many keys do you want to give out for that?
Bagoh,
A) exactly WHAT is being done that hasn't been done before and approved by the courts?
B) Internet and cell phones are new tools for criminals, and terrorists. Making it harder for them to use ought to slow them down, and they will have to find something else.
C) Don't get me wrong, I frankly don't know what to think at this point. If it is merely phone meta-data in the hands of the NSA, I'm having a hard time understanding how that's any different than what the FBI has done. If it's looking at pictures of naked Dante or Bagoh, well, that's a different story, but I really doubt that's being done without a warrant, with the possible exception of if you are sending naked photos to overseas terrorists. Fortunately, we aren't going to have any Gorgeous Russian Spies this time around, as the Muslim spies will be wearing Burqas.
Titus wrote:
The thought of it [i.e. Rush Limbaugh naked] turns me straight.
Then by all means keep thinking of "it". You'll be happier in the long run being on the winning side of Nature's contest.
A carb is a carb is a carb.
"I know it a quixotic exercise, but damn it, there are dangerous windmills running around, and somebody's gotta tilt at 'em. Gallop on, Rocinante!"
Oh, I get it.
But after too many toxic discussions with the intransigent and the idiotic, I do myself the favor of avoiding contact, especially since it's entirely a matter of choice.
Chip S wrote:
You'd have thought, "I'm a little worried about giving a key to any housekeeper, but right now the benefits of doing so seem to outweigh the costs." And maybe that worked out, or at least you didn't have any evidence that it didn't
Then you found out that your next housekeeper was selling your furniture on craigslist.
B/c you were worried about somebody with a deficient ability to draw distinctions calling you a hypocrite, you didn't dare take back your key.
It's a bad analogy becuase govt is supposed to protect us from threats, and will necessarily be involved in surveillance of one kind or another. Your housekeeper isn't supposed to be selling your furniture on craigslist.
It would only be comparable if your housekeeper was supposed to have some ability to sell limited furniture on craigslist but instead seemed to be abusing the priviledge.
Inga sez: "Fructose [A SUGAR] is more dangerous than sugar."
In my experience the most dangerous sugar is maltose. Had a bit too much of that myself from time to time.
Dante wrote:
However, I read an article a few years ago where some local law enforcement obtained records, looked for a pattern, and were able to catch some serial bank-robbers by looking at cell phone calls in the vicinity of the banks. It caught the bank-robbers. Their lawyer argued this was a violation of the 4th amendment, but it was struck down.
So if you think that's OK, then you also have to agree with the NSA getting meta-data all US phone subscribers.
That in a nutshell is why the Glenn Greenwalds are wrong. Either they don't know that law enforcement already has this power and that the courts have said it wasn't a violation or they choose to ignore it and instead spread scary stories.
How is this that different than what the govt is doing currently other than the scale involved? The courts already determined the legality of it, and law enforcement has already done it for bank robbing cases, and as David SImon points out, for drug cases.
If you would do it for those types of crimes, why wouldn't you do it for terrorism type crimes? Somehow terrorism is a lower priority than bank robbers or low level drug dealers?
Exactly what is being done that wasn't done before?
Well, apart from tu quoque the program appears to be far more vast than previously conceived much less previously believed. By "much" I mean "MUCH" no wait, that's insufficient, I mean MUCH X 1,000 more extensive. So right there's a difference. Do you notice the difference? Did I get through? I'll be happy to just give up trying. Are you going to go all qualitative vs quantitative on my ass and dismiss my distrust? Flatly, there is nothing this woman can say at this point to assure a disbelieving public. All trust is forfeited. Too bad. Really, too bad, they fucked up big time, and repeatedly.
Hi nsa *waves* You're all little pixi dicks
with Napleon complexes.
You know, Napoleon shot the guy who painted him standing there with such an obviously little dick under his white stretchy pants, he goes, "Hey! I told you to paint my dick bigger." And the guy goes, "I did." Bang. Shot him dead, with the Imperial ease of a Putin stealing a Super Bowl ring literally right from under the nose of its owner and silently daring him to challenge his theft, like that, bang, dead. This historical anecdote has the trufax seal of approval.
Can we listen to them?
Please?
That would only be fair.
How about that, fearless leaders?
So where is the court on this? It's ok for govt to do this kind of search with one carrier, but not ok to do this kind of search with more than one carrier at a time? That's the constitutional question?
My cell calls are being logged. My Google searches are being archived. My Gmails are being read and snickered at. ("Hey guys, look at this one. This idiot spells Xanthoparmelia with a z!") It seems the only privacy that's being jealously guarded in this country is the privacy of Obama's transcripts.
"Exactly what is being done that wasn't done before? "
I don't know for sure, and I'm mostly not as concerned about now, but tomorrow. What has changed dramatically recently is the amount of data that is collectable, and how well it can be mined. We are just starting. We are the people right now who will decide if the future of data, the government, individual freedom turns dystopian or not.
It seems pretty clear to me that the way it's going the government or anyone with access will be able to determine who you are, who your friends are, what you believe, everything about your personal life, your plans, your private thoughts, and the preferences and appetites for every single person in the country down to the finest detail whether you want that or not. It will be able to be decided whether or not you deserve things like medical treatment, or tax breaks due to what you happen to buy at the grocery store, or how fast you drive. If someone actually wants to hurt you, you're a sitting duck. Once this level of detail is available it can be falsified as well.
I don't know if there is anyway to avoid that future, which is one of the good things about being closer to death than birth at this point for me, but I think we definitely should be talking about it and fighting it out. I believe absolutely everything is at stake with this - it's that powerful.
We owe it to our prodigy that will be born into this world as we leave it. We should be very careful about wiping out their future freedoms and privacy for our security today.
"bagoh20 said...
We owe it to our prodigy that will be born into this world as we leave it."
Still bragging about your kids, I see.
"I think Janet Napolitano is right; they are not running an Orwellian state, in fact, they are not running any kind of a state, "
except the ship of state, which they are running right into that big iceberg...
I think when Big Sis says there's no Orwellian state here (or something like that, I'm not going to go back & check it) it's time to worry. I worry about everything these incompetent clowns say, (a) because I don't believe them and (b) because they are incredibly stupid.
bagoh20 said...
"We owe it to our prodigy that will be born into this world as we leave it."
David Said:
"Still bragging about your kids, I see."
I assume when using the royal "we" that some of us might have good jeans, and I don't want to insult any potential genuses.
Janet Napolitano, that bitch who's not running an Orwellian police state, didn't she recently buy several million rounds of 9mm hollow-point, ostensibly for target practice by her minions? And it it not also true that hollow-point ammo is not suitable for target practice?
Stupid or evil, or both. No other possibilities exist.
Yea, when our leaders come out and say they aren't running some "Orwellian State", they're leaving themselves a lot breathing room. You have to remember it's lawyers talking. So what they mean is that technically it's not an Orwellian state, unless it says "Orwellian" on the paperwork.
So right there's a difference. Do you notice the difference? Did I get through?
1,000 drops of water is still water. The constitution is to protect the citizens, and largely individuals against government action, particularly the fourth and fifth amendments.
And the approach you take will depend on whether you view it as a violation of constitutional rights, or that the government is going farther, within what's allowed in the constitution, than free people feel it ought to be able to go.
You will not see me supporting the surveillance state, despite your rather snarky comments above.
I am in the situation that:
A) I don't know what has been done.
B) Everything I have heard that has been done has a precedence that appears to be within the rules of the constitution.
C) I don't have a clue how much value there is to what's going on. I for one think the existence of the US is pretty important, while it remains a somewhat free country, and I admit I'm willing to concede constitutionally allowed invasions of privacy to do it. But, I don't like it, and I would rather have alternatives.
So if you want to help create the thought that's going to stop the kind of state that Bagoh20 paints below, because in my view that's where we are headed, it has to be something more than, "I'm shocked, Shocked to find that gambling is going on here!"
A big part of that has to be painting the government as a vast monopoly and collection of power, and that it is dangerous.
Railing about the constitutional actions of the government, in my view, is going to detract from the valid arguments Bagoh makes.
To let you know, once again, where my head is:
I do not like the government forcing people to put surveillance boxes into every car, but they are.
I do not like the government running health-care. But they are.
I do not like the government collecting DNA samples. But they are.
I do not like sobriety checkpoints, but they run them.
I do not like 31 of 32 Duke Lacrosse players being ordered by a court to give up their DNA, but it happened.
These things, in my view, happen because people do not have the proper role of government in their minds. It's not there to run your life. It's not there to provide for cradle to grave medical care, social security, nor give out Obamaphones.
It's there to protect us from enemies. But it's become a lot bigger than that, and has stolen power from the states. If you want a free society, you have to fight back for a vision of smaller centralized government, of a Republic. But, everyone has their pet aspect of government that in their minds justifies its involvement in all these activities of our lives.
Until you fix that problem, the world of a massive powerful monopolistic government is merely a matter of time. Oh, there will be large companies used to prove we are still free, but these will have even more ties into the government than they do today.
Are you listening? Or is this shouting in the wind.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Losing both is the Progressive game-plan, ergo PRISM.
"National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol hill briefings that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls".
This seems to be a shock revelation that on second glance reveals itself to be not so shocking.
All it is is describing capabilities that are available. If we were talking about a routine phone tapping, got through a warrant and you were to describe the capabilities, then you would say the police can listen in on your conversation.
That's the whole point of tapping a phone. It's possible that it can happen. Of course, for cops to be able to tap your phone they are supposed to jump through certain legal hoops to be able to use that power. But if you just describe the power that could be used it sounds scary.
Example, any help desk can access anyones computer on the network, sometimes without them being there.If we were to write it out in scare tactic words it would be "Your employer can access your computer at any time, wihtout you even being on the computer. They have the ability to watch you while you work!!!!!!"
But then, when it comes to you needing someone to fix your computer they take it as a given that you will connect to their machine through a proxy and fix their issue. Would you give up that convenience because one help desk analyst might be shady?
The latest from BuzzFeed:
Democratic New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler claims he was told in a closed-door briefing that the NSA could listen to a specific phone call, and get a call’s “contents” without a warrant, based solely on an analyst’s decision. FBI Director Robert Mueller said that wasn’t true. Nadler said he asked the same question at the closed-door briefing where he received the different answer.
Update Rep. Nadler in a statement to BuzzFeed says: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.”
So, an Emily Litella moment, or did they show him his surveillance file?
BuzzFeed link
Nancy Danielson @ 10:48
Of course Obama and his progressive handlers and followers are limiting our Religious Liberty, specifically Judeo-Christian principles. They are clearing a way for a new religion, State Worship. (Islam is a state religion so it's fine. For now. Just keep on submitting, Muslims, and there won't be any problems.)
And no, Cookie Puss, you walking talking point of incoherence and ignorance, the Constitution does not establish the right to "freedom from religion."
Goddam atheists. Reliably getting it wrong every time. Atheists are just low information worshippers of the State. Always complaining about how they're just sooo tired of having religion "crammed down their throats" [and always this same metaphor - curious], waah, some person came to my door and tried to talk to me about Jesus, waah, some horrible person said Merry Christmas to me, OMG! If you have doubts, smarten up, make use of whatever's left of your brain and be agnostic. Let the faithful be faithful and live your own life. Otherwise, you're just cramming your stupid atheist state religion down everyone's throats.
I'm not agnostic about the Religion of the State. The State is not God and this is a repeatedly PROVEN fact because the more they try to prove the State is an omniscient perfect ruler (and they've really gone into overdrive lately) the more it becomes obvious that IT'S NOT. It's a false religion complete with inept prophets, obscure and fanciful "proofs," insane leader worship, enormous self-serving money-grubbing bureaucracies, and murderous buggering lying priests. All the things that dumbshit atheists pretend to hate about actual religions but are suddenly okay with because they fit the atheists' religion.
The NSA phone tap program is well out in the open now, and has been for some time for people (like terrorists) who pay attention to such things. So why are we not getting specific answers about how this massive phone tapping actually protects the national interest? Because it's really all about control and political domination?
The Franklin quote is: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I think the way he put it with the modifiers "essential", "little", and "temporary" is what makes it wise and so spot-on for what the NSA is doing. I believe the liberty at risk is "essential" and that the safety is relatively "little" and "temporary". That's the whole problem for me. I want the safety and liberty balanced in a sensible way, and I think it's getting out of balance very quickly right under our noses.
Well gee. It is almost as if I have been right all along.
All of you Americans that still supported Obama will be coming around soon. Anyone who supports Obama or Hilary at this point is a piece is a piece of shit.
Robert Cook, if the founders believed every man to be a religion onto themselves, they would not have protected our Religious Liberty to begin with.
The Supreme Court, did in fact, declare that The United States is a Christian Nation, (The Church of The Holy Trinity v United States) we do not however, have a particular Christian denomination as a State religion as that would be unconstitutional.
Nancy Danielson wrote:
The Supreme Court, did in fact, declare that The United States is a Christian Nation, (The Church of The Holy Trinity v United States)...
Oops. Wrong. The language of the decision (the Supremes don't declare things, they hand down decisions) is "There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation." (my italics) The declarations referred to are the founding documents (Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, various state constitutions, etc.) The phrase you mistakenly attribute to the decision, i.e. a Christian nation, comes from David J. Brewer who wrote the minority opinion in the case. He later wrote a book about the subject titled "The United States: A Christian Nation". The title is ironic and the book is critical of the concept.
So now we return to the days of yesteryear to see how "privacy" was portrayed by "Ernestine" Tomlin, the telephone operator.
bagoh20 said...
The Franklin quote is: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I think the way he put it with the modifiers "essential", "little", and "temporary" is what makes it wise and so spot-on for what the NSA is doing.
====================
The Franklin quote is a stupid one for people to spout, though it has been embraced by the Herd when they wish to say something as "profound" as Santayana without really understanding where either were coming from in their body of work.
In Franklin's case, his 1759 platitude was replaced in wartime with a different, rational and realistic Franklin.
One that formed the Committee on Secret Correspondence to steam open and inspect all intercepted mail without warrant. As a printer, understanding the power of the press, Franklin convinced other Revolutionaries that a prime target must be the destruction and burning of Loyalist printing presses. That it was correct to imprison Loyalists without trial in conditions the Brits accorded captured Revolutionaries ..including his own traitor son....in rank, unheated dungeons for years with a death rate of 35% as opposed to GITMO's 0% save from Islamoid suicides..
And the whole time, Franklin said if they won, and the threat was removed, they could easily go back to trying to maximize liberties and rights. But not until then.
Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison were also hardasses on subjugating "precious freedoms and liberties" while the war was on.
And George Washington was quite willing to "kill his own people!!" (as that brainless slogan goes to demonize leaders in foreign countries so we Americans can invade them).. - if they were Loyalists fighting for the Brits -
Or later, as President - if certain Americans decided to mount an Insurrection. (SHays Revolt).
"You don't seem to understand the Bush NSA didn't do this."
How do you know? Because they say so? Hahahaha!
Someone else says differently.
Even granting for argument's sake Bush's NSA program was not this sweeping or intrusive, it was illegal and in violation of the FISA law. That's indisputable. This is how creeping tyranny creeps: incrementally, one inch forward after another. Bush's NSA was almost certainly not the first to engage in these violations of the law and of our civil liberties, but they advanced it, just as Obama's NSA is advancing it further still.
"Why was Glenn Greenwald wrong then, but right now?"
Greenwald was right, then, too.
Cedarford wrote:
The Franklin quote is a stupid one for people to spout...
Before pontificating on Franklin better make sure your history and dates aren't muddled, which they are.
"By the same token, all the dems who are now NOT criticizing Obama are also hypocrites? No?"
If they were among those Dems who criticized Bush--not all of them did--then, yes, they are hypocrites now.
"So while I hate government surveillance, I have to wonder if it is cheaper to do it, and you can do it legally for more $, why not do the cheaper thing?"
Well, that's a novel idea: write a constitution guaranteeing specified protections against government overreach and abuse of power, to be adhered to strictly unless and until revised by constitution amendment...or unless it's cheaper to just say fuck it! we're going to do what the rules say we can't because following the rules is so costly and troublesome.
You're obviously lying...you don't hate government surveillance at all.
"If the next president is a Republican he should demand that the NSA turn over info...blah blah blah...."
If the next Republican is a President he (or she) will continue with the programs just as they're left in his or her hands, and will try to expand from that point.
Presidents are not interested in ceding power previous presidents have claimed and won for themselves.
Cedarford wrote:
The Franklin quote is a stupid one for people to spout...
Before pontificating on Franklin better make sure your history and dates aren't muddled, which they are.
============
No, you are the one brainlessly spouting it, and my correcting you is not pontificating.
The quote appeared locally in 1755, then later joined a larger audience through Poor Richard's Almanac, with a date attributed of 1759.
On the larger matter, do you dispute that Franklin, when security was threatened, acted quite differently than his platitude made in full peacetime and security suggested he might??
My own personal belief is I have no problem with new technology that provides either security or liberty, that may remove the ability of people to do foul deeds undetected - provided the people know what it is used for. And oversight balances competing interests of privacy, security for the American People, makes it harder for lawyers to get the guilty off. And the technologies are not used in ways The People and advocates that have public sway - disapprove of.
1. We have had a national database, that has had registry of over 100 million fingerprints, for 90 years.
2. We have used piloted aircraft, as opposed to remote piloted drones, to do the same things drones do, for police, surveillance, reporting on traffic congestion for the last 8--50 years depending on use. Only the sensors and recorders have improved, not the mission.
3. Wireless intercepts, email dbases go back decades. Longer if you remember what was done with older tech - that FDR was tapping all phone and wire traffic entering or leaving CONUS a year before we joined WWII. Even from one Murukin citizen to another between CONUS and Hawaii or France. Before that, Lincoln's troops were tapping telegraph lines and writing down what was said between private Murukins for review in a database sent to Union Army intel people.
I'll repeat, the "terrorist threat," so-called, is a lie, a fraud, a scam. In the sucking vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union, we had no "existential enemy" to justify the maintenance and perpetual expansion of our military/intelligence/police state, so the "terrorists" are an opportune and better replacement--the perfect one. They are hard to identify and thus easy to identify...they can be anyone, anywhere, anytime...in other words, everyone, everywhere, all the time! They can never be defeated and so we must remain forever forever militarized, a police state. Plus, connected people make big bucks off the scare-the-rubes-into-submission industry.
Presidents are not interested in ceding power previous presidents have claimed and won for themselves.
Except that this isn't true; Presidents and politicians have turned their back on power since the days of Cincinnatus.
What's changed is there are no longer limits on what the government is supposed to do. Everything is the state's business. Everything is political. The lawyers and the activists have seen to that. Voters are electing people with the mandate to "fix everything wrong" and "make sure nothing bad ever happens".
I think the way he put it with the modifiers "essential", "little", and "temporary" is what makes it wise and so spot-on for what the NSA is doing. I believe the liberty at risk is "essential" and that the safety is relatively "little" and "temporary". That's the whole problem for me. I want the safety and liberty balanced in a sensible way, and I think it's getting out of balance very quickly right under our noses.
Eh. I hope this doesn't come to crossing swords, because I almost always feel your wisdom and insight is so close to the mark, and it sheds a whole new perspective on life for me.
I agree with the picture you paint of the possible future, and there are elements right now that have nothing to do with NSA that are pushing it along, but what is the essential freedom the NSA is taking? I'm talking about within the confines of what you know.
This war has been going on for a long time. Obama epitomized it: "Clinging to their Guns and Religion." 'Why can't they accept God the state.' My ancestors left that vision, of God as State, and I don't want to see it replicated here, no matter what fine nuance the leftists tell us.
Unless you can point to something very specific, and say "This is what they are doing that is different regarding freedom," then all I can say is this is a huge distraction.
What happened to Benghazi. What happened to Pigford. What happened to the State Department covering up agents seeking prostitutes, and other crimes? What happened to the IRS abuses with conservative and Jewish organizations? What happened to Holder signing off of a warrant to tap the phone lines of Fox News, and what happened to the justice department tracking the AP?
Gone. Lost away in the boogeyman of the NSA. Thinking people, opinion makers, are now focused on the NSA. It's a perfect scapegoat, something that by its nature is ill understood except by the few.
And if the nebulous bogey man of the NSA, which is almost assuredly seeking to protect Americans, turns out to be doing nothing unusual, but merely following through on previous Supreme court decisions?
Then that takes wind out of the IRS scandal. It makes Holder look like he did nothing wrong going after Fox. The outrage will cause us to not care about the State Department Scandal, Benghazi, and the administration that ran those operations.
I want to get back to those, which are actual and real.
That doesn't mean the NSA hasn't stepped beyond its bounds. But at present, I do not see it. It's a red herring designed to get everyone worked up, so when they look at these other scandals, they will seem, oh, not so bad.
Certainly not as bad as Big Sis and her minions looking at your naked body in the body scanner.
I'll repeat, the "terrorist threat," so-called, is a lie, a fraud, a scam.
Tell that to the 3000 dead and trillion dollar hole left in downtown Manhattan... a strike just as damaging and a whole lot cheaper than the one launched on December 7 by the IJN.
It didn't have to be this way, but every president since at least Carter has kicked the can down the road on doing something about the state-sponsored insurgent warfare that plagues much of the world. But it so much easier and cheaper to kick the can than actually do something, and doing something is risky and therefore you might not get re-elected.
Fructose found to be more harmful than glucose.
Dante, dumbass.
Altern Med Rev. 2005 Dec;10(4):294-306.
Adverse effects of dietary fructose.
Gaby AR.
Abstract
The consumption of fructose, primarily from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), has increased considerably in the United States during the past several decades. Intake of HFCS may now exceed that of the other major caloric sweetener, sucrose. Some nutritionists believe fructose is a safer form of sugar than sucrose, particularly for people with diabetes mellitus, because it does not adversely affect blood-glucose regulation, at least in the short-term. However, fructose has potentially harmful effects on other aspects of metabolism. In particular, fructose is a potent reducing sugar that promotes the formation of toxic advanced glycation end-products, which appear to play a role in the aging process; in the pathogenesis of the vascular, renal, and ocular complications of diabetes; and in the development of atherosclerosis. Fructose has also been implicated as the main cause of symptoms in some patients with chronic diarrhea or other functional bowel disturbances. In addition, excessive fructose consumption may be responsible in part for the increasing prevalence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Although the long-term effects of fructose consumption have not been adequately studied in humans, the available evidence suggests it may be more harmful than is generally recognized. The extent to which a person might be adversely affected by dietary fructose depends both on the amount consumed and on individual tolerance. With a few exceptions, the relatively small amounts of fructose that occur naturally in fruits and vegetables are unlikely to have deleterious effects, and this review is not meant to discourage the consumption of these healthful foods.
PMID: 16366738 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free full text
Robert Cook said...
"If the next president is a Republican he should demand that the NSA turn over info...blah blah blah...."
If the next Republican is a President he (or she) will continue with the programs just as they're left in his or her hands, and will try to expand from that point.
Presidents are not interested in ceding power previous presidents have claimed and won for themselves.
Maybe you'll luck out and the next president will be from another planet.
10 Reasons why fructose is bad.
Why is fructose bad for you?
Inga,
If you want to discuss sugar, and spice, and other things, you can email me at edbarbar@gmail.com.
I can't reply to you here. Sometimes, there are more important things than politics and sugars.
Cheers,
Dante
Dante said:
"Eh. I hope this doesn't come to crossing swords..."
I'm not into that. I respect your opinions, and I'd prefer to learn from you.
You say: "Unless you can point to something very specific, and say "This is what they are doing that is different regarding freedom," then all I can say is this is a huge distraction."
It depends on what you really care about. If you want Obama to be embarrassed, then yea, Benghazi is the scandal you want front page. I do want that too, but the danger of Benghazi is over, it can't be fixed or prevented now. If all the truth came out, and it looked bad, it wouldn't change our country one way or the other, and I doubt Obama would even pay a price. If it killed Hillary's chances then yea, that's valuable, but still just about one politician's career.
As to specifics on the NSA thing. Of course I don't have any. I'm not a 20 something, unstable, alienated guy with good computer skills that hates America, so naturally, they didn't give me any specifics on highly sensitive programs.
I'm saying that the NSA thing is what will hurt us long term, and it's much more important because we can do something about it to mitigate the very bad possibilities. There is action that can be taken, policy that can be changed that affects every citizen forever. Benghazi is one in a long history of Presidential screw ups. Maybe one of the lamest, and most embarrassing, and terrible for those close to those four Americans, but Obama will be gone in 3 years, and it won't matter to the country as a whole.
The surveillance of citizens will be a defining issue for the nation from now on. It's like nuclear weapons, it's a technology that changes everything afterward. We need to get a handle on it fast.
Besides, Fructose is gonna kill us all anyway.
Yes THAT IS RIGHT, so why did you bring it up to begin with @1:02PM?
The IRS supposedly has safeguards, including multiple levels of supervisory review, to ensure that abuse cannot happen. The AG signs off on significant warrants and a FISA judge carefully scrutinizes applications to ensure that overzealous law enforcement doesn't do end-runs around the 4th Amendment. The NSA hires the best--the very *best*--to handle this sensitive data with professionalism and unquestionable integrity. People like Edward Snowden.
If you had told me at the end of the Cold War that in two decades we'd be under constant domestic surveillance and the public would harbor deep suspicions about the integrity of government and whether checks and balances is a fraud... I'd have thought you were just a sore Commie.
Although I think the NSA is the most important story, I do think it is still a huge distraction from both the Benghazi and the IRS story. As a wingnut, it's like apples are falling off the tree by the dozens, and all we have is a baseball cap to catch them in. Every warning given by those crazy right wingers is coming true like it was scripted. It's almost like conservatives are way smarter than other people or something.
The surveillance of citizens will be a defining issue for the nation from now on. It's like nuclear weapons, it's a technology that changes everything afterward. We need to get a handle on it fast.
You won't get an argument from me on your basic point.
However, I don't think NSA is the right focal point. If you look at it, all that stuff has been done before. And accepted.
The other stuff can be viewed as tools on the one hand, and more destruction of individual responsibility and freedom on the other.
If the end result is necessary and legal actions by the NSA, I repeat myself, it's a waste of the good energy of thoughtful folks. And, it will further split and divide the nation into "supporters" and "detractors." Each battle must be fought and won, in my view.
"I'm not a 20 something, unstable, alienated guy with good computer skills that hates America, so naturally, they didn't give me any specifics on highly sensitive programs."
Of course, you provide no evidence that Snowden is unstable, alienated or that he hates America. In fact, he seems much more rational, balanced, and a believer in the ideals of America than any of the corrupt, cynical war-mongers in Washington.
So you're just a slanderer.
Is it slander to falsely call someone a "slanderer"?
Cook, I never mentioned Snowden, so you are the slanderer for making that connection. That's not very nice. The guy is risking his life for your freedoms. Have some respect.
Slanderers slather on the slander. Who slathered who? Oops I mean who slandered who? So confusing.
Inga is evidently a paleo diet faddist, else why link to that site to support her specious claims about fructose? And she claims to be a nurse, jeez. (She may be. A lot of nurses believe in and practice so-called Therapeutic Touch, so having that RN is little guarantee of level-headed sanity.) As a counter-link to 10 reasons why fructose is bad I offer Paleo Diet is Nonsense
The best count-argument is to consider Inga herself. She avoids fructose, and what has it done for her brain? Evidently nothing good.
The NSA has so much dirt on every politician, it doesn't matter a Republican, or a Democrat, or a Martian be president, he/she will be their front. Remember J.Edgar? He called the shot until the day he expired.
Eat more corn syrup, slurp it up, enjoy it, Quisling.
Inga wrote:
Eat more corn syrup, slurp it up, enjoy it, Quisling.
QED
Bagoh:
I think it is OK to write about public figures in the way you did. I suspect most would identify Snowden from your remarks, but I don't think it could be conceived as slander.
Inga:
yes, yes, the HFCS issue, it's the reason everyone is fat. So don't eat fruit, according to Inga.
Look, you can send me that email. We all go through tough times, and I won't bite on the stupid Fructose issue, which is merely a matter of fact, not intelligence, not opinion, for the most part.
Ooops, damn you autocorrect, I meant Quaestor.
Actually these accusations of "slander" are just more indications of Cookie's slippery grasp on reality, else he'd realize that what goes on here may be libel, but it's not slander.
Dante wrote:
What happened to Benghazi. What happened to Pigford. What happened to the State Department covering up agents seeking prostitutes, and other crimes? What happened to the IRS abuses with conservative and Jewish organizations? What happened to Holder signing off of a warrant to tap the phone lines of Fox News, and what happened to the justice department tracking the AP?
Good point. Every one of those is a real scandal. The scandal of the NSA is "WHat if they abuse the program?" not "TH\hey abused the program".
Since all programs can be abused and since technology notoriously can both be positive and negative,arguing about the potential for abuse is like arguing that war is bad because it involves killing. Would a whistleblower blow the whistle on our plans to bomb targets when he realized that bombing targets involved killing people? "Oh my god! Those bombs have the capability of blowing people up like never before! I must defect and give this info to China! "
Lets slam OBama for the REAL issues that he's skirting on because we are going down the rabbit hole chasing possible boogeymen.
Dante wrote:
yes, yes, the HFCS issue, it's the reason everyone is fat. So don't eat fruit, according to Inga.
Well fructose isn't as bad because it's surrounded by fiber. But sugar does appear to be one of the primary causes of obesity. I agree with Inga on this.
Anything that raises insulin is to blame, and sugar is a prime mover in that regard. Another is wheat.
I don't believe I ever said not to eat fruit. Glycemic index is key in picking what fruits to eat as well as what carbs to eat. So now get back to the discussion already and shut up about fructose.
Anything that raises insulin is to blame, and sugar is a prime mover in that regard. Another is wheat.
That's an amazing thing about Fructose. It doesn't create Glucose, nor raise insulin. Fructose has its own metabolic pathway. The abstracts I looked at posit the idea that since fructose does not create Glucose, it doesn't produce Leptin, which makes you feel full.
So long as your intake is less than 50g (90g according to some), it's harmless. Fructose has a very low glycemic index, like about 20, as opposed to Sucrose (which has 68), and Glucose @ 100.
as opposed to Sucrose (which has 68)
Sorry, TABLE SUGAR, which has both sucrose and fructose in it, has a glycemic index of 68.
It is looking like this was someone really misspeaking about what is going on - not inaccurate really, but also not really accurate. That maybe they have the physical capabilities, but that is constrained by the legalities, which is where a lot of us thought that things were before this revelation.
BUT, the problem is that the capabilities are there for a government employee to overhear an American's phone conversations without a lot of trouble on his part, and that leads to the possibility of abuse. As long as we have both statutory and Constitutional restraints on listening to conversations w/o a warrant (no matter how easily obtained), we can at least pretend that we are still a country of laws, and not of men. But, we have also seen that with Lois Lerner and her management that there are plenty of highly partisan government willing to cross the line a bit, infringing on Americans' fundamental rights for partisan advantage, and, worse, this doesn't, yet, seem like a firing offense.
But, that means that we are verging on a national of men, and not laws, and we have seen enough with the Obama Administration to make a lot of people a bit fearful. This Administration has not been a friend to much of America, and, esp. to white Christian (and Jewish)_ America. And, the problem with a nation of men is that no matter how well intentioned at the beginning, such a country rapidly revolves into a country run by cronyism and the like, and we have seen much too much of this already with the Obama Administration with its green energy giveaways, preferential treatment of GE and the too-big-to-fail financial institutions, racist and sexist enforcement of laws by the DoJ, give-aways of control of two automakers to their unions, etc. So, when Lois Lerner is found to have jumped from agency to agency, asserting her authority in a highly partisan manner, and her superiors cover for her, it is scary, and even more scary thinking that if NSA employees cross the line that IRS, DoJ, SEC, etc. employees have, we really are in trouble with our government.
Jay said...
I love watching the low information voters like inga in action.
Comedy gold.
No. It's sad.
Sad to think that 50% of the country is composed of like minded people.
Knowing that. It explains phenomena like Justin Bieber, the Kardashians, and gapers blocks.
Up until very recently it have been those on the left who have been most skeptical that we have the correct balance. I welcome our freedom-loving brothers from the right to join us on this issue.
There is no joining. Most of the Left is cool with it.
no bigger hypocrite on the issue exists than Obama. Literally no bigger one.
Robert Cook said...
"This is how creeping tyranny creeps: incrementally, one inch forward after another."
Exactly right, Cook. People are naturally corrupt, political power attracts those most likely to be corrupted by political power. The more powerful the fed gov, the more likely that power is to be abused. The problem is not limited to NSA, it extends through the rest of this too huge, too unchecked, out of control fed gov. When political power is not balanced between the fed gov and state govs, between the executive and the legislative branch, when the fed judiciary is not limited as defined by the constitution, it is inevitable that this unchecked, unbalanced fed gov will abuse its power.
You can't compartmentalize this and say the problem is limited to NSA, it extends across government. The only hope of retaining our freedom (and at this point it is going to be one helluva struggle to keep from spiraling down into an oppressive one party dictatorship) is to force our fed gov to conform to constitutional constraints.
Robert Cook said...
"Let's be rational.
The founders did not establish just religious freedom, but also freedom from religion. This is why this country was not founded as a Christian nation or any other kind of theocratic state.
We are each free to practice the religion of our choice or be renounce religion entirely, to believe in a divine realm and being, either from the perspective of organized religion or not, or to renounce such beliefs.
The religious are not privileged over the irreligious, or the believers over the unbelievers."
Obviously true.
Robert Cook said...
"If the next Republican is a President he (or she) will continue with the programs just as they're left in his or her hands, and will try to expand from that point.
Presidents are not interested in ceding power previous presidents have claimed and won for themselves."
In general, this is true. Certainly Bush II believed in the imperial presidency. Having said that, constitutional conservatism is a political philosophy that rejects the imperial presidency and our too powerful fed gov that is no longer constrained by the constitution. The best chance at reining in this monstrous fed gov is to elect constitutional conservatives. This does not preclude redistributing income from the wealthy to the need, it just says those decisions need to be made at the state level and that to redistribute the income, voucher approaches are preferable rather than creating bureaucracies that inevitably become oppressive.
Methadras said...
IngSoc came about because socialists took over the US and England to create the country Oceania and rewrote the entire histories of both countries to suit their own. England is already there. The US is next. Now we have the neo-Trotskites doing the the same to the US and telling us it's okay, they are here to help and stuff. Tell me again how this isn't every man for himself at this point? You can see the setup if you can connect the dots. DHS buying billions of rounds of ammo to yank off the market so that citizens can't find or buy them, creating inflated costs and shortages. All this after DHS deems conservative groups and people who follow said ideology as potential extremists and terrorists. Now you see a massive militarization of police forces in nearly all major metropolitan cities. Boston was a perfect example of that particular showing. You now have the admissions of the NSA and now DHS saying they can and do listen to our conversations of all kinds without warrants. Obama gets on stage and lies about that. No one but the DHS deemed extremists, aka conservatives call it out for what it is. Democrats are virulently silenced with freebies, giveaways, healthcare, and any other sundry items you can think of. No, this is the beginning of the end I think.
Dante said...
I love watching the low information voters like inga in action.
Yes, Inga, the one who once argued that sugar was more dangerous than sugar. And went on to say there was an article by a well known nutritional journal that said it.
6/16/13, 1:02 PM
Yeah, I lol'ed at that too. Why anyone gives her any credence is astounding.
"DHS buying billions of rounds of ammo to yank off the market so that citizens can't find or buy them, creating inflated costs and shortages."
I don't think that's the reason they're buying billions of rounds of ammo, (assuming they are).
Robert Cook said...
I don't think that's the reason they're buying billions of rounds of ammo, (assuming they are)
Considering you aren't a gun owner or gun user. There is a massive shortage of ammunition for the citizenry going on right now. It isn't helped at all buy the massive DHS ammo buyout. They are removing ammo off the market. This is exactly what they are doing.
Post a Comment