PDA

View Full Version : NSA surveillance program



Robert F. Dorr
06-11-2013, 06:25 PM
The following comments are from retired Air Force Col. Mike Gallagher and appear here with his permission:

The revelations in the news about NSA programs which were leaked to the press by a government contractor employer have sparked a lot of comments. Here are some thoughts from my perspective:

1. The nature and scope of these programs should never have been a secret. Clearly their roots go back to government reactions to 9/11 some of which were found to violate privacy rights.

2. Had the scope, cost, and other details of the program to track phone and other communications been debated in an open forum and approved by the Congress (not just a few selected members briefed in secret), there wouldn't have been anything to leak!

3. History is filled with examples of just how quickly people will give up fundamental freedoms in exchange for a promise of more security. History is also filled with examples of how this is a fool's bargain. The freedoms tend to be lost forever, and the promise of safety is often illusionary.

4. When government programs run against fundamental understandings of what is correct and what is not, the risk of a concerned person coming forward and revealing secret information is greatly increased. One of the good things about people is the nagging voice we often call a conscience which serves to limit just how far a person will go in "following orders." Again, had the general outlines of this program been publicly debated and approved, it is far less likely that a person would divulge legitimately classified details of the program.

5. Senior officials are publicly wringing their hands about the grave damage this leak has done for national security without offering much in the way of explanation. Seems that the result might be just the opposite. With the knowledge that phone and internet communications are being recorded and tracked, evil people will have to come up with alternatives such as codes which are cumbersome and anything but foolproof. Again, a great reason for not cloaking these programs in secrecy.

6. Demands to punish the leaker for treason could be counter-productive. Last known location was Hong Kong. That is pretty close to a number of countries that might offer the individual some attractive alternatives to a U.S. trial with a further risk of damage to our security interests.

7. How this individual was given a security clearance in the first place should be a matter of considerable interest.

8. I am surprised at the number of people who expressed horror at the government having access to medical records, but seem to be perfectly willing to trust the government not to abuse security programs.

9. Beyond this specific situation, I think we should be careful to keep the threat we face in perspective. While every life lost and person harmed is of serious concern, the actual number of lives lost and property destroyed is not great compared with the impact of natural disasters and traffic accidents. The threat is real, but we are ill served by exaggeration. Part of the "price of freedom" is the risk of living in a society where free choice is valued. Some will abuse that with tragic results, but the alternative (say N. Korea) is far worse.

If you took the time to read this, thanks. I think this is a complex matter and thought I'd open a dialog.

grimreaper
06-11-2013, 06:33 PM
The following comments are from retired Air Force Col. Mike Gallagher and appear here with his permission:

The revelations in the news about NSA programs which were leaked to the press by a government contractor employer have sparked a lot of comments. Here are some thoughts from my perspective:

1. The nature and scope of these programs should never have been a secret. Clearly their roots go back to government reactions to 9/11 some of which were found to violate privacy rights.

2. Had the scope, cost, and other details of the program to track phone and other communications been debated in an open forum and approved by the Congress (not just a few selected members briefed in secret), there wouldn't have been anything to leak!

3. History is filled with examples of just how quickly people will give up fundamental freedoms in exchange for a promise of more security. History is also filled with examples of how this is a fool's bargain. The freedoms tend to be lost forever, and the promise of safety is often illusionary.

4. When government programs run against fundamental understandings of what is correct and what is not, the risk of a concerned person coming forward and revealing secret information is greatly increased. One of the good things about people is the nagging voice we often call a conscience which serves to limit just how far a person will go in "following orders." Again, had the general outlines of this program been publicly debated and approved, it is far less likely that a person would divulge legitimately classified details of the program.

5. Senior officials are publicly wringing their hands about the grave damage this leak has done for national security without offering much in the way of explanation. Seems that the result might be just the opposite. With the knowledge that phone and internet communications are being recorded and tracked, evil people will have to come up with alternatives such as codes which are cumbersome and anything but foolproof. Again, a great reason for not cloaking these programs in secrecy.

6. Demands to punish the leaker for treason could be counter-productive. Last known location was Hong Kong. That is pretty close to a number of countries that might offer the individual some attractive alternatives to a U.S. trial with a further risk of damage to our security interests.

7. How this individual was given a security clearance in the first place should be a matter of considerable interest.

8. I am surprised at the number of people who expressed horror at the government having access to medical records, but seem to be perfectly willing to trust the government not to abuse security programs.

9. Beyond this specific situation, I think we should be careful to keep the threat we face in perspective. While every life lost and person harmed is of serious concern, the actual number of lives lost and property destroyed is not great compared with the impact of natural disasters and traffic accidents. The threat is real, but we are ill served by exaggeration. Part of the "price of freedom" is the risk of living in a society where free choice is valued. Some will abuse that with tragic results, but the alternative (say N. Korea) is far worse.

If you took the time to read this, thanks. I think this is a complex matter and thought I'd open a dialog.

Thanks for sharing Bob. I agree with almost all of this. What I don't understand is how the gov't is now trying to reassure us that nobody is having their phone calls listened to or having their emails read. If that's the case, why is the gov't all bent out of shape over the leak? I would argue that most Americans already suspected the government was monitoring them by various means. Was this really THAT big of a secret?

SomeRandomGuy
06-11-2013, 06:37 PM
The following comments are from retired Air Force Col. Mike Gallagher and appear here with his permission:

The revelations in the news about NSA programs which were leaked to the press by a government contractor employer have sparked a lot of comments. Here are some thoughts from my perspective:

1. The nature and scope of these programs should never have been a secret. Clearly their roots go back to government reactions to 9/11 some of which were found to violate privacy rights.

2. Had the scope, cost, and other details of the program to track phone and other communications been debated in an open forum and approved by the Congress (not just a few selected members briefed in secret), there wouldn't have been anything to leak!

3. History is filled with examples of just how quickly people will give up fundamental freedoms in exchange for a promise of more security. History is also filled with examples of how this is a fool's bargain. The freedoms tend to be lost forever, and the promise of safety is often illusionary.

4. When government programs run against fundamental understandings of what is correct and what is not, the risk of a concerned person coming forward and revealing secret information is greatly increased. One of the good things about people is the nagging voice we often call a conscience which serves to limit just how far a person will go in "following orders." Again, had the general outlines of this program been publicly debated and approved, it is far less likely that a person would divulge legitimately classified details of the program.

5. Senior officials are publicly wringing their hands about the grave damage this leak has done for national security without offering much in the way of explanation. Seems that the result might be just the opposite. With the knowledge that phone and internet communications are being recorded and tracked, evil people will have to come up with alternatives such as codes which are cumbersome and anything but foolproof. Again, a great reason for not cloaking these programs in secrecy.

6. Demands to punish the leaker for treason could be counter-productive. Last known location was Hong Kong. That is pretty close to a number of countries that might offer the individual some attractive alternatives to a U.S. trial with a further risk of damage to our security interests.

7. How this individual was given a security clearance in the first place should be a matter of considerable interest.

8. I am surprised at the number of people who expressed horror at the government having access to medical records, but seem to be perfectly willing to trust the government not to abuse security programs.

9. Beyond this specific situation, I think we should be careful to keep the threat we face in perspective. While every life lost and person harmed is of serious concern, the actual number of lives lost and property destroyed is not great compared with the impact of natural disasters and traffic accidents. The threat is real, but we are ill served by exaggeration. Part of the "price of freedom" is the risk of living in a society where free choice is valued. Some will abuse that with tragic results, but the alternative (say N. Korea) is far worse.

If you took the time to read this, thanks. I think this is a complex matter and thought I'd open a dialog.

My thoughts about the whole program can be summed up in one sentence. What is the big deal? While this program was never public we have always known these things exist. the bigger problem we should be debating is why do Americans not trust their government with their information. The average american will buy an iPhone 4S and synchronize tehir contacts to iCloud. When they do this they agree to a policy that says Apple now owns this data and can mine it in order to provide better service. People happily agree to the disclaimer because it is 100+ pages and they do not care to read it or understand it. My question is why do you trust a company like Apple with names and addresses of all your known associates but you are worried if the government gets this information?

TJMAC77SP
06-11-2013, 06:47 PM
I was wondering the relevance of the background of the author. I guess because this is the AF section of the MTF but that seems tenuous. Oh well, some cogent thoughts in any case.

SomeRandomGuy
06-11-2013, 06:48 PM
The easiest way to answer this question is to point to the current mess with the IRS. Besides the fact that this is in violation of the 4th Amendment, there is too great a chance of it being abused.

I am wondering if people actually understand the "IRS scandal". I am not saying it was right for the IRS to target political groups but it is also not right for political groups to pretend to be charities in order to become tax exempt. If I were in charge of tax exempt status at the IRS I would have used buzz words too. My only issue with the whole thing is the list was not inclusive enough. Other than Tea Party, they need to include words related to gun control, anti gun control, LGBT, Gay Lesbian, Wall Street, Medical Insurance companies, etc. It was wrong to target one group but the idea behind the targeting was right.

grimreaper
06-11-2013, 06:51 PM
My thoughts about the whole program can be summed up in one sentence. What is the big deal? While this program was never public we have always known these things exist. the bigger problem we should be debating is why do Americans not trust their government with their information. The average american will buy an iPhone 4S and synchronize tehir contacts to iCloud. When they do this they agree to a policy that says Apple now owns this data and can mine it in order to provide better service. People happily agree to the disclaimer because it is 100+ pages and they do not care to read it or understand it. My question is why do you trust a company like Apple with names and addresses of all your known associates but you are worried if the government gets this information?

The easiest way to answer this question is to point to the current mess with the IRS. Besides the fact that this is in violation of the 4th Amendment, there is too great a chance of it being abused.

Measure Man
06-11-2013, 06:56 PM
The following comments are from retired Air Force Col. Mike Gallagher and appear here with his permission:

The revelations in the news about NSA programs which were leaked to the press by a government contractor employer have sparked a lot of comments. Here are some thoughts from my perspective:

1. The nature and scope of these programs should never have been a secret. Clearly their roots go back to government reactions to 9/11 some of which were found to violate privacy rights.

2. Had the scope, cost, and other details of the program to track phone and other communications been debated in an open forum and approved by the Congress (not just a few selected members briefed in secret), there wouldn't have been anything to leak!

Doesn't telling people that you are watching them kind of defeat the purpose a little?


3. History is filled with examples of just how quickly people will give up fundamental freedoms in exchange for a promise of more security. History is also filled with examples of how this is a fool's bargain. The freedoms tend to be lost forever, and the promise of safety is often illusionary.

I agree with that one.


4. When government programs run against fundamental understandings of what is correct and what is not, the risk of a concerned person coming forward and revealing secret information is greatly increased. One of the good things about people is the nagging voice we often call a conscience which serves to limit just how far a person will go in "following orders." Again, had the general outlines of this program been publicly debated and approved, it is far less likely that a person would divulge legitimately classified details of the program.

To paraphrase...had we told everyone what we we're doing, no one would have leaked what we were doing.


5. Senior officials are publicly wringing their hands about the grave damage this leak has done for national security without offering much in the way of explanation. Seems that the result might be just the opposite. With the knowledge that phone and internet communications are being recorded and tracked, evil people will have to come up with alternatives such as codes which are cumbersome and anything but foolproof. Again, a great reason for not cloaking these programs in secrecy.

Not really following the logic here..."if we told them we were listening in, then they would have made adjustments so that we couldn't understand their 'code'...their code would cause problems even in communicating with each other"

Okay...but, we're still not getting the information we were after.


6. Demands to punish the leaker for treason could be counter-productive. Last known location was Hong Kong. That is pretty close to a number of countries that might offer the individual some attractive alternatives to a U.S. trial with a further risk of damage to our security interests.

Perhaps...so, we should just let him go?


7. How this individual was given a security clearance in the first place should be a matter of considerable interest.

Who knows what lurks in the heart of man?


8. I am surprised at the number of people who expressed horror at the government having access to medical records, but seem to be perfectly willing to trust the government not to abuse security programs.

9. Beyond this specific situation, I think we should be careful to keep the threat we face in perspective. While every life lost and person harmed is of serious concern, the actual number of lives lost and property destroyed is not great compared with the impact of natural disasters and traffic accidents. The threat is real, but we are ill served by exaggeration. Part of the "price of freedom" is the risk of living in a society where free choice is valued. Some will abuse that with tragic results, but the alternative (say N. Korea) is far worse.

If you took the time to read this, thanks. I think this is a complex matter and thought I'd open a dialog.

I agree with this last bit.

Overall though, I think the idea that plans for how we will secretly collect data on terrorist threats should be openly debated to be a bit off.

I'm not comfortable with this whole data-mining operation, and do beleive the govt. overstepped their bounds here...but, I don't think public debate on it would have served either the purpose of privacy or security.

SomeRandomGuy
06-11-2013, 07:00 PM
The easiest way to answer this question is to point to the current mess with the IRS. Besides the fact that this is in violation of the 4th Amendment, there is too great a chance of it being abused.

I am wondering if people actually understand the "IRS scandal". I am not saying it was right for the IRS to target political groups but it is also not right for political groups to pretend to be charities in order to become tax exempt. If I were in charge of tax exempt status at the IRS I would have used buzz words too. My only issue with the whole thing is the list was not inclusive enough. Other than Tea Party, they need to include words related to gun control, anti gun control, LGBT, Gay Lesbian, Wall Street, Medical Insurance companies, etc. It was wrong to target one group but the idea behind the targeting was right.

After the Boston Bombings people wanted to know how someone could be "flagged" yet the government did not do more to stop him. You have to either give the government the tools to work with or take them all away. There really is no such balance when it comes to privacy/security. You can have one or the other.

VFFTSGT
06-11-2013, 07:09 PM
Bob, I though your savior was going to fix this...


http://youtu.be/-Rdi_RNRpdk



6. Demands to punish the leaker for treason could be counter-productive. Last known location was Hong Kong. That is pretty close to a number of countries that might offer the individual some attractive alternatives to a U.S. trial with a further risk of damage to our security interests.


The irony is...the US has been assisting rebels (who believe their government wrongs them) in multiple countries and now we apparently want to arm them.

http://news.yahoo.com/jon-stewart-explains-john-mccain-got-photobombed-terrorist-123519463.html

However, when someone believes our government wronged the people and "rebels" the US wants to crucify them...kind of like other countries are crucifying their rebels.

Hypocrisy much?

grimreaper
06-11-2013, 07:20 PM
After the Boston Bombings people wanted to know how someone could be "flagged" yet the government did not do more to stop him. You have to either give the government the tools to work with or take them all away. There really is no such balance when it comes to privacy/security. You can have one or the other.

For the government to be collecting the info they are, they should have probable cause. For them to be collecting this data on millions and millions of Americans is ridiculous and there is no probable cause.

grimreaper
06-11-2013, 07:23 PM
I am wondering if people actually understand the "IRS scandal". I am not saying it was right for the IRS to target political groups but it is also not right for political groups to pretend to be charities in order to become tax exempt. If I were in charge of tax exempt status at the IRS I would have used buzz words too. My only issue with the whole thing is the list was not inclusive enough. Other than Tea Party, they need to include words related to gun control, anti gun control, LGBT, Gay Lesbian, Wall Street, Medical Insurance companies, etc. It was wrong to target one group but the idea behind the targeting was right.

501 C 4's are not charities. Left leaning groups were not scrutinized in the same fashion. It has already been acknowledged by the IRS that they were in the wrong.

These groups were told they needed to provide information that the IRS has absolutely no business knowing and IRS employees said this push was from their supervisors and directly from the DC Office.

DWWSWWD
06-11-2013, 07:29 PM
I think this thread is a bad idea.

tiredretiredE7
06-11-2013, 08:15 PM
I think this thread is a bad idea.

This is the best post in the entire thread.

TJMAC77SP
06-11-2013, 08:39 PM
I am wondering if people actually understand the "IRS scandal". I am not saying it was right for the IRS to target political groups but it is also not right for political groups to pretend to be charities in order to become tax exempt. If I were in charge of tax exempt status at the IRS I would have used buzz words too. My only issue with the whole thing is the list was not inclusive enough. Other than Tea Party, they need to include words related to gun control, anti gun control, LGBT, Gay Lesbian, Wall Street, Medical Insurance companies, etc. It was wrong to target one group but the idea behind the targeting was right.

I think what you are asking for is a rewrite of the Tax Code as it relates to tax-exempt organizations.

Measure Man
06-11-2013, 09:47 PM
When you name your organization, "Taxed Enough Already"...it's not all that surprising that the tax collectors would take note.

Rainmaker
06-11-2013, 09:51 PM
For the government to be collecting the info they are, they should have probable cause. For them to be collecting this data on millions and millions of Americans is ridiculous and there is no probable cause.

What they should be collecting data on is the thousands of companies getting rich profitting from staff augmentation contracts that used to be inherently governmental functions done by a GS 9 or a Lt. Rainmaker call to his bookie err broker. Sell BAH NOW Muhfugga!

weathtd
06-11-2013, 11:37 PM
Charge him with treason???? Yea, at the same time as Panetta is charged for releasing the names of Team 6 to a film maker. Charge him only after Jane Fonda is executed for her treason.

BURAWSKI
06-12-2013, 12:54 AM
Well the comments seem to take a stand either way. I won't comment on whether or not I think the leaker is a traitor or a hero. The problem is that the government has not been honest with the American people in many areas. Do I trust the government? No, and for good reason. Why? Our foreign policy is a big one for me. But addressing the topic at hand. The government is saying the knowledge that there is a surveillance program in place that monitors our private data is Top Secret. The program involves the criteria with the FAA702 Operations for UPSTREAM and PRISM Data Collection under the FISA Amendment Act tapping into fiber cables and infrastructure and the data-mining collection directly from internet service and cell phone providers. Specifically, Americans who are not suspected of anything at all. The surveillance is not targeted specifically towards those under suspicion but targeted toward the American people as a whole. I question that. Why? What possible reason could there be to require that information to be classified? The American people have cause to worry on a couple of grounds. First, the idea that this information should not be disclosed is a problem. Another problem is that the American people have a constitutional right to be able to debate this issue and decide how much surveillance is necessary in order to be secure. The American people didn't get the chance. The government made the decision for them and what I would term a line in the sand moment for the American people. This is very dangerous territory and paves the way for the government to develop into an inherently evil entity. Finally, I can tell you that this action goes against our Constitution. Yeah, the Constitution. People don't even seem to be familiar with that document at all. If Americans are to have a voice and ensure their freedom it is imperative that they start familiarizing themselves with it. Also, this revelation should inspire as many Americans as possible to actively find ways to make their voice known to our elected representatives (and I use the term representatives loosely). We will never find enough educated voters in this country that will actually take the time to distinguish between a worthy politician and a worthless politician to vote into office. Most in this country are brainwashed or lazy (or both) into pulling a party lever and vote straight Democrat or straight Republican. I would hope to see the day that ALL politicians(federal, state, and local) are limited to no more than one term in office and they are DONE. No pension and no lifetime benefits after that. If they truly want to help their country and try to make a difference they would have one term to do so. Career politicians have ruined this country and are too easy to purchase.

BRUWIN
06-12-2013, 03:15 AM
I think this whole thing is being overblown and the guy that started it is making himself a hero when in fact he's just a guy that may have confirmed what many have already been speculating for years. He can't even give an example of where any wiretapping information may have been misused.

grimreaper
06-12-2013, 05:46 AM
Would you be willing to give up what Edward Snowden has given up? He has given up his high paying job, his home, his girlfriend, his family, his future and his freedom just to expose the monolithic spy machinery that the U.S. government has been secretly building to the world. He says that he does not want to live in a world where there isn't any privacy. He says that he does not want to live in a world where everything that he says and does is recorded. Thanks to Snowden, we now know that the U.S. government has been spying on us to a degree that most people would have never even dared to imagine. Up until now, the general public has known very little about the U.S. government spy grid that knows almost everything about us. But making this information public is going to cost Edward Snowden everything. Essentially, his previous life is now totally over. And if the U.S. government gets their hands on him, he will be very fortunate if he only has to spend the next several decades rotting in some horrible prison somewhere. There is a reason why government whistleblowers are so rare. And most Americans are so apathetic that they wouldn't even give up watching their favorite television show for a single evening to do something good for society. Most Americans never even try to make a difference because they do not believe that it will benefit them personally. Meanwhile, our society continues to fall apart all around us. Hopefully the great sacrifice that Edward Snowden has made will not be in vain. Hopefully people will carefully consider what he has tried to share with the world. The following are 27 quotes from Edward Snowden about U.S. government spying that should send a chill up your spine...

#1 "The majority of people in developed countries spend at least some time interacting with the Internet, and Governments are abusing that necessity in secret to extend their powers beyond what is necessary and appropriate."

#2 "...I believe that at this point in history, the greatest danger to our freedom and way of life comes from the reasonable fear of omniscient State powers kept in check by nothing more than policy documents."

#3 "The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to."

#4 "...I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

#5 "The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything."

#6 "With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your e-mails or your wife's phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your e-mails, passwords, phone records, credit cards."

#7 "Any analyst at any time can target anyone. Any selector, anywhere... I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President..."

#8 "To do that, the NSA specifically targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them and it analyzes them and it measures them and it stores them for periods of time simply because that's the easiest, most efficient and most valuable way to achieve these ends. So while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government, or someone that they suspect of terrorism, they are collecting YOUR communications to do so."

#9 "I believe that when [senator Ron] Wyden and [senator Mark] Udall asked about the scale of this, they [the NSA] said it did not have the tools to provide an answer. We do have the tools and I have maps showing where people have been scrutinized most. We collect more digital communications from America than we do from the Russians."

#10 "...they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behavior in the world known to them."

#11 "Even if you're not doing anything wrong, you're being watched and recorded. ...it's getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong, you simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody, even by a wrong call, and then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis, to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life."

#12 "Allowing the U.S. government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is contrary to the public interest."

#13 "Everyone everywhere now understands how bad things have gotten — and they’re talking about it. They have the power to decide for themselves whether they are willing to sacrifice their privacy to the surveillance state."

#14 "I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."

#15 "I don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy, and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity."

#16 "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong."

#17 "I had been looking for leaders, but I realized that leadership is about being the first to act."

#18 "There are more important things than money. If I were motivated by money, I could have sold these documents to any number of countries and gotten very rich."

#19 "The great fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. [People] won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things... And in the months ahead, the years ahead, it's only going to get worse. [The NSA will] say that... because of the crisis, the dangers that we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power, and there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny."

#20 "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

#21 "You can't come up against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and not accept the risk."

#22 "I know the media likes to personalize political debates, and I know the government will demonize me."

#23 "We have got a CIA station just up the road – the consulate here in Hong Kong – and I am sure they are going to be busy for the next week. And that is a concern I will live with for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be."

#24 "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions, and that the return of this information to the public marks my end."

#25 "There’s no saving me."

#26 "The only thing I fear is the harmful effects on my family, who I won't be able to help any more. That's what keeps me up at night."

#27 "I do not expect to see home again."

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/27-edward-snowden-quotes-about-u-s-government-spying-that-should-send-a-chill-up-your-spine

VFFTSGT
06-12-2013, 06:07 AM
So....both the current President and Vice-President were against this when it wasn't them in the White House?!

But now, everything is okay because it's 'them' in the White House and they will protect us.

grimreaper
06-12-2013, 06:13 AM
So....both the current President and Vice-President were against this when it wasn't them in the White House?!

But now, everything is okay because it's 'them' in the White House and they will protect us.

But of course. This is the same Admin that turned much of its 2008 campaign into an "anti-torture" tour, yet now claims the authority to assassinate American citizens without due process.

grimreaper
06-12-2013, 06:13 AM
Hmmmm....and what did VP Biden say about this kind of thing when he was Senator Biden? Let's have a look....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LMfhC4CwUnM

VFFTSGT
06-12-2013, 06:18 AM
So....both the current President and Vice-President were against this when it wasn't them in the White House?!

But now, everything is okay because it's 'them' in the White House now and they will protect us.



You know...I like the TV show Person of Interest. It's a pretty cool concept, except even as the show points out - the system cannot be trusted to the government.

I often wonder if this TV show was a sci-fi action show for entertainment or was this show created to desensitize America to this kind of thing?

grimreaper
06-12-2013, 06:25 AM
So....both the current President and Vice-President were against this when it wasn't them in the White House?!

But now, everything is okay because it's 'them' in the White House and they will protect us.

But of course. This is the same Admin that turned much of its 2008 campaign into an "anti-torture" tour, yet now claims the authority to assassinate American citizens without due process.

grimreaper
06-12-2013, 06:30 AM
You know...I like the TV show Person of Interest. It's a pretty cool concept, except even as the show points out - the system cannot be trusted to the government.

I often wonder if this TV show was a sci-fi action show or was this show created to desensitize America to this kind of thing?

Once you are able to convince the American people that the more privacy and freedom we give up, the safer we are, it's all over. Even if people don't particularly like it, it becomes a "necessary evil", or the "price we pay to stay safe". Which, of course, is a bunch of BS.

RobotChicken
06-12-2013, 08:10 AM
"Now what America needs is an 'ANTI-PATRIOT ACT' against the Government!!"

Greg
06-12-2013, 12:33 PM
"There’s a huge storm brewing as there should be over the 4th amendment, the NSA, the government’s role, and private companies’ responsibilities. As you wade through the mountains of information, it’s probably a good idea to acquaint yourself with the basics of the controversy, and prepare your mind for the onslaught so you can be a critical thinking news customer.

The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires the government to secure a search warrant from a judge who weighs probable cause with our right to privacy and whether it’s likely that we committed a crime.
I believe the U.S. Government is overstepping its responsibility in protecting its citizens against terror. We shouldn’t be strip-searching old women. The Patriot Act shouldn’t apply to anything but terror, and even then it needs to have a ton of legal oversight. The recent NSA controversy is far from over, but it is clearly beyond the pale. Technology’s advances, a lazy Congress, and the administration’s reliance on emergency precedents are all at fault for the current trampling of the 4th amendment."


http://sofrep.com/21889/the-4th-amendment-edward-snowden-and-critical-thinking/?fb_source=pubv1

MACHINE666
06-12-2013, 02:08 PM
So the trick is to VOTE LIBERTARIAN, and get these ass-clown Democrats and Republicans out of Congress!!! Rip the system!!!!!

DocBones
06-12-2013, 02:27 PM
Big Brother is doubleplusgood. All hail Big Brother. No one should ever say something to down Big Brother. That is doubleplusungood for the individual. Now, a bunch of you have been entered in the double down part of 'being watched'.

Just kidding.

Maybe.

;)

DocBones
06-12-2013, 02:34 PM
Now Greg, how can you claim that Congress is lazy? They are still patting themselves on the back, increasing their pay, making sure that there are no term limits placed upon them, being the same people that will vote for something that their constituents don't want, etc.

Oh, I almost forgot. Hail Big Bro!

VFFTSGT
06-12-2013, 04:45 PM
"There’s a huge storm brewing as there should be over the 4th amendment, the NSA, the government’s role, and private companies’ responsibilities. As you wade through the mountains of information, it’s probably a good idea to acquaint yourself with the basics of the controversy, and prepare your mind for the onslaught so you can be a critical thinking news customer.

The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires the government to secure a search warrant from a judge who weighs probable cause with our right to privacy and whether it’s likely that we committed a crime.
I believe the U.S. Government is overstepping its responsibility in protecting its citizens against terror. We shouldn’t be strip-searching old women. The Patriot Act shouldn’t apply to anything but terror, and even then it needs to have a ton of legal oversight. The recent NSA controversy is far from over, but it is clearly beyond the pale. Technology’s advances, a lazy Congress, and the administration’s reliance on emergency precedents are all at fault for the current trampling of the 4th amendment."


http://sofrep.com/21889/the-4th-amendment-edward-snowden-and-critical-thinking/?fb_source=pubv1

It's not a lazy Congress. It's a deliberate Congress. Ever wonder why the Senate cannot seem to pass a budget but they could pass the NDAA 98-0 with "controversial amendments" in it?

These politicians on TV claiming they had clue is nonsense. They passed the laws that allowed it and dismissed the people when they cried foul.

If all this surveillance crap worked, Boston wouldn't have happened. But of course, this is where they will come and say they need even more power.

I bet the government spends more time, money, and resources in going after this "traitor" or "whistleblower" than they spent on preventing the Boston bombings.

Rainmaker
06-12-2013, 05:37 PM
It's not a lazy Congress. It's a deliberate Congress. Ever wonder why the Senate cannot seem to pass a budget but they could pass the NDAA 98-0 with "controversial amendments" in it?

These politicians on TV claiming they had clue is nonsense. They passed the laws that allowed it and dismissed the people when they cried foul.

If all this surveillance crap worked, Boston wouldn't have happened. But of course, this is where they will come and say they need even more power.

I bet the government spends more time, money, and resources in going after this "traitor" or "whistleblower" than they spent on preventing the Boston bombings.

The train has left the station. There will be a lot of bloviating and grandstanding. But, In the end nothing much will happen. Most Americans today don’t care too much about the right to privacy and are more than willing to trade the Bill of rights for safety. Our public education system is run by washed up hippies who care more about equality (of results) than liberty. Civics, Ethics and Western Civilization have been gutted out of the curriculum and replaced by the diversity cult’s agenda. We have a bunch of Charlatans in Congress (Including the Paul gang) making money hand over fist investing ahead of publicly traded news of government contracts

Robert F. Dorr
06-12-2013, 05:46 PM
Charge him with treason???? Yea, at the same time as Panetta is charged for releasing the names of Team 6 to a film maker. Charge him only after Jane Fonda is executed for her treason.

What method would you use? Should there be an indictment first or should we just go to execution?

RobotChicken
06-12-2013, 05:51 PM
What method would you use? Should there be an indictment first or should we just go to execution?

"Just hold him in 'GITMO' forever and 'forgettaboutit'!"

garhkal
06-12-2013, 06:40 PM
2. Had the scope, cost, and other details of the program to track phone and other communications been debated in an open forum and approved by the Congress (not just a few selected members briefed in secret), there wouldn't have been anything to leak!

3. History is filled with examples of just how quickly people will give up fundamental freedoms in exchange for a promise of more security. History is also filled with examples of how this is a fool's bargain. The freedoms tend to be lost forever, and the promise of safety is often illusionary.

8. I am surprised at the number of people who expressed horror at the government having access to medical records, but seem to be perfectly willing to trust the government not to abuse security programs.


I am loving most of his comments.. I left up the 3 i feel are real biggies..

On 2.. Had there been a national poll/vote done for this, or one by ALL of congress (not just the senators in the know, and who actually understood what the heck they were voting on) i agree, there more than likely would have not been anything to leak.
On 3, its like anything we give our government for a 'temporary solution'.. Soon it winds up being permanent. Income tax, Social security/welfare.. the list goes on (Poll tax and VAT for the English).
On 8, i also agree how many feel its ok for the govt to do this, but balk at back round checks for gun owners. I also find it strange that people in this day and age of hacking/data leaks/id theft are ok with all this info being taken by the govt and stored in a 1 "stop shop" of sorts, when our past 10 years or so there have been MASSES of data leaks, whether by some govt agent leaving his laptop in a restaurant, to someone losing a secret hard drive on a train..


My question is why do you trust a company like Apple with names and addresses of all your known associates but you are worried if the government gets this information?

Perhaps cause its rare if ever we have seen companies like Apple, misuse that info/lose it (Plenty instances of it being HACKED though) compared to the many instances of the govt misusing/losing the info..


I am wondering if people actually understand the "IRS scandal". I am not saying it was right for the IRS to target political groups but it is also not right for political groups to pretend to be charities in order to become tax exempt. If I were in charge of tax exempt status at the IRS I would have used buzz words too. My only issue with the whole thing is the list was not inclusive enough. Other than Tea Party, they need to include words related to gun control, anti gun control, LGBT, Gay Lesbian, Wall Street, Medical Insurance companies, etc. It was wrong to target one group but the idea behind the targeting was right.

Big +1 million there..



I'm not comfortable with this whole data-mining operation, and do beleive the govt. overstepped their bounds here...but, I don't think public debate on it would have served either the purpose of privacy or security.

Measure, may i inquire what WOULD you consider them overstepping their bounds? Is not having a court made for the express purposes of issuing warrants for FOREIGN Intelligence gathering (meaning not in the US) being used to approve warrants to get all sorts of data on millions of US folk be a massive overstep to you?


So....both the current President and Vice-President were against this when it wasn't them in the White House?!

But now, everything is okay because it's 'them' in the White House and they will protect us.

Standard fair from what i see from almost ALL politicians..

Measure Man
06-12-2013, 07:12 PM
Measure, may i inquire what WOULD you consider them overstepping their bounds?

As I said, I do believe they overstepped their bounds on this one.


Is not having a court made for the express purposes of issuing warrants for FOREIGN Intelligence gathering (meaning not in the US) being used to approve warrants to get all sorts of data on millions of US folk be a massive overstep to you?

I don't understand this sentence.

TJMAC77SP
06-12-2013, 07:16 PM
As I said, I do believe they overstepped their bounds on this one.



I don't understand this sentence.

If his understanding of the FISA court is that it is only used either on foreign nationals or internationally then he is wrong.

TJMAC77SP
06-12-2013, 07:26 PM
As I said, I do believe they overstepped their bounds on this one.



I don't understand this sentence.

If his understanding of the FISA court is that it is only used either on foreign nationals or internationally then he is wrong.

BURAWSKI
06-12-2013, 07:49 PM
If his understanding of the FISA court is that it is only used either on foreign nationals or internationally then he is wrong.


Well I can you that the FISA Court is not legally authorized to approve blanket surveillance on innocent Americans not suspected of engaging in any crimes or terrorism.

Rainmaker
06-12-2013, 09:00 PM
There are police video cameras in bad parts of major cities with flashing
Blue lights on them, where's the outrage for "their" privacy?

Erry time Rainmaker step outside his efficency apartment he got to smile for the camera. NomSayin?
This kind of stuff is so ingrained into the culture, that no one cares (unless it happens to them). Take random sobriety checkpoints. what's the difference between the NSA dragnet and the local Po-nine sticking their head in your window to see if they smell a forty on your breaf? The supreme court has ruled that the public's interest in safety by reducing drunk driving outweighes an infringement of an individual's 4th Amendment rights. This is no different. It's another self licking ice cream cone and it's all about the MONEY.

TJMAC77SP
06-12-2013, 09:07 PM
Well I can you that the FISA Court is not legally authorized to approve blanket surveillance on innocent Americans not suspected of engaging in terrorism.

Not sure I agree (your wording is a bit obtuse) but exactly how is that relevant to my post?

Rainmaker
06-12-2013, 09:21 PM
"Erry...NomSayin...forty on your breaf"

I don't appreciate your racial dialect
And do not find it amusing to mock another race.
Please stop.

V/R
GF

How you know what race Rainmaker is? You work for the Po-nine? and by the way the God Father is Italian. Please stop mocking the Latin peoples. Das Raciss.

BURAWSKI
06-12-2013, 09:27 PM
Not sure I agree (your wording is a bit obtuse) but exactly how is that relevant to my post?


My opinion is what it is. As for your criticism of my wording on this posting ... well again that's your opinion so I guess you'll just have to deal with it. I take your criticism as an insult but again, my comments are my opinions only. I was pretty clear in my thought process on that one. Also, I didn't post the comment to engage you in a debate on the subject. I'm not going to answer your question either.

grimreaper
06-12-2013, 11:00 PM
Sensenbrenner: Obama Administration’s NSA Assurances ‘a Bunch of Bunk’

By Lindsey Grudnicki
June 12, 2013 1:01 PM

Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who introduced the PATRIOT Act on the House floor in 2001, has declared that lawmakers’ and the executive branch’s excuses about recent revelations of NSA activity are “a bunch of bunk.”

In an interview on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Wednesday morning, the Republican congressman from Wisconsin reiterated his concerns that the administration and the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court have gone far beyond what the PATRIOT Act intended. Specifically, he said that Section 215 of the act “was originally drafted to prevent data mining” on the scale that’s occurred.

Sensenbrenner, the current chairman on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, suggested that the secret nature of the FISA court has prevented appropriate congressional oversight over the NSA’s activities.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/350854/sensenbrenner-obama-administrations-nsa-assurances-bunch-bunk-lindsey-grudnicki

There is very little oversight of this and the question becomes "Who's watching the watchers?".

RobotChicken
06-13-2013, 09:23 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/350854/sensenbrenner-obama-administrations-nsa-assurances-bunch-bunk-lindsey-grudnicki

There is very little oversight of this and the question becomes "Who's watching the watchers?".

" 'bout time for a 'anti-patriot act' there 'Grim reaper'! 'RCC will back ya up!!"

TJMAC77SP
06-13-2013, 11:34 AM
My opinion is what it is. As for your criticism of my wording on this posting ... well again that's your opinion so I guess you'll just have to deal with it. I take your criticism as an insult but again, my comments are my opinions only. I was pretty clear in my thought process on that one. Also, I didn't post the comment to engage you in a debate on the subject. I'm not going to answer your question either.

You quoted my post to give your opinion so I naturally I assumed you saw some relevance. As to the perceived insult over my opinion of your verbiage you’ll have to deal with that. My question was mostly rhetorical so no problem in refusing to answer it.

BURAWSKI
06-13-2013, 01:28 PM
You quoted my post to give your opinion so I naturally I assumed you saw some relevance. As to the perceived insult over my opinion of your verbiage you’ll have to deal with that. My question was mostly rhetorical so no problem in refusing to answer it.

My mistake then. I shouldn't have quoted you.

Rainmaker
06-13-2013, 03:37 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/350854/sensenbrenner-obama-administrations-nsa-assurances-bunch-bunk-lindsey-grudnicki

There is very little oversight of this and the question becomes "Who's watching the watchers?".

The Politicians will probably respond to this the way they usually do. By creating yet another government agency (based in Washington DC) to” watch the watchers”. It will initially start out with a couple of GS-15’s and their Staff, who will be so overworked building their new bureaucracy ,that they will have to contract out their core responsibilities. and of course all of the 1900 private companies providing “commercial” intelligence services will immediately send their Business development Pimps to politic whatever political appointee hack they’ve put in charge.

They will start selling the standard line that “public-private partnerships can harness the efficiency of the market economy” to make the government more efficient. Within a couple of years, this agency will have 2,000 civil servants and 10,000 staff augmentation contractors on board and all the 15s will be SES IVs and they’ll be contracting for a new facility, and POMing for more funds. They will start trying to insource some of the contractors and The congress will be screaming about how much they've grown the federal employees and they'll be figuring out which "dead weight GS11 union federal employees" to lay off to pay for all these contractors that are so much cheaper to have on staff.

grimreaper
06-13-2013, 06:55 PM
The Politicians will probably respond to this the way they usually do. By creating yet another government agency (based in Washington DC) to” watch the watchers”. It will initially start out with a couple of GS-15’s and their Staff, who will be so overworked building their new bureaucracy ,that they will have to contract out their core responsibilities. and of course all of the 1900 private companies providing “commercial” intelligence services will immediately send their Business development Pimps to politic whatever political appointee hack they’ve put in charge.

They will start selling the standard line that “public-private partnerships can harness the efficiency of the market economy” to make the government more efficient. Within a couple of years, this agency will have 2,000 civil servants and 10,000 staff augmentation contractors on board and all the 15s will be SES IVs and they’ll be contracting for a new facility, and POMing for more funds. They will start trying to insource some of the contractors and The congress will be screaming about how much they've grown the federal employees and they'll be figuring out which "dead weight GS11 union federal employees" to lay off to pay for all these contractors that are so much cheaper to have on staff.

LOL, yep. Another reason to create yet another layer of government bureaucracy to spend some more billions that we don't have.

efmbman
06-13-2013, 11:17 PM
So....both the current President and Vice-President were against this when it wasn't them in the White House?!

But now, everything is okay because it's 'them' in the White House and they will protect us.

I think it goes something like this...

Two legs bad, four legs good... no, wait a sec...

Four legs good, two legs better. Yeah, that's it!

weathtd
06-13-2013, 11:17 PM
Merely pointing out the hypocracy of calling for treason charges against this guy when Fonda has never been charged with treason or any other charge. Since she has never been charged after what she did, no one should ever be charged.

Pullinteeth
06-14-2013, 05:21 PM
Merely pointing out the hypocracy of calling for treason charges against this guy when Fonda has never been charged with treason or any other charge. Since she has never been charged after what she did, no one should ever be charged.

That makes no sense....so are you saying since OJ got off, no one should ever be convicted of murder again? Since that AF Col's sex crime was tossed, we should stop prosecuting sex crimes? One miscarriage of justice doesn't mean we have to stop trying...

Banned
06-15-2013, 02:38 AM
Charge him with treason???? Yea, at the same time as Panetta is charged for releasing the names of Team 6 to a film maker. Charge him only after Jane Fonda is executed for her treason.


Merely pointing out the hypocracy of calling for treason charges against this guy when Fonda has never been charged with treason or any other charge. Since she has never been charged after what she did, no one should ever be charged.

So what crime has Jane Fonda committed exactly? Being an asshat isn't a crime, let alone one punished by death.

Show some common sense. There's loads of religious fanatics in this country I think would be much happier burning books and cutting off women's ears in Afghanistan, but I'm not running around saying we should kill them.

MAquino
06-17-2013, 12:06 AM
My thoughts about the whole program can be summed up in one sentence. What is the big deal? While this program was never public we have always known these things exist. the bigger problem we should be debating is why do Americans not trust their government with their information. The average american will buy an iPhone 4S and synchronize tehir contacts to iCloud. When they do this they agree to a policy that says Apple now owns this data and can mine it in order to provide better service. People happily agree to the disclaimer because it is 100+ pages and they do not care to read it or understand it. My question is why do you trust a company like Apple with names and addresses of all your known associates but you are worried if the government gets this information?
I agree. Particularly those of us who've spent most of our careers with high security clearances are accustomed to our lives being goldfish bowls right down to the brand, size, and color of our undershorts. This goes with the territory of being entrusted with sensitive information and responsibility for other people's lives. Indeed I would be much more concerned about incomplete or inaccurate government personal profiling rather than too much of it.

The "ordinary" private citizen without such responsibilities doesn't get the SBI kind of government scrutiny because there's no need for it. Indeed I daresay that some of those who are yelling the loudest about "NSA privacy invasion!" would be really insulted to discover that it doesn't have a dossier on them. :grumpy:

And really: If you're a U.S. citizen with a SSAN and state/federal tax accounts, you're already an open book. In the private sector the three credit services also have you nailed, which is why you get all those credit card invitations in the mail. There's a creatively quaint but futile industry for people trying to "drop off the map"; actually there's probably no better way to call attention to yourself than trying some of these silly stunts.

At DIA a few years ago, a USN Captain friend of mine who had just returned as attaché in a north African country told me how he had been mugged by a couple of local thugs while walking home one evening. Two beefy men materialized out of nowhere, drove off the muggers, and helped him back to the U.S. embassy for aid. Turned out they were his KGB tails. :coolanim: So there is an upside to being an object of official curiosity.

garhkal
06-17-2013, 06:33 AM
If his understanding of the FISA court is that it is only used either on foreign nationals or internationally then he is wrong.

That is what i was getting at. since the name of the court is foreign intelligence, why is it allowed to gather intelligence on NON foreign (US) people?


Erry time Rainmaker step outside his efficency apartment he got to smile for the camera. NomSayin?
This kind of stuff is so ingrained into the culture, that no one cares (unless it happens to them). Take random sobriety checkpoints. what's the difference between the NSA dragnet and the local Po-nine sticking their head in your window to see if they smell a forty on your breaf? The supreme court has ruled that the public's interest in safety by reducing drunk driving outweighes an infringement of an individual's 4th Amendment rights. This is no different. It's another self licking ice cream cone and it's all about the MONEY.

Well with those "Dragets" the cop's stop everyone in line, and smell them/ IF from that they detect there is alcoholic stench, then they go for breath tests.. Been through several no issues..