Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)

[5 digit know nothing]

OK, let me clarify because apparently I haven't made myself clear on this, and that is my own fault I guess. The answer to your question is: I don't know exactly. Here's what I do know: 1. if the government decides that I am a suspicious person, and they want to search my house and attempt to do so without a warrant or my permission, that is a clear violation of my privacy. 2. If the government is parsing through 100 million emails and phone calls looking for specific code words that will hopefully help them catch terrorists, I am OK with that. I don't believe that essentially violates my privacy. The answer to your question is somewhere between the two. You ask if there's any broad sweep that I would consider a violation, and I can only say maybe. I'm not sure; I'd have to think about it. I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have. What I DON'T regard as a worthwhile discussion is the fear that the government will use point #2 in order to establish a tyranny. I think that's way over the top, and that is really the main part of your argument that I have attempted to take issue with. Hope that's more clear.

So you are ok with:1. if the government wants to search all houses and to do so without a warrant or permission, document all items found along with who lives there only to recall this manifest at a later date when appropriate.

No I am not OK with that. And way to put words in my mouth. And this, BTW is your exact same M.O. that you use in the gun control thread. Rather than tackling an issue head on you throw out an absurd "what if", trying to argue that if I am for something, I must also be for something else far worse. It didn't work in that thread, and it doesn't work here.

I'd like to go back to the e-mail versus physical mail distinction. How is storing the contents of every e-mail any different than, say, opening and photocopying every piece of physical mail before delivery?

*bump*

There is no means for the government to search through billions of physical mail- therefore any search they intend has to be more specific, and therefore a warrant is required; if they perform the search without a warrant that would violate the 4th amendment. But with emails the government is able to perform mass searches without needing to focus on specific parties- thus no warrant is required and these searches do not violate the 4th IMO

So the fourth amendment only applies to searching the documents of private citizens when it's logistically hard to do?

In a way. The distinguishing factor is the purpose of the search IMO. If there were some magical way that the government could search through physical documents without any regard for their specificity, as a means of a larger goal, then I would have no problem with it and it wouldn't violate the 4th Amendment. But they can't do that. Any physical search requires a specific targeting, and any specific targeting requires 4th Amendment protections. It is the very massiveness of the email search, the non-specificity of it, which makes it, at least IMO, not a violation of essential privacy rights.

I'm sure if we threw $80 billion at the USPS, they could do it.

I doubt that. But if you're right, then let them. It's probably not worth the money, but to be consistent, I would have no problem with it.

 

[timschochet]

I dont see any contradiction.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause, unless it is quantified as "very massiveness".

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I dont see any contradiction.

Of course you don't.

 

[FBG26]

One more- I can't link it it because I'm typing this on my iPhone, but for all those who believe that what the NSA is doing is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, please look up Smith vs. Maryland (1979).

Do you honestly think that because pen registers are not considered private data, that means text messages, emails, phone conversations, etc, etc.... is not private data?If I mail a letter to some address in Oregon, it's not reasonable of me to expect that the address, written on the outside of the letter, is private data. That's pretty much what the court rulled about pen registers. They said it's not reasonable of one to expect that the phone number you voluntariy entered into the phone is private data.The conversation you have on that call has always been considered private. The contents of the letter you mail has always been considered private. It is a reasonable expectation of privacy that conversations via phone, text, email, or whatever, is private. The NSA is collecting that without warrant.

Well, make that argument before the Supreme Court, and we'll see if they make the distinction you do. I'm betting they won't, but what do I know?

I'd have to reread Smith to be sure, but I believe they explicitly said the use of the pen register was ok because it didn't capture the content of the call, merely the numbers dialed. And I think the court has consistently said that information given to a third party is not subject to 4th amendment protections. One might make the argument that emails which go through an ISP or hosted by google for example are turned over to a third party and thus not protected, but I think that's a stretch. Either way, at least one justice, Sotomayor, has said it might be worth reconsidering the blanket assumption that information given to athird party is no longer private. Just because we use technology all the time doesnt necessarily mean I don't have an expectation of privacy in my email or gps history.

 

[Nikki2200]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate:

This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.

And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

I completely disagree with the bolded!!!

We celebrate our country's greatest act of patriotism every July 4th. And it was an act of rejecting the legitamcy of government. When government goes to far, it is patriotism that limits the power of government. It does not defend it.

I have no idea where that guy is coming from. I was actually kind of ticked off when I read it. Whoever he is he should probably stick to articles on the latest shoe fad or something.

PS. This is not a "conservative" argument anyway. Is the ACLU a conservative activist group?

 

[Politician Spock]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate:

This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.

And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00

Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

I completely disagree with the bolded!!!

We celebrate our country's greatest act of patriotism every July 4th. And it was an act of rejecting the legitamcy of government. When government goes to far, it is patriotism that limits the power of government. It does not defend it.

I have no idea where that guy is coming from. I was actually kind of ticked off when I read it. Whoever he is he should probably stick to articles on the latest shoe fad or something.

PS. This is not a "conservative" argument anyway. Is the ACLU a conservative activist group?

Exactly! This is why these people trying to defend what the government is doing keep flopping around all over the place trying to lable their oppositions thought process as some part of an "ism". It's how populism thinks. It's how liberalism thinks. It's how conservativism thinks. It's how libertarianism thinks. It's how extremism thinks. It's how conspiracy theorism thinks. It's how (fill-in-the-blank)ism thinks. Everytime they do it, they get stuck in a corner they can't get out of. Because defending the Bill of Rights and limiting the power of government transcends all of them. You can have the mindset of anyone of those "isms", and defend the Bill of Rights and limiting the power of government. Try and find one topic at FBG where so many posters from so many different political mindsets have agreed as passionately as what we are witnessing in this thread. If there is any "ism" that describes this, it is patriotism, which is why I can't believe the guy tried to define patriotism as being the opposite of what it is.

 

[Slapdash]

Good news! According to Bloomberg the NSA was selling your data to their "preferred partners"

U.S. Agencies Said to Swap Data With Thousands of FirmsBy Michael Riley - Jun 13, 2013Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said.These programs, whose participants are known as trusted partners, extend far beyond what was revealed by Edward Snowden, a computer technician who did work for the National Security Agency. The role of private companies has come under intense scrutiny since his disclosure this month that the NSA is collecting millions of U.S. residents’ telephone records and the computer communications of foreigners from Google Inc (GOOG). and other Internet companies under court order.Many of these same Internet and telecommunications companies voluntarily provide U.S. intelligence organizations with additional data, such as equipment specifications, that don’t involve private communications of their customers, the four people said.Makers of hardware and software, banks, Internet security providers, satellite telecommunications companies and many other companies also participate in the government programs. In some cases, the information gathered may be used not just to defend the nation but to help infiltrate computers of its adversaries.Along with the NSA, the Central Intelligence Agency (0112917D), the Federal Bureau of Investigation and branches of the U.S. military have agreements with such companies to gather data that might seem innocuous but could be highly useful in the hands of U.S. intelligence or cyber warfare units, according to the people, who have either worked for the government or are in companies that have these accords.Microsoft BugsMicrosoft Corp. (MSFT), the world’s largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process. That information can be used to protect government computers and to access the computers of terrorists or military foes.Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft (MSFT) and other software or Internet security companies have been aware that this type of early alert allowed the U.S. to exploit vulnerabilities in software sold to foreign governments, according to two U.S. officials. Microsoft doesn’t ask and can’t be told how the government uses such tip-offs, said the officials, who asked not to be identified because the matter is confidential.Frank Shaw, a spokesman for Microsoft, said those releases occur in cooperation with multiple agencies and are designed to give government “an early start” on risk assessment and mitigation.Willing CooperationSome U.S. telecommunications companies willingly provide intelligence agencies with access to facilities and data offshore that would require a judge’s order if it were done in the U.S., one of the four people said.In these cases, no oversight is necessary under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and companies are providing the information voluntarily.The extensive cooperation between commercial companies and intelligence agencies is legal and reaches deeply into many aspects of everyday life, though little of it is scrutinized by more than a small number of lawyers, company leaders and spies. Company executives are motivated by a desire to help the national defense as well as to help their own companies, said the people, who are familiar with the agreements.Most of the arrangements are so sensitive that only a handful of people in a company know of them, and they are sometimes brokered directly between chief executive officers and the heads of the U.S.’s major spy agencies, the people familiar with those programs said.‘Thank Them’Michael Hayden, who formerly directed the National Security Agency and the CIA, described the attention paid to important company partners: “If I were the director and had a relationship with a company who was doing things that were not just directed by law but were also valuable to the defense of the Republic, I would go out of my way to thank them and give them a sense as to why this is necessary and useful.”“You would keep it closely held within the company and there would be very few cleared individuals,” Hayden said.Cooperation between nine U.S. Internet companies and the NSA’s Special Source Operations unit came to light along with a secret program called Prism. According to a slide deck provided by Snowden, the program gathers e-mails, videos, and other private data of foreign surveillance targets through arrangements that vary by company, overseen by a secret panel of judges.U.S. intelligence agencies have grown far more dependent on such arrangements as the flow of much of the world’s information has grown exponentially through switches, cables and other network equipment maintained by U.S. companies.Equipment SpecsIn addition to private communications, information about equipment specifications and data needed for the Internet to work -- much of which isn’t subject to oversight because it doesn’t involve private communications -- is valuable to intelligence, U.S. law-enforcement officials and the military.Typically, a key executive at a company and a small number of technical people cooperate with different agencies and sometimes multiple units within an agency, according to the four people who described the arrangements.Committing OfficerIf necessary, a company executive, known as a “committing officer,” is given documents that guarantee immunity from civil actions resulting from the transfer of data. The companies are provided with regular updates, which may include the broad parameters of how that information is used.Intel Corp. (INTC)’s McAfee unit, which makes Internet security software, regularly cooperates with the NSA, FBI and the CIA, for example, and is a valuable partner because of its broad view of malicious Internet traffic, including espionage operations by foreign powers, according to one of the four people, who is familiar with the arrangement.Such a relationship would start with an approach to McAfee’s chief executive, who would then clear specific individuals to work with investigators or provide the requested data, the person said. The public would be surprised at how much help the government seeks, the person said.McAfee firewalls collect information on hackers who use legitimate servers to do their work, and the company data can be used to pinpoint where attacks begin. The company also has knowledge of the architecture of information networks worldwide, which may be useful to spy agencies who tap into them, the person said.McAfee’s DataMcAfee (MFE)’s data and analysis doesn’t include information on individuals, said Michael Fey, the company’s world wide chief technology officer.“We do not share any type of personal information with our government agency partners,” Fey said in an e-mailed statement. “McAfee’s function is to provide security technology, education, and threat intelligence to governments. This threat intelligence includes trending data on emerging new threats, cyber-attack patterns and vector activity, as well as analysis on the integrity of software, system vulnerabilities, and hacker group activity.”In exchange, leaders of companies are showered with attention and information by the agencies to help maintain the relationship, the person said.In other cases, companies are given quick warnings about threats that could affect their bottom line, including serious Internet attacks and who is behind them.China’s MilitaryFollowing an attack on his company by Chinese hackers in 2010, Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder, was provided with highly sensitive government intelligence linking the attack to a specific unit of the People’s Liberation Army, China’s military, according to one of the people, who is familiar with the government’s investigation. Brin was given a temporary classified clearance to sit in on the briefing, the person said.According to information provided by Snowden, Google, owner of the world’s most popular search engine, had at that point been a Prism participant for more than a year.Google CEO Larry Page said in a blog posting June 7 that he hadn’t heard of a program called Prism until after Snowden’s disclosures and that the Mountain View, California-based company didn’t allow the U.S. government direct access to its servers or some back-door to its data centers. He said Google provides user data to governments “only in accordance with the law.”Leslie Miller, a spokeswoman for Google, didn’t provide an immediate response yesterday.The information provided by Snowden also exposed a secret NSA program known as Blarney. As the program was described in the Washington Post (WPO), the agency gathers metadata on computers and devices that are used to send e-mails or browse the Internet through principal data routes, known as a backbone.MetadataThat metadata includes which version of the operating system, browser and Java software are being used on millions of devices around the world, information that U.S. spy agencies could use to infiltrate those computers or phones and spy on their users.“It’s highly offensive information,” said Glenn Chisholm, the former chief information officer for Telstra Corp (TLS)., one of Australia’s largest telecommunications companies, contrasting it to defensive information used to protect computers rather than infiltrate them.According to Snowden’s information, Blarney’s purpose is “to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence,” the Post said.It’s unclear whether U.S. Internet service providers gave information to the NSA as part of Blarney, and if so, whether the transfer of that data required a judge’s order.Less ScrutinyStewart Baker, former general counsel for the NSA, said if metadata involved communications between two foreign computers that just happened to be crossing a U.S. fiber optic cable “then the likelihood is it would demand less legal scrutiny than when communications are being extracted one by one.”Lawmakers who oversee U.S. intelligence agencies may not understand the significance of some of the metadata being collected, said Jacob Olcott, a former cybersecurity assistant for Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.“That’s what makes this issue of oversight so challenging,” said Olcott, now a principal at Good Harbor Security Risk Management in Washington. “You have a situation where the technology and technical policy is far outpacing the background and expertise of most elected members of Congress or their staffs.”While companies are offered powerful inducements to cooperate with U.S. intelligence, many executives are motivated by patriotism or a sense they are defending national security, the people familiar with the trusted partner programs said.Einstein 3U.S telecommunications, Internet, power companies and others provide U.S. intelligence agencies with details of their systems’ architecture or equipment schematics so the agencies can analyze potential vulnerabilities.“It’s natural behavior for governments to want to know about the country’s critical infrastructure,” said Chisholm, chief security officer at Irvine, California-based Cylance Inc.Even strictly defensive systems can have unintended consequences for privacy. Einstein 3, a costly program originally developed by the NSA, is meant to protect government systems from hackers. The program, which has been made public and is being installed, will closely analyze the billions of e-mails sent to government computers every year to see if they contain spy tools or malicious software.Einstein 3 could also expose the private content of the e-mails under certain circumstances, according to a person familiar with the system, who asked not to be named because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter.AT&T, VerizonBefore they agreed to install the system on their networks, some of the five major Internet companies -- AT&T Inc. (T), Verizon Communications Inc (VZ)., Sprint Nextel Corp. (S), Level 3 Communications Inc (LVLT). and CenturyLink Inc (CTL). -- asked for guarantees that they wouldn’t be held liable under U.S. wiretap laws. Those companies that asked received a letter signed by the U.S. attorney general indicating such exposure didn’t meet the legal definition of a wiretap and granting them immunity from civil lawsuits, the person said.Mark Siegel, a spokesman for Dallas-based AT&T, the nation’s biggest phone carrier, declined to comment. Edward McFadden, a spokesman for New York-based Verizon, the second-largest phone company, declined to comment.Scott Sloat, a spokesman for Overland Park, Kansas-based Sprint, and Monica Martinez, a spokeswoman for Broomfield, Colorado-based Level 3, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.Linda Johnson, a spokeswoman for Centurylink, formerly Qwest Corp., said her Monroe, Louisiana-based company participates in the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program and the Intrusion Prevention Security Services program, which includes Einstein 3. Both programs are managed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.Beyond that, she said, “CenturyLink does not comment on matters pertaining to national security.”

 

[timschochet]

I think you guys misunderstand Gerson's point. He was not making the claim that anyone opposed to the NSA was unpatriotic. That is obviously not true, and also rather insulting.

What he's suggesting is to take one's opposition to the NSA and data mining, and use that to declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime, to behave as if we're currently living in a police state- THAT is unpatriotic. I agree with him. And the reason he calls out the right is because it's right-wing talk radio show hosts that are doing this, not progressives. The ACLU referred to the program as "Orwellian" (which I disagree with) but they warn about potentiality, about what could happen in the future. Obviously I have no love for these arguments, but they are far different from making the assumption that the future is NOW.

And that's exactly what guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine are doing. Just as they did over the gun control issue, they are using this to fuel an irrational hatred and fear of our current government in power. That's what Gerson is upset about.

 

[timschochet]

OK, Slapdash, you got me. If that quoted article is true, it's highly problematic and very worrisome. It contradicts the statement made by the head of the NSA that the information gathered is destroyed after a few months. It contradicts the the assertions of government oversight that are supposed to protect our privacy in the wake of these searches. This is the sort of information that could change my mind about this entire issue. I want to know more. At this point I think this whole issue needs to be investigated.

 

[Politician Spock]

I think you guys misunderstand Gerson's point. He was not making the claim that anyone opposed to the NSA was unpatriotic. That is obviously not true, and also rather insulting. What he's suggesting is to take one's opposition to the NSA and data mining, and use that to declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime, to behave as if we're currently living in a police state- THAT is unpatriotic. I agree with him. And the reason he calls out the right is because it's right-wing talk radio show hosts that are doing this, not progressives. The ACLU referred to the program as "Orwellian" (which I disagree with) but they warn about potentiality, about what could happen in the future. Obviously I have no love for these arguments, but they are far different from making the assumption that the future is NOW. And that's exactly what guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine are doing. Just as they did over the gun control issue, they are using this to fuel an irrational hatred and fear of our current government in power. That's what Gerson is upset about.

Once again, opposing what the NSA is doing is not contingent upon the intent of what the NSA is doing. I'm well aware of Alex Jones, and his followers, declaring that the intent is to establish the New World Order. What they believe has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe it is wrong for any intent. Stop lumping everyone you are arguing with here into a group of people who declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime. Take that to the Infowars forum, and tell those people that, because their the ones that need to hear it. We're sick of hearing it here, because it's not applicable to us who don't care what the government's intent it.ETA: making a point about it being "right wing", and then using the ACLU as an example, makes ZERO sense!!! The ACLU has always been on the left.

 

[timschochet]

I think you guys misunderstand Gerson's point. He was not making the claim that anyone opposed to the NSA was unpatriotic. That is obviously not true, and also rather insulting.

What he's suggesting is to take one's opposition to the NSA and data mining, and use that to declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime, to behave as if we're currently living in a police state- THAT is unpatriotic. I agree with him. And the reason he calls out the right is because it's right-wing talk radio show hosts that are doing this, not progressives. The ACLU referred to the program as "Orwellian" (which I disagree with) but they warn about potentiality, about what could happen in the future. Obviously I have no love for these arguments, but they are far different from making the assumption that the future is NOW.

And that's exactly what guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine are doing. Just as they did over the gun control issue, they are using this to fuel an irrational hatred and fear of our current government in power. That's what Gerson is upset about.

Once again, opposing what the NSA is doing is not contingent upon the intent of what the NSA is doing. I'm well aware of Alex Jones, and his followers, declaring that the intent is to establish the New World Order. What they believe has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe it is wrong for any intent. Stop lumping everyone you are arguing with here into a group of people who declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime. Take that to the Infowars forum, and tell those people that, because their the ones that need to hear it. We're sick of hearing it here, because it's not applicable to us who don't care what the government's intent it.

You want me to stop lumping all of you in together- isn't that what I just did? It's certainly what Gerson did. He takes specific aim at certain conservative critics.

 

[jonessed]

Good news! According to Bloomberg the NSA was selling your data to their "preferred partners"

U.S. Agencies Said to Swap Data With Thousands of FirmsBy Michael Riley - Jun 13, 2013Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said.These programs, whose participants are known as trusted partners, extend far beyond what was revealed by Edward Snowden, a computer technician who did work for the National Security Agency. The role of private companies has come under intense scrutiny since his disclosure this month that the NSA is collecting millions of U.S. residents telephone records and the computer communications of foreigners from Google Inc (GOOG). and other Internet companies under court order.Many of these same Internet and telecommunications companies voluntarily provide U.S. intelligence organizations with additional data, such as equipment specifications, that dont involve private communications of their customers, the four people said.Makers of hardware and software, banks, Internet security providers, satellite telecommunications companies and many other companies also participate in the government programs. In some cases, the information gathered may be used not just to defend the nation but to help infiltrate computers of its adversaries.Along with the NSA, the Central Intelligence Agency (0112917D), the Federal Bureau of Investigation and branches of the U.S. military have agreements with such companies to gather data that might seem innocuous but could be highly useful in the hands of U.S. intelligence or cyber warfare units, according to the people, who have either worked for the government or are in companies that have these accords.Microsoft BugsMicrosoft Corp. (MSFT), the worlds largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process. That information can be used to protect government computers and to access the computers of terrorists or military foes.Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft (MSFT) and other software or Internet security companies have been aware that this type of early alert allowed the U.S. to exploit vulnerabilities in software sold to foreign governments, according to two U.S. officials. Microsoft doesnt ask and cant be told how the government uses such tip-offs, said the officials, who asked not to be identified because the matter is confidential.Frank Shaw, a spokesman for Microsoft, said those releases occur in cooperation with multiple agencies and are designed to give government an early start on risk assessment and mitigation.Willing CooperationSome U.S. telecommunications companies willingly provide intelligence agencies with access to facilities and data offshore that would require a judges order if it were done in the U.S., one of the four people said.In these cases, no oversight is necessary under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and companies are providing the information voluntarily.The extensive cooperation between commercial companies and intelligence agencies is legal and reaches deeply into many aspects of everyday life, though little of it is scrutinized by more than a small number of lawyers, company leaders and spies. Company executives are motivated by a desire to help the national defense as well as to help their own companies, said the people, who are familiar with the agreements.Most of the arrangements are so sensitive that only a handful of people in a company know of them, and they are sometimes brokered directly between chief executive officers and the heads of the U.S.s major spy agencies, the people familiar with those programs said.Thank ThemMichael Hayden, who formerly directed the National Security Agency and the CIA, described the attention paid to important company partners: If I were the director and had a relationship with a company who was doing things that were not just directed by law but were also valuable to the defense of the Republic, I would go out of my way to thank them and give them a sense as to why this is necessary and useful.You would keep it closely held within the company and there would be very few cleared individuals, Hayden said.Cooperation between nine U.S. Internet companies and the NSAs Special Source Operations unit came to light along with a secret program called Prism. According to a slide deck provided by Snowden, the program gathers e-mails, videos, and other private data of foreign surveillance targets through arrangements that vary by company, overseen by a secret panel of judges.U.S. intelligence agencies have grown far more dependent on such arrangements as the flow of much of the worlds information has grown exponentially through switches, cables and other network equipment maintained by U.S. companies.Equipment SpecsIn addition to private communications, information about equipment specifications and data needed for the Internet to work -- much of which isnt subject to oversight because it doesnt involve private communications -- is valuable to intelligence, U.S. law-enforcement officials and the military.Typically, a key executive at a company and a small number of technical people cooperate with different agencies and sometimes multiple units within an agency, according to the four people who described the arrangements.Committing OfficerIf necessary, a company executive, known as a committing officer, is given documents that guarantee immunity from civil actions resulting from the transfer of data. The companies are provided with regular updates, which may include the broad parameters of how that information is used.Intel Corp. (INTC)s McAfee unit, which makes Internet security software, regularly cooperates with the NSA, FBI and the CIA, for example, and is a valuable partner because of its broad view of malicious Internet traffic, including espionage operations by foreign powers, according to one of the four people, who is familiar with the arrangement.Such a relationship would start with an approach to McAfees chief executive, who would then clear specific individuals to work with investigators or provide the requested data, the person said. The public would be surprised at how much help the government seeks, the person said.McAfee firewalls collect information on hackers who use legitimate servers to do their work, and the company data can be used to pinpoint where attacks begin. The company also has knowledge of the architecture of information networks worldwide, which may be useful to spy agencies who tap into them, the person said.McAfees DataMcAfee (MFE)s data and analysis doesnt include information on individuals, said Michael Fey, the companys world wide chief technology officer.We do not share any type of personal information with our government agency partners, Fey said in an e-mailed statement. McAfees function is to provide security technology, education, and threat intelligence to governments. This threat intelligence includes trending data on emerging new threats, cyber-attack patterns and vector activity, as well as analysis on the integrity of software, system vulnerabilities, and hacker group activity.In exchange, leaders of companies are showered with attention and information by the agencies to help maintain the relationship, the person said.In other cases, companies are given quick warnings about threats that could affect their bottom line, including serious Internet attacks and who is behind them.Chinas MilitaryFollowing an attack on his company by Chinese hackers in 2010, Sergey Brin, Googles co-founder, was provided with highly sensitive government intelligence linking the attack to a specific unit of the Peoples Liberation Army, Chinas military, according to one of the people, who is familiar with the governments investigation. Brin was given a temporary classified clearance to sit in on the briefing, the person said.According to information provided by Snowden, Google, owner of the worlds most popular search engine, had at that point been a Prism participant for more than a year.Google CEO Larry Page said in a blog posting June 7 that he hadnt heard of a program called Prism until after Snowdens disclosures and that the Mountain View, California-based company didnt allow the U.S. government direct access to its servers or some back-door to its data centers. He said Google provides user data to governments only in accordance with the law.Leslie Miller, a spokeswoman for Google, didnt provide an immediate response yesterday.The information provided by Snowden also exposed a secret NSA program known as Blarney. As the program was described in the Washington Post (WPO), the agency gathers metadata on computers and devices that are used to send e-mails or browse the Internet through principal data routes, known as a backbone.MetadataThat metadata includes which version of the operating system, browser and Java software are being used on millions of devices around the world, information that U.S. spy agencies could use to infiltrate those computers or phones and spy on their users.Its highly offensive information, said Glenn Chisholm, the former chief information officer for Telstra Corp (TLS)., one of Australias largest telecommunications companies, contrasting it to defensive information used to protect computers rather than infiltrate them.According to Snowdens information, Blarneys purpose is to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence, the Post said.Its unclear whether U.S. Internet service providers gave information to the NSA as part of Blarney, and if so, whether the transfer of that data required a judges order.Less ScrutinyStewart Baker, former general counsel for the NSA, said if metadata involved communications between two foreign computers that just happened to be crossing a U.S. fiber optic cable then the likelihood is it would demand less legal scrutiny than when communications are being extracted one by one.Lawmakers who oversee U.S. intelligence agencies may not understand the significance of some of the metadata being collected, said Jacob Olcott, a former cybersecurity assistant for Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.Thats what makes this issue of oversight so challenging, said Olcott, now a principal at Good Harbor Security Risk Management in Washington. You have a situation where the technology and technical policy is far outpacing the background and expertise of most elected members of Congress or their staffs.While companies are offered powerful inducements to cooperate with U.S. intelligence, many executives are motivated by patriotism or a sense they are defending national security, the people familiar with the trusted partner programs said.Einstein 3U.S telecommunications, Internet, power companies and others provide U.S. intelligence agencies with details of their systems architecture or equipment schematics so the agencies can analyze potential vulnerabilities.Its natural behavior for governments to want to know about the countrys critical infrastructure, said Chisholm, chief security officer at Irvine, California-based Cylance Inc.Even strictly defensive systems can have unintended consequences for privacy. Einstein 3, a costly program originally developed by the NSA, is meant to protect government systems from hackers. The program, which has been made public and is being installed, will closely analyze the billions of e-mails sent to government computers every year to see if they contain spy tools or malicious software.Einstein 3 could also expose the private content of the e-mails under certain circumstances, according to a person familiar with the system, who asked not to be named because he wasnt authorized to discuss the matter.AT&T, VerizonBefore they agreed to install the system on their networks, some of the five major Internet companies -- AT&T Inc. (T), Verizon Communications Inc (VZ)., Sprint Nextel Corp. (S), Level 3 Communications Inc (LVLT). and CenturyLink Inc (CTL). -- asked for guarantees that they wouldnt be held liable under U.S. wiretap laws. Those companies that asked received a letter signed by the U.S. attorney general indicating such exposure didnt meet the legal definition of a wiretap and granting them immunity from civil lawsuits, the person said.Mark Siegel, a spokesman for Dallas-based AT&T, the nations biggest phone carrier, declined to comment. Edward McFadden, a spokesman for New York-based Verizon, the second-largest phone company, declined to comment.Scott Sloat, a spokesman for Overland Park, Kansas-based Sprint, and Monica Martinez, a spokeswoman for Broomfield, Colorado-based Level 3, didnt immediately respond to requests for comment.Linda Johnson, a spokeswoman for Centurylink, formerly Qwest Corp., said her Monroe, Louisiana-based company participates in the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program and the Intrusion Prevention Security Services program, which includes Einstein 3. Both programs are managed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.Beyond that, she said, CenturyLink does not comment on matters pertaining to national security.

That seems more like foreign espionage. I think that's different. It's hard to know for sure what's going on though.

 

[Politician Spock]

I think you guys misunderstand Gerson's point. He was not making the claim that anyone opposed to the NSA was unpatriotic. That is obviously not true, and also rather insulting. What he's suggesting is to take one's opposition to the NSA and data mining, and use that to declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime, to behave as if we're currently living in a police state- THAT is unpatriotic. I agree with him. And the reason he calls out the right is because it's right-wing talk radio show hosts that are doing this, not progressives. The ACLU referred to the program as "Orwellian" (which I disagree with) but they warn about potentiality, about what could happen in the future. Obviously I have no love for these arguments, but they are far different from making the assumption that the future is NOW. And that's exactly what guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine are doing. Just as they did over the gun control issue, they are using this to fuel an irrational hatred and fear of our current government in power. That's what Gerson is upset about.

Once again, opposing what the NSA is doing is not contingent upon the intent of what the NSA is doing. I'm well aware of Alex Jones, and his followers, declaring that the intent is to establish the New World Order. What they believe has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe it is wrong for any intent. Stop lumping everyone you are arguing with here into a group of people who declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime. Take that to the Infowars forum, and tell those people that, because their the ones that need to hear it. We're sick of hearing it here, because it's not applicable to us who don't care what the government's intent it.

You want me to stop lumping all of you in together- isn't that what I just did? It's certainly what Gerson did. He takes specific aim at certain conservative critics.

Yes. Stop it. I agree you just did. I agree Gerson did. And taking specific aim at conservative critics, like the ACLU, makes me wonder if you even understand what a conservative critic is, or the ACLU is.

 

[mattdaddy]

I think you guys misunderstand Gerson's point. He was not making the claim that anyone opposed to the NSA was unpatriotic. That is obviously not true, and also rather insulting.

What he's suggesting is to take one's opposition to the NSA and data mining, and use that to declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime, to behave as if we're currently living in a police state- THAT is unpatriotic. I agree with him. And the reason he calls out the right is because it's right-wing talk radio show hosts that are doing this, not progressives. The ACLU referred to the program as "Orwellian" (which I disagree with) but they warn about potentiality, about what could happen in the future. Obviously I have no love for these arguments, but they are far different from making the assumption that the future is NOW.

And that's exactly what guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine are doing. Just as they did over the gun control issue, they are using this to fuel an irrational hatred and fear of our current government in power. That's what Gerson is upset about.

I would venture to say that most of the references to the so called "evil, malevolent regime" were made by you in this thread. PS, Slapdash, and others are making well thought out points and deliberately are avoiding boogey man arguments such as this.

 

[Slapdash]

Good news! According to Bloomberg the NSA was selling your data to their "preferred partners"

U.S. Agencies Said to Swap Data With Thousands of FirmsBy Michael Riley - Jun 13, 2013Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said.These programs, whose participants are known as trusted partners, extend far beyond what was revealed by Edward Snowden, a computer technician who did work for the National Security Agency. The role of private companies has come under intense scrutiny since his disclosure this month that the NSA is collecting millions of U.S. residents telephone records and the computer communications of foreigners from Google Inc (GOOG). and other Internet companies under court order.Many of these same Internet and telecommunications companies voluntarily provide U.S. intelligence organizations with additional data, such as equipment specifications, that dont involve private communications of their customers, the four people said.Makers of hardware and software, banks, Internet security providers, satellite telecommunications companies and many other companies also participate in the government programs. In some cases, the information gathered may be used not just to defend the nation but to help infiltrate computers of its adversaries.Along with the NSA, the Central Intelligence Agency (0112917D), the Federal Bureau of Investigation and branches of the U.S. military have agreements with such companies to gather data that might seem innocuous but could be highly useful in the hands of U.S. intelligence or cyber warfare units, according to the people, who have either worked for the government or are in companies that have these accords.Microsoft BugsMicrosoft Corp. (MSFT), the worlds largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process. That information can be used to protect government computers and to access the computers of terrorists or military foes.Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft (MSFT) and other software or Internet security companies have been aware that this type of early alert allowed the U.S. to exploit vulnerabilities in software sold to foreign governments, according to two U.S. officials. Microsoft doesnt ask and cant be told how the government uses such tip-offs, said the officials, who asked not to be identified because the matter is confidential.Frank Shaw, a spokesman for Microsoft, said those releases occur in cooperation with multiple agencies and are designed to give government an early start on risk assessment and mitigation.Willing CooperationSome U.S. telecommunications companies willingly provide intelligence agencies with access to facilities and data offshore that would require a judges order if it were done in the U.S., one of the four people said.In these cases, no oversight is necessary under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and companies are providing the information voluntarily.The extensive cooperation between commercial companies and intelligence agencies is legal and reaches deeply into many aspects of everyday life, though little of it is scrutinized by more than a small number of lawyers, company leaders and spies. Company executives are motivated by a desire to help the national defense as well as to help their own companies, said the people, who are familiar with the agreements.Most of the arrangements are so sensitive that only a handful of people in a company know of them, and they are sometimes brokered directly between chief executive officers and the heads of the U.S.s major spy agencies, the people familiar with those programs said.Thank ThemMichael Hayden, who formerly directed the National Security Agency and the CIA, described the attention paid to important company partners: If I were the director and had a relationship with a company who was doing things that were not just directed by law but were also valuable to the defense of the Republic, I would go out of my way to thank them and give them a sense as to why this is necessary and useful.You would keep it closely held within the company and there would be very few cleared individuals, Hayden said.Cooperation between nine U.S. Internet companies and the NSAs Special Source Operations unit came to light along with a secret program called Prism. According to a slide deck provided by Snowden, the program gathers e-mails, videos, and other private data of foreign surveillance targets through arrangements that vary by company, overseen by a secret panel of judges.U.S. intelligence agencies have grown far more dependent on such arrangements as the flow of much of the worlds information has grown exponentially through switches, cables and other network equipment maintained by U.S. companies.Equipment SpecsIn addition to private communications, information about equipment specifications and data needed for the Internet to work -- much of which isnt subject to oversight because it doesnt involve private communications -- is valuable to intelligence, U.S. law-enforcement officials and the military.Typically, a key executive at a company and a small number of technical people cooperate with different agencies and sometimes multiple units within an agency, according to the four people who described the arrangements.Committing OfficerIf necessary, a company executive, known as a committing officer, is given documents that guarantee immunity from civil actions resulting from the transfer of data. The companies are provided with regular updates, which may include the broad parameters of how that information is used.Intel Corp. (INTC)s McAfee unit, which makes Internet security software, regularly cooperates with the NSA, FBI and the CIA, for example, and is a valuable partner because of its broad view of malicious Internet traffic, including espionage operations by foreign powers, according to one of the four people, who is familiar with the arrangement.Such a relationship would start with an approach to McAfees chief executive, who would then clear specific individuals to work with investigators or provide the requested data, the person said. The public would be surprised at how much help the government seeks, the person said.McAfee firewalls collect information on hackers who use legitimate servers to do their work, and the company data can be used to pinpoint where attacks begin. The company also has knowledge of the architecture of information networks worldwide, which may be useful to spy agencies who tap into them, the person said.McAfees DataMcAfee (MFE)s data and analysis doesnt include information on individuals, said Michael Fey, the companys world wide chief technology officer.We do not share any type of personal information with our government agency partners, Fey said in an e-mailed statement. McAfees function is to provide security technology, education, and threat intelligence to governments. This threat intelligence includes trending data on emerging new threats, cyber-attack patterns and vector activity, as well as analysis on the integrity of software, system vulnerabilities, and hacker group activity.In exchange, leaders of companies are showered with attention and information by the agencies to help maintain the relationship, the person said.In other cases, companies are given quick warnings about threats that could affect their bottom line, including serious Internet attacks and who is behind them.Chinas MilitaryFollowing an attack on his company by Chinese hackers in 2010, Sergey Brin, Googles co-founder, was provided with highly sensitive government intelligence linking the attack to a specific unit of the Peoples Liberation Army, Chinas military, according to one of the people, who is familiar with the governments investigation. Brin was given a temporary classified clearance to sit in on the briefing, the person said.According to information provided by Snowden, Google, owner of the worlds most popular search engine, had at that point been a Prism participant for more than a year.Google CEO Larry Page said in a blog posting June 7 that he hadnt heard of a program called Prism until after Snowdens disclosures and that the Mountain View, California-based company didnt allow the U.S. government direct access to its servers or some back-door to its data centers. He said Google provides user data to governments only in accordance with the law.Leslie Miller, a spokeswoman for Google, didnt provide an immediate response yesterday.The information provided by Snowden also exposed a secret NSA program known as Blarney. As the program was described in the Washington Post (WPO), the agency gathers metadata on computers and devices that are used to send e-mails or browse the Internet through principal data routes, known as a backbone.MetadataThat metadata includes which version of the operating system, browser and Java software are being used on millions of devices around the world, information that U.S. spy agencies could use to infiltrate those computers or phones and spy on their users.Its highly offensive information, said Glenn Chisholm, the former chief information officer for Telstra Corp (TLS)., one of Australias largest telecommunications companies, contrasting it to defensive information used to protect computers rather than infiltrate them.According to Snowdens information, Blarneys purpose is to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence, the Post said.Its unclear whether U.S. Internet service providers gave information to the NSA as part of Blarney, and if so, whether the transfer of that data required a judges order.Less ScrutinyStewart Baker, former general counsel for the NSA, said if metadata involved communications between two foreign computers that just happened to be crossing a U.S. fiber optic cable then the likelihood is it would demand less legal scrutiny than when communications are being extracted one by one.Lawmakers who oversee U.S. intelligence agencies may not understand the significance of some of the metadata being collected, said Jacob Olcott, a former cybersecurity assistant for Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.Thats what makes this issue of oversight so challenging, said Olcott, now a principal at Good Harbor Security Risk Management in Washington. You have a situation where the technology and technical policy is far outpacing the background and expertise of most elected members of Congress or their staffs.While companies are offered powerful inducements to cooperate with U.S. intelligence, many executives are motivated by patriotism or a sense they are defending national security, the people familiar with the trusted partner programs said.Einstein 3U.S telecommunications, Internet, power companies and others provide U.S. intelligence agencies with details of their systems architecture or equipment schematics so the agencies can analyze potential vulnerabilities.Its natural behavior for governments to want to know about the countrys critical infrastructure, said Chisholm, chief security officer at Irvine, California-based Cylance Inc.Even strictly defensive systems can have unintended consequences for privacy. Einstein 3, a costly program originally developed by the NSA, is meant to protect government systems from hackers. The program, which has been made public and is being installed, will closely analyze the billions of e-mails sent to government computers every year to see if they contain spy tools or malicious software.Einstein 3 could also expose the private content of the e-mails under certain circumstances, according to a person familiar with the system, who asked not to be named because he wasnt authorized to discuss the matter.AT&T, VerizonBefore they agreed to install the system on their networks, some of the five major Internet companies -- AT&T Inc. (T), Verizon Communications Inc (VZ)., Sprint Nextel Corp. (S), Level 3 Communications Inc (LVLT). and CenturyLink Inc (CTL). -- asked for guarantees that they wouldnt be held liable under U.S. wiretap laws. Those companies that asked received a letter signed by the U.S. attorney general indicating such exposure didnt meet the legal definition of a wiretap and granting them immunity from civil lawsuits, the person said.Mark Siegel, a spokesman for Dallas-based AT&T, the nations biggest phone carrier, declined to comment. Edward McFadden, a spokesman for New York-based Verizon, the second-largest phone company, declined to comment.Scott Sloat, a spokesman for Overland Park, Kansas-based Sprint, and Monica Martinez, a spokeswoman for Broomfield, Colorado-based Level 3, didnt immediately respond to requests for comment.Linda Johnson, a spokeswoman for Centurylink, formerly Qwest Corp., said her Monroe, Louisiana-based company participates in the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program and the Intrusion Prevention Security Services program, which includes Einstein 3. Both programs are managed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.Beyond that, she said, CenturyLink does not comment on matters pertaining to national security.

That seems more like foreign espionage. I think that's different. It's hard to know for sure what's going on though.

It certainly suggests the scope of data collected is much broader than has been released. I found the bit about off-shore data centers particularly disturbing. That seems like a loophole you can drive a truck through. Very ungood article.

Makes me really curious what the rest of Snowden's slides show.....

 

[timschochet]

I think you guys misunderstand Gerson's point. He was not making the claim that anyone opposed to the NSA was unpatriotic. That is obviously not true, and also rather insulting. What he's suggesting is to take one's opposition to the NSA and data mining, and use that to declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime, to behave as if we're currently living in a police state- THAT is unpatriotic. I agree with him. And the reason he calls out the right is because it's right-wing talk radio show hosts that are doing this, not progressives. The ACLU referred to the program as "Orwellian" (which I disagree with) but they warn about potentiality, about what could happen in the future. Obviously I have no love for these arguments, but they are far different from making the assumption that the future is NOW. And that's exactly what guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine are doing. Just as they did over the gun control issue, they are using this to fuel an irrational hatred and fear of our current government in power. That's what Gerson is upset about.

Once again, opposing what the NSA is doing is not contingent upon the intent of what the NSA is doing. I'm well aware of Alex Jones, and his followers, declaring that the intent is to establish the New World Order. What they believe has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe it is wrong for any intent. Stop lumping everyone you are arguing with here into a group of people who declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime. Take that to the Infowars forum, and tell those people that, because their the ones that need to hear it. We're sick of hearing it here, because it's not applicable to us who don't care what the government's intent it.

You want me to stop lumping all of you in together- isn't that what I just did? It's certainly what Gerson did. He takes specific aim at certain conservative critics.

Yes. Stop it. I agree you just did. I agree Gerson did. And taking specific aim at conservative critics, like the ACLU, makes me wonder if you even understand what a conservative critic is, or the ACLU is.

?? When have I criticized the ACLU in this thread? When did Gerson criticize the ACLU in his article?

 

[Politician Spock]

I think you guys misunderstand Gerson's point. He was not making the claim that anyone opposed to the NSA was unpatriotic. That is obviously not true, and also rather insulting. What he's suggesting is to take one's opposition to the NSA and data mining, and use that to declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime, to behave as if we're currently living in a police state- THAT is unpatriotic. I agree with him. And the reason he calls out the right is because it's right-wing talk radio show hosts that are doing this, not progressives. The ACLU referred to the program as "Orwellian" (which I disagree with) but they warn about potentiality, about what could happen in the future. Obviously I have no love for these arguments, but they are far different from making the assumption that the future is NOW. And that's exactly what guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine are doing. Just as they did over the gun control issue, they are using this to fuel an irrational hatred and fear of our current government in power. That's what Gerson is upset about.

Once again, opposing what the NSA is doing is not contingent upon the intent of what the NSA is doing. I'm well aware of Alex Jones, and his followers, declaring that the intent is to establish the New World Order. What they believe has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe it is wrong for any intent. Stop lumping everyone you are arguing with here into a group of people who declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime. Take that to the Infowars forum, and tell those people that, because their the ones that need to hear it. We're sick of hearing it here, because it's not applicable to us who don't care what the government's intent it.

You want me to stop lumping all of you in together- isn't that what I just did? It's certainly what Gerson did. He takes specific aim at certain conservative critics.

Yes. Stop it. I agree you just did. I agree Gerson did. And taking specific aim at conservative critics, like the ACLU, makes me wonder if you even understand what a conservative critic is, or the ACLU is.

?? When have I criticized the ACLU in this thread? When did Gerson criticize the ACLU in his article?

It was you that brought up the ACLU in your post explaining Gerson's calling out of the right wing. You're asking that question to the wrong person. Turn around and ask yourself.

 

[timschochet]

I think you guys misunderstand Gerson's point. He was not making the claim that anyone opposed to the NSA was unpatriotic. That is obviously not true, and also rather insulting. What he's suggesting is to take one's opposition to the NSA and data mining, and use that to declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime, to behave as if we're currently living in a police state- THAT is unpatriotic. I agree with him. And the reason he calls out the right is because it's right-wing talk radio show hosts that are doing this, not progressives. The ACLU referred to the program as "Orwellian" (which I disagree with) but they warn about potentiality, about what could happen in the future. Obviously I have no love for these arguments, but they are far different from making the assumption that the future is NOW. And that's exactly what guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine are doing. Just as they did over the gun control issue, they are using this to fuel an irrational hatred and fear of our current government in power. That's what Gerson is upset about.

Once again, opposing what the NSA is doing is not contingent upon the intent of what the NSA is doing. I'm well aware of Alex Jones, and his followers, declaring that the intent is to establish the New World Order. What they believe has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe it is wrong for any intent. Stop lumping everyone you are arguing with here into a group of people who declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime. Take that to the Infowars forum, and tell those people that, because their the ones that need to hear it. We're sick of hearing it here, because it's not applicable to us who don't care what the government's intent it.

You want me to stop lumping all of you in together- isn't that what I just did? It's certainly what Gerson did. He takes specific aim at certain conservative critics.

Yes. Stop it. I agree you just did. I agree Gerson did. And taking specific aim at conservative critics, like the ACLU, makes me wonder if you even understand what a conservative critic is, or the ACLU is.

?? When have I criticized the ACLU in this thread? When did Gerson criticize the ACLU in his article?

It was you that brought up the ACLU in your post explaining Gerson's calling out of the right wing. You're asking that question to the wrong person. Turn around and ask yourself.

Read it again. I brought up the ACLU as an example of a group that did NOT deserve criticism, in contrast to the right-wingers who do.

 

[Politician Spock]

I think you guys misunderstand Gerson's point. He was not making the claim that anyone opposed to the NSA was unpatriotic. That is obviously not true, and also rather insulting. What he's suggesting is to take one's opposition to the NSA and data mining, and use that to declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime, to behave as if we're currently living in a police state- THAT is unpatriotic. I agree with him. And the reason he calls out the right is because it's right-wing talk radio show hosts that are doing this, not progressives. The ACLU referred to the program as "Orwellian" (which I disagree with) but they warn about potentiality, about what could happen in the future. Obviously I have no love for these arguments, but they are far different from making the assumption that the future is NOW. And that's exactly what guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine are doing. Just as they did over the gun control issue, they are using this to fuel an irrational hatred and fear of our current government in power. That's what Gerson is upset about.

Once again, opposing what the NSA is doing is not contingent upon the intent of what the NSA is doing. I'm well aware of Alex Jones, and his followers, declaring that the intent is to establish the New World Order. What they believe has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe it is wrong for any intent. Stop lumping everyone you are arguing with here into a group of people who declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime. Take that to the Infowars forum, and tell those people that, because their the ones that need to hear it. We're sick of hearing it here, because it's not applicable to us who don't care what the government's intent it.

You want me to stop lumping all of you in together- isn't that what I just did? It's certainly what Gerson did. He takes specific aim at certain conservative critics.

Yes. Stop it. I agree you just did. I agree Gerson did. And taking specific aim at conservative critics, like the ACLU, makes me wonder if you even understand what a conservative critic is, or the ACLU is.

?? When have I criticized the ACLU in this thread? When did Gerson criticize the ACLU in his article?

It was you that brought up the ACLU in your post explaining Gerson's calling out of the right wing. You're asking that question to the wrong person. Turn around and ask yourself.

Read it again. I brought up the ACLU as an example of a group that did NOT deserve criticism, in contrast to the right-wingers who do.

Wouldn't it make more sense to show an example of a right wing group that did NOT deserve criticism, in contrast to the right wing groups that do? Of course the ACLU contrasts right-wingers. The ACLU is left wing.

 

[mattdaddy]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate:

This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.

And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

He is attempting to equate Government with America in this argument. That is not the case. America is the peoples, they are the sovereign. They have every right to question the legitimacy of the government and it does not distort America. In fact, it reaffirms what America stands for.

 

[Nikki2200]

OK, Slapdash, you got me. If that quoted article is true, it's highly problematic and very worrisome. It contradicts the statement made by the head of the NSA that the information gathered is destroyed after a few months. It contradicts the the assertions of government oversight that are supposed to protect our privacy in the wake of these searches. This is the sort of information that could change my mind about this entire issue. I want to know more. At this point I think this whole issue needs to be investigated.

I don't know why the first tidbit on this wasn't enough to concern you. To spend $80 billion to set up an elaborate and all encompassing data mining operation to catch maybe a handful of terrorists makes no logical sense. The only thing that makes any sense is that your goal is to keep a record of every telecommunications and online activity that happens in the world - motivations unknown. The most likely motivation is power.

 

[jonessed]

It certainly suggests the scope of data collected is much broader than has been released. I found the bit about off-shore data centers particularly disturbing. That seems like a loophole you can drive a truck through. Very ungood article. Makes me really curious what the rest of Snowden's slides show.....

We all knew this though (except for Tim). It's a spy agency. They are going to obtain and use any information the can. Briefing supportive members of congress and setting up a faux court to rubber stamp things is hardly an impediment.Where they really ####ed up is dragging private citizen's data into this dragnet. They should have stayed with espionage. Now the whole thing is going to come undone.

 

[timschochet]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate:

This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.

And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

He is attempting to equate Government with America in this argument. That is not the case. America is the peoples, they are the sovereign. They have every right to question the legitimacy of the government and it does not distort America. In fact, it reaffirms what America stands for.

No that is not what he's trying to say here. Please read my previous post on this.

 

[Politician Spock]

OK, Slapdash, you got me. If that quoted article is true, it's highly problematic and very worrisome. It contradicts the statement made by the head of the NSA that the information gathered is destroyed after a few months. It contradicts the the assertions of government oversight that are supposed to protect our privacy in the wake of these searches. This is the sort of information that could change my mind about this entire issue. I want to know more. At this point I think this whole issue needs to be investigated.

I don't know why the first tidbit on this wasn't enough to concern you. To spend $80 billion to set up an elaborate and all encompassing data mining operation to catch maybe a handful of terrorists makes no logical sense. The only thing that makes any sense is that your goal is to keep a record of every telecommunications and online activity that happens in the world - motivations unknown. The most likely motivation is power.

Exactly! So far we've been told of 12 cases of possible terrorism that have been stopped. We are in the 12th year of the Patriot Act. That's one per year. This one lone NSA program (the Patriot Act does not say the government can only have one program), costs $80 billion per year. That means it costs us $80 billion to stop one possible terrorism act.

 

[timschochet]

OK, Slapdash, you got me. If that quoted article is true, it's highly problematic and very worrisome. It contradicts the statement made by the head of the NSA that the information gathered is destroyed after a few months. It contradicts the the assertions of government oversight that are supposed to protect our privacy in the wake of these searches. This is the sort of information that could change my mind about this entire issue. I want to know more. At this point I think this whole issue needs to be investigated.

I don't know why the first tidbit on this wasn't enough to concern you. To spend $80 billion to set up an elaborate and all encompassing data mining operation to catch maybe a handful of terrorists makes no logical sense. The only thing that makes any sense is that your goal is to keep a record of every telecommunications and online activity that happens in the world - motivations unknown. The most likely motivation is power.

I don't agree with the bolded. It makes sense to me- in principle.

 

[mattdaddy]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate:

This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.

And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

He is attempting to equate Government with America in this argument. That is not the case. America is the peoples, they are the sovereign. They have every right to question the legitimacy of the government and it does not distort America. In fact, it reaffirms what America stands for.

No that is not what he's trying to say here. Please read my previous post on this.

Questioning the legitimacy of our government ... it distorts America

They are not the same. I'm reading his words. What else could "it" be referring to?

 

[timschochet]

OK, Slapdash, you got me. If that quoted article is true, it's highly problematic and very worrisome. It contradicts the statement made by the head of the NSA that the information gathered is destroyed after a few months. It contradicts the the assertions of government oversight that are supposed to protect our privacy in the wake of these searches. This is the sort of information that could change my mind about this entire issue. I want to know more. At this point I think this whole issue needs to be investigated.

I don't know why the first tidbit on this wasn't enough to concern you. To spend $80 billion to set up an elaborate and all encompassing data mining operation to catch maybe a handful of terrorists makes no logical sense. The only thing that makes any sense is that your goal is to keep a record of every telecommunications and online activity that happens in the world - motivations unknown. The most likely motivation is power.

Exactly! So far we've been told of 12 cases of possible terrorism that have been stopped. We are in the 12th year of the Patriot Act. That's one per year. This one lone NSA program (the Patriot Act does not say the government can only have one program), costs $80 billion per year. That means it costs us $80 billion to stop one possible terrorism act.

Hmm. Your numbers, and the logic behind them, seems flawed somehow. The budget of the NSA is classified. How it allocates funds is classified. How many terrorist plots have been stopped is classified. (Not saying any of this SHOULD be classified, but I don't know that we can just assume your facts are correct.)

 

[Slapdash]

OK, Slapdash, you got me. If that quoted article is true, it's highly problematic and very worrisome. It contradicts the statement made by the head of the NSA that the information gathered is destroyed after a few months. It contradicts the the assertions of government oversight that are supposed to protect our privacy in the wake of these searches. This is the sort of information that could change my mind about this entire issue. I want to know more. At this point I think this whole issue needs to be investigated.

I hope we can get the support needed to learn more about what is going on here.

 

[timschochet]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate:

This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.

And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

He is attempting to equate Government with America in this argument. That is not the case. America is the peoples, they are the sovereign. They have every right to question the legitimacy of the government and it does not distort America. In fact, it reaffirms what America stands for.

No that is not what he's trying to say here. Please read my previous post on this.

Questioning the legitimacy of our government ... it distorts America

They are not the same. I'm reading his words. What else could "it" be referring to?

We're not talking about questioning the legitimacy of the government's actions in any specific case. We're talking about questioning the legitimacy of the government itself. If you regard the EXISTING United States government as an evil, dictatorial, police state- that's just wrong. I don't care if you term in unAmerican or use some other phrasing- it's wrong.

 

[Nikki2200]

I think you guys misunderstand Gerson's point. He was not making the claim that anyone opposed to the NSA was unpatriotic. That is obviously not true, and also rather insulting. What he's suggesting is to take one's opposition to the NSA and data mining, and use that to declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime, to behave as if we're currently living in a police state- THAT is unpatriotic. I agree with him. And the reason he calls out the right is because it's right-wing talk radio show hosts that are doing this, not progressives. The ACLU referred to the program as "Orwellian" (which I disagree with) but they warn about potentiality, about what could happen in the future. Obviously I have no love for these arguments, but they are far different from making the assumption that the future is NOW. And that's exactly what guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine are doing. Just as they did over the gun control issue, they are using this to fuel an irrational hatred and fear of our current government in power. That's what Gerson is upset about.

Once again, opposing what the NSA is doing is not contingent upon the intent of what the NSA is doing. I'm well aware of Alex Jones, and his followers, declaring that the intent is to establish the New World Order. What they believe has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe it is wrong for any intent. Stop lumping everyone you are arguing with here into a group of people who declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime. Take that to the Infowars forum, and tell those people that, because their the ones that need to hear it. We're sick of hearing it here, because it's not applicable to us who don't care what the government's intent it.

You want me to stop lumping all of you in together- isn't that what I just did? It's certainly what Gerson did. He takes specific aim at certain conservative critics.

Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. He is wrong. Actually he couldn't be more wrong if he tried. It is our duty as Americans to constantly question the legitimacy of our government and to make sure they are kept in check. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't really understand the principles upon which this country was founded. I am not a right-wing pundit spewing vitriole. I am actually a democrat - well at least I typically vote democrat. And I am SERIOUSLY QUESTIONING THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR GOVERNMENT right about now. And if that dude thinks that I'm unpatriotic or is trying to claim that my feelings are poisoning American he can kiss my ever-loving ###.The liberals have traditionally been on this side of the debate when it comes to civil liberties. The ACLU has always been regarded as a liberal activist group. This is not a conservative thing. And quite frankly, civil liberties should have nothing to do with political leanings in the first place - it is about all of us no matter how you vote. There may be a faction within the opposing group that only hates this because it is happening under Obama. Those are closed minded partisan hacks who usually put themselves on display as hot-headed talk show hosts. I would think the general public who opposes this would not fall into that categpry and no one I have seen here has seemed that way to me.On the flip side, it seems like the guy who wrote that article is probably a close-minded partisan hack to even write such a thing in the first place. I would be curious to go back and see if he had anything to say about the Patriot Act when Bush was in office.

 

[Politician Spock]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate: This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable. Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

He is attempting to equate Government with America in this argument. That is not the case. America is the peoples, they are the sovereign. They have every right to question the legitimacy of the government and it does not distort America. In fact, it reaffirms what America stands for.

No that is not what he's trying to say here. Please read my previous post on this.

Questioning the legitimacy of our government ... it distorts America They are not the same. I'm reading his words. What else could "it" be referring to?

This part pretty much says it as well:"Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable."What does "her" mean when he says "to turn on her". "Her" means "this country". He is making no distinction between "this country" and government. To him they are one and the same. Turn on the government, and you are turning on "this country".But these people opposed to what the government is doing are not turning on "this country". They are defendinng "this country" from the government. They have turned on the government, just like the founding fathers of "this country" turned on the government that ruled over it prior to July 4th, 1776.We can use his definition of "this country" and government being one and the same, if we so wish. If that's the case, then our founding fathers turned on "this country" when they turned on the government on July 4th, 1776. Regardless of how we define "this country" and government, what occured on July 4th, 1776 was the right thing to do, which is why we celebrate it, and it is what these people are doing. To even suggest what they are doing is "the poisoning of patriotism" tells me he doesn't even know what patriotism is.

 

[timschochet]

I think you guys misunderstand Gerson's point. He was not making the claim that anyone opposed to the NSA was unpatriotic. That is obviously not true, and also rather insulting. What he's suggesting is to take one's opposition to the NSA and data mining, and use that to declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime, to behave as if we're currently living in a police state- THAT is unpatriotic. I agree with him. And the reason he calls out the right is because it's right-wing talk radio show hosts that are doing this, not progressives. The ACLU referred to the program as "Orwellian" (which I disagree with) but they warn about potentiality, about what could happen in the future. Obviously I have no love for these arguments, but they are far different from making the assumption that the future is NOW. And that's exactly what guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine are doing. Just as they did over the gun control issue, they are using this to fuel an irrational hatred and fear of our current government in power. That's what Gerson is upset about.

Once again, opposing what the NSA is doing is not contingent upon the intent of what the NSA is doing. I'm well aware of Alex Jones, and his followers, declaring that the intent is to establish the New World Order. What they believe has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe it is wrong for any intent. Stop lumping everyone you are arguing with here into a group of people who declare the federal government as an evil, malevolent regime. Take that to the Infowars forum, and tell those people that, because their the ones that need to hear it. We're sick of hearing it here, because it's not applicable to us who don't care what the government's intent it.

You want me to stop lumping all of you in together- isn't that what I just did? It's certainly what Gerson did. He takes specific aim at certain conservative critics.

Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. He is wrong. Actually he couldn't be more wrong if he tried. It is our duty as Americans to constantly question the legitimacy of our government and to make sure they are kept in check. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't really understand the principles upon which this country was founded. I am not a right-wing pundit spewing vitriole. I am actually a democrat - well at least I typically vote democrat. And I am SERIOUSLY QUESTIONING THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR GOVERNMENT right about now. And if that dude thinks that I'm unpatriotic or is trying to claim that my feelings are poisoning American he can kiss my ever-loving ###.The liberals have traditionally been on this side of the debate when it comes to civil liberties. The ACLU has always been regarded as a liberal activist group. This is not a conservative thing. And quite frankly, civil liberties should have nothing to do with political leanings in the first place - it is about all of us no matter how you vote. There may be a faction within the opposing group that only hates this because it is happening under Obama. Those are closed minded partisan hacks who usually put themselves on display as hot-headed talk show hosts. I would think the general public who opposes this would not fall into that categpry and no one I have seen here has seemed that way to me.On the flip side, it seems like the guy who wrote that article is probably a close-minded partisan hack to even write such a thing in the first place. I would be curious to go back and see if he had anything to say about the Patriot Act when Bush was in office.

OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I truly believe you are oversimplifying his argument, which is much more nuanced than you're acknowledging.

 

[tom22406]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SegAoSpHJck&sns=em

 

[Politician Spock]

Michael Gerson's OP ED adds a new point here, one that has been in my mind but which I was unable to enunciate: This type of conservative argument is not recognizably conservative. Traditional conservatism recognizes the balancing of principles -- in this case, security and privacy -- rather than elevating a single ideal into an absolute. That balance may need occasional readjustment, based on shifting circumstances. But this requires prudence, not the breathless exaggeration of threats for political purposes.And larger things are at stake. Questioning the legitimacy of our government is the poisoning of patriotism. It is offensive for the same reasons it was offensive when elements of the left, in the 1960s and 1970s, talked of the American "regime." Because it distorts America into something unrecognizable in order to advance a partisan ideology. Because this is still the "last best hope of earth," not a police state. Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable. Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/14/the_poisoning_of_patriotism_118813.html#ixzz2WA10HS00Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter When I express the fear that populism is poisoning us, this is exactly what I am talking about. When I express the distinction between intentional and unintentional harm (which so many of you find irrelevant) this is exactly what I am talking about. A reasonable suspicion of the government is healthy. An unreasonable suspicion of the government as malevolent is not.

He is attempting to equate Government with America in this argument. That is not the case. America is the peoples, they are the sovereign. They have every right to question the legitimacy of the government and it does not distort America. In fact, it reaffirms what America stands for.

No that is not what he's trying to say here. Please read my previous post on this.

Questioning the legitimacy of our government ... it distorts America They are not the same. I'm reading his words. What else could "it" be referring to?

We're not talking about questioning the legitimacy of the government's actions in any specific case. We're talking about questioning the legitimacy of the government itself. If you regard the EXISTING United States government as an evil, dictatorial, police state- that's just wrong. I don't care if you term in unAmerican or use some other phrasing- it's wrong.

Please... make it stop! Somebody... please... before my head explodes!!!!

 

[Nikki2200]

OK, Slapdash, you got me. If that quoted article is true, it's highly problematic and very worrisome. It contradicts the statement made by the head of the NSA that the information gathered is destroyed after a few months. It contradicts the the assertions of government oversight that are supposed to protect our privacy in the wake of these searches. This is the sort of information that could change my mind about this entire issue. I want to know more. At this point I think this whole issue needs to be investigated.

I don't know why the first tidbit on this wasn't enough to concern you. To spend $80 billion to set up an elaborate and all encompassing data mining operation to catch maybe a handful of terrorists makes no logical sense. The only thing that makes any sense is that your goal is to keep a record of every telecommunications and online activity that happens in the world - motivations unknown. The most likely motivation is power.

Exactly! So far we've been told of 12 cases of possible terrorism that have been stopped. We are in the 12th year of the Patriot Act. That's one per year. This one lone NSA program (the Patriot Act does not say the government can only have one program), costs $80 billion per year. That means it costs us $80 billion to stop one possible terrorism act.

$80 billion PER YEAR??????Somebody just shoot me in the face now, please.

 

[Slapdash]

This part pretty much says it as well:"Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable."What does "her" mean when he says "to turn on her". "Her" means "this country". He is making no distinction between "this country" and government. To him they are one and the same. Turn on the government, and you are turning on "this country".But these people opposed to what the government is doing are not turning on "this country". They are defendinng "this country" from the government. They have turned on the government, just like the founding fathers of "this country" turned on the government that ruled over it prior to July 4th, 1776.We can use his definition of "this country" and government being one and the same, if we so wish. If that's the case, then our founding fathers turned on "this country" when they turned on the government on July 4th, 1776. Regardless of how we define "this country" and government, what occured on July 4th, 1776 was the right thing to do, which is why we celebrate it, and it is what these people are doing. To even suggest what they are doing is "the poisoning of patriotism" tells me he doesn't even know what patriotism is.

This stuff is always in the eye of the beholder though.

 

[Politician Spock]

OK, Slapdash, you got me. If that quoted article is true, it's highly problematic and very worrisome. It contradicts the statement made by the head of the NSA that the information gathered is destroyed after a few months. It contradicts the the assertions of government oversight that are supposed to protect our privacy in the wake of these searches. This is the sort of information that could change my mind about this entire issue. I want to know more. At this point I think this whole issue needs to be investigated.

I don't know why the first tidbit on this wasn't enough to concern you. To spend $80 billion to set up an elaborate and all encompassing data mining operation to catch maybe a handful of terrorists makes no logical sense. The only thing that makes any sense is that your goal is to keep a record of every telecommunications and online activity that happens in the world - motivations unknown. The most likely motivation is power.

Exactly! So far we've been told of 12 cases of possible terrorism that have been stopped. We are in the 12th year of the Patriot Act. That's one per year. This one lone NSA program (the Patriot Act does not say the government can only have one program), costs $80 billion per year. That means it costs us $80 billion to stop one possible terrorism act.

Hmm. Your numbers, and the logic behind them, seems flawed somehow. The budget of the NSA is classified. How it allocates funds is classified. How many terrorist plots have been stopped is classified. (Not saying any of this SHOULD be classified, but I don't know that we can just assume your facts are correct.)

This is what we know from February, 2012 (nearly a year and half ago); http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/02/13/80-billion-puzzle-the-part-of-the-pentagons-budget-you-wont-see/

As for how many terrorist plots have been stopped, it was you that provided the article (in the attempt to justify what the government is doing) that said we've stopped 12. Since you're providing that data, the burden is on you if it doesn't make a good argument.

 

[Politician Spock]

This part pretty much says it as well:"Because Americans have fought and died for this country, and to turn on her in this way is noxious. It is dishonest. And it is dishonorable."What does "her" mean when he says "to turn on her". "Her" means "this country". He is making no distinction between "this country" and government. To him they are one and the same. Turn on the government, and you are turning on "this country".But these people opposed to what the government is doing are not turning on "this country". They are defendinng "this country" from the government. They have turned on the government, just like the founding fathers of "this country" turned on the government that ruled over it prior to July 4th, 1776.We can use his definition of "this country" and government being one and the same, if we so wish. If that's the case, then our founding fathers turned on "this country" when they turned on the government on July 4th, 1776. Regardless of how we define "this country" and government, what occured on July 4th, 1776 was the right thing to do, which is why we celebrate it, and it is what these people are doing. To even suggest what they are doing is "the poisoning of patriotism" tells me he doesn't even know what patriotism is.

This stuff is always in the eye of the beholder though.

That's why I said we can use his definition as well. Define words any which way you want. It's not the words that matter. It's the actions that do. The actions these people are engaging in towards the Federal government are the same actions the founding fathers engaged in towards England prior to July 4th, 1776. The day they had enough, and said they would not take it anymore was July 4th, 1776.

 

[The Commish]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

You really struggle if there's more than one or two different buckets to discuss don't you? You like things in neat little black or white buckets. I can assure you this is as nuanced a topic as you can get with respect to our rights and isn't even CLOSE to the same path as the extremist 2nd Amendment yahoos.

 

[timschochet]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

You really struggle if there's more than one or two different buckets to discuss don't you? You like things in neat little black or white buckets. I can assure you this is as nuanced a topic as you can get with respect to our rights and isn't even CLOSE to the same path as the extremist 2nd Amendment yahoos.

I agree with you that it's nuanced. I also think the 2nd Amendment question is nuanced as well. It's the other side that is behaving black and white, not me. They're the ones warning about Big Brother and tyranny and police state, not me.

 

[Politician Spock]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

You really struggle if there's more than one or two different buckets to discuss don't you? You like things in neat little black or white buckets. I can assure you this is as nuanced a topic as you can get with respect to our rights and isn't even CLOSE to the same path as the extremist 2nd Amendment yahoos.

I agree with you that it's nuanced. I also think the 2nd Amendment question is nuanced as well. It's the other side that is behaving black and white, not me. They're the ones warning about Big Brother and tyranny and police state, not me.

 

[The Commish]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

You really struggle if there's more than one or two different buckets to discuss don't you? You like things in neat little black or white buckets. I can assure you this is as nuanced a topic as you can get with respect to our rights and isn't even CLOSE to the same path as the extremist 2nd Amendment yahoos.

I agree with you that it's nuanced. I also think the 2nd Amendment question is nuanced as well. It's the other side that is behaving black and white, not me. They're the ones warning about Big Brother and tyranny and police state, not me.

Then I'd recommend conveying yourself differently because your comments above seem to suggest the people concerned about this are the same people who are radicals for the 2nd Amendment. Anyway....moving on.

I don't think you ever answered my question before...and if you did, I apologize. I missed it. What makes you think that our government is going to do a 180 and stop acting as it has for the better part of my lifetime? What makes you think they will refrain from sliding down the slippery slope?

 

[timschochet]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

You really struggle if there's more than one or two different buckets to discuss don't you? You like things in neat little black or white buckets. I can assure you this is as nuanced a topic as you can get with respect to our rights and isn't even CLOSE to the same path as the extremist 2nd Amendment yahoos.

I agree with you that it's nuanced. I also think the 2nd Amendment question is nuanced as well. It's the other side that is behaving black and white, not me. They're the ones warning about Big Brother and tyranny and police state, not me.

Then I'd recommend conveying yourself differently because your comments above seem to suggest the people concerned about this are the same people who are radicals for the 2nd Amendment. Anyway....moving on.

I don't think you ever answered my question before...and if you did, I apologize. I missed it. What makes you think that our government is going to do a 180 and stop acting as it has for the better part of my lifetime? What makes you think they will refrain from sliding down the slippery slope?

Sigh.

If I answer you, it's only going to make Politician Spock and Slapdash pull their heads out again. Because then I'd have to get into the whole "intentional harm vs. unintentional screwups" thing again- simply put, I don't think the latter is enough to not do the program, and I don't think the former is going to happen.

...At least I didn't. That article Slapdash posted has given me pause. Tell you what, I'm going to stop trying to defend my position in this thread for the time being, because my position may be altering, based on what else we learn about this.

 

[The Commish]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

You really struggle if there's more than one or two different buckets to discuss don't you? You like things in neat little black or white buckets. I can assure you this is as nuanced a topic as you can get with respect to our rights and isn't even CLOSE to the same path as the extremist 2nd Amendment yahoos.

I agree with you that it's nuanced. I also think the 2nd Amendment question is nuanced as well. It's the other side that is behaving black and white, not me. They're the ones warning about Big Brother and tyranny and police state, not me.

Then I'd recommend conveying yourself differently because your comments above seem to suggest the people concerned about this are the same people who are radicals for the 2nd Amendment. Anyway....moving on.

I don't think you ever answered my question before...and if you did, I apologize. I missed it. What makes you think that our government is going to do a 180 and stop acting as it has for the better part of my lifetime? What makes you think they will refrain from sliding down the slippery slope?

Sigh.

If I answer you, it's only going to make Politician Spock and Slapdash pull their heads out again. Because then I'd have to get into the whole "intentional harm vs. unintentional screwups" thing again- simply put, I don't think the latter is enough to not do the program, and I don't think the former is going to happen.

...At least I didn't. That article Slapdash posted has given me pause. Tell you what, I'm going to stop trying to defend my position in this thread for the time being, because my position may be altering, based on what else we learn about this.

I didn't read the whole thread....you guys are going at a pretty good clip and I haven't been able to keep up. But it sounds like to me you think that some of the rules we have in place have unintended consequences or implications, yes? That's fine....I'm talking specifically about the things that the government does because the law allows. They willingly over reach frequently most recently using the Patriot Act to do so. Those are the things I am talking about. Not the mistake things because they didn't think things through.

 

[mattdaddy]

James Clapper admits to giving 'Least Untruthful' answer to congress regarding NSA hearing prior to the NSA leaks. Least Untruthful answer, are you f'n kidding me? Excuse me, but aren't we talking about perjury. And these are the people that we should trust in this matter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/james-clapper-intelligence-chief-criticism

 

[jonessed]

James Clapper admits to giving 'Least Untruthful' answer to congress regarding NSA hearing prior to the NSA leaks. Least Untruthful answer, are you f'n kidding me? Excuse me, but aren't we talking about perjury. And these are the people that we should trust in this matter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/james-clapper-intelligence-chief-criticism

Quite a few people lied, but he was noticeably blatant about it. I imagine the administration will protect him, but Congress should do their best to make his life uncomfortable anyway.

 

[Nikki2200]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

You really struggle if there's more than one or two different buckets to discuss don't you? You like things in neat little black or white buckets. I can assure you this is as nuanced a topic as you can get with respect to our rights and isn't even CLOSE to the same path as the extremist 2nd Amendment yahoos.

I agree with you that it's nuanced. I also think the 2nd Amendment question is nuanced as well. It's the other side that is behaving black and white, not me. They're the ones warning about Big Brother and tyranny and police state, not me.

Then I'd recommend conveying yourself differently because your comments above seem to suggest the people concerned about this are the same people who are radicals for the 2nd Amendment. Anyway....moving on. I don't think you ever answered my question before...and if you did, I apologize. I missed it. What makes you think that our government is going to do a 180 and stop acting as it has for the better part of my lifetime? What makes you think they will refrain from sliding down the slippery slope?

Sigh. If I answer you, it's only going to make Politician Spock and Slapdash pull their heads out again. Because then I'd have to get into the whole "intentional harm vs. unintentional screwups" thing again- simply put, I don't think the latter is enough to not do the program, and I don't think the former is going to happen. ...At least I didn't. That article Slapdash posted has given me pause. Tell you what, I'm going to stop trying to defend my position in this thread for the time being, because my position may be altering, based on what else we learn about this.

I didn't read the whole thread....you guys are going at a pretty good clip and I haven't been able to keep up. But it sounds like to me you think that some of the rules we have in place have unintended consequences or implications, yes? That's fine....I'm talking specifically about the things that the government does because the law allows. They willingly over reach frequently most recently using the Patriot Act to do so. Those are the things I am talking about. Not the mistake things because they didn't think things through.

I don't want to speak for Tim, but he seems to think that as long as the government over reach has good intentions (i.e. capturing potential terrorists) it's OK.

 

[Politician Spock]

James Clapper admits to giving 'Least Untruthful' answer to congress regarding NSA hearing prior to the NSA leaks. Least Untruthful answer, are you f'n kidding me? Excuse me, but aren't we talking about perjury. And these are the people that we should trust in this matter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/james-clapper-intelligence-chief-criticism

The benefit of government scandals are the entertainment value provided by the new phrases that they come up with to spin their explanation of what happened.

 

[Politician Spock]

And as for you thoughtful progressives out there: there is a reason the visceral reaction to this story is so attractive to gun nuts like 5 Digit Know Nothing- because they've already bought into the notion of our government as an evil force ready to impose tyranny at the drop of a hat. That is how they defend their extremist, absolutist views of the 2nd Amendment. Are you guys sure you want to go down this path with them?

You really struggle if there's more than one or two different buckets to discuss don't you? You like things in neat little black or white buckets. I can assure you this is as nuanced a topic as you can get with respect to our rights and isn't even CLOSE to the same path as the extremist 2nd Amendment yahoos.

I agree with you that it's nuanced. I also think the 2nd Amendment question is nuanced as well. It's the other side that is behaving black and white, not me. They're the ones warning about Big Brother and tyranny and police state, not me.

Then I'd recommend conveying yourself differently because your comments above seem to suggest the people concerned about this are the same people who are radicals for the 2nd Amendment. Anyway....moving on. I don't think you ever answered my question before...and if you did, I apologize. I missed it. What makes you think that our government is going to do a 180 and stop acting as it has for the better part of my lifetime? What makes you think they will refrain from sliding down the slippery slope?

Sigh. If I answer you, it's only going to make Politician Spock and Slapdash pull their heads out again. Because then I'd have to get into the whole "intentional harm vs. unintentional screwups" thing again- simply put, I don't think the latter is enough to not do the program, and I don't think the former is going to happen. ...At least I didn't. That article Slapdash posted has given me pause. Tell you what, I'm going to stop trying to defend my position in this thread for the time being, because my position may be altering, based on what else we learn about this.

I didn't read the whole thread....you guys are going at a pretty good clip and I haven't been able to keep up. But it sounds like to me you think that some of the rules we have in place have unintended consequences or implications, yes? That's fine....I'm talking specifically about the things that the government does because the law allows. They willingly over reach frequently most recently using the Patriot Act to do so. Those are the things I am talking about. Not the mistake things because they didn't think things through.

I don't want to speak for Tim, but he seems to think that as long as the government over reach has good intentions (i.e. capturing potential terrorists) it's OK.

That's my understanding of his opinion as well... but that doesn't seem to fly with why he is concerned with the article earlier about the information being shared with partners.

It's common behavior for government to trade benefits in order to get more knowledge. When they have a criminal, they will trade with the criminal to land a bigger fish. They will give the criminal a lighter sentence, or even let them go, in exchange for information to find a bigger criminal. This is how the government works. This is essentially what they are doing with their data collection partners. In order to get new data from a new "partner" they offer to give the new "partner" data they already have that is beneficial to the new "partner". It's a trade in order to get more knowledge. This is standard operating proceedure for how government functions throughout pretty much all agencies.

So either Tim believes that behavior is NOT a good intention on the government's part, or he is failing to see the holes in his argument.