Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (2 Viewers)

[pantherclub]

This comes as zero surprise. Just the tip of the iceberg fellas. Been going on for a long time.

I wish this would see half the outrage the DoJ's investigation of leaks did.

So I guess this is no big deal then. We are all here still posting on this board.

It is a huge deal.

I will ask again, how does this affect your average Joe fantasy footballer?

Every communication they make that could possibly be stored is being stored.

That has been going on for a decade at least now and yet nothing has come of it.

You don't think anything has come of the government storing as much information as possible about each citizen?

well again I ask, how is this directly affecting me? Outside of helping prosecute criminals (if your post is true)

 

[Andy Dufresne]

well again I ask, how is this directly affecting me? Outside of helping prosecute criminals (if your post is true)

It probably doesn't...prole.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This is really simple and I cannot belive people do not understand itno one blames their guyBush started all of this but to Bush supporters Obama is at fault for not stopping what their guy startedObama has continues it and expanded it, but to his supporters Bush opened the box and bears the blameIf a GOP president comes next and continues these policies then his supporters will say "how can you complain when your guy did the same thing"even when outraged about what the government is doing many (maybe most) people still cannot bear to risk having their party come off as the bad guys, no matter what they do the other side must be worseand it works both ways

Actually, most of us seem to be in agreement that this is a bad development crossing party lines.

 

[timschochet]

I missed this thread and started a Honda- my bad.

To answer Pantherclub's question- who knows? But I don't like that it's secret. The whole thing makes me very uncomfortable.

 

[Slapdash]

This comes as zero surprise. Just the tip of the iceberg fellas. Been going on for a long time.I wish this would see half the outrage the DoJ's investigation of leaks did.

So I guess this is no big deal then. We are all here still posting on this board.

It is a huge deal.

I will ask again, how does this affect your average Joe fantasy footballer?

Every communication they make that could possibly be stored is being stored.

That has been going on for a decade at least now and yet nothing has come of it.

You don't think anything has come of the government storing as much information as possible about each citizen?

well again I ask, how is this directly affecting me? Outside of helping prosecute criminals (if your post is true)

Do you not see your loss of privacy as a direct impact on you?

 

[squistion]

I missed this thread and started a Honda- my bad.

To answer Pantherclub's question- who knows? But I don't like that it's secret. The whole thing makes me very uncomfortable.

I wondered what was going on. I was making a response on your thread and got a message that "You are not allowed to post on hidden topics" which surprised me since I didn't know we had hidden topics and that only certain people are allowed to post in them (mods I guess).

 

[pantherclub]

This comes as zero surprise. Just the tip of the iceberg fellas. Been going on for a long time.I wish this would see half the outrage the DoJ's investigation of leaks did.

So I guess this is no big deal then. We are all here still posting on this board.

It is a huge deal.

I will ask again, how does this affect your average Joe fantasy footballer?

Every communication they make that could possibly be stored is being stored.

That has been going on for a decade at least now and yet nothing has come of it.

You don't think anything has come of the government storing as much information as possible about each citizen?

well again I ask, how is this directly affecting me? Outside of helping prosecute criminals (if your post is true)

Do you not see your loss of privacy as a direct impact on you?

Honestly no

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

DOJ Will 'Very Likely' Investigate Guardian NSA Leak, Says Pete Williams; Official Disagrees

 

[Slapdash]

DOJ Will 'Very Likely' Investigate Guardian NSA Leak, Says Pete Williams; Official Disagrees

Ask Thomas Drake what is going to happen here.

 

[lod01]

This comes as zero surprise. Just the tip of the iceberg fellas. Been going on for a long time.I wish this would see half the outrage the DoJ's investigation of leaks did.

So I guess this is no big deal then. We are all here still posting on this board.

It is a huge deal.

I will ask again, how does this affect your average Joe fantasy footballer?

Sons o' #####es are using my vast FF knowledge to win championships and I'm not getting any royalties. I'm now on board with Spaldash, This is bull####.

 

[B-Deep]

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on Thursday morning he's "glad" the National Security Agency is secretly collecting millions of telephone records from Americans in an effort to track down terrorism suspects.

“We are very much under threat," Graham said on "Fox & Friends," adding that he is a customer of Verizon, the communications company ordered to turn over the records to the government. "Radical Islam is on the rise throughout the region. Homegrown terrorism is one of my biggest concerns. It is happening in our own backyard, and I am glad that NSA is trying to find out what terrorists are up to overseas and inside the country."

Graham isn't the only Republican defending the Obama administration's broad surveillance program, which the Guardian newspaper exposed on Wednesday.

Ari Fleischer, President's George W. Bush's former press secretary, wrote on Twitter that Obama "is carrying out Bush's fourth term" with drone strikes, phone surveillance and Guantanamo Bay. "Just to be clear & so silent liberals understand, I support President O's anti-terror actions. They're bi-partisan now," he wrote.

Rep. Mike Rogers, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said Thursday that the program had stopped at least one domestic terror attack, according to the AP.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia told reporters the program is long-standing and legal.

Bush was harshly criticized by the left for collecting phone records without a warrant under the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which began shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Obama administration considers its program different from Bush's because its records collections are approved by a secret order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Other Republicans criticized the surveillance.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, who drafted the Patriot Act that authorized phone records seizures, wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that he believes the Verizon court order "could not have been drafted more broadly." He said in a statement that the surveillance oversteps the authority granted in the Patriot Act and is "un-American."

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told Politico he's supportive of the federal process to obtain phone records for terror investigations but that the Obama administration seems to be "more expansive and aggressive" than Bush's was. Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian Republican from Kentucky, wrote that the policy "is an astounding assault on the Constitution."

“This is yet another example of government overreach that forces the question, ‘What sort of state are we living in?’" Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada asked in a statement.

Democratic reaction has been mixed: Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have long criticized the NSA surveillance as an overreach, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence committee, said on Thursday that the program protects America and is carefully administered to protect privacy. Sen. Harry Reid said everyone should "just calm down."

 

[drummer]

Oof, minor thread hi-jack. Max Threshold needs to come in here quick to bring the hysteria back into the fold.

Nah. You can continue to keep your head in the sand (or in your a#s?). Stick with the 'Blame Bush' line.

Correction on this. You're here to bring the stupid back in the fold.

 

[drummer]

This kind of policy would be used if Romney was elected. In fact, it could be even worse if he was.

The War On Terror is more like a campaign to keep us terrified so we can give up our civil liberties in order to keep us safe.

 

[NCCommish]

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on Thursday morning he's "glad" the National Security Agency is secretly collecting millions of telephone records from Americans in an effort to track down terrorism suspects.“We are very much under threat," Graham said on "Fox & Friends," adding that he is a customer of Verizon, the communications company ordered to turn over the records to the government. "Radical Islam is on the rise throughout the region. Homegrown terrorism is one of my biggest concerns. It is happening in our own backyard, and I am glad that NSA is trying to find out what terrorists are up to overseas and inside the country."Graham isn't the only Republican defending the Obama administration's broad surveillance program, which the Guardian newspaper exposed on Wednesday.Ari Fleischer, President's George W. Bush's former press secretary, wrote on Twitter that Obama "is carrying out Bush's fourth term" with drone strikes, phone surveillance and Guantanamo Bay. "Just to be clear & so silent liberals understand, I support President O's anti-terror actions. They're bi-partisan now," he wrote.Rep. Mike Rogers, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said Thursday that the program had stopped at least one domestic terror attack, according to the AP.Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia told reporters the program is long-standing and legal.Bush was harshly criticized by the left for collecting phone records without a warrant under the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which began shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Obama administration considers its program different from Bush's because its records collections are approved by a secret order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to The Wall Street Journal.Other Republicans criticized the surveillance.Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, who drafted the Patriot Act that authorized phone records seizures, wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that he believes the Verizon court order "could not have been drafted more broadly." He said in a statement that the surveillance oversteps the authority granted in the Patriot Act and is "un-American."Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told Politico he's supportive of the federal process to obtain phone records for terror investigations but that the Obama administration seems to be "more expansive and aggressive" than Bush's was. Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian Republican from Kentucky, wrote that the policy "is an astounding assault on the Constitution."“This is yet another example of government overreach that forces the question, ‘What sort of state are we living in?’" Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada asked in a statement.Democratic reaction has been mixed: Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have long criticized the NSA surveillance as an overreach, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence committee, said on Thursday that the program protects America and is carefully administered to protect privacy. Sen. Harry Reid said everyone should "just calm down."

Reid and Feinstein can both kiss my ###

 

[Fennis]

Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism

 

[drummer]

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on Thursday morning he's "glad" the National Security Agency is secretly collecting millions of telephone records from Americans in an effort to track down terrorism suspects.“We are very much under threat," Graham said on "Fox & Friends," adding that he is a customer of Verizon, the communications company ordered to turn over the records to the government. "Radical Islam is on the rise throughout the region. Homegrown terrorism is one of my biggest concerns. It is happening in our own backyard, and I am glad that NSA is trying to find out what terrorists are up to overseas and inside the country."Graham isn't the only Republican defending the Obama administration's broad surveillance program, which the Guardian newspaper exposed on Wednesday.Ari Fleischer, President's George W. Bush's former press secretary, wrote on Twitter that Obama "is carrying out Bush's fourth term" with drone strikes, phone surveillance and Guantanamo Bay. "Just to be clear & so silent liberals understand, I support President O's anti-terror actions. They're bi-partisan now," he wrote.Rep. Mike Rogers, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said Thursday that the program had stopped at least one domestic terror attack, according to the AP.Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia told reporters the program is long-standing and legal.Bush was harshly criticized by the left for collecting phone records without a warrant under the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which began shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Obama administration considers its program different from Bush's because its records collections are approved by a secret order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to The Wall Street Journal.Other Republicans criticized the surveillance.Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, who drafted the Patriot Act that authorized phone records seizures, wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that he believes the Verizon court order "could not have been drafted more broadly." He said in a statement that the surveillance oversteps the authority granted in the Patriot Act and is "un-American."Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told Politico he's supportive of the federal process to obtain phone records for terror investigations but that the Obama administration seems to be "more expansive and aggressive" than Bush's was. Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian Republican from Kentucky, wrote that the policy "is an astounding assault on the Constitution."“This is yet another example of government overreach that forces the question, ‘What sort of state are we living in?’" Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada asked in a statement.Democratic reaction has been mixed: Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have long criticized the NSA surveillance as an overreach, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence committee, said on Thursday that the program protects America and is carefully administered to protect privacy. Sen. Harry Reid said everyone should "just calm down."

Reid and Feinstein can both kiss my ###

Democrats, as usual, have been gutless on this. This is no surprise.

 

[timschochet]

This kind of policy would be used if Romney was elected. In fact, it could be even worse if he was.

Sure, but who cares? I hate this "let's criticize it if a Republican is doing it, let's defend it if a Democrat is doing it" and reverse on the other side.

I'm not sure I agree with NC Commish on this issue. In fact, I probably don't. But he, and a few others here (including you, Drummer) have been extremely consistent, and for that I commend you guys.

 

[NCCommish]

Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism

30000 Americans are killed in gun violence yearly.

 

[Fennis]

Democrats, as usual, have been gutless on this. This is no surprise.

that's because they are a bunch of cowards that care only about money and being reelected.

 

[Two Deep]

We,ve been monitoring this board for some time now.......I have a list....... This could go very bad for some of you.

 

[timschochet]

Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism

I discussed this in another thread- this is pretty much true of ANY anecdotal event. We live in an anecdotal society, in that we fear the worst no matter how unlikely it is to happen. When my kids were younger I spent hundreds of dollars on car seats because it was required and because I believed it made my kids safer- but in terms of overall statistics, it didn't. Many people keep loaded guns in their house because they believe it makes them safer against home invasion- but home invasions in which the invader means to do physical harm to to the people living there are as statistically rare as terrorist attacks. Yet we do these things to feel safer.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, who drafted the Patriot Act that authorized phone records seizures, wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that he believes the Verizon court order "could not have been drafted more broadly." He said in a statement that the surveillance oversteps the authority granted in the Patriot Act and is "un-American."

That dude has some balls

 

[timschochet]

Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism

30000 Americans are killed in gun violence yearly.

Again, all true. But there is a caveat to the anecdote issue I just raised: nuclear terrorism. Even one nuclear bomb exploded in this country would be catastrophic and an unacceptable risk.

 

[drummer]

This kind of policy would be used if Romney was elected. In fact, it could be even worse if he was.

Sure, but who cares? I hate this "let's criticize it if a Republican is doing it, let's defend it if a Democrat is doing it" and reverse on the other side.

I'm not sure I agree with NC Commish on this issue. In fact, I probably don't. But he, and a few others here (including you, Drummer) have been extremely consistent, and for that I commend you guys.

Obama should at least listen to the progressive side that supports him over this issue. Romney didn't care about progressives, or even independents, so my guess is that he would further Neo-Con policy ala W. Maybe even bringing Cheney back in the fold somehow.

Add in a gutless Democratic party, and you can see where this is going.

 

[drummer]

We,ve been monitoring this board for some time now.......I have a list....... This could go very bad for some of you.

I texted my buddy last night (I'm on Verizon):

"#### THE NSA!"

I may be gone for a while

 

[timschochet]

This kind of policy would be used if Romney was elected. In fact, it could be even worse if he was.

Sure, but who cares? I hate this "let's criticize it if a Republican is doing it, let's defend it if a Democrat is doing it" and reverse on the other side.

I'm not sure I agree with NC Commish on this issue. In fact, I probably don't. But he, and a few others here (including you, Drummer) have been extremely consistent, and for that I commend you guys.

Obama should at least listen to the progressive side that supports him over this issue. Romney didn't care about progressives, or even independents, so my guess is that he would further Neo-Con policy ala W. Maybe even bringing Cheney back in the fold somehow.

Add in a gutless Democratic party, and you can see where this is going.

I don't necessarily agree with you that the Democratic party is "gutless". That implies that they mostly share the position of progressives on this issue, yet are too scared to do anything about it since they don't want to lose overall popularity. That's probably true of SOME Democrats. But there are others who honestly believe that this is a good idea meant to protect society. I think President Obama falls into that camp.

 

[pantherclub]

Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism

30000 Americans are killed in gun violence yearly.

Again, all true. But there is a caveat to the anecdote issue I just raised: nuclear terrorism. Even one nuclear bomb exploded in this country would be catastrophic and an unacceptable risk.

that scenario is about as likely as an asteroid hitting the earth. So much crap would have to happen for a terrorist to even obtain a nuke and there is the silly little process of transporting and detonating it. Will never ever happen.

 

[NCCommish]

Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism

30000 Americans are killed in gun violence yearly.

Again, all true. But there is a caveat to the anecdote issue I just raised: nuclear terrorism. Even one nuclear bomb exploded in this country would be catastrophic and an unacceptable risk.

But we are dropping the ball there. We have cut funding to secure nuclear materials and scientists in the former Soviet Union bloc countries. That is where the material and expertise is most likely to come from. Ask Iran.

 

[drummer]

This kind of policy would be used if Romney was elected. In fact, it could be even worse if he was.

Sure, but who cares? I hate this "let's criticize it if a Republican is doing it, let's defend it if a Democrat is doing it" and reverse on the other side.

I'm not sure I agree with NC Commish on this issue. In fact, I probably don't. But he, and a few others here (including you, Drummer) have been extremely consistent, and for that I commend you guys.

Obama should at least listen to the progressive side that supports him over this issue. Romney didn't care about progressives, or even independents, so my guess is that he would further Neo-Con policy ala W. Maybe even bringing Cheney back in the fold somehow.

Add in a gutless Democratic party, and you can see where this is going.

I don't necessarily agree with you that the Democratic party is "gutless". That implies that they mostly share the position of progressives on this issue, yet are too scared to do anything about it since they don't want to lose overall popularity. That's probably true of SOME Democrats. But there are others who honestly believe that this is a good idea meant to protect society. I think President Obama falls into that camp.

They have been gutless since W's Iraq war. Where are they now when it comes to Guantanamo?

 

[[icon]]

DOJ Will 'Very Likely' Investigate Guardian NSA Leak, Says Pete Williams; Official Disagrees

Whoa whoa whoa... we can't have the people of the nation we're governing KNOWING that we're spying on them and violating their civil liberties without warrants!! Someone's head will roll for this.

Just shows how messed up the government is when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar on something like this and their response is to get mad and hunt out the person who ratted them out.

 

[Fennis]

Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism

I discussed this in another thread- this is pretty much true of ANY anecdotal event. We live in an anecdotal society, in that we fear the worst no matter how unlikely it is to happen. When my kids were younger I spent hundreds of dollars on car seats because it was required and because I believed it made my kids safer- but in terms of overall statistics, it didn't. Many people keep loaded guns in their house because they believe it makes them safer against home invasion- but home invasions in which the invader means to do physical harm to to the people living there are as statistically rare as terrorist attacks. Yet we do these things to feel safer.

Policy based on anecdotal evidence is bad policy. Decisions should be based on data.

 

[timschochet]

Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism

30000 Americans are killed in gun violence yearly.

Again, all true. But there is a caveat to the anecdote issue I just raised: nuclear terrorism. Even one nuclear bomb exploded in this country would be catastrophic and an unacceptable risk.

that scenario is about as likely as an asteroid hitting the earth. So much crap would have to happen for a terrorist to even obtain a nuke and there is the silly little process of transporting and detonating it. Will never ever happen.

I don't know. There are a lot of so-called "experts", who know a lot more than I do about this, who would take issue with you here.

 

[timschochet]

Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism

I discussed this in another thread- this is pretty much true of ANY anecdotal event. We live in an anecdotal society, in that we fear the worst no matter how unlikely it is to happen. When my kids were younger I spent hundreds of dollars on car seats because it was required and because I believed it made my kids safer- but in terms of overall statistics, it didn't. Many people keep loaded guns in their house because they believe it makes them safer against home invasion- but home invasions in which the invader means to do physical harm to to the people living there are as statistically rare as terrorist attacks. Yet we do these things to feel safer.

Policy based on anecdotal evidence is bad policy. Decisions should be based on data.

True. We know the damage that occurred on 9/11. So a reasonable question becomes: is the prevention of further events such as that one worth the infringement of civil liberties that the Patriot Act entails? NC Commish and several others here would say, "No!" Many neo-con type conservatives, and also President Obama, would say "Yes!" Personally, I'm kind of inbetween...

 

[GroveDiesel]

Let's be fair, there are a not insignificant number of libertarian leaning conservatives on this board that have been opposed to this level of surveillance even under Bush. To paint all conservatives as only criticizing this because Obama is in charge is grossly unfair to those guys.

 

[pantagrapher]

Let's be fair, there are a not insignificant number of libertarian leaning conservatives on this board that have been opposed to this level of surveillance even under Bush. To paint all conservatives as only criticizing this because Obama is in charge is grossly unfair to those guys.

I was one of the most active posters in the old FISA threads. If there were libertarian leaning conservatives in those days who were opposed to this under Bush, they kept awfully quiet.

 

[Gr00vus]

well again I ask, how is this directly affecting me? Outside of helping prosecute criminals (if your post is true)

From what I understand, they're accumulating the list of known/suspected terrorists' phone numbers and then querying all the calls made to/from those numbers to try and find more terrorists. Imagine a known/suspected terrorist called your number by mistake or on purpose for a non-terrorism related matter - particularly the latter if there were repeated communications between you and the known/suspected terrorist.

 

[CBusAlex]

Fennis, on 06 Jun 2013 - 13:55, said:

Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism

This is why I don't mind the cameras and motion sensors the NSA installed in all my furniture. It's for my protection!

 

[Steve Tasker]

I'm more concerned with the government than I am with terrorists.

Yep.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I haven't paid much attention to this today, but I gather that they were looking at phone numbers and duration but not actual content.

So, in spite of my Orwell-laced postings, I don't think there's much to get excited about here.

 

[Slapdash]

I'm more concerned with the government than I am with terrorists.

Yep.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

 

[Cjw_55106]

Politicians are morons. Hire Jack Bauer and everything will be taken care of.

 

[timschochet]

I'm more concerned with the government than I am with terrorists.

Yep.

But I'm not.

That's not to say that I want to give the government unlimited amounts of power. But I've always regarded sentiments such as this rather paranoid, in a "black helicopter" kind of way.

Terrorists mean to do bad things to as many of us as they can. They are mostly evil. They specialize in the murder of innocent people. And although it's extremely unlikely that they're going to harm me and mine, I don't especially like the idea of them harming ANYONE.

The government is not evil. It's a big amorphous, out of control blob. Sometimes it's necessary, often it just gets in the way. It has a direct impact on me and mine, much more so than terrorists, but that impact is not usually malign. (Or benign either.) It's mostly annoying. Still, one lives with it. I don't want to live with terrorism.

 

[CBusAlex]

well again I ask, how is this directly affecting me? Outside of helping prosecute criminals (if your post is true)

Do you not see your loss of privacy as a direct impact on you?

Honestly no

Hypothetically speaking, let's say the government discovered by snooping through phone records that a political candidate you favored was having an affair, and leaked that info to the press. Would you consider that to be affecting you?

 

[MikeIke]

Not all the Dems have been so gutless. Some have been asking these questions for a couple years

Glenn Greenwald's scoop that the National Security Agency has been collecting phone data from Verizon customers has some people getting in touch with their civil libertarian side anew, but Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has been after the NSA on this issue since well before the Obama administration, and his colleague Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., has joined him in fighting to uncover the Obama administration's phone record policy.* Here's a roundup of Wyden and Udall's presaging efforts.
Floor speech on Patriot Act provisions (

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/06/nsa_collecting_verizon_phone_records_two_senators_have_protested_patriot.html

 

[humpback]

Let's be fair, there are a not insignificant number of libertarian leaning conservatives on this board that have been opposed to this level of surveillance even under Bush. To paint all conservatives as only criticizing this because Obama is in charge is grossly unfair to those guys.

I was one of the most active posters in the old FISA threads. If there were libertarian leaning conservatives in those days who were opposed to this under Bush, they kept awfully quiet.

Why so quiet in this one?

 

[Gr00vus]

The government is not evil. It's a big amorphous, out of control blob. Sometimes it's necessary, often it just gets in the way. It has a direct impact on me and mine, much more so than terrorists, but that impact is not usually malign. (Or benign either.) It's mostly annoying. Still, one lives with it. I don't want to live with terrorism.

Combine this kind of essentially warrantless search and seizure with an ever increasing array of criminalized activity and loopholes to avoid jury trial/right to legal representation that's been established recently and you've got the groundwork for some serious problems for normal citizens just through mistakes made, let alone evil intent. That kind of situation should not exist, and the minor threat of terrorism does not merit the degree of sacrifice of civil liberties we've seen over the last 15 or so years. You, self espoused libertarian, should be absolutely outraged at stuff like this.

 

[Native]

I'll start hiding bitcoins once the NSA starts asking ISP's for message board posts.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism

30000 Americans are killed in gun violence yearly.

Again, all true. But there is a caveat to the anecdote issue I just raised: nuclear terrorism. Even one nuclear bomb exploded in this country would be catastrophic and an unacceptable risk.

Then you should be for securing our borders......Yet surprisingly you're not......

 

[timschochet]

The government is not evil. It's a big amorphous, out of control blob. Sometimes it's necessary, often it just gets in the way. It has a direct impact on me and mine, much more so than terrorists, but that impact is not usually malign. (Or benign either.) It's mostly annoying. Still, one lives with it. I don't want to live with terrorism.

Combine this kind of essentially warrantless search and seizure with an ever increasing array of criminalized activity and loopholes to avoid jury trial/right to legal representation that's been established recently and you've got the groundwork for some serious problems for normal citizens just through mistakes made, let alone evil intent. That kind of situation should not exist, and the minor threat of terrorism does not merit the degree of sacrifice of civil liberties we've seen over the last 15 or so years.

I agree that it's problematic, especially your point about mistakes made. My fear is not the Orwellian world of 1984, in which Big Brother takes over everything, but the Kafkaesque world of The Trial, in which innocent people are caught in a trap due to bureaucratic errors which are impossible to fix.

That being said, I don't want to simply dismiss terrorism as a "minor threat". I don't believe it is. There has got to be a middle ground here, a solution that allows us to deal sufficiently with terrorism while still adequately protecting civil liberties.

 

[pantagrapher]

Let's be fair, there are a not insignificant number of libertarian leaning conservatives on this board that have been opposed to this level of surveillance even under Bush. To paint all conservatives as only criticizing this because Obama is in charge is grossly unfair to those guys.

I was one of the most active posters in the old FISA threads. If there were libertarian leaning conservatives in those days who were opposed to this under Bush, they kept awfully quiet.

Why so quiet in this one?

I argued myself out on this issue six years ago.