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

[timschochet]

The question is, did Hastings die due to the government's obligation to conspire to protect national security? If he did, then the government's obligation to conspire will make it awfully hard for the people to be able to prove it.

Yep.

In real life: 99.9999999% of us will be able to keep living our lives as normal with NSA domestic sureveillance in place. For the foreseeable future, at least. That's about all we have to grasp onto.

The American political experiment, as envisioned by America's Founding Fathers, may well have run its course. The ideals are still admirable, but who with power is willing to uphold them?

I completely disagree with the bolded. Most people will NOT live "normally" knowing that pretty much everything they do is being recorded and stored in one way or another. It's "normal" for people to do things they only want a limited number of people to know about. What the NSA is doing will discourage that "normal" behavior to a great degree.

As for the political experiment running it's course, I believe you are correct, but for different reasons. Secrecy of the government is NOT an ideal of the experiment. It's a corruption of it. The experiment is ending because people believe safety and protection from terrorism is more important than their individual rights. If we believe the government must do everything possible to fight terrorism, then we must accept that the experiment is dead. If we believe the experiment should live on, then we must accept that the government cannot do everything possible to fight terrorism. If the experiment has run it's course, it's because people are choosing safety and protection.... not because people in power are not willing to uphold the ideals.

Big surprise, but as to the bolded, I agree with Doug and disagree with you. You wrote that "most people will not live 'normally'". Most people are either unaware of this story, or don't really care about it, so I can guarantee you're already wrong. But even among those who do know about this story and care about it, I don't believe that more that an extremely small percentage of them will allow this story to affect anything they do or the way they do it. I'm sure you'll be able to provide, if you want to, some anecdotes that attempt to prove me wrong, but that's all they'll be: anecdotes.Whether or not this program is constitutional is open to question. Whether or not it's a good idea is open to question. But what's not open to question is whether or not it's going to change our lives (By "our" I mean the vast majority of the American people.) It won't.

What does your guarantee entitle me to?

ETA: in my experience, people who go to ridiculous lengths (such as offering a guarantee) in their argument to establish their opinion is correct, are usually full of ####. The over 400 posts you've made in this thread that were based on a false assumption on your part are even more evidence of what you are full of. If I was Doug, you are the last person I would want trying to help me make my case.

Next time you want to refute something I wrote, I suggest you come up with an actual argument against it. Just a suggestion; hopefully you'll accept it as constructive criticism.

 

[The Commish]

I've been thinking about this issue a lot in the past few days, especially since one of my major assumptions all along- that the information was destroyed after being searched through, is not true. As I wrote, that troubles me greatly. The secrecy troubles me as well, as does the prosecution of Snowden.

I admit to going into this whole thing being biased. I simply don't believe in most conspiracy theories. And the fact that a lot of the anger here was generated by (1) pro-NRA conservatives like 5 Digit Know Nothing who are always eager to swallow any theory about what the government is doing and who generally have Tea Partyish, populist views which repel me and (2) pure progressive voices like NC Commish whom I often sympathize with far more than I do with conservatives, but whom I usually reject when it comes to this sort of stuff because they have a moral equivalence when it comes to our (America's) actions vs. those of our enemies, placed me almost automatically on the opposite side. But that was wrong- I don't like arguing stuff without facts, and too often that's what I was doing here.

I still believe that the program, as explained by the NSA and President Obama, is OK. I don't think it violates the Constitution. But I hope we get to find out (through a court challenge.) And I think there should be much more openness about it. From what I know, I don't blame Snowden at all for what he did. He allowed us to have this discussion, which is important.

One can believe this. The real question is, do you / can you honestly believe their presentation of the program? That's where it fails for me. What they say doesn't add up with the actions. I simply don't believe their presentation of the program.

It's not unreasonable, IMO, for you or anyone to not believe the government's presentation. But as for myself, I'm not there yet. I agree that some of the actions are questionable, but I it doesn't necessarily lead me to the assumption that the government is deliberately trying to mislead the public.

I openly admit the government opens up in a hole they have to dig out of with me. They've earned that opportunity 100 times over the last few decades.

 

[Politician Spock]

The things people do, that they only want a limited number of people having knowledge of, aren't major life decisions, like the examples you gave.

What do you have in mind?

And my examples weren't all major life decisions, especially the "doing business with who I choose part". What I was getting at was that my life, post-Snowden, has in fact not changed in any way I can directly perceive. Not saying it never, ever will ... but at present, all systems for me are normal.

It's pretty normal behavior for people to do things in secret of their spouses. I'm not saying it's normal because it's moral, or whatever. I'm saying it's normal, because it's pretty common behavior. It's also pretty normal for people to also do things in secret of their employers too. It's pretty normal for people to also do things in secret of their church, their neighbors, their friends, their relatives, etc, etc...

What I'm saying is that it's pretty normal for people to do things that they only want a limited number of people to know what they are doing. These types of behavior WILL experience a change with the knowledge that there is a record being kept of what they are doing. It doesn't matter if someone is or isn't looking. The fact that there is a record being kept is discouragement enough for people to think twice before behaving "normally".

 

[Politician Spock]

The question is, did Hastings die due to the government's obligation to conspire to protect national security? If he did, then the government's obligation to conspire will make it awfully hard for the people to be able to prove it.

Yep.

In real life: 99.9999999% of us will be able to keep living our lives as normal with NSA domestic sureveillance in place. For the foreseeable future, at least. That's about all we have to grasp onto.

The American political experiment, as envisioned by America's Founding Fathers, may well have run its course. The ideals are still admirable, but who with power is willing to uphold them?

I completely disagree with the bolded. Most people will NOT live "normally" knowing that pretty much everything they do is being recorded and stored in one way or another. It's "normal" for people to do things they only want a limited number of people to know about. What the NSA is doing will discourage that "normal" behavior to a great degree.

As for the political experiment running it's course, I believe you are correct, but for different reasons. Secrecy of the government is NOT an ideal of the experiment. It's a corruption of it. The experiment is ending because people believe safety and protection from terrorism is more important than their individual rights. If we believe the government must do everything possible to fight terrorism, then we must accept that the experiment is dead. If we believe the experiment should live on, then we must accept that the government cannot do everything possible to fight terrorism. If the experiment has run it's course, it's because people are choosing safety and protection.... not because people in power are not willing to uphold the ideals.

Big surprise, but as to the bolded, I agree with Doug and disagree with you. You wrote that "most people will not live 'normally'". Most people are either unaware of this story, or don't really care about it, so I can guarantee you're already wrong. But even among those who do know about this story and care about it, I don't believe that more that an extremely small percentage of them will allow this story to affect anything they do or the way they do it. I'm sure you'll be able to provide, if you want to, some anecdotes that attempt to prove me wrong, but that's all they'll be: anecdotes.Whether or not this program is constitutional is open to question. Whether or not it's a good idea is open to question. But what's not open to question is whether or not it's going to change our lives (By "our" I mean the vast majority of the American people.) It won't.

What does your guarantee entitle me to?

ETA: in my experience, people who go to ridiculous lengths (such as offering a guarantee) in their argument to establish their opinion is correct, are usually full of ####. The over 400 posts you've made in this thread that were based on a false assumption on your part are even more evidence of what you are full of. If I was Doug, you are the last person I would want trying to help me make my case.

Next time you want to refute something I wrote, I suggest you come up with an actual argument against it. Just a suggestion; hopefully you'll accept it as constructive criticism.

I'm done wasting my time with you. I didn't refute anything you posted. The only reason I responded to your response to me was because of your promise of a guarantee. I should have assumed it to be as empty as everything else you've posted in this thread.

 

[Doug B]

It's pretty normal behavior for people to do things in secret of their spouses. I'm not saying it's normal because it's moral, or whatever. I'm saying it's normal, because it's pretty common behavior. It's also pretty normal for people to also do things in secret of their employers too. It's pretty normal for people to also do things in secret of their church, their neighbors, their friends, their relatives, etc, etc...What I'm saying is that it's pretty normal for people to do things that they only want a limited number of people to know what they are doing. These types of behavior WILL experience a change with the knowledge that there is a record being kept of what they are doing. It doesn't matter if someone is or isn't looking. The fact that there is a record being kept is discouragement enough for people to think twice before behaving "normally".

Hmmm ... that was a more prosaic response than I was expecting.

I disagree that the current knowledge of NSA survellance will put the brakes on people trying to be surreptitious in real life. The NSA closing the loop with spouse/employer/neighbors/etc. -- with the knowledge we have at present -- is a virtual impossibility. "Content being recorded" is not the same as "a listener hearing content and being ready to meaningfuly act".

Unless the game changes a lot ... the NSA "listening" is essentially the same as no one listening. It beggars belief that the NSA would swoop in and confront someone with personal dirt: "Mr. Spock, I'm sure your wife would like to know that you met an old flame at that Starfleet Officer's convention ... oh, hello Mrs. Spock. Didn't see you sittting there ..."

 

[Politician Spock]

It's pretty normal behavior for people to do things in secret of their spouses. I'm not saying it's normal because it's moral, or whatever. I'm saying it's normal, because it's pretty common behavior. It's also pretty normal for people to also do things in secret of their employers too. It's pretty normal for people to also do things in secret of their church, their neighbors, their friends, their relatives, etc, etc...

What I'm saying is that it's pretty normal for people to do things that they only want a limited number of people to know what they are doing. These types of behavior WILL experience a change with the knowledge that there is a record being kept of what they are doing. It doesn't matter if someone is or isn't looking. The fact that there is a record being kept is discouragement enough for people to think twice before behaving "normally".

Hmmm ... that was a more prosaic response than I was expecting.

I disagree that the current knowledge of NSA survellance will put the brakes on people trying to be surreptitious in real life. The NSA closing the loop with spouse/employer/neighbors/etc. -- with the knowledge we have at present -- is a virtual impossibility. "Content being recorded" is not the same as "a listener hearing content and being ready to meaningfuly act".

Unless the game changes a lot ... the NSA "listening" is essentially the same as no one listening. It beggars belief that the NSA would swoop in and confront someone with personal dirt: "Mr. Spock, I'm sure your wife would like to know that you met an old flame at that Starfleet Officer's convention ... oh, hello Mrs. Spock. Didn't see you sittting there ..."

People don't give a crap of the real details. In fact, they are prone to assume the worst instead of being informed. I think you are trying to present what I'm saying as a strawman argument. I'm not saying people "put on the brakes". I've said they will think twice before doing what they would do. That will not eliminate behavior, but it will modify it. To say nothing will change is pretty extreme if you ask me. Of course it will change. The quesion is to what degree.

 

[Doug B]

People don't give a crap of the real details. In fact, they are prone to assume the worst instead of being informed.

We're in total agreement about the bolded in and of itself. I just think "don't care about details" means that pretty much everyone will carry on as normal unless they have clear and present reson not to ... something's going to have to land on the doorstep to change most people's behavior. I don't think the average person will assume the worst and thus think twice about their actions on the down-low .. I think the "that'll never happen to me" mindset will be far more pervasive.

It will be interesting to revisit all this in a few years.

 

[timschochet]

The question is, did Hastings die due to the government's obligation to conspire to protect national security? If he did, then the government's obligation to conspire will make it awfully hard for the people to be able to prove it.

Yep.

In real life: 99.9999999% of us will be able to keep living our lives as normal with NSA domestic sureveillance in place. For the foreseeable future, at least. That's about all we have to grasp onto.

The American political experiment, as envisioned by America's Founding Fathers, may well have run its course. The ideals are still admirable, but who with power is willing to uphold them?

I completely disagree with the bolded. Most people will NOT live "normally" knowing that pretty much everything they do is being recorded and stored in one way or another. It's "normal" for people to do things they only want a limited number of people to know about. What the NSA is doing will discourage that "normal" behavior to a great degree.

As for the political experiment running it's course, I believe you are correct, but for different reasons. Secrecy of the government is NOT an ideal of the experiment. It's a corruption of it. The experiment is ending because people believe safety and protection from terrorism is more important than their individual rights. If we believe the government must do everything possible to fight terrorism, then we must accept that the experiment is dead. If we believe the experiment should live on, then we must accept that the government cannot do everything possible to fight terrorism. If the experiment has run it's course, it's because people are choosing safety and protection.... not because people in power are not willing to uphold the ideals.

Big surprise, but as to the bolded, I agree with Doug and disagree with you. You wrote that "most people will not live 'normally'". Most people are either unaware of this story, or don't really care about it, so I can guarantee you're already wrong. But even among those who do know about this story and care about it, I don't believe that more that an extremely small percentage of them will allow this story to affect anything they do or the way they do it. I'm sure you'll be able to provide, if you want to, some anecdotes that attempt to prove me wrong, but that's all they'll be: anecdotes.Whether or not this program is constitutional is open to question. Whether or not it's a good idea is open to question. But what's not open to question is whether or not it's going to change our lives (By "our" I mean the vast majority of the American people.) It won't.

What does your guarantee entitle me to?

ETA: in my experience, people who go to ridiculous lengths (such as offering a guarantee) in their argument to establish their opinion is correct, are usually full of ####. The over 400 posts you've made in this thread that were based on a false assumption on your part are even more evidence of what you are full of. If I was Doug, you are the last person I would want trying to help me make my case.

Next time you want to refute something I wrote, I suggest you come up with an actual argument against it. Just a suggestion; hopefully you'll accept it as constructive criticism.

I'm done wasting my time with you. I didn't refute anything you posted. The only reason I responded to your response to me was because of your promise of a guarantee. I should have assumed it to be as empty as everything else you've posted in this thread.

That's fine. If you truly believe that most people will change their lives as a result of this story, then we probably don't have anything further to talk about anyhow. I have trouble believing that is actually an accurate representation of your POV, however. I think I must have misunderstood you somewhere along the line...

 

[Doug B]

If I was Doug, you are the last person I would want trying to help me make my case.

I don't see that Tim is quite speaking to the same things I am. Where I think Tim and I do have common ground is in the belief that even with the NSA revelations, you still have to put one foot in front of the other and carry on as best as you can.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

My link

Top secret documents submitted to the court that oversees surveillance by US intelligence agencies show the judges have signed off on broad orders which allow the NSA to make use of information "inadvertently" collected from domestic US communications without a warrant.

The Guardian is publishing in full two documents submitted to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (known as the Fisa court), signed by Attorney General Eric Holder and stamped 29 July 2009. They detail the procedures the NSA is required to follow to target "non-US persons" under its foreign intelligence powers and what the agency does to minimize data collected on US citizens and residents in the course of that surveillance.

The documents show that even under authorities governing the collection of foreign intelligence from foreign targets, US communications can still be collected, retained and used.

The procedures cover only part of the NSA's surveillance of domestic US communications. The bulk collection of domestic call records, as first revealed by the Guardian earlier this month, takes place under rolling court orders issued on the basis of a legal interpretation of a different authority, section 215 of the Patriot Act.

The Fisa court's oversight role has been referenced many times by Barack Obama and senior intelligence officials as they have sought to reassure the public about surveillance, but the procedures approved by the court have never before been publicly disclosed.

The top secret documents published today detail the circumstances in which data collected on US persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the US, and reveals how US call records are used to help remove US citizens and residents from data collection.

However, alongside those provisions, the Fisa court-approved policies allow the NSA to:

• Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years;

• Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;

• Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications;

• Access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the US, for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance.

The broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President Obama and senior intelligence officials that the NSA could not access Americans' call or email information without warrants.

The documents also show that discretion as to who is actually targeted under the NSA's foreign surveillance powers lies directly with its own analysts, without recourse to courts or superiors – though a percentage of targeting decisions are reviewed by internal audit teams on a regular basis.

Since the Guardian first revealed the extent of the NSA's collection of US communications, there have been repeated calls for the legal basis of the programs to be released. On Thursday, two US congressmen introduced a bill compelling the Obama administration to declassify the secret legal justifications for NSA surveillance.

The disclosure bill, sponsored by Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, and Todd Rokita, an Indiana Republican, is a complement to one proposed in the Senate last week. It would "increase the transparency of the Fisa Court and the state of the law in this area," Schiff told the Guardian. "It would give the public a better understanding of the safeguards, as well as the scope of these programs."

Section 702 of the Fisa Amendments Act (FAA), which was renewed for five years last December, is the authority under which the NSA is allowed to collect large-scale data, including foreign communications and also communications between the US and other countries, provided the target is overseas.

FAA warrants are issued by the Fisa court for up to 12 months at a time, and authorise the collection of bulk information – some of which can include communications of US citizens, or people inside the US. To intentionally target either of those groups requires an individual warrant.

One-paragraph orderOne such warrant seen by the Guardian shows that they do not contain detailed legal rulings or explanation. Instead, the one-paragraph order, signed by a Fisa court judge in 2010, declares that the procedures submitted by the attorney general on behalf of the NSA are consistent with US law and the fourth amendment.

Those procedures state that the "NSA determines whether a person is a non-United States person reasonably believed to be outside the United States in light of the totality of the circumstances based on the information available with respect to that person, including information concerning the communications facility or facilities used by that person".

It includes information that the NSA analyst uses to make this determination – including IP addresses, statements made by the potential target, and other information in the NSA databases, which can include public information and data collected by other agencies.

Where the NSA has no specific information on a person's location, analysts are free to presume they are overseas, the document continues.

"In the absence of specific information regarding whether a target is a United States person," it states "a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States or whose location is not known will be presumed to be a non-United States person unless such person can be positively identified as a United States person."

If it later appears that a target is in fact located in the US, analysts are permitted to look at the content of messages, or listen to phone calls, to establish if this is indeed the case.

Referring to steps taken to prevent intentional collection of telephone content of those inside the US, the document states: "NSA analysts may analyze content for indications that a foreign target has entered or intends to enter the United States. Such content analysis will be conducted according to analytic and intelligence requirements and priorities."

Details set out in the "minimization procedures", regularly referred to in House and Senate hearings, as well as public statements in recent weeks, also raise questions as to the extent of monitoring of US citizens and residents.

NSA minimization procedures signed by Holder in 2009 set out that once a target is confirmed to be within the US, interception must stop immediately. However, these circumstances do not apply to large-scale data where the NSA claims it is unable to filter US communications from non-US ones.

The NSA is empowered to retain data for up to five years and the policy states "communications which may be retained include electronic communications acquired because of limitations on the NSA's ability to filter communications".

Even if upon examination a communication is found to be domestic – entirely within the US – the NSA can appeal to its director to keep what it has found if it contains "significant foreign intelligence information", "evidence of a crime", "technical data base information" (such as encrypted communications), or "information pertaining to a threat of serious harm to life or property".

Domestic communications containing none of the above must be destroyed. Communications in which one party was outside the US, but the other is a US-person, are permitted for retention under FAA rules.

The minimization procedure adds that these can be disseminated to other agencies or friendly governments if the US person is anonymised, or including the US person's identity under certain criteria.

Holder's 'minimization procedure' says once a target is confirmed to be in the US, interception of communication must stop. Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images A separate section of the same document notes that as soon as any intercepted communications are determined to have been between someone under US criminal indictment and their attorney, surveillance must stop. However, the material collected can be retained, if it is useful, though in a segregated database:

"The relevant portion of the communication containing that conversation will be segregated and the National Security Division of the Department of Justice will be notified so that appropriate procedures may be established to protect such communications from review or use in any criminal prosecution, while preserving foreign intelligence information contained therein," the document states.

In practice, much of the decision-making appears to lie with NSA analysts, rather than the Fisa court or senior officials.

A transcript of a 2008 briefing on FAA from the NSA's general counsel sets out how much discretion NSA analysts possess when it comes to the specifics of targeting, and making decisions on who they believe is a non-US person. Referring to a situation where there has been a suggestion a target is within the US.

"Once again, the standard here is a reasonable belief that your target is outside the United States. What does that mean when you get information that might lead you to believe the contrary? It means you can't ignore it. You can't turn a blind eye to somebody saying: 'Hey, I think so and so is in the United States.' You can't ignore that. Does it mean you have to completely turn off collection the minute you hear that? No, it means you have to do some sort of investigation: 'Is that guy right? Is my target here?" he says.

"But, if everything else you have says 'no' (he talked yesterday, I saw him on TV yesterday, even, depending on the target, he was in Baghdad) you can still continue targeting but you have to keep that in mind. You can't put it aside. You have to investigate it and, once again, with that new information in mind, what is your reasonable belief about your target's location?"

The broad nature of the court's oversight role, and the discretion given to NSA analysts, sheds light on responses from the administration and internet companies to the Guardian's disclosure of the PRISM program. They have stated that the content of online communications is turned over to the NSA only pursuant to a court order. But except when a US citizen is specifically targeted, the court orders used by the NSA to obtain that information as part of Prism are these general FAA orders, not individualized warrants specific to any individual.

Once armed with these general orders, the NSA is empowered to compel telephone and internet companies to turn over to it the communications of any individual identified by the NSA. The Fisa court plays no role in the selection of those individuals, nor does it monitor who is selected by the NSA.

The NSA's ability to collect and retain the communications of people in the US, even without a warrant, has fuelled congressional demands for an estimate of how many Americans have been caught up in surveillance.

Two US senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall – both members of the Senate intelligence committee – have been seeking this information since 2011, but senior White House and intelligence officials have repeatedly insisted that the agency is unable to gather such statistics.

 

[Politician Spock]

If I was Doug, you are the last person I would want trying to help me make my case.

I don't see that Tim is quite speaking to the same things I am. Where I think Tim and I do have common ground is in the belief that even with the NSA revelations, you still have to put one foot in front of the other and carry on as best as you can.

If you lived in the colonies in 1775, would your opinion have been "you still have to put one foot in front of the other and carry on as best as you can", or would you have shared the opinion of the patriots who stood up and said "this is BS, and we don't have to take it anymore"?

Your opinion determines the future you prefer to live in.

 

[Doug B]

If you lived in the colonies in 1775, would your opinion have been "you still have to put one foot in front of the other and carry on as best as you can", or would you have shared the opinion of the patriots who stood up and said "this is BS, and we don't have to take it anymore"?

But I don't live in the colonies in 1775. What I think about what I might have done back then isn't particularly insightful. Too many conditions are different. You're appealing to an ideal that I believe is no longer achievable.

Your opinion determines the future you prefer to live in.

See, I don't believe my opinion -- or even the collective opinion of the American people -- matters at all in shaping "the future we'd prefer to live in" -- not as far as these NSA matters are concerned. No matter who we elect, who we stump for, or heck -- hypothetically -- who we put up against the wall, there will always be an NSA or an NSA-like entity doing the same things. To me, the privacy ship for those i modern, connected society sailed away long ago, never to return. And it doesn't matter if the Patriot Act sunsets, Rand Paul becomes president, or anything else.

 

[Politician Spock]

If you lived in the colonies in 1775, would your opinion have been "you still have to put one foot in front of the other and carry on as best as you can", or would you have shared the opinion of the patriots who stood up and said "this is BS, and we don't have to take it anymore"?

But I don't live in the colonies in 1775. What I think about what I might have done back then isn't particularly insightful. Too many conditions are different. You're appealing to an ideal that I believe is no longer achievable.

Your opinion determines the future you prefer to live in.

See, I don't believe my opinion -- or even the collective opinion of the American people -- matters at all in shaping "the future we'd prefer to live in" -- not as far as these NSA matters are concerned. No matter who we elect, who we stump for, or heck -- hypothetically -- who we put up against the wall, there will always be an NSA or an NSA-like entity doing the same things. To me, the privacy ship for those i modern, connected society sailed away long ago, never to return. And it doesn't matter if the Patriot Act sunsets, Rand Paul becomes president, or anything else.

I know that every politician I have ever voted for has lied, does lie, and will lie. That however is not a reason to look the other way when they get caught lying.

 

[dozer]

Hey June bug, i'll be over to watch the game tonight, but I'll only stay for a quarter.

 

[The Commish]

That's fine. If you truly believe that most people will change their lives as a result of this story, then we probably don't have anything further to talk about anyhow. I have trouble believing that is actually an accurate representation of your POV, however. I think I must have misunderstood you somewhere along the line...

It's anecdotal at best, but I know people who have already altered the way they live because "the government is watching" and that was prior to these events. This will only add fuel to their fire and motivate them to spread their nonsense.

 

[timschochet]

That's fine. If you truly believe that most people will change their lives as a result of this story, then we probably don't have anything further to talk about anyhow. I have trouble believing that is actually an accurate representation of your POV, however. I think I must have misunderstood you somewhere along the line...

It's anecdotal at best, but I know people who have already altered the way they live because "the government is watching" and that was prior to these events. This will only add fuel to their fire and motivate them to spread their nonsense.

Do you believe these people represent the majority, as Politician Spock claims? That was the only aspect of his comments that I was challenging.

 

[Politician Spock]

That's fine. If you truly believe that most people will change their lives as a result of this story, then we probably don't have anything further to talk about anyhow. I have trouble believing that is actually an accurate representation of your POV, however. I think I must have misunderstood you somewhere along the line...

It's anecdotal at best, but I know people who have already altered the way they live because "the government is watching" and that was prior to these events. This will only add fuel to their fire and motivate them to spread their nonsense.

Do you believe these people represent the majority, as Politician Spock claims? That was the only aspect of his comments that I was challenging.

Tim,

Do yourself a favor and just stop. You are embarrasing yourself. Are you seriously going to try and make this an issue of my use of the word "most" in response to Doug, who said:

In real life: 99.9999999% of us will be able to keep living our lives as normal with NSA domestic sureveillance in place.

Who was then followed up by you who said:

I don't believe that more that an extremely small percentage of them will allow this story to affect anything they do or the way they do it.

You and Doug are making wildly ridiculous assertations so extreme that you leave no room for anyone to take an even more extreme position than you. Your positions exist beyond the brink of extreme. Yet you want to make people believe that the issue at hand is I said the word "most". To be honest, I don't care what the degree of change will be. It could be most. It could be a minority. Pick a degree. I don't care... as long as it's not an extremist point of view, like 99.9999999% or an an extremely small percentage. People who claim extremes are full of ####.

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

Do yourself a favor and just stop. You are embarrasing yourself. Are you seriously going to try and make this an issue of my use of the word "most" in response to Doug, who said:

In real life: 99.9999999% of us will be able to keep living our lives as normal with NSA domestic sureveillance in place.

Who was then followed up by you who said:

I don't believe that more that an extremely small percentage of them will allow this story to affect anything they do or the way they do it.

You and Doug are making wildly ridiculous assertations so extreme that you leave no room for anyone to take an even more extreme position than you. Your positions exist beyond the brink of extreme. Yet you want to make people believe that the issue at hand is I said the word "most". To be honest, I don't care what the degree of change will be. It could be most. It could be a minority. Pick a degree. I don't care... as long as it's not an extremist point of view, like 99.9999999% or an an extremely small percentage. People who claim extremes are full of ####.

Very well. To be precise:

I think the amount of people who will allow this news to change their lives are perhaps a few hundred thousand in a country of 300 million. I think that most of these people are already suspicious of the government to the extent that they believed in programs like this long before this one was revealed, probably for decades if they're old enough. To be generous, let's say that 3 million people are affected- that's a significant number, but it still only represents 1% of the population.

I think that 99% of us will continue to live our lives without any change in the way we live them. We won't be afraid, nor will we try to hide things, and we will continue to trust that nobody is reading our emails or listening to our calls that is not supposed to.

Is that precise enough for you?

 

[Redwes25]

I don't think anyone has any idea where this guy is, which is pretty amazing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/24/edward-snowden-russian-airport-moscow

 

[RCon]

I don't think anyone has any idea where this guy is, which is pretty amazing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/24/edward-snowden-russian-airport-moscow

NSA has probably had him for days, and is leaking these travel rumors themselves.

 

[Politician Spock]

Tim,

Do yourself a favor and just stop. You are embarrasing yourself. Are you seriously going to try and make this an issue of my use of the word "most" in response to Doug, who said:

In real life: 99.9999999% of us will be able to keep living our lives as normal with NSA domestic sureveillance in place.

Who was then followed up by you who said:

I don't believe that more that an extremely small percentage of them will allow this story to affect anything they do or the way they do it.

You and Doug are making wildly ridiculous assertations so extreme that you leave no room for anyone to take an even more extreme position than you. Your positions exist beyond the brink of extreme. Yet you want to make people believe that the issue at hand is I said the word "most". To be honest, I don't care what the degree of change will be. It could be most. It could be a minority. Pick a degree. I don't care... as long as it's not an extremist point of view, like 99.9999999% or an an extremely small percentage. People who claim extremes are full of ####.

Very well. To be precise:I think the amount of people who will allow this news to change their lives are perhaps a few hundred thousand in a country of 300 million. I think that most of these people are already suspicious of the government to the extent that they believed in programs like this long before this one was revealed, probably for decades if they're old enough. To be generous, let's say that 3 million people are affected- that's a significant number, but it still only represents 1% of the population.

I think that 99% of us will continue to live our lives without any change in the way we live them. We won't be afraid, nor will we try to hide things, and we will continue to trust that nobody is reading our emails or listening to our calls that is not supposed to.

Is that precise enough for you?

Your arugment never lacked precision. It's extreme, and always has been.

 

[The Commish]

That's fine. If you truly believe that most people will change their lives as a result of this story, then we probably don't have anything further to talk about anyhow. I have trouble believing that is actually an accurate representation of your POV, however. I think I must have misunderstood you somewhere along the line...

It's anecdotal at best, but I know people who have already altered the way they live because "the government is watching" and that was prior to these events. This will only add fuel to their fire and motivate them to spread their nonsense.

Do you believe these people represent the majority, as Politician Spock claims? That was the only aspect of his comments that I was challenging.

majority of what? People educated on the subject? People in general? I think people in general are too self involved to care. I think those who know about this kind of stuff would, at minimum, give pause to doing certain things. I'm one of the biggest "if you don't want to get in trouble, don't do something to get in trouble" people out there, but I'd be lying if I said there are times where I think about what's really going on out there. That's based simply by what I know my employer does in the cyberspace battles companies face every day.

 

[Fennis]

I don't think anyone has any idea where this guy is, which is pretty amazing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/24/edward-snowden-russian-airport-moscow

1:1 Moscow

3:2 Cuba

5:1 Ecuador

10:1 Hong Kong

1:5 CIA [SIZE=10.5pt]rendition [/SIZE]in Jordan

 

[Redwes25]

I don't think anyone has any idea where this guy is, which is pretty amazing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/24/edward-snowden-russian-airport-moscow

1:1 Moscow

3:2 Cuba

5:1 Ecuador

10:1 Hong Kong

1:5 CIA [SIZE=10.5pt]rendition [/SIZE]in Jordan

100:1

The NSA just gave him a Winnebago - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74ocbvwam7c

 

[dozer]

NAANTALI, Finland (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin says that National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden is in the transit zone of a Moscow airport and will not be extradited to the United States.

Looks like Snowden's hero tour will continue on.

 

[jonessed]

NAANTALI, Finland (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin says that National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden is in the transit zone of a Moscow airport and will not be extradited to the United States.

Looks like Snowden's hero tour will continue on.

The US has no play unless they opt to try to forcibly remove him from a sovereign nation.

Our position on Snowden is highly hypocritical so having nations thumb their noses at us is well deserved.

 

[Doug B]

I know that every politician I have ever voted for has lied, does lie, and will lie. That however is not a reason to look the other way when they get caught lying.

OK ... I can get on board with that. But what does that have to do with the NSA or its domestic surveilance programs?

 

[Doug B]

In real life: 99.9999999% of us will be able to keep living our lives as normal with NSA domestic sureveillance in place.

...

[You] are making wildly ridiculous assertations so extreme that you leave no room for anyone to take an even more extreme position than you. Your positions exist beyond the brink of extreme.

I see.

Well, speaking for myself only: Really, the specific percentage given, the "most/many" issue ... none of that is really germane to my opinion.

Here it is at the most fundamental level I can reckon: I can't perceive how the reduction in civil liberties are affecting me in real life, nor how they are affecting anyone I know. Not saying there are no effects, and not saying that the reduction in civil liberties isn't real. Just saying that all this is happening way off my day-to-day real-life radar.

No one in my social circle circle talks about this NSA stuff except for the occasional joke. No one at work, no one among family and friends -- and really, outside of this thread and a few other threads on other boards, no one in my "iWorld" either.

Now then. I feel like I am a typical person. I feel -- don't know, but feel -- that my viewpoint is typical and very widely held. I could be wrong -- I acknowledge that. At the same time, in real life I would have to look very hard to find someone who's truly personally concerned about the NSA surveillance stuff impacting their life.

I think Commish summed it up well when he wrote that "[People] in general are too self involved to care." I think he's spot on. And, for better or worse, I freely admit it -- I, personally, am too self-involved to care about the NSA's domestic surveillance programs. And while I don't know with certainty that in not caring I have a lot of company out there among the American public ...I would be flummoxed if I didn't. The percentages don't matter.

...

What's funny about all this back-&-forth is that you seem to feel that I have taken a position opposite of yors on the morality and constitutionality of the NSA domestic sureveillance. Actually, I agree with you completely -- the 4th Amendment is being impinged upon. I feel like those who uphold the NSA's programs don't care a whit about constitutionality. At the same time as I recognize the validity such philosophical arguments, however, I feel like the NSA's program (or something essentially the same) is and will continue to be a permanent fixture of government (any nation's, not just the US) for the foreseeable future. I feel like I, for one, have to accept living in a world in which such surveillance takes place. I feel like I have no real choice, and neither does America or anywhere else.

 

[Fennis]

NAANTALI, Finland (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin says that National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden is in the transit zone of a Moscow airport and will not be extradited to the United States.

Looks like Snowden's hero tour will continue on.

Tom Hanks already did it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65EujQmABAE

 

[Sinn Fein]

In real life: 99.9999999% of us will be able to keep living our lives as normal with NSA domestic sureveillance in place

I, for one, have varied up my pron searches, to throw the gov't off the track.

 

[Hang 10]

In real life: 99.9999999% of us will be able to keep living our lives as normal with NSA domestic sureveillance in place

I, for one, have varied up my pron searches, to throw the gov't off the track.

Finally throw in some guy on girl stuff for a change?

 

[Sinn Fein]

In real life: 99.9999999% of us will be able to keep living our lives as normal with NSA domestic sureveillance in place

I, for one, have varied up my pron searches, to throw the gov't off the track.

Finally throw in some guy on girl stuff for a change?

exactly

 

[Sinn Fein]

I've said too much...

 

[Fennis]

I've said too much...

Obama requests some POV stuff

 

[Politician Spock]

I know that every politician I have ever voted for has lied, does lie, and will lie. That however is not a reason to look the other way when they get caught lying.

OK ... I can get on board with that. But what does that have to do with the NSA or its domestic surveilance programs?

1) They have been caught lying about it.

2) Now that their secrets are being let out of the bag, we can see what they have been, and are doing, violates the Bill of Rights.

Whether the lies and/or the violations can be proven in court to have caused harm to person or people will determine if they are forced to stop the programs. That is the question at hand.

If we instead just ignore the lies and the violations with the attitude of "we just have to accept living in a world in which such surveillance takes place, feeling like we have no real choice" then there is no question at hand to answer. You've already accepted the outcome to be status quo.

I for one believe the attitude that we just have to accept it is the most unpatriotic thing a person can do. It was people who stood up, and risked being called traitors, and being tried for espionage and treason, and said "we're not going to just accept it" that we call patriots and founding fathers today. Status quo was not acceptable to them.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

NAANTALI, Finland (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin says that National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden is in the transit zone of a Moscow airport and will not be extradited to the United States.

Looks like Snowden's hero tour will continue on.

The US has no play unless they opt to try to forcibly remove him from a sovereign nation.

Our position on Snowden is highly hypocritical so having nations thumb their noses at us is well deserved.

How do you figure this? He's in the position to give China and Russia raw NSA data. Additionally we have returned seven Russian citizens over the past year upon their request, even without an extradition agreement it behooves them to turn Snowden over to U.S. custody. Them refusing to do so tells me he is likely giving them information that could damage national security. This is bigger than your distrust of domestic government programs now.

 

[Sinn Fein]

NAANTALI, Finland (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin says that National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden is in the transit zone of a Moscow airport and will not be extradited to the United States.

Looks like Snowden's hero tour will continue on.

The US has no play unless they opt to try to forcibly remove him from a sovereign nation.

Our position on Snowden is highly hypocritical so having nations thumb their noses at us is well deserved.

How do you figure this? He's in the position to give China and Russia raw NSA data. Additionally we have returned seven Russian citizens over the past year upon their request, even without an extradition agreement it behooves them to turn Snowden over to U.S. custody. Them refusing to do so tells me he is likely giving them information that could damage national security. This is bigger than your distrust of domestic government programs now.

US should have considered this outcome before charging hime with espionage.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

NAANTALI, Finland (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin says that National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden is in the transit zone of a Moscow airport and will not be extradited to the United States.

Looks like Snowden's hero tour will continue on.

The US has no play unless they opt to try to forcibly remove him from a sovereign nation.

Our position on Snowden is highly hypocritical so having nations thumb their noses at us is well deserved.

How do you figure this? He's in the position to give China and Russia raw NSA data. Additionally we have returned seven Russian citizens over the past year upon their request, even without an extradition agreement it behooves them to turn Snowden over to U.S. custody. Them refusing to do so tells me he is likely giving them information that could damage national security. This is bigger than your distrust of domestic government programs now.

US should have considered this outcome before charging hime with espionage.

You serious?

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

In case anyone was wondering how the nerds at Slashdot see Snowden:

http://slashdot.org/poll/2595

 

[Doug B]

I for one believe the attitude that we just have to accept it is the most unpatriotic thing a person can do. It was people who stood up, and risked being called traitors, and being tried for espionage and treason, and said "we're not going to just accept it" that we call patriots and founding fathers today. Status quo was not acceptable to them.

I respect what you have written. Two things:

a) While there were plenty of colonists who had real beefs with British rule, there were also plenty of people who were more or less unaligned -- just wanting to tend to their farm or their general store in peace. The latter group wouldn't necessarily be completely passive, however -- they may have just been unwilling to act unless peril was on their doorstep. I would say that it was not wrong to belong to either group.

b) My understanding is that those that acted to rebel against British rule were largely not acting out of principle -- they were acting in response to real pain and peril imposed upon them by the British. I'm going to shot straight here -- if anyone wants me to do anything about the NSA beyond pulling a ballot-box lever, I'm going to have to really feel the squeeze. I will have to personally perceive immediate pain and peril. It's going to have to hit home.

I don't think the comparisons that harken back to the American Revolution are particularly apt anyway. The colonists could actually engage the British on the battlefield and forcibly remove the yoke of British rule. That really can't be done against as distributed and shadowy an entity as domestic surveillance.

Vote out the NSA-enabling politicians? The new ones you vote in can't and won't stop the programs. The absolute best they could do is pretend all has been dismantled, send a few NSA honchos to Club Fed, make a big show of shutting it all down. Meanwhile, the programs contuinue running under different guises.

Rely on the judicial branch to slap down the NSA? See above.

Overthrow the U.S. government by coup to institute one that closely hews to the Bill of Rights? New government takes up the same spying stuff from the get-go.

What realistic options are left? There may be some, but I've heard nothing that convinces me. With modern communications technology -- the selfsame technology that so many of us rely on every day -- the genie is never getting put back into the bottle.

 

[whoknew]

I for one believe the attitude that we just have to accept it is the most unpatriotic thing a person can do. It was people who stood up, and risked being called traitors, and being tried for espionage and treason, and said "we're not going to just accept it" that we call patriots and founding fathers today. Status quo was not acceptable to them.

Vote out the NSA-enabling politicians? The new ones you vote can't and won't stop the programs. The absolute best they could do is pretend all has been dismantled, send a few NSA honchos to Club Fed, make a big show of shutting it all down. Meanwhile, the programs contuinue running under different guises.

Why do you think this? The politicians are complicit in what the NSA is doing. Why do you think that putting in different politicians - who oppose this type of surveillance - would not change anything?

This is why what Snowden did was so important. This is a really, really big issue - one that should be decided in the public forum. Decisions like this need to be made with the people's consent. Not behind closed doors by a few guys pulling strings.

Yet this administration wants to send Snowden to jail. Absurd.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Amnesty International: USA must not hunt down whistleblower Edward Snowden

 

[Doug B]

Whether the lies and/or the violations can be proven in court to have caused harm to person or people will determine if they are forced to stop the programs. That is the question at hand.

If we instead just ignore the lies and the violations with the attitude of "we just have to accept living in a world in which such surveillance takes place, feeling like we have no real choice" then there is no question at hand to answer. You've already accepted the outcome to be status quo.

When you introduce the element of "causing harm", you change the equation quite a bit. I think Americans have to accept the existential fact that domestic sureillance isn't going anywhere, but I don't think Americans have to accept personal harm that results from NSA agents going off half-cocked with the information they dredge. Americans do need safeguards against capricious and malicious use of the domestic sureillance data -- but from a realistic standpoint, I feel like ending domestic surveillance is a non-starter.

I had thought that your position regarded the mere existence of the domestic sureillance programs as harm to the populace, in and of itself. That's true, right?

 

[Doug B]

Why do you think this? The politicians are complicit in what the NSA is doing. Why do you think that putting in different politicians - who oppose this type of surveillance - would not change anything?

I think domestic surveillance is at the point where politicians that don't play ball (from the President on down) can simply be marginalized, fed B.S. reports about intelligence activities, and essentially worked around.

 

[Politician Spock]

Whether the lies and/or the violations can be proven in court to have caused harm to person or people will determine if they are forced to stop the programs. That is the question at hand.

If we instead just ignore the lies and the violations with the attitude of "we just have to accept living in a world in which such surveillance takes place, feeling like we have no real choice" then there is no question at hand to answer. You've already accepted the outcome to be status quo.

When you introduce the element of "causing harm", you change the equation quite a bit. I think Americans have to accept the existential fact that domestic sureillance isn't going anywhere, but I don't think Americans have to accept personal harm that results from NSA agents going off half-cocked with the information they dredge. Americans do need safeguards against capricious and malicious use of the domestic sureillance data -- but from a realistic standpoint, I feel like ending domestic surveillance is a non-starter.

I had thought that your position regarded the mere existence of the domestic sureillance programs as harm to the populace, in and of itself. That's true, right?

You are limiting the scope of what is harm to only that of agents going off half-cocked. I don't.

The ACLU has wanted since the day the Patriot Act became law to sue the government over its constitutionality. It tried twice, and each time the case was thrown out because the court did not see harm done to justify the suit being heard.

In the past two weeks the ACLU has filed FOUR suits, each citing harm based on what has been recently revealed, none of which is a case of harm do to agents going off hald-cocked. They are citing harm from the existence of the programs. In one of the cases, they state harm to their business because their clients cannot trust to share information regarding their greivences with the government because their clients now know the information they are sharing is being collected by the government. This is not harm do to agents going off half-cocked. This is harm simply because the program exists.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I'm not at all up to speed on my South American political shtick. What is the deal with Ecuador being amnestystan?

 

[Politician Spock]

I for one believe the attitude that we just have to accept it is the most unpatriotic thing a person can do. It was people who stood up, and risked being called traitors, and being tried for espionage and treason, and said "we're not going to just accept it" that we call patriots and founding fathers today. Status quo was not acceptable to them.

I respect what you have written. Two things:

a) While there were plenty of colonists who had real beefs with British rule, there were also plenty of people who were more or less unaligned -- just wanting to tend to their farm or their general store in peace. The latter group wouldn't necessarily be completely passive, however -- they may have just been unwilling to act unless peril was on their doorstep. I would say that it was not wrong to belong to either group.

b) My understanding is that those that acted to rebel against British rule were largely not acting out of principle -- they were acting in response to real pain and peril imposed upon them by the British. I'm going to shot straight here -- if anyone wants me to do anything about the NSA beyond pulling a ballot-box lever, I'm going to have to really feel the squeeze. I will have to personally perceive immediate pain and peril. It's going to have to hit home.

I don't think the comparisons that harken back to the American Revolution are particularly apt anyway. The colonists could actually engage the British on the battlefield and forcibly remove the yoke of British rule. That really can't be done against as distributed and shadowy an entity as domestic surveillance.

Vote out the NSA-enabling politicians? The new ones you vote in can't and won't stop the programs. The absolute best they could do is pretend all has been dismantled, send a few NSA honchos to Club Fed, make a big show of shutting it all down. Meanwhile, the programs contuinue running under different guises.

Rely on the judicial branch to slap down the NSA? See above.

Overthrow the U.S. government by coup to institute one that closely hews to the Bill of Rights? New government takes up the same spying stuff from the get-go.

What realistic options are left? There may be some, but I've heard nothing that convinces me. With modern communications technology -- the selfsame technology that so many of us rely on every day -- the genie is never getting put back into the bottle.

You are being obtuse by asking the question and avoiding the obvious. As I said before, I know every politician I've ever voted for has lied, does lie, and will lie... but when they get caught, they need to pay for doing it. Those government officials who lied about this need to be sent to prison. Any violations of civil rights needs to end.

Will the government do it again. Yep. I'm pretty sure it will. And when it gets caught again, the people who get caught will pay the price again.

 

[Politician Spock]

Why do you think this? The politicians are complicit in what the NSA is doing. Why do you think that putting in different politicians - who oppose this type of surveillance - would not change anything?

I think domestic surveillance is at the point where politicians that don't play ball (from the President on down) can simply be marginalized, fed B.S. reports about intelligence activities, and essentially worked around.

Which is why BS needs to be responded to with prison time.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

You are being obtuse by asking the question and avoiding the obvious. As I said before, I know every politician I've ever voted for has lied, does lie, and will lie... but when they get caught, they need to pay for doing it. Those government officials who lied about this need to be sent to prison.

This could be a good way to clear Congress.

 

[Doug B]

Will the government do it again. Yep. I'm pretty sure it will. And when it gets caught again, the people who get caught will pay the price again.

Understood, but that does nothing to stop domestic surveillance. I think there are many willnig to pay that price to keep the surveillance going -- to them (not me), there's a higher good that's being fostered.

The ACLU's argument that complaintants will be chilled by the existence of NSA phone-call recording is a compelling one.