backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by Piiman.. on Jun 15 at 12:42 PM


  (Source: CNN)
Homeland Security committee member things freedom of the press in the U.S. is growing tiresome

What do President Barack Obama (D) and Rep. Peter King (R- N.Y.) have in common?  They are none too happy about the sources and the journalists involved in the publication of secrets on the NSA snooping on Americans.

I. Forget Freedom of the Press, Says Rep. King

In an interview with Anderson Cooper last night, Rep. King, who sits on the House Homeland Security committee, said that Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian and other journalists involved in the publication of details of the U.S. National Security Agency's (NSA) program to secretly spy on Americans should be charged and face prison time.

He comments:

Actually, if they willing knew that this was classified information, I think action should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude.  I know that the whole issue of leaks has been gone into over the last month. I think something on this magnitude, there is an obligation, both moral but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something which would so severely compromise national security.


President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder has reportedly carried out campaigns to spy on a Fox News reporter who was involved in the publication of leaked intelligence details on North Korea.  In that case, AG Holder signed early documents suggesting that the journalist -- James Rosen -- was considered a "co-conspirator" to the leaker and could face criminal charges.  The effort to charge the journalists was ultimately dropped as the investigation proceeded, but drew substantial criticism.

Eric Holder
AG Eric Holder has considered charging journalists in previous leaks. [Image Source: AP]

AG Holder also supervised a program to monitor dozens of Associated Press phone lines in an effort to hunt down the person who leaked details of a foiled bomb plot.

The Obama administration has charged more than twice as many whistleblowers with Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 792) offenses as all the previous administrations before him (since the Act was passed in 1917) combined.  But he's only been able to do that thanks to support of the practices by members of Congress, including House Republicans like Rep. King.

II. FBI Works Towards Charging Whistleblower

News of the long rumored NSA spying -- funded by Barack Obama's "big data" spending program -- broke last week.  Details of two programs -- a narrow, more aggressive program dubbed PRISM and a broad, ubiquitous unnamed phone records seizure program leaked.  According to the Obama administration the PRISM effort involved the seizure of email and chat records, but was meant to target suspected terrorists -- most foreigners -- and was limited to a small number of individuals.

By contrast the phone records seizure tracked the majority of U.S. citizens -- including those who never communicated with a foreigner and never were suspected of committing a crime.  The Obama administration sought to downplay this spying saying it was "only metadata".  However, that "metadata" contained records of who you talked to and when, plus tracked the locations of citizens on a daily basis.

Both programs were authorized under the Oct. 2001 USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act.

FBI masked agent
The FBI is drafting chargers against the leaker, and possibly journalists.
[Image Source: Alamy]

On Sunday, the leaker outed himself as Edward Snowden, a former contractor for the NSA who worked at Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp (BAH).  Rep. King was among the first to call on him to be charged.  The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is rumored be currently drafting up those charges.  Mr. Snowden is rumored to be holed up at a safe house in Hong Kong.

Source: CNN on YouTube



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Perjury or Traitor
By drlumen on 6/12/2013 4:34:57 PM , Rating: 3
Isn't it part of the oath that Senators and Reps take is for them to protect and uphold the constitution?

I think Rep. Peter King should be brought up on charges. He knew about and likely approved of the NSA spying but let it slide. He is now actively compounding those charges by additional shredding of the first amendment. So, should the charges be perjury or for being a traitor?




RE: Perjury or Traitor
By lennylim on 6/12/2013 7:57:04 PM , Rating: 3
What perjury?

Perjury is lying under oath when testifying.

And as long as all he's doing is talking about prosecuting Snowden, well, that's his first amendment right, isn't it?

Personally I think he's full of shit. But what's worth noting is that politicians say what they think will win them votes with their constituents. That so many of them from both sides are spouting pro-PRISM rhetoric is what I'm most concerned about.


RE: Perjury or Traitor
By boeush on 6/12/2013 8:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
Neither. Breaking the oath of office, in itself, is not a criminal offence to my knowledge (perhaps it should be, though...)

However Clapper, who actually told the Senate in no uncertain words that no such wide-spread data collection on millions of Americans was happening, certainly did very clearly perjure himself:

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/mak...

As a consequence Clapper, at least, should immediately lose his job and come under criminal sanction for his overtly illegal and premeditated act.

As for King, he can lose his job when the next election cycle comes around (assuming his constituency cares at all about either the Constitution or the rule of law...)


RE: Perjury or Traitor
By lagomorpha on 6/13/2013 6:57:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for King, he can lose his job when the next election cycle comes around (assuming his constituency cares at all about either the Constitution or the rule of law...)


He's from New York so no, his constituency does not care for the Constitution or the rule of law.


RE: Perjury or Traitor
By marvdmartian on 6/13/2013 7:57:09 AM , Rating: 2
Peter King is, and always has been (and likely always will be) a RINO...Republican in name only. It's the only way, really, for a "conservative" to get elected in that state anymore, as the left-leaning voters outweigh the right-leaning voters (due, primarily, to the NYC area).

That being said, he has indeed seem to have forgotten his oath, and the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Not really a surprise, though, during this current administration, is it??


RE: Perjury or Traitor
By ClownPuncher on 6/14/2013 1:42:05 PM , Rating: 3
IMO, Holder, King and Obama should lose their jobs.


I only have one thing to say
By karimtemple on 6/12/2013 4:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think something on this magnitude, there is an obligation, both moral but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something which would so severely compromise national security.
LMFAO!




RE: I only have one thing to say
By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 11:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
This guy is retarded. It's a good thing it's only his opinion and he can't do much about it.

Snowden will not be tried as a traitor or terrorist. He can be charged for leaking classified materials and evading authorities. Probably a couple other charges related to it but that's it. The media is blowing it up.

There are no agents compromised or anything besides an enraged public. The worst case scenario is that terrorists/criminals now know how we track them. It is a big deal but not anywhere near what the media is milking this for.


By karimtemple on 6/13/2013 2:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

My thing is the hilarity surrounding all this. I honestly can't do anything but laugh at every party from every angle of this. The people don't know what to think or how to feel, officials don't know what to say or what to do, and law enforcement's best answers to terrorism are whining about how difficult warrants and due process are and the most delicious irony: butthurt over the invasion of their privacy to invade people's privacy.

I have to keep laughing so the tears don't come.


RE: I only have one thing to say
By Piiman on 6/15/2013 12:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
They already know how we track them. Why do you think Osama didn't use or own a phone?


Soviet Russia had Iron Curtain
By spamreader1 on 6/12/2013 5:31:02 PM , Rating: 3
What should we call the US equivalent?

I'm liking the "Wizard of Oz Curtain". or " Wizard of U.S. Curtain"

I'm sure others here could come up with better ones.




RE: Soviet Russia had Iron Curtain
By petrosy on 6/12/2013 7:49:43 PM , Rating: 3
The McDonald's Curtain....or maybe the Idiocracy Curtain...now with 50% more molecules!


By ClownPuncher on 6/14/2013 1:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's got what idiots crave!


Prosecute
By FXi on 6/12/2013 10:04:34 PM , Rating: 1
Clear violation of National Security protocols - prosecute all knowing parties, who did not act to preserve security




RE: Prosecute
By JediJeb on 6/12/2013 11:41:06 PM , Rating: 5
Does national security override the Bill of Rights?

quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Unless it endangers national security .


Oh wait the bold part isn't really in the Constitution.

Constitutionally, unless we are in a state of declared war the rights of the people override the wishes of the government. Sadly over the years that has fallen by the wayside and now it seems the government gets to decide when the people can have their rights instead of the people deciding what the government can do.


RE: Prosecute
By spamreader1 on 6/13/2013 10:05:34 AM , Rating: 2
War on Drugs?
War on Terror?
I think the Columbian conflict hasn't officially ended yet either.

Now the problem here is, is a state of declared war valid on these vague premises? We aren't in a state of war against any recognized countries, just militant antagonist groups. (the Columbian conflict is with the guerillas , not the nation) So does this still apply anyway?


Jason Mick in trouble?
By techxx on 6/12/2013 4:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Watch out for FBI Jason, they might not like this article! :o




RE: Jason Mick in trouble?
By roykahn on 6/13/2013 7:55:03 AM , Rating: 2
This is all part of the war on whistle-blowers and dissent. None of the elite class wants the public to know what they are secretly doing, so they call any threats to this secrecy a threat to national security. It's very telling when the US mass media continues the official narrative even though it means journalists are under threat for exposing government corruption and wrongdoings. As long as they simply follow official lines and don't rock the boat, journalists are safe. That's the clear message out there. The result of this is a media that serves the elite and not the people. How can we be a mass of informed voters and participants in a democracy when the vast majority of our information is controlled by the puppet masters?


RE: Jason Mick in trouble?
By Invane on 6/13/2013 12:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
And this is the very reason that I never see any real change coming to this country. The vast majority of Americans do not realize that the media is very firmly in the pockets of those in power...and those in power have become very good at manipulating the American public. It's disturbing and quite frightening.


Traitor? No, Patriot.
By tayb on 6/12/2013 6:50:39 PM , Rating: 3
The people leaking unconstitutional practices by the government are not traitors they are patriots. The "Patriot" Act may be law but unless the constitution is amended the act is and will remain unconstitutional.

If you think the government should hold broad spying powers to "protect" us you think the constitution is crap. It is perfectly okay to think the constitution is crap but let us just be frank about what you oppose. Supporting warrantless spying is opposing the constitution. There is no gray area, it's black and white.

We are not technically at war nor did the leaked information place any American citizens at risk. With these two facts in mind, it is completely unconstitutional to prosecute the members of the press who helped leaked this information. If you think these journalists should be prosecute you again oppose the constitution.

So let your opinion be known. Do you support the constitution, the most supreme law of the land, or do you not? That's really what we are discussing here.




RE: Traitor? No, Patriot.
By stilltrying on 6/13/2013 6:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
Even in a state of war does not nullify the bill of rights as much as the politicos would like to say or claim so, unless of course we are follwing after ze germans and their COG principles. Nowhere in the constitution do I read that a state of war overrides the bill of rights. Statutes may say so from a power grabbing politicians or military leaders however the law of the land is the constitution and not statutes, codes, regulations, etc... However the Constitution is now just a facade used when needed and thrown away when not.

Power grabs are all over the place, FCC trying to take over the internet and all kinds of other bureaucratic departmental grabs.


Sinking ship
By techxx on 6/12/2013 4:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes I feel like the US is a sinking ship and I just want to jump off. :(




RE: Sinking ship
By Motoman on 6/12/2013 4:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
We have seen the face of the enemy, and he is us.


One thing's for certain...
By ritualm on 6/12/2013 4:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
Rep. Peter King (R) has just signed his own death warrant over this furor.




RE: One thing's for certain...
By half_duplex on 6/12/2013 8:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
He needs to be taken out

of office.


By jimbojimbo on 6/12/2013 4:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks a lot Washington aholes.




Typo
By Bobhacks on 6/12/2013 7:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
In the first line in bold it should say ( I assume)

Homeland Security committee member thinks freedom of the press in the U.S. is growing tiresome




All I gotta say
By seraphim1982 on 6/13/2013 12:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
I can wait till the US Citizens are like the minorities in Pre WW2 Nazi Germany. One day you'll wake up to zero rights.

You accept it now, on basis of "security" and are left with a totaliterian state, because the "government" is working in your best interest. If it truly was, then they wouldn't have done all these Middle East Wars, Attempted coups in South America, which only builds enemies.




By Juat1me on 6/13/2013 11:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
For a writer or journalist there is no such thing as classified information! When they are fortunate to stumble upon what they feel should be public knowledge they have the right to write about the facts they know! That's their job!! Why should it be any different for them to do when they obtain classified government information then if it was about another figure in the publics eye?? Aren't we suppose to be aware of what's going on in our country anyways so we can decide to agree with what's being done and continue to live in this country or disagree and find another place to live who's government we do agree with?? We're suppose to be land of the free.. But with the media & government censorship are we really land of the free or land of the blind because we're fine with being kept in the dark & only being told about what the government thinks we should know??! I don't care about the extremes they have to take in order to keep us living safely in this country and keep this country as safe as possible from terrorists but to keep information from us and pick and choose what we should or shouldn't know is unnecessary because when sharing this kind information as with anything else you will have supporters and people who are against it so who cares!!!




Finally!
By mikeyD95125 on 6/12/13, Rating: -1
RE: Finally!
By ianweck on 6/12/2013 4:14:29 PM , Rating: 3
Speak for yourself. I don't deserve it.


RE: Finally!
By mikeyD95125 on 6/12/2013 4:35:14 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, my bad.

What did you vote for Mitt Romney? Or Ron Paul?
Or did you start a political blog??
Orrr did you sign several online petitions???

If you're a citizen, it's your government and people get the government they deserve.


RE: Finally!
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2013 12:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't vote for any of those jackasses.

My first candidate, Herman Cain was thrown under a bus by his own party (the Republican) and set up by them with plants and conspiracies.

My second candidate, Newt Gingrich lost the nomination (but won my State at least).

Screw Obama and Romney. Neither of them were worthy of my vote.

Note: When write-ins are allowed, I generally vote for Elvis Pressley. The King lives!

Yes, the people get who they deserve. It is shameful that most of them don't give a darn enough to pay attention and DEMAND representation of 3rd parties on major media networks. Of course, since the Democrat and Republican parties own them, this will never happen.


RE: Finally!
By stilltrying on 6/13/2013 6:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
Still believing in fairy tales. Keep on voting for those put in front of you that are own and controlled. Voting will not change this. Why do we have to have slave masters?

Rape victims supporting their rapers. Governments sole existence is based upon FORCE. Force to kill, force to tax, force to steal, force to regulate.


RE: Finally!
By MrBlastman on 6/13/2013 3:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
Fairy tales? The need for third parties being properly represented is not a fairy tale, it is reality!

quote:
Governments sole existence is based upon FORCE. Force to kill, force to tax, force to steal, force to regulate.


What's your point here? The NSA is watching, btw. I read between the lines and see what you mean but it would require Americans willing to abandon the coddling they have and embrace the uncertain unknown before them.

It'd be a big step and end this cycle we are in but people have to be willing to sacrifice and go all in with their efforts and dedication.


RE: Finally!
By Piiman on 6/15/2013 12:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Fairy tales? The need for third parties being properly represented is not a fairy tale, it is reality!"

But your first two picks were from the Republican Party?? LOL nothing like practicing what you preach.


RE: Finally!
By BRB29 on 6/14/2013 10:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Newt Gingrich lost the nomination

Newt is as bad or worse than Romney. He is clearly a racist and have terrible relations with the public besides white males.


RE: Finally!
By MrBlastman on 6/14/2013 10:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
He's no more racist than our current President--or the general public who likes to play the race card anytime anything is said about any race at the opportune moment.

In other words--the whole damn "racist" term is used far too often.

In no way was Newt worse than Romney. For one thing he doesn't have mega-millions and for another, he isn't utterly out of touch with the general population. I'd take him any day over Romney. Romney was a worthless sack of crap that was pushed on us by the mainstream media because they knew he couldn't win the presidency on the ballot. What is sad is the American public bought into it and... viola, he won the nomination.

Face it, we are slaves to the media until we learn to think for ourselves.


RE: Finally!
By conq on 6/13/2013 9:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, my bad. What did you vote for Mitt Romney? Or Ron Paul? Or did you start a political blog?? Orrr did you sign several online petitions??? If you're a citizen, it's your government and people get the government they deserve.

Oh I didn't know each political candidate was voted into office by a 100% margin! Gee whiz, I do deserve it! </sarcasm>


RE: Finally!
By retrospooty on 6/12/2013 4:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... You, if the reps in Congress and the White house are all agreeing on an issue, you know its going to f@#$ us.

Its especially unnerving because it doesn't work.
Look at Boston, they were even warned about the guy from the Russian govt. and looked into him and still couldnt stop it. I dont fault them for that, its impossible to stop all acts of violence in a free society... But to be monitoring on this level is inexcusable , even if it did help, and it doesnt.

Safety is an illusion. It doesnt exist and there are no guarantees in life. We used to have a garantee on freedom, but not any more... The scary thing is they arent even backpeddling and trying to lessen the effect. The are kind of in our face saying. "yes, we are watching and listensing to the public... What are you gonna do about it" - 1984 much?


RE: Finally!
By MozeeToby on 6/12/2013 5:09:22 PM , Rating: 5
Here's what people don't realize. Killing people, even lots of people, is trivially easy. It doesn't take a lot of money, or training, or a huge terrorist network. It doesn't even require access to real weapons. All it takes is a willingness to kill others and not care about the consequences to yourself.

Why is it so important that people realize that? Because the more you think about that fact the more you realize two things. First, there are very, very few terrorists in the world, simply put, if there were more terrorists there would be more attacks. Which leads to the second point, it's really, really hard to catch a terrorist before they act.

Why is this? Lets imagine you watch everyone. That's 350 million people in the US alone, plus who knows how many foreign nationals coming and going or that have physical access to American targets overseas, lets call it a cool 500 million. Then lets say there are 1000 terrorists in the world that want to attack American civilians (personally I suspect that is grossly overstating their numbers).

Now, lets imagine you get all your data and you come up with an absurdly good filter, such that your false positive rate is just .01% and your false negative rate is just 10% (incidentally, those numbers are absurdly, unrealistically good). That means your algorithm will flag 50,000 people to be worth watching. Of those, 900 will be actual terrorists.

Except, you don't have the resources to watch 50,000 people. You don't have the resources to even investigate that many. Oh, and plus you've also let 100 terrorists through your filter.

You ask how they could have missed the Boston bombers when they were alerted to them years ago? Because they were probably alerted to several thousand 'potential terrorists' years ago too, the vast majority of which turned out to be nothing but idiots spouting online, people with weird tourist destinations, or people doing things that foreign governments don't approve of.

Mass surveillance cannot succeed because the numbers just don't work.


RE: Finally!
By retrospooty on 6/12/2013 5:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agreed. I wasnt saying they should have stopped the Boston bombers, I was saying the same as you, its impossible to stop it all.


RE: Finally!
By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 12:36:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
But to be monitoring on this level is inexcusable , even if it did help, and it doesnt.


Bro, you need to realize that they can't really monitor people. They can only target specific individuals because of the scale. Almost all the time, it's not because you popped up on the filter. It's usually because you were reported by someone or they are investigating someone else and you were found to be working with those individuals.

Just think about it. I've been posting all kinds of stuff here and there from a federal computer(every single one is constantly monitored) and I have not received anything. None of you here posting all kinds of anti government crap have ever received a phone call or knock from the FBI/CIA have you? That's because they are not monitoring you. They have the potential to but it doesn't mean they are. Even if you were reported, chances are you are not even going to be investigated. Someone will glance at what was reported and determine you to be another antigovernment person practicing your free speech.


RE: Finally!
By retrospooty on 6/13/2013 10:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, I am well aware of the limitations and the way they use it and its still not right. There is a process for this, if they have reason to suspect someone, they get a warrant and pull their cell internet or whatever other records. Now they can just pull anything they want on anyone. That goes against the very foundation of this country. It's complete and total BS. Our govt is getting out of control.


RE: Finally!
By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 2:13:54 PM , Rating: 1
You have an irrational fear. Your free speech is protected. Your privacy is protected.

You do realize that almost all cases starts because someone reported you and the evidence is certified to be credible? not just a couple things but a whole list of criteria.

The reason why some antigovernment organizations are investigated or monitored is because many people reported them. There are plenty of organizations here in DC that have no problems with any type of authorities. The authorities even help them protest if they choose to do it peacefully.

quote:
That goes against the very foundation of this country.

Sure if you say so but that's your opinion. You can vote on it just like I can. All i can tell you is times has changed. Technology has changed. People have changed. Enemies and their methods have changed. Warfare have changed. Everything have changed drastically

quote:
It's complete and total BS. Our govt is getting out of control.

I can name you at least 20 countries with governments out of control. We are saints compared to them. Even the beloved EU, like what most people here like to compare to, is worse than we are. Privacy, taxes, rights? they actually have less.

I've met and worked with people around the world. The vast majority of them would prefer the US over theirs. The ones that prefer their country better simply because they grew up there and that's their home. Every single exchange student, contractors, and visitors I've met have mentioned how much more freedom and tolerance we have here. I went to civilized countries like Germany where some restaurants still refused to serve me because of my skin. You gotta visit the real world outside of the tourist spots.


RE: Finally!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2013 1:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
First, there are very, very few terrorists in the world, simply put, if there were more terrorists there would be more attacks.


Wrong.

There have been, literally, over ten THOUSAND terrorist attacks world-wide since 9-11.

The huge majority of these, obviously, has not been in America.

So that tells us two things:

1. There are more than a "few" terrorists.
2. Whatever we're doing is mostly working.

Now I'm totally NOT okay with mass surveillance. But clearly other methods are working at keeping us relatively free from this plague.

And the Boston bombing wouldn't have even happened if people did their freaking jobs and followed up on a direct FBI warning. But probably because of some stupid PC bs about not wanting to "profile" people involved with Islam, they were let go.

p.s.

quote:
Then lets say there are 1000 terrorists in the world that want to attack American civilians (personally I suspect that is grossly overstating their numbers).


Assuming that number is right, which I doubt, guess why that is?

Because we killed thousands of them first in Afghanistan and Iraq!


RE: Finally!
By stilltrying on 6/13/2013 6:49:35 AM , Rating: 2
Terrorism can be defined by anyone. The US govterments definition is drastically different from some lady in Pakistan whom had her house bombed by a drone which killed her 2 year old son.

So you might as well multiply your number by about 10,000.


RE: Finally!
By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 1:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
Except the Pakistani government agrees with us and allowed us to send drone attacks within their borders. Every single attack is also authorized by them. Case dismissed, you are wrong.


RE: Finally!
By lagomorpha on 6/13/2013 7:08:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2. Whatever we're doing is mostly working.


What we're doing is having an ocean seperating us from the Middle-East or North Africa. Unless someone decides to tow the US to the other side of the Atlantic or otherwise make it easy to move from there to here I believe you'll find the vast majority of attacks happen over there.

That's not the government acting, that's just geography.


RE: Finally!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2013 9:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
LOL right, we have an estimated 20+ million illegal immigrants who, with no outside support, managed to get into this country.

So yeah, you're right, that big bad ocean just foils the terrorists every time. Even with an organized network and massive monetary funds backing them, they just can't get over here. /sarcasm

And all those reports of the plots we've foiled? And those are just ones the public is made aware of. What then?

To say NOTHING the Government has done has been effective, at all, in protecting us is just hogwash. Again, I'm very much against what the NSA is doing here. But just stating a fact, there HAVE been legitimate victories.


RE: Finally!
By Invane on 6/13/2013 1:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
Even the government hasn't been able to produce numbers saying how effective their measures have been. Hell, with all their preventative measures (AND a tipoff by foreign intelligence agencies) they still weren't able to stop Boston from happening.

What are all these foiled plots you speak of? Because I've seen very few. Every time the government has been asked to show it's effectiveness, they've backpedaled and stonewalled.

I agree with lagomorpha. It's far easier to go bomb something in your backyard than to try to fly around the world to bomb something, and that's the real basis for the numbers you're using. It takes resources and planning to go beyond your home region. On the other hand, you only have to have a crazy hair up your ass to decide to go blow something up locally. I am very surprised to see you attempting to attribute it to how good our government is at protecting us.


RE: Finally!
By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 1:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, it's really simple guys. We know we're on the top of the most hated country list simply because of our military and economic power. And...we can't keep our nose out of other nations' businesses.

We all clearly know the amount of illegal immigrants is high. We also know people are willing to risk their lives to get here. We also know there are plenty of terrorist organizations aiming for us and have been for decades.

The result. We still have one of the lowest terrorist activity rate in the world.

You can form your own conclusions but the ocean separation is a major factor against a conventional warfare invasion, it is a minor factor preventing terrorist acts.


RE: Finally!
By duranzo on 6/13/2013 2:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
BRB29, I'm not a conspiracy theorist because it's hard to get actual facts to prove that stuff, but given our politicians track record in during my years, no...just, no. The kinds of individuals so out of touch with the modern world still running our gov't should not have this kind of power. No not everyone is crooked, but this type of broad power is just too much for people that we vote into office. I don't completely disagree with your feeling that we need these police powers to keep us safe, but what makes you so incredibly sure these powers will be abused?? Given what we've watched over the recent years, you're comfortable with this? When we as a society know for sure that those we vote into power won't betray us and abuse their executive powers, then I'd feel safe giving the authorities these surveillance abilities.

But seriously, who are you trying to kid?

These politicians cannot turn down the mighty dollar, even the non-crooked ones can't outshine their phoney peers. You might say if I'm so afraid to give up these powers cause they "might" be abused, then we should we give these powers if they "might" keep us safe.

That line everyone keeps saying, "a little bit of safety, traded for your rights, you deserve neither." To me it rings true because it's silly to give up your rights to the hands of politicians that are so out of tune with reality. Do you ever watch politicians vote on topics they often know nothing about? It's a total circle jerk.

SOPA/CISPA -- we barely know how to use the internet, but we'll vote on it anyway because the industry experts (MPAA/RIAA) know this is how to fix counterfeit goods/piracy. All the major tech companies that think they know the internet like Hollywood, but politicians saw right threw the techies, Hollywood/mpaa/riaa/insert-lobbyist know best.

Reading what you write BRB29, you seem to have a lot of reasoning in your beliefs. You remind me so much of how I used to think, and that anything else everyone said was a conspiracy theorist or just plain looney, but the years have whittled my moral-high-regard for our gov't far too thin. I don't know how you can still trust most of these guys.


RE: Finally!
By duranzo on 6/13/2013 3:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
BRB29, I'm not a conspiracy theorist because it's hard to get actual facts to prove that stuff, but given our politicians track record in during my years, no...just, no. The kinds of individuals so out of touch with the modern world still running our gov't should not have this kind of power. No not everyone is crooked, but this type of broad power is just too much for people that we vote into office. I don't completely disagree with your feeling that we need these police powers to keep us safe, but what makes you so incredibly sure these powers won't be abused?? Given what we've watched over the recent years, you're comfortable with this? When we as a society know for sure that those we vote into power won't betray us and abuse their executive powers, then I'd feel safe giving the authorities these surveillance abilities.

But seriously, who are you trying to kid?

These politicians cannot turn down the mighty dollar, even the non-crooked ones can't outshine their phoney peers. You might say if I'm so afraid to give up these powers cause they "might" be abused, then we should we give these powers if they "might" keep us safe.

That line everyone keeps saying, "a little bit of safety, traded for your rights, you deserve neither." To me it rings true because it's silly to give up your rights to the hands of politicians that are so out of tune with reality. Do you ever watch politicians vote on topics they often know nothing about? It's a total circle jerk.

SOPA/CISPA -- we barely know how to use the internet, but we'll vote on it anyway because the industry experts (MPAA/RIAA) know this is how to fix counterfeit goods/piracy. All the major tech companies that think they know the internet like Hollywood, but politicians saw right threw the techies, Hollywood/mpaa/riaa/insert-lobbyist know best.

Reading what you write BRB29, you seem to have a lot of reasoning in your beliefs. You remind me so much of how I used to think, and that anything else everyone said was a conspiracy theorist or just plain looney, but the years have whittled my moral-high-regard for our gov't far too thin. I don't know how you can still trust most of these guys.


RE: Finally!
By duranzo on 6/13/2013 3:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, failed editing 101.


RE: Finally!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2013 8:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am very surprised to see you attempting to attribute it to how good our government is at protecting us.


Why must I be all or nothing here?

If you can't separate the clear over-reaches by our Government in the name of fighting terrorism, with the clear successes, that's your issue not mine.

To sit here and say we never stopped a thing is not only foolishly wrong, it's a lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foiled_Islami...

And this is just the first link I Googled.

quote:
Even the government hasn't been able to produce numbers saying how effective their measures have been.


Gee I wonder why? Maybe because releasing that information would compromise operations and reveal methods to the terrorists?

However if I can sit here and Google terrorist plots foiled on the freaking wikipedia, I'm starting to doubt that the Government ever made such a statement. Can you find it for me?

quote:
I agree with lagomorpha. It's far easier to go bomb something in your backyard than to try to fly around the world to bomb something


Soooo 9-11 was, what exactly? Practice for "backyard bombing"?

The simplistic and almost apathetic logic you guys are using here is just so out of tune with the reality we can all observe....it's just shocking.

Again, I'm not saying "Government is great, let them wiretap you, everything is fine." I keep saying I'm against that. If people can't understand that and continue to have this kneejerk reaction, I can't have an open debate.


RE: Finally!
By duranzo on 6/13/2013 2:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
BREAKING NEWS!!

The Atlantic Ocean is doing it's job.


RE: Finally!
By flashback_rtk on 6/13/2013 9:47:44 AM , Rating: 1
You are a fucking imbecile


RE: Finally!
By Piiman on 6/15/2013 12:42:34 PM , Rating: 1
With such a well thought out response I'm thinking you are dumber than an fucking imbecile


By JediJeb on 6/12/2013 6:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
I could say I agree and disagree with what you have said. I disagree that the government should be allowed to gather data in one sweeping arc, but as much that I hate how much money is going to be wasted on the endeavor(look at the multimillion/billion dollar facility being built in Utah to house that data)as much as I dislike the intrusion into privacy it constitutes.

I do believe though that the government has become the easy target to spotlight where it comes to data gathering. What most seem to not realize is that private companies are gathering much more data about us than this government program could ever hope to gather. Double Click, Google Analytics, and many other companies/programs are gathering a constant flow of data from everyone on the web right now and because we don't see it or sometimes it makes something pop up that we like we don't care. The internet and cellphones and even telephones are places where we have eagerly given up our privacy little by little for the convenience they offer. Seems the US Postal Service offers the most secure and private messaging system available today.

Funny, if everyone today who is concerned about the government spying on their electronic communications switched back to snail mail, the government would give up trying to monitor it all because the overhead would be far too much to ever monitor that much physical data and the Post Office would not have to worry about their budget anymore.


By KCjoker on 6/12/2013 6:16:33 PM , Rating: 3
Well it started under Bush but it's been expanded big time under Obama for starters. Secondly Obama in his campaign specifically said he would NOT allow this. He said it MANY times, you're free to look it up if you'd like. To be fair I didn't like it before under Bush and I don't like it now either. I do find it worse now since we know that groups have been targeted by the gov't. All those libs looking the other way right now because they like Tea Party groups being targeted.....just wait until it's a Repub in the WH and it's your groups being targeted and I bet they change their tune.


By boobo on 6/12/2013 8:17:33 PM , Rating: 1
All those libs looking the other way right now are not libs. This is precisely what liberalism was created to fight against.


By BRB29 on 6/12/2013 8:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
I was waiting for this


By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2013 1:27:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
This is precisely what Libertarianism was created to fight against.


Fixed that for you. Liberalism is all ABOUT this kind of crap: more power centralized into the Government.


By lagomorpha on 6/13/2013 6:52:49 AM , Rating: 3
He's referring to Classical Liberalism. You know, Adam Smith, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, the philosophy on which the United States was founded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Social Liberalism is the more recent version that adds in collectivism and believes "the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

Never confuse the two. The former is about individual liberty and government by the people, the later is about restricting individual liberty in the name of the good of the community.

While they do share a lot of philosophical foundation, one views humans as individual and the other views humans as collectives. That one detail can change an enormous amount of how the philosophy gets implemented. For example, when you take Nietzsche to the individualistic extreme you get Ayn Rand, when you take Nietzsche to the collectivist extreme you get Hitler.


By karimtemple on 6/13/2013 8:05:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example, when you take Nietzsche to the individualistic extreme you get Ayn Rand, when you take Nietzsche to the collectivist extreme you get Hitler.
Moral of the story: Never take Nietzsche to any extreme.


By lagomorpha on 6/13/2013 10:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
Any philosophy ends up being pretty destructive when taken to the extreme, even pacifism or pragmatism.


By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 10:30:42 AM , Rating: 2
yea kinda like Islam?


By karimtemple on 6/13/2013 11:29:45 AM , Rating: 2
Islam is part of the superset "any," lol, so yeah like Islam.


By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 11:36:39 AM , Rating: 2
I know, it's just the first one that would pop in anyone's mind. They seem to be all over the news everyday and it's never anything good.


By karimtemple on 6/13/2013 1:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
When I was younger I was a practicing Muslim. I'm irreligious now.

The sad thing about the "Islam" you see on TV is a lot of Muslims honestly have a relatively poor understanding of their book (the Qur'an), similar to the bulk of Christians. It seems sad yet benign until you consider that most of these countries are theocratic. So ultimately, the main thrust of the problem isn't the extremists at all (the extremists are generally hated in the Muslim world, actually), it's the fringe middle that is neither empowered nor even motivated to push back and police their crazies.

It's really a lot like how people say men and women communicate differently, except if the men and women were armed to the teeth and have been pissed off at each other for decades.


By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 2:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
what I'm getting from the Muslims are that you are free to interpret the Quran however you want. That made a lot of extremists who used the religion of Islam and manipulated their followers.

Regardless if the majority is still good, the small percentage of crazies in their religion is still much higher than others. It is causing problems around the world and the peaceful ones will be the people bearing the blame most of the time.

To be fair, at one point Christianity had plenty of crazies too.


By karimtemple on 6/13/2013 4:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
At the end of the day, Christianity wouldn't fare better than Islam if it was in Islam's place. Those people are in a bad way, and for the better part of the last century we've all pissed gasoline into the flames. Nobody knows what the hell they're doing. The world is run by third-graders.


By JediJeb on 6/13/2013 4:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's the fringe middle that is neither empowered nor even motivated to push back and police their crazies.


Sounds like the American citizenry.


By lagomorpha on 6/13/2013 5:55:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So ultimately, the main thrust of the problem isn't the extremists at all (the extremists are generally hated in the Muslim world, actually), it's the fringe middle that is neither empowered nor even motivated to push back and police their crazies.


Perhaps a good way to say it is that the problem with Islam is that it discourages moderation. The crazies are always able to be vocal but anyone that voices moderation is accused of being an apostate which is a dangerous position to be in and as a result Islam tends to get more extreme over time and has no brakes on it.


By lagomorpha on 6/13/2013 12:54:16 PM , Rating: 3
Islam is an exception. It's destructive even in moderation.


By karimtemple on 6/13/2013 1:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
A tragic misconception.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2013 9:33:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
He's referring to Classical Liberalism.


Oh I know, but that particular ideology practically has no meaning anymore in today's nomenclature.


By lagomorpha on 6/13/2013 10:12:16 AM , Rating: 3
He might be European. In the US Social Liberals are called Liberals, in Europe they have a less ambiguous term for them: Socialists.


By lagomorpha on 6/13/2013 6:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
And yeah he's pretty much right in saying:

quote:
All those libs looking the other way right now are not libs.


Unfortunately Social Liberalism has become so prevalent in the US recently that the term "Liberalism" now means Social Liberalism rather than Classical Liberalism.


By TSS on 6/13/2013 7:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
I wholehardidly disagree with your post.

The big difference between now and the past is the capability of technology. Storage capacity has increased exponentially, so has computing power. Where it used to be possible to only store a number of who called who and when, it's now possible to store the entire conversation. As well as internet being intergrated with everybodies lives and everybody has a smartphone so the amount of calls and thus people affected have gone way, way up.

Also US administrative powers are more corrupt then a decade ago. Corruption isn't a binary thing, as in you either are or you aren't. It's gradual with alot of shades of gray. Obama truely is more corrupt then bush ever was. He has already shown to target opponents directly, there's no way he didn't know about the IRS thing.

Let me give you an example of why it's dangerous to store and be able to find everything for all time. Right now the US has a democrat government. Because of all the scandals, it's likely republicans are up again next. Since the democrats pulled the trigger first they will have to make sure they cannot be targeted again -> take down the political opposition, the democrats.

After the opposition comes opponents of the regime. Considering their budget proposals about cutting government spending, they will most likely run on a platform of "small government". Wether they actually spend less or not doesn't matter, it's just the propaganda they'll use because democrats stand for big government spending. Ofcourse as mentioned they will continue to hunt down opponents of their regime to make sure it isn't threatened.

quote:
I'm a big fan of the gov't spending on these type of big projects.


That's what you said april 23 in a reply to NASA expenditatures. Would you care to explain why you support large government expenditatures in a time where everybody needs to cut back? Are you trying to bring this nation down with frivolous spending?

Terrorist.

Likely? no. Within the realm of possibility? Yes. And that's what has changed in the past 10 years. That yes used to be a No. Also enough people are aware of it and are willing to belive it.

This is the time to do something about it. What should be done is obvious: Impeach obama, new elections, vote a 3rd party. Somebody independant. There's 8 parties that run every election, use the frickin internet instead of the TV who to decide for. If this isn't done, the next guy is not only going to be worse, he's going to have carte blanche to do whatever he wants.

Mark my words: If obama doesn't get impeached over this and the other scandals, and he makes a full term, it's over. The US will *officially* be a dictatorship. The powers that be will know they can do anything to the US public and they will take it (as long as the EBT cards keep working). The only question left will be wether it's gonna be a blue or red day when the crackdowns come.


By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 8:13:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I wholehardidly disagree with your post. The big difference between now and the past is the capability of technology. Storage capacity has increased exponentially, so has computing power.


Yep you're right but the amount of communications data had increased exponentially as well. It used to be 1 land line per household and some doesn't even have one. Now everyone has a phone or more, multiple email accounts, text, pics, videos, facebook, twitter, etc...

quote:
Also US administrative powers are more corrupt then a decade ago

I don't think anybody understand what you mean specifically by US administrative powers. At least not anyone that understand how the federal government work. Corruption exist everywhere including the government. There is much less corruption in ours than most other countries. You only think ours is bad because you don't see/hear the news in their country. Vietnam, China, Mexico, Russia, Brazil, Italy, etc... every country has their problems. If you think another country is so good then move there. As of right now, people from everywhere are flocking to the US. Yes plenty even from the Euro Zone.

quote:
After the opposition comes opponents of the regime. Considering their budget proposals about cutting government spending

Budget approval and proposal are actually the same as any bill going through Congress. It started there and gets voted there.

quote:
That's what you said april 23 in a reply to NASA expenditatures. Would you care to explain why you support large government expenditatures in a time where everybody needs to cut back? Are you trying to bring this nation down with frivolous spending?

NASA has done way more good than anyone can actually imagined. The technology they developed and scientific theories they've proven have shaped the entire world. It wasn't long ago that nobody cares about quantum mechanics and particle physics. Even today people don't realize all the electronics they use are based on these theories. Did you know that MRI scan uses antimatter?

If anything, the way mankind is going, I would say NASA is our hope for survival in the future.

quote:
This is the time to do something about it. What should be done is obvious: Impeach obama, new elections, vote a 3rd party. Somebody independant

Um... there's no new election after you impeach a president. Please check how many independent politicians out there.

quote:
Mark my words: If obama doesn't get impeached over this and the other scandals, and he makes a full term, it's over. The US will *officially* be a dictatorship

lol wake up buddy, you're dreaming


By conq on 6/13/2013 9:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The outrage and indignation at the "OBAMA" government intrusion into our privacy

I don't watch a whole of TV so I don't know what the media is saying but as for myself or anyone I know, everyone knows this has been going on for some time and was thrown into high gear during the Bush administration. That doesn't make it any more "OK".

quote:
They are prosecuting a war with very hard to find people, using every tool at their disposal...and I'm okay with that
Every tool at their disposal would also include scheduling random raids and establishing check points a la airport security. I skeptical you'd be "OK" with that so I call BS on the belief of every tool should be used. But let's put aside discussions of civil and personal liberties aside for one moment since we don't see eye to eye on that level. Instead, let's focus on the statistics of costs and benefits. I would love to see some numbers there to see what benefit the entire multibillion dollar project has really given us. I suspect there's a hard reason the government keeps these statistics close the the vest and not going any further than saying it's a "complimentary" tool in the effort.

quote:
The gov't isn't out to get me. There is no conspiracy to take away my rights and no one is going to bust down my door to remove my guns.

On one hand I understand your argument because I used to be of the same opinion for the past decade+. There is no conspiracy, they're doing their job. But I used to think that because I was a "nobody", i.e. not a person of interest to anyone outside of work, friends, and family. The "somebody's" where those people way over there, not me over here. I was happily doing my job, surfing the net, playing my games, and ignoring politics. But as soon as you become a "somebody" yourself, especially if you ever remotely got involved in any form of protest, movement, or group in any form whatsoever but especially a group suspected of having some .000001% chance of some fringe violent activities you'll start getting hassled. Getting personally involved in a protest and having a dozen pictures of me taken by police opened my eyes and made me realize that's all it takes to become a person of interest. I've become the bad guy to them because there's a .000001% chance I might do something to harm the general public. And of course as soon as I'm publicly or privately painted that way with any remote shred of evidence that would most likely be taken out of context and exacerbated there will be plenty of people in the public that would casually say, "just send him to court, put him in jail, make him go through the legal system, get his own lawyer, lose his job, subpoena his personal belongings, lose his friends and family, tarnish his record... you know, just to be on the safe side". It doesn't take much for the government to ruin your life. And don't even get me started on Homeland Security, no wonder our deficit is egregious out of proportion. Throw another 100 billion dollars away! No it's not a conspiracy, they're doing their job to try to keep everyone "safe", or better put, make everyone feel "safe". That's what I'd call tyranny's incubator, and I'd much rather nip it in the bud now before someone can really abuse this power on a whole new scale.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2013 9:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well you're wrong.

I keep seeing people bring up the Patriot Act or Bush, when in fact this has nothing to do with either.

There is NOTHING in the Patriot Act that even comes close to granting the Government the ability to vacuum up hundreds of millions of American's phone and data information arbitrarily. Repeat, NOTHING in the Patriot Act grants this power.

Also technically speaking, the NSA doesn't even have a legal mandate to turn it's resources on US Citizens. They were supposed to focus their operations strictly outside of our borders on foreign communications.

quote:
The government is doing what we gave them the power to do under Patriot


Nope, wrong. The Patriot Act is very specific about what you can do. This gobbling up of half of Americas private records damn sure doesn't fall under the Patriot Act.


By lagomorpha on 6/13/2013 9:51:49 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also technically speaking, the NSA doesn't even have a legal mandate to turn it's resources on US Citizens.


They're effectively permitted to do whatever they want until someone actually presses charges against them or cuts their budget. Maybe if we had people in Congress that cared about the Constitution more than they care about the bugbear of the day...


By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 10:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: Also technically speaking, the NSA doesn't even have a legal mandate to turn it's resources on US Citizens.

They're effectively permitted to do whatever they want until someone actually presses charges against them or cuts their budget.


I can say that about anyone and any organization.


By lagomorpha on 6/13/2013 10:39:05 AM , Rating: 3
And you'd be right. The difference is most people and organizations get punished when they overstep their bounds, why hasn't the NSA?


By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 11:21:02 AM , Rating: 2
What have they done to break the law? This is currently legal.


By JediJeb on 6/13/2013 5:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What have they done to break the law? This is currently legal.


It would be more gray than legal currently, but only because it has not come before the Supreme Court.

Any law such as the Patriot Act does not make things legal just because it is passed and signed, it must also not overstep the bounds set forth by the Constitution. The Constitution is the trump card when it comes to laws, it supersedes all other laws written after it. People can debate whether or not the collection of data without a specific warrant is allowed or not but until the Supreme Court hands down a final ruling after someone files a law suit over it, no one will know definitely if it does or doesn't violate the Constitution.

With no ruling it is neither legal nor illegal. If the Supreme Court deems it unconstitutional then it will have been illegal from the beginning.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2013 8:23:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This is currently legal.


No it's not. Prove it. I have the Constitution, the ultimate law of this land, saying otherwise.

quote:
What have they done to break the law?


????

Are you a wack job or something?

The legal, notice I said LEGAL, mandate of the NSA was that it would "never" direct it's surveillance apparatus domestically.

But the very definition, what the NSA has done here is illegal. A 30-year employee of the NSA, William Binney, resigned from the agency shortly after 9/11 in protest at the agency's focus on domestic activities. I think he knew a little more than you do about what is and isn't legal for the NSA!


By lagomorpha on 6/14/2013 5:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
Even if it is legal, they should still face the threat of having their budget slashed by congress or the President for doing something that isn't in the best interests of the American people. And yet our representatives seem to support the spying.


By RadicalTendencies on 6/13/2013 10:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
Sure buddy...

The 4th Amendment of the Constitution reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

and you said you couldn't find anything in the Constitution... you must be blind, words confuse you or you didn't even read the thing. Read the line "but upon probable cause"... do you understand the concept? Let me translate for you: "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true". Hopefully that clears it up for you.

As for the Patriot Act granting this power, no it does not. the Patriot act was limited, by law thanks to the Constitution, to probable cause. Even Bush limited himself to probable cause targeting individuals and not spying on everyone. But of course you're fearful, I can tell by your rational. You're afraid of terrorism even-though you have a much bigger change of being struck by lightening. I can't really expect you to understand the words and their meaning(s) when your thought patterns are made irrational with fear.

Now you go on to say that there is no Conspiracy to take away your rights... except your 4th Amendment right is clearly being taken away (more than that one but I don't feel like straying too far from the topic)???

And as for taking your guns away... well... I suppose that depends what gun you own eh? Because clearly the Government is going after the AR-15 (not an assault rifle) as well as "Assault Rifles". So yes there is a Conspiracy to take your guns away if you own certain types of guns. This is pretty self evident but keep parroting what Obama has "said" rather than what he has "done". I mean people always do what they say eh? *rolls eyes*

Now you end by stating that you're more concerned with Corporate power and the influence of money on politics... yet ignore exactly WHY you're being spied on which is the result of the potential of some people to attack the United States which is the result of Foreign Interventions and the slaughter if innocent people by the US Military which is done in the name of Corporate Power and Interests (as well as Geo-political interests which are mostly entirely economics driven and tied to Corporate interests).

Hopefully that clears it up for you.


By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 11:35:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Please go back to reread the leaked documents. It says nothing about PII(personally identifiable information). It wants the phone numbers and call location/history. Of course this data would be useless to monitor a population. It is useful when you are investigating an individual.

Phone numbers and history by itself cannot identify a person. This data is useless in court but it is useful to get leads in solving an investigation.


By Cr0nJ0b on 6/13/2013 10:23:40 PM , Rating: 1
Radical, first off I'm not your buddy. I don't know you and based on your response, I don't think I would like to get to know you.

But to the point, I understand the constitution and from a strict perspective, there is nothing in the words that you printed nor the ones on the parchment itself that lead me to believe that the government violated your rights. There was no search of your property. You don't own your cell phone transaction records anymore than YOU own the record or the toothpicks you purchased as WalMart. Your person was no where near those records and neither was your property. You left a digital fingerprint like the fingerprints you leave on the cigarette machine. You left them behind and the government copied them down in case a crime is reported that can be linked to that evidence. You see? That was my point. If you love the constitution so much, you should really try to understand what it says and means.

now I also see that there is interpretation that comes on top of the hallowed words, which helps make the constitution more elastic to meet requirements of modern times. So if you feel that you would like to interpret the extent of your property to include the records of transactions you leave behind...then I guess you are right to be outraged at the breach of your constitutional rights...but you didn't make that point and I don't think you are currently sitting on a federal court empowered to make those types of interpretations.

Next, the Patriot Act -- You really should read the thing, it's awful and i think designed to thwart a normal citizen from getting through the details. It's basically and extension and broadening of several existing tools like FISA and other to allow for easier access to data by the feds. You again go back to the constitution like that will fix everything in the law. If the law is not constitutional, then someone needs to take a case to court and have the courts rule on the legality (constitutionality) of the legislation. In this case. it's been challenged several times and parts of it have been called unconstitionally vague, but not the parts you would think and in the end it's still there.

As to my fears, personally, I'm not afraid of terrorism, no more than I'm afraid of lighting, hurricanes or big tornadoes...but I don't live in areas that have frequent association with those events, so that's not surprising. But...I do think that the US government does have cause to be concerned with terrorism and I don't fault people that are wary of terrorist attacks...But that's off subject again...

On the point of guns, I do think that there are a number of folks that want to limit the types of firearms that produced and sold in the country and I don't like that. I'm a gun owner and I like my sporting guns and I enjoy shooting for sport. I also see that there are folks out there that like to hunt and guns are a big part of that practice. I just can't think of a single gun right that Obama has taken away from me. I'm trying hard, but please correct me if I missed one. I think if anything guns laws have become more relaxed under the current administration (federally). I'm not 100% sure on this point, but please give me some examples if you have them.

I do like the whole what Obama says versus what he's done argument. I think I heard some NRA nut talking about the tricky Obama in his first term lulling the masses into thinking that he wasn't going to take there guns only as a plan to really get them in his second term. Talk about conspiracy nuts...and eyes rolling....facts are facts, if you have them, use them.

on your last point, you again head out into conspiracy land...I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not saying your right, I'm just saying that you should spend less time listening to late night talk radio. anyway corporatism is a whole topic unto itself.

cheers


By Piiman on 6/15/2013 11:40:52 AM , Rating: 2
""The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

and you said you couldn't find anything in the Constitution... you must be blind, words confuse you or you didn't even read the thing.
"

I think words confuse you. Where in there does it say the phone company can't pass on your call data if ordered by a Judge? (don't be surprised to see that they can in your next contract either)
Is your call data which was done on THEIR network, your home, your effects, your papers? It could easily be argued they are not. Your footprints aren't your "houses, papers, and effects"

I personally think the NSA could track terrorist better and not require all this information but to claim it’s a violation of the 4th Amendments seems to be reaching, at least in its current wording.


By Piiman on 6/15/2013 11:40:57 AM , Rating: 2
""The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

and you said you couldn't find anything in the Constitution... you must be blind, words confuse you or you didn't even read the thing.
"

I think words confuse you. Where in there does it say the phone company can't pass on your call data if ordered by a Judge? (don't be surprised to see that they can in your next contract either)
Is your call data which was done on THEIR network, your home, your effects, your papers? It could easily be argued they are not. Your footprints aren't your "houses, papers, and effects"

I personally think the NSA could track terrorist better and not require all this information but to claim it’s a violation of the 4th Amendments seems to be reaching, at least in its current wording.


By BifurcatedBoat on 6/13/2013 6:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
People had suspicions, but nobody really knew exactly what was going on. It wouldn't have surprised me to find out my communications were being monitored, but I was surprised to find out they are storing everything. That's actually significantly different.


By Piiman on 6/15/2013 11:03:16 AM , Rating: 2
"The government is doing what we gave them the power to do under Patriot and I don't expect them to do less."

How did "WE" give them this power? I don't recall anyone taking my vote.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki