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

By Cr0nJ0b on 6/12/2013 5:07:10 PM , Rating: -1
I find most of the recent comments mildly amusing. The outrage and indignation at the "OBAMA" government intrusion into our privacy....it's been there a lot longer than Obama. I remember back in the Bush days hearing about the efforts by the NSA to scrape the web looking for every detail on everyone that they could find...and guess what, they are doing that today. This post will be scraped by NSA, DoD, FBI and anyone else with an interested in knowing what people do...and I really don't care.

I remember reading that NSA had tapped into trunk lines at AT&T "Nexus" facilites and setup surveillance inside of AT&T buildings...this was 10 years ago. The whole phone records thing was big news under Bush for like a week maybe two. It was called "Necessary" by various oversight committees and I was and am still okay with that.

The government is doing what we gave them the power to do under Patriot and I don't expect them to do less. They are prosecuting a war with very hard to find people, using every tool at their disposal...and I'm okay with that. I don't like that they have to do it, but I understand that we need to allow them to have access to data to help find the bad guys.

And I also understand that there can be abuse of the system. They "could" use this to go after political enemies or use it for personal gain...but I don't think that's what's happening here. I think they are scraping phone records of a large group of people, so that they can query that information base to find correlation and connections that can help further their mission. I gave my representatives the authority to make decisions for me when I elected them, and they did that. They decided that this was a good balance between privacy rights and protection...and I'm good with that. I don't want to flee the country because someone has a list of the people I called and when I called them and for how long.

And then let's talk about the constitution for all of you conservatives. There is nothing, that I see, in the constitution that prevents the government from collecting information about me, or from asking corporations for data that that they collected. I don't see this as an unreasonable search of my person or property, but if you do, then you should start by kicking your guys out of office and voting for people with heavy libertarian leanings like Ron Paul. you need to have your representative repeal the patriot act and several other laws aimed at extending the reach of gov't to collect data about you...but that's not for me.

Simply put, I don't believe the hype. 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. It's all just left/right/media hype propaganda to keep the public fomenting and fighting each other. I'm more concerned about the rise of corporate power and the influence of money on politics than I am about any agency collecting data about me.

I look forward to your responses.




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.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














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