Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

NSA: Ya done fvcked up

Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 7:53:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How the hell are half of Americans okay with the NSA's government spying program? I for one know that I don't want the POTUS to know about my p0rn habit.

But really, these new leaks make America sound a lot like China in terms of spying on citizens. Not to sound like Geo, but the government could decide to sh!t on freedom of speech at any moment with this in place. And the worst part is that many people are perfectly OK with that. Everyone should rise up and get this program destroyed, or at least disapprove of it.

But don't take my word for it, Chinese dissident Ai Weiwei said this to the Guardian regarding the NSA data collection's similarity to Chinese monitoring systems:

" In our experience in China, basically there is no privacy at all " that is why China is far behind the world in important respects: even though it has become so rich, it trails behind in terms of passion, imagination and creativity"."

"[Prism] puts individuals in a very vulnerable position. Privacy is a basic human right, one of the very core values. There is no guarantee that China, the US or any other government will not use the information falsely or wrongly. I think especially that a nation like the US, which is technically advanced, should not take advantage of its power. It encourages other nations"."

"When human beings are scared and feel everything is exposed to the government, we will censor ourselves from free thinking. That's dangerous for human development". We must not hand over our rights to other people. No state power should be given that kind of trust. Not China. Not the US."

If anyone can defend the NSA system, then pleas tell me why in the comments. That should be amusing.
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 8:03:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To be perfectly honest, if I'm using a public communication system with no encryption whatsoever then I fully expect that it is going to be monitored. I've always operated under this assumption and it doesn't scare me, it's just a part of life. If I had something I didn't want someone to see, I'd do something to make sure it can't. Yes privacy is a basic right (though I don't see why it extends beyond sensitive information, perhaps this is because it's too difficult to determine what is sensitive and what isn't), but does that mean we should ignore the basic facts? That we are transmitting information about ourselves and others over a global communication network with many points of failure with absolutely no attempts to obfuscate its contents? I certainly don't know what level of security my internet connection has, or my phone, or the post.

I do however agree that monitoring of political communications is a problem (if it can be accessed by someone on the opposite side of politics). The executive shouldn't be able to give their legislative counterparts a leg up. Still though, it isn't as if it is that difficult to implement your own security is it? Maybe I'm wrong on this count, maybe people don't know how to do it and this is part of the problem. The information is out there, readily available if you care to look.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:21:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The answer I've been hearing most is that "I've got nothing to hide".

Without assigning a moral judgment, it does seem to suggest that much of America is still somewhat traumatized by 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks, and would favor suspension of "normal rights" until a later time.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
segijohe
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:30:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Unless you make frequent calls to China or Pakistan then you probably aren't on an NSA watch list. I mean I'm shocked that people are surprised the government monitors our email. So does Facebook and Google. That is the way things are. The American government can't do anything to American citizens based on information they receive without a warrant. Thankfully, we have a system of checks and balances. I will be concerned when a 'whistleblower' comes out with intel that shows the government bypassing our 4th amendment rights.
segijohe
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:33:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 8:03:13 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
To be perfectly honest, if I'm using a public communication system with no encryption whatsoever then I fully expect that it is going to be monitored. I've always operated under this assumption and it doesn't scare me, it's just a part of life. If I had something I didn't want someone to see, I'd do something to make sure it can't. Yes privacy is a basic right (though I don't see why it extends beyond sensitive information, perhaps this is because it's too difficult to determine what is sensitive and what isn't), but does that mean we should ignore the basic facts? That we are transmitting information about ourselves and others over a global communication network with many points of failure with absolutely no attempts to obfuscate its contents? I certainly don't know what level of security my internet connection has, or my phone, or the post.

I do however agree that monitoring of political communications is a problem (if it can be accessed by someone on the opposite side of politics). The executive shouldn't be able to give their legislative counterparts a leg up. Still though, it isn't as if it is that difficult to implement your own security is it? Maybe I'm wrong on this count, maybe people don't know how to do it and this is part of the problem. The information is out there, readily available if you care to look.

I too automatically assume that what I do online will be seen by someone else. The anonymous black hole the internet once was is gone. Someone is tracking you. That's just modern life.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:42:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:30:39 AM, segijohe wrote:
Unless you make frequent calls to China or Pakistan then you probably aren't on an NSA watch list. I mean I'm shocked that people are surprised the government monitors our email. So does Facebook and Google. That is the way things are. The American government can't do anything to American citizens based on information they receive without a warrant. Thankfully, we have a system of checks and balances. I will be concerned when a 'whistleblower' comes out with intel that shows the government bypassing our 4th amendment rights.

You don't consider PRISM as bypassing 4th amendment rights?

The US Senate has voted by overwhelming majority to extend the provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 " the controversial law that grants intelligence agencies broad authority to spy on US citizens " for another five years.

The law, which was first passed in the wake of the Bush-era warrantless wiretapping scandal, grants telecoms companies blanket immunity from prosecution for participating in domestic surveillance.

In addition, it specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email, and other communications of US citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant, provided one of the parties to the communications is outside the US.

http://www.theregister.co.uk...

This is suspension of rights inherent in the constitution, IMHO. It's martial law.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
segijohe
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:49:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:42:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:30:39 AM, segijohe wrote:
Unless you make frequent calls to China or Pakistan then you probably aren't on an NSA watch list. I mean I'm shocked that people are surprised the government monitors our email. So does Facebook and Google. That is the way things are. The American government can't do anything to American citizens based on information they receive without a warrant. Thankfully, we have a system of checks and balances. I will be concerned when a 'whistleblower' comes out with intel that shows the government bypassing our 4th amendment rights.

You don't consider PRISM as bypassing 4th amendment rights?

The US Senate has voted by overwhelming majority to extend the provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 " the controversial law that grants intelligence agencies broad authority to spy on US citizens " for another five years.

The law, which was first passed in the wake of the Bush-era warrantless wiretapping scandal, grants telecoms companies blanket immunity from prosecution for participating in domestic surveillance.

In addition, it specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email, and other communications of US citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant, provided one of the parties to the communications is outside the US.

http://www.theregister.co.uk...

This is suspension of rights inherent in the constitution, IMHO. It's martial law.

You're right, it is an illegal search. That is why it cannot be used against you in the court of law. It just points the government in the right direction. Usually the guys they get end up getting caught with some pretty incriminating stuff such as bombs or bomb making equipment and they are charged for that.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:53:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:30:39 AM, segijohe wrote:
Unless you make frequent calls to China or Pakistan then you probably aren't on an NSA watch list. I mean I'm shocked that people are surprised the government monitors our email. So does Facebook and Google. That is the way things are. The American government can't do anything to American citizens based on information they receive without a warrant. Thankfully, we have a system of checks and balances. I will be concerned when a 'whistleblower' comes out with intel that shows the government bypassing our 4th amendment rights.

What you just described is bypassing the 4th amendment, the govt isn't supposed to be able to obtain your phone records without a warrant.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:59:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:49:12 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:42:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:30:39 AM, segijohe wrote:
Unless you make frequent calls to China or Pakistan then you probably aren't on an NSA watch list. I mean I'm shocked that people are surprised the government monitors our email. So does Facebook and Google. That is the way things are. The American government can't do anything to American citizens based on information they receive without a warrant. Thankfully, we have a system of checks and balances. I will be concerned when a 'whistleblower' comes out with intel that shows the government bypassing our 4th amendment rights.

You don't consider PRISM as bypassing 4th amendment rights?

The US Senate has voted by overwhelming majority to extend the provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 " the controversial law that grants intelligence agencies broad authority to spy on US citizens " for another five years.

The law, which was first passed in the wake of the Bush-era warrantless wiretapping scandal, grants telecoms companies blanket immunity from prosecution for participating in domestic surveillance.

In addition, it specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email, and other communications of US citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant, provided one of the parties to the communications is outside the US.

http://www.theregister.co.uk...

This is suspension of rights inherent in the constitution, IMHO. It's martial law.

You're right, it is an illegal search. That is why it cannot be used against you in the court of law. It just points the government in the right direction. Usually the guys they get end up getting caught with some pretty incriminating stuff such as bombs or bomb making equipment and they are charged for that.

That defeats the entire purpose of the amendment, by that logic the govt could do any and every type of spying on citizens. Judges shouldnt give warrants based on illegally obtained evidence.
They were asked to provide examples of cases where prism itself was instrumental in stopping a terrorist plot and they couldn't give one example.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:01:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:49:12 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:42:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:30:39 AM, segijohe wrote:
Unless you make frequent calls to China or Pakistan then you probably aren't on an NSA watch list. I mean I'm shocked that people are surprised the government monitors our email. So does Facebook and Google. That is the way things are. The American government can't do anything to American citizens based on information they receive without a warrant. Thankfully, we have a system of checks and balances. I will be concerned when a 'whistleblower' comes out with intel that shows the government bypassing our 4th amendment rights.

You don't consider PRISM as bypassing 4th amendment rights?

The US Senate has voted by overwhelming majority to extend the provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 " the controversial law that grants intelligence agencies broad authority to spy on US citizens " for another five years.

The law, which was first passed in the wake of the Bush-era warrantless wiretapping scandal, grants telecoms companies blanket immunity from prosecution for participating in domestic surveillance.

In addition, it specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email, and other communications of US citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant, provided one of the parties to the communications is outside the US.

http://www.theregister.co.uk...

This is suspension of rights inherent in the constitution, IMHO. It's martial law.

You're right, it is an illegal search. That is why it cannot be used against you in the court of law. It just points the government in the right direction. Usually the guys they get end up getting caught with some pretty incriminating stuff such as bombs or bomb making equipment and they are charged for that.

No, it's a legal search, until it is rendered unconstitutional. It CAN be used against you in a court of law. If it couldn't, then any leads the government may have derived from PRISM would be wholly invalid, but they're not.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
segijohe
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:01:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is not true, the government is allowed to have your phone records. (Smith v. Maryland) They are not allowed to listen to wiretap your phone calls.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:02:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:59:17 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:49:12 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:42:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:30:39 AM, segijohe wrote:
Unless you make frequent calls to China or Pakistan then you probably aren't on an NSA watch list. I mean I'm shocked that people are surprised the government monitors our email. So does Facebook and Google. That is the way things are. The American government can't do anything to American citizens based on information they receive without a warrant. Thankfully, we have a system of checks and balances. I will be concerned when a 'whistleblower' comes out with intel that shows the government bypassing our 4th amendment rights.

You don't consider PRISM as bypassing 4th amendment rights?

The US Senate has voted by overwhelming majority to extend the provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 " the controversial law that grants intelligence agencies broad authority to spy on US citizens " for another five years.

The law, which was first passed in the wake of the Bush-era warrantless wiretapping scandal, grants telecoms companies blanket immunity from prosecution for participating in domestic surveillance.

In addition, it specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email, and other communications of US citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant, provided one of the parties to the communications is outside the US.

http://www.theregister.co.uk...

This is suspension of rights inherent in the constitution, IMHO. It's martial law.

You're right, it is an illegal search. That is why it cannot be used against you in the court of law. It just points the government in the right direction. Usually the guys they get end up getting caught with some pretty incriminating stuff such as bombs or bomb making equipment and they are charged for that.

That defeats the entire purpose of the amendment, by that logic the govt could do any and every type of spying on citizens. Judges shouldnt give warrants based on illegally obtained evidence.
They were asked to provide examples of cases where prism itself was instrumental in stopping a terrorist plot and they couldn't give one example.

They couldn't because the entire program is classified. Many lawmakers have attested to the effectiveness of the program without giving specific examples.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:03:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:01:30 AM, segijohe wrote:
This is not true, the government is allowed to have your phone records. (Smith v. Maryland) They are not allowed to listen to wiretap your phone calls.

You need to reread what I bolded, and address that directly. According to the bolded, the government is indeed monitoring your communications without a warrant.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
segijohe
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:15:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:03:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:01:30 AM, segijohe wrote:
This is not true, the government is allowed to have your phone records. (Smith v. Maryland) They are not allowed to listen to wiretap your phone calls.

You need to reread what I bolded, and address that directly. According to the bolded, the government is indeed monitoring your communications without a warrant.

The word 'monitors' is misleading. The NSA sees addresses and phone numbers, with the occasional name. They need a warrant to get the content of these things. What they look for is to see who is talking to known persons of interest. It is like a dog picking up a scent, it simply aids investigations. There is an entire special district court monitoring these cases. There is still a system of checks and balances. If you don't like it, sue the federal government.

If it is so classified then you have no proof to assume that they are violating your constitutional rights. I am not 100% sure they are not, but I will need proof before I begin to feel my rights being violated.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:15:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:02:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:59:17 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:49:12 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:42:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:30:39 AM, segijohe wrote:
Unless you make frequent calls to China or Pakistan then you probably aren't on an NSA watch list. I mean I'm shocked that people are surprised the government monitors our email. So does Facebook and Google. That is the way things are. The American government can't do anything to American citizens based on information they receive without a warrant. Thankfully, we have a system of checks and balances. I will be concerned when a 'whistleblower' comes out with intel that shows the government bypassing our 4th amendment rights.

You don't consider PRISM as bypassing 4th amendment rights?

The US Senate has voted by overwhelming majority to extend the provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 " the controversial law that grants intelligence agencies broad authority to spy on US citizens " for another five years.

The law, which was first passed in the wake of the Bush-era warrantless wiretapping scandal, grants telecoms companies blanket immunity from prosecution for participating in domestic surveillance.

In addition, it specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email, and other communications of US citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant, provided one of the parties to the communications is outside the US.

http://www.theregister.co.uk...

This is suspension of rights inherent in the constitution, IMHO. It's martial law.

You're right, it is an illegal search. That is why it cannot be used against you in the court of law. It just points the government in the right direction. Usually the guys they get end up getting caught with some pretty incriminating stuff such as bombs or bomb making equipment and they are charged for that.

That defeats the entire purpose of the amendment, by that logic the govt could do any and every type of spying on citizens. Judges shouldnt give warrants based on illegally obtained evidence.
They were asked to provide examples of cases where prism itself was instrumental in stopping a terrorist plot and they couldn't give one example.

They couldn't because the entire program is classified. Many lawmakers have attested to the effectiveness of the program without giving specific examples.

Ha reminds me of the picture of the Indians 'sure, you can trust the government'
Those lawmakers are scum of the earth pure evil.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:17:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:15:01 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:03:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:01:30 AM, segijohe wrote:
This is not true, the government is allowed to have your phone records. (Smith v. Maryland) They are not allowed to listen to wiretap your phone calls.

You need to reread what I bolded, and address that directly. According to the bolded, the government is indeed monitoring your communications without a warrant.

The word 'monitors' is misleading. The NSA sees addresses and phone numbers, with the occasional name. They need a warrant to get the content of these things. What they look for is to see who is talking to known persons of interest. It is like a dog picking up a scent, it simply aids investigations. There is an entire special district court monitoring these cases. There is still a system of checks and balances. If you don't like it, sue the federal government.

If it is so classified then you have no proof to assume that they are violating your constitutional rights. I am not 100% sure they are not, but I will need proof before I begin to feel my rights being violated.

So long as they violate your rights in secret you don't care?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:30:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:15:01 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:03:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:01:30 AM, segijohe wrote:
This is not true, the government is allowed to have your phone records. (Smith v. Maryland) They are not allowed to listen to wiretap your phone calls.

You need to reread what I bolded, and address that directly. According to the bolded, the government is indeed monitoring your communications without a warrant.

The word 'monitors' is misleading. The NSA sees addresses and phone numbers, with the occasional name. They need a warrant to get the content of these things. What they look for is to see who is talking to known persons of interest. It is like a dog picking up a scent, it simply aids investigations. There is an entire special district court monitoring these cases. There is still a system of checks and balances. If you don't like it, sue the federal government.

If it is so classified then you have no proof to assume that they are violating your constitutional rights. I am not 100% sure they are not, but I will need proof before I begin to feel my rights being violated.

You do realize Snowden leaked classified information regarding PRISM, yes?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
segijohe
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:31:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:17:51 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:15:01 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:03:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:01:30 AM, segijohe wrote:
This is not true, the government is allowed to have your phone records. (Smith v. Maryland) They are not allowed to listen to wiretap your phone calls.

You need to reread what I bolded, and address that directly. According to the bolded, the government is indeed monitoring your communications without a warrant.

The word 'monitors' is misleading. The NSA sees addresses and phone numbers, with the occasional name. They need a warrant to get the content of these things. What they look for is to see who is talking to known persons of interest. It is like a dog picking up a scent, it simply aids investigations. There is an entire special district court monitoring these cases. There is still a system of checks and balances. If you don't like it, sue the federal government.

If it is so classified then you have no proof to assume that they are violating your constitutional rights. I am not 100% sure they are not, but I will need proof before I begin to feel my rights being violated.

So long as they violate your rights in secret you don't care?

But you cannot know that they are violating my rights. You have no proof, therefore why should I care if they might be. Information is information. Yes, it gives them power, but they seem to have used it responsibly as of now. If you disagree with them having that much power, then so be it. That is your opinion. Even if they were violating my rights, they cannot use any information against you in the court of law unless they received a warrant. It is invasive, and uncomfortable, but not a violation of my rights.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:38:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:15:01 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:03:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:01:30 AM, segijohe wrote:
This is not true, the government is allowed to have your phone records. (Smith v. Maryland) They are not allowed to listen to wiretap your phone calls.

You need to reread what I bolded, and address that directly. According to the bolded, the government is indeed monitoring your communications without a warrant.

The word 'monitors' is misleading. The NSA sees addresses and phone numbers, with the occasional name. They need a warrant to get the content of these things. What they look for is to see who is talking to known persons of interest. It is like a dog picking up a scent, it simply aids investigations. There is an entire special district court monitoring these cases. There is still a system of checks and balances. If you don't like it, sue the federal government.

If it is so classified then you have no proof to assume that they are violating your constitutional rights. I am not 100% sure they are not, but I will need proof before I begin to feel my rights being violated.

No it is not misleading. You are misleading yourself. From the original leak:

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.


http://www.guardian.co.uk...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:39:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:31:58 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:17:51 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:15:01 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:03:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:01:30 AM, segijohe wrote:
This is not true, the government is allowed to have your phone records. (Smith v. Maryland) They are not allowed to listen to wiretap your phone calls.

You need to reread what I bolded, and address that directly. According to the bolded, the government is indeed monitoring your communications without a warrant.

The word 'monitors' is misleading. The NSA sees addresses and phone numbers, with the occasional name. They need a warrant to get the content of these things. What they look for is to see who is talking to known persons of interest. It is like a dog picking up a scent, it simply aids investigations. There is an entire special district court monitoring these cases. There is still a system of checks and balances. If you don't like it, sue the federal government.

If it is so classified then you have no proof to assume that they are violating your constitutional rights. I am not 100% sure they are not, but I will need proof before I begin to feel my rights being violated.

So long as they violate your rights in secret you don't care?

But you cannot know that they are violating my rights. You have no proof, therefore why should I care if they might be. Information is information. Yes, it gives them power, but they seem to have used it responsibly as of now. If you disagree with them having that much power, then so be it. That is your opinion. Even if they were violating my rights, they cannot use any information against you in the court of law unless they received a warrant. It is invasive, and uncomfortable, but not a violation of my rights.

I'm going to ask you again if you are aware who Edward Snowden is, and whether or not you are aware that he leaked classified information on PRISM?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
segijohe
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:41:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:30:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:15:01 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:03:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:01:30 AM, segijohe wrote:
This is not true, the government is allowed to have your phone records. (Smith v. Maryland) They are not allowed to listen to wiretap your phone calls.

You need to reread what I bolded, and address that directly. According to the bolded, the government is indeed monitoring your communications without a warrant.

The word 'monitors' is misleading. The NSA sees addresses and phone numbers, with the occasional name. They need a warrant to get the content of these things. What they look for is to see who is talking to known persons of interest. It is like a dog picking up a scent, it simply aids investigations. There is an entire special district court monitoring these cases. There is still a system of checks and balances. If you don't like it, sue the federal government.

If it is so classified then you have no proof to assume that they are violating your constitutional rights. I am not 100% sure they are not, but I will need proof before I begin to feel my rights being violated.

You do realize Snowden leaked classified information regarding PRISM, yes?

PRISM is data mining. It's no different than almost every other major corporation. They cannot use it in the court of law against you, how many times must I say it. They use it find terrorists. Terrorists only get busted because they are caught planning attacks and or acting on these plans.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:43:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:41:29 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:30:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

PRISM is data mining. It's no different than almost every other major corporation. They cannot use it in the court of law against you, how many times must I say it. They use it find terrorists. Terrorists only get busted because they are caught planning attacks and or acting on these plans.

IF what you're saying is true here (which I sincerely doubt), the reason they don't use it in a court of law against you is because the government has been given license to shoot first and ask questions later on terrorists. You won't see more terrorists being locked up in GITMO because the government would probably rather kill them outright and spare the legal system the trouble.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:44:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Its a fear game, anyone who is actually scared of terrorists getting them is ignorant. I say we stop the surveillance state and just see if we have this surge in terrorist attacks. For the money it'd save it'd be worth it. I'd strongly contend ending our drone strikes and adventurism would do more towards curbing the threat of terrorism than any secret security state the govt can come up with.
That'll never happen though because the govt always has to keep you scared of something and for the last decade that something ha been terrorism, the fear is completely irrational but the public are sheep.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:48:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:41:29 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:30:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:15:01 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:03:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:01:30 AM, segijohe wrote:
This is not true, the government is allowed to have your phone records. (Smith v. Maryland) They are not allowed to listen to wiretap your phone calls.

You need to reread what I bolded, and address that directly. According to the bolded, the government is indeed monitoring your communications without a warrant.

The word 'monitors' is misleading. The NSA sees addresses and phone numbers, with the occasional name. They need a warrant to get the content of these things. What they look for is to see who is talking to known persons of interest. It is like a dog picking up a scent, it simply aids investigations. There is an entire special district court monitoring these cases. There is still a system of checks and balances. If you don't like it, sue the federal government.

If it is so classified then you have no proof to assume that they are violating your constitutional rights. I am not 100% sure they are not, but I will need proof before I begin to feel my rights being violated.

You do realize Snowden leaked classified information regarding PRISM, yes?

PRISM is data mining. It's no different than almost every other major corporation. They cannot use it in the court of law against you, how many times must I say it. They use it find terrorists. Terrorists only get busted because they are caught planning attacks and or acting on these plans.

The govt has recruited trained and 'caught' more terrorists than they've thwarted any actual plots.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:48:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:38:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:15:01 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:03:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:01:30 AM, segijohe wrote:
This is not true, the government is allowed to have your phone records. (Smith v. Maryland) They are not allowed to listen to wiretap your phone calls.

You need to reread what I bolded, and address that directly. According to the bolded, the government is indeed monitoring your communications without a warrant.

The word 'monitors' is misleading. The NSA sees addresses and phone numbers, with the occasional name. They need a warrant to get the content of these things.

I'm going to stress again that you are completely and utterly mistaken regarding the bolded. Again, from the original leak:

"With this program, the NSA is able to reach directly into the servers of the participating companies and obtain both stored communications as well as perform real-time collection on targeted users."

A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
segijohe
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:50:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:43:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:41:29 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:30:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

PRISM is data mining. It's no different than almost every other major corporation. They cannot use it in the court of law against you, how many times must I say it. They use it find terrorists. Terrorists only get busted because they are caught planning attacks and or acting on these plans.

IF what you're saying is true here (which I sincerely doubt), the reason they don't use it in a court of law against you is because the government has been given license to shoot first and ask questions later on terrorists. You won't see more terrorists being locked up in GITMO because the government would probably rather kill them outright and spare the legal system the trouble.

If the government can justify you as being an enemy combatant they have the right to kill you. That is the way of war. I think we step out of line, but that is a completely other conversation. I am only saying the monitoring itself is not unconstitutional. It is how our government acts with that information that we should judge them.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:52:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:50:49 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:43:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:41:29 AM, segijohe wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:30:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

PRISM is data mining. It's no different than almost every other major corporation. They cannot use it in the court of law against you, how many times must I say it. They use it find terrorists. Terrorists only get busted because they are caught planning attacks and or acting on these plans.

IF what you're saying is true here (which I sincerely doubt), the reason they don't use it in a court of law against you is because the government has been given license to shoot first and ask questions later on terrorists. You won't see more terrorists being locked up in GITMO because the government would probably rather kill them outright and spare the legal system the trouble.

If the government can justify you as being an enemy combatant they have the right to kill you. That is the way of war. I think we step out of line, but that is a completely other conversation. I am only saying the monitoring itself is not unconstitutional. It is how our government acts with that information that we should judge them.

All I am saying is that

1) You are misinformed as to the breadth of the intrusion, and
2) Suspension of habeas corpus is allowable during times of invasion and rebellion, which IMHO is how any of this, including the Patriot Act, could possibly be justifiable, because it is a clear breach of 4th amendment rights. It is martial law.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:55:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have to say, while I understand why it disturbs a lot of people, this is one of those times when it is rather easy to draw a line. That line exists between obtaining information, and acting on it. Now obviously, if you don't trust the government to act responsibly with the information then you have reason to be concerned. If you aren't, then them having the information isn't really likely to bother you.

So government surveillance only bothers me to the extent of the risk to misuse of that information, by either the government itself or its workers.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:58:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:55:02 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I have to say, while I understand why it disturbs a lot of people, this is one of those times when it is rather easy to draw a line. That line exists between obtaining information, and acting on it. Now obviously, if you don't trust the government to act responsibly with the information then you have reason to be concerned. If you aren't, then them having the information isn't really likely to bother you.

So government surveillance only bothers me to the extent of the risk to misuse of that information, by either the government itself or its workers.

Would you give me (or anyone else for that matter) your name, drivers licence, bank account numbers, and credit card numbers, on "trust [those people] to act responsibly with the information"? Because guess what? A lot of that information could easily be in those emails.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
segijohe
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:01:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:58:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2013 1:55:02 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I have to say, while I understand why it disturbs a lot of people, this is one of those times when it is rather easy to draw a line. That line exists between obtaining information, and acting on it. Now obviously, if you don't trust the government to act responsibly with the information then you have reason to be concerned. If you aren't, then them having the information isn't really likely to bother you.

So government surveillance only bothers me to the extent of the risk to misuse of that information, by either the government itself or its workers.

Would you give me (or anyone else for that matter) your name, drivers licence, bank account numbers, and credit card numbers, on "trust [those people] to act responsibly with the information"? Because guess what? A lot of that information could easily be in those emails.

That is a poor comparison. The government has all that information. Show me innocent people who have been locked up or killed as a result of these programs.