Jump to content

Menu

NSA/PRISM/cell phone records - right to privacy? right to anything?


Recommended Posts

Techdirt had a good analysis of what's known about the "direct access" assertion.

 

http://www.techdirt....ml?_format=full

 

 

So both the Wash Post article and the tech companies denials are both correct. And even though they are using storage facilities for the government to have access to they are still gaining access when the want to real time data and have been in the offices of the tech companies collecting data.

 

From the article:

 

In the end, it appears that the initial Washington Post report was overblown in that it suggested direct access to all servers, rather than specific servers, set up to provide information that was required. That said, it is still true that the FISA Court appears to issue a fair number of secret orders for information from a variety of technology companies, some of them quite broad, and that many of the biggest tech companies have set up systems to make it easier to give the NSA/FBI and others access to that info -- though, they are often required by law to provide that information. The real outrage remains that all of this is happening in complete secrecy, where there is little real oversight to stop this from being abused. As we noted just a few weeks ago, the FISA Court has become a rubber stamp, rejecting no requests at all in the past two years.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I should figure out which ones are forbidden words. smile.gif

 

This is just the beginning,of the technological revolution. What happens in 200 years when technology becomes much more sophisticated?

 

ETA: missed a page the first time. Wouldn't want you to think that Flood Relief after the Storm was safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, this thread completely disappeared on me... had to find it via Google.

 

I found this a thought provoking read:

 

Using metadata to find Paul Revere

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, this thread completely disappeared on me... had to find it via Google.

 

I found this a thought provoking read:

 

Using metadata to find Paul Revere

http://kieranhealy.o...nd-paul-revere/

 

Yeah, I noticed that yesterday and just thought it was a glitch. But it still appears to be the only thread not showing up in my contents. <queue scary music>

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for starting this thread. I was very concerned when I read the news, too, because it seemed to me like it was a big major deal. I was surprised at some of the comments: "I've got nothing to hide, so I don't care if they monitor my email and cell phone. I want to be safe from terrorists."

 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at reactions like that but I can't go there. I have nothing to hide either but who knows what the future will bring. Perhaps some of my beliefs will become illegal. Perhaps there will be a government in power that I want to resist using my constitutional rights to free speech, assembly, petition, etc. but perhaps that won't appeal to the new government. Then I will have something to hide... but I wouldn't be able to. With that level of data to mine, total tyranny is possible in a way that has never been true in history.

 

I assume that whatever I post on Facebook is public.

 

I stopped using google as a search engine because of all the ads. I switched to bing initially but now am using startpage.

 

I am extremely careful with what I put in emails just because it's easy to send them to the wrong person by accident or I've had a friend get a virus which emailed all her received emails to everyone in her address book!. Yikes. So I don't put things in emails that I wouldn't want half the country to read. However, I consider what I do write to be private, like a postal letter, as far as the government is concerned. I certainly expect my phone calls and text messages not to be monitored.

 

It's something like nuclear weapons. We have the capacity to destroy the whole world and the deterrent is mutually assured destruction? Yikes. But at least it does have a deterrent effect.

 

Now that we have the technology to utterly destroy our freedoms, and the freedom of everyone in the world, what will be the deterrent?

 

I don't like to depend on the integrity of whoever is in control of the data because history shows the extent to which human integrity cannot be trusted. Not only can people can be "bought" but people can also be socialized to believe that doing something wrong is what is right , like that experiment in which college students thought they were shocking someone severely and many did it because the experimenter told them to. People bend to people in authority and the ends justify the means and all that.

 

I am not sure what Snowden leaked that was top secret and worthy of the label traitor. It seems it was simply proof of all the data mining. I assume that we spy on our enemies. I assume our enemies spy on us.

 

I did not assume that our own government was spying on us, "searching" our private communications without warrants.

 

Has anyone else switched to startpage? Do you think it actually does what it says it does?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Laurie4b - I've not tried startpage, but you've encouraged me to check it out.

 

One of the articles already linked in this thread posed the same concerns.

 

To an increasing degree, we're counting on having angels in office and making ourselves vulnerable to devils. Bush and Obama have built infrastructure any devil would lust after.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for starting this thread. I was very concerned when I read the news, too, because it seemed to me like it was a big major deal. I was surprised at some of the comments: "I've got nothing to hide, so I don't care if they monitor my email and cell phone. I want to be safe from terrorists."

 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at reactions like that but I can't go there. I have nothing to hide either but who knows what the future will bring. Perhaps some of my beliefs will become illegal. Perhaps there will be a government in power that I want to resist using my constitutional rights to free speech, assembly, petition, etc. but perhaps that won't appeal to the new government. Then I will have something to hide... but I wouldn't be able to. With that level of data to mine, total tyranny is possible in a way that has never been true in history.

 

I assume that whatever I post on Facebook is public.

 

I stopped using google as a search engine because of all the ads. I switched to bing initially but now am using startpage.

 

I am extremely careful with what I put in emails just because it's easy to send them to the wrong person by accident or I've had a friend get a virus which emailed all her received emails to everyone in her address book!. Yikes. So I don't put things in emails that I wouldn't want half the country to read. However, I consider what I do write to be private, like a postal letter, as far as the government is concerned. I certainly expect my phone calls and text messages not to be monitored.

 

It's something like nuclear weapons. We have the capacity to destroy the whole world and the deterrent is mutually assured destruction? Yikes. But at least it does have a deterrent effect.

 

Now that we have the technology to utterly destroy our freedoms, and the freedom of everyone in the world, what will be the deterrent?

 

I don't like to depend on the integrity of whoever is in control of the data because history shows the extent to which human integrity cannot be trusted. Not only can people can be "bought" but people can also be socialized to believe that doing something wrong is what is right , like that experiment in which college students thought they were shocking someone severely and many did it because the experimenter told them to. People bend to people in authority and the ends justify the means and all that.

 

I am not sure what Snowden leaked that was top secret and worthy of the label traitor. It seems it was simply proof of all the data mining. I assume that we spy on our enemies. I assume our enemies spy on us.

 

I did not assume that our own government was spying on us, "searching" our private communications without warrants.

 

Has anyone else switched to startpage? Do you think it actually does what it says it does?

 

The difference is that I don't think our enemies spy on the average private citizen of the US, they spy on the gov't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The difference is that I don't think our enemies spy on the average private citizen of the US, they spy on the gov't.

 

Yes, true. I was meaning that it is the act of an enemy to do that. I would be horrified and offended to find that another government was mining our data, perhaps looking for trade secrets (something nongovernmental) but it would be explicable by reason of the adversarial relationship. I wasn't expecting that from our own government, frankly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband works for the DoD, with a Top Secret security clearance, so we've been acting like our lives were essentially an "open book" for years. I don't like it. My mom initially got upset that we registered our NOI with the state. She didn't feel like the state has any business in what we do. I explained that while I may agree with her, we felt compelled to properly register our children due to dh's job. If we didn't register, I had no doubt it would be found out, and then we'd be flagged for additional scrutiny. There are no bumper stickers on our cars, no signs in our yard...most of our conversations about important things are done in hushed tones late at night in our room. Not on the phone, not via electronic anything. Talk about chilled-speech...

 

We were also opposed to the Patriot Act...and many of the "pass-the-buck" types of legislation Congress has been writing for the past 100 years (or thereabout). I'm referring to legislation giving broad powers to un-elected bureaucrats (which is essentially what the Patriot Act was). They've been passing essential legislative duties onto others for years, enabling those bureaucracies to enact all types of rules which infringe upon personal liberties (overreach), and now they are "surprised" that these agencies are doing things like this...it's everywhere. Most of our Congressmen and Senators can't be bothered with the details...pass something now, we'll figure out the details later...until those details come back to bite them in the proverbial rear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the link to startpage if anyone wants it. https://startpage.co...privacy.html��A friend posted about it on Facebook and the IT guys at work approve. Other than that, I don't know much about it and would like to hear input from anyone else who knows. For instance, I don't know how they make their money.

 

I always thought google made money by offering the ads. Duh. Dummy me, I thought they were just ads linked to that particular search.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband works for the DoD, with a Top Secret security clearance, so we've been acting like our lives were essentially an "open book" for years. I don't like it. My mom initially got upset that we registered our NOI with the state. She didn't feel like the state has any business in what we do. I explained that while I may agree with her, we felt compelled to properly register our children due to dh's job. If we didn't register, I had no doubt it would be found out, and then we'd be flagged for additional scrutiny. There are no bumper stickers on our cars, no signs in our yard...most of our conversations about important things are done in hushed tones late at night in our room. Not on the phone, not via electronic anything. Talk about chilled-speech...

 

We were also opposed to the Patriot Act...and many of the "pass-the-buck" types of legislation Congress has been writing for the past 100 years (or thereabout). I'm referring to legislation giving broad powers to un-elected bureaucrats (which is essentially what the Patriot Act was). They've been passing essential legislative duties onto others for years, enabling those bureaucracies to enact all types of rules which infringe upon personal liberties (overreach), and now they are "surprised" that these agencies are doing things like this...it's everywhere. Most of our Congressmen and Senators can't be bothered with the details...pass something now, we'll figure out the details later...until those details come back to bite them in the proverbial rear.

 

 

This!

 

My brother does computer software development work for a branch of the armed services. He is not TOP security clearance, somewhere in the middle. However, he feels as though he can't even relax in his own home. He knows his personal email is intercepted all of the time, and he once had someone attempt to link his facebook page to a partisan cartoon. So, he disabled his facebook account. He is very afraid of what he says in his own living room!

 

Congress abdicated their authority on these issues, and now we have a train wreck. It's not partisan either. They were all accomplices in this.

 

Faith

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I am more concerned about what action is taken on the information. I have just assumed recently that there truly is no privacy. I have no doubt that the private sector has so much information on me I would cry if I knew, and I even try to limit how much I share. Given history, I also figured that even if the gov't didn't have the info at the time, it certainly would if it wanted it.

 

But people are right that the gov't can make you disappear, and that is where my outrage goes. To me anyway, it's not the collecting of data that is terrible (though I don't like it), it's the violation of civil and human rights afterwards. Torture, rendition, targeting of US citizens aboard for assassination, secrecy; watching all that happen and continue to happen is terrifying. Being a US citizen provides only some and obviously easily eroded protection from a gov't that thinks safety trumps human rights. I used to think US citizens would never put up with their gov't violating human rights to that degree, and then I saw the aftermath of 9-11. I don't really care if a gov't that values civil and human rights collects info in a broad, open, accountable way. But I no longer trust the American people to hold their gov't accountable for atrocities, and when you aren't held accountable for anything except preventing a terrorist attack, what's the incentive to not use that info in any way you want?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think whistle-blowers like Snowden are important in today's society because most people either don't realize or don't care about what is going on in their own country. Revelations like this literally hit home with everyone. It makes it more personal so the general population can't lull themselves into believing it is happening to everyone else but them. I've read that Snowden has much more dangerous information that he is willing to give up and I think the Guardian was wise to hold off on that. Will they continue to keep it quiet or will it become too big of a story to withhold?

Link to post
Share on other sites
We were also opposed to the Patriot Act...and many of the "pass-the-buck" types of legislation Congress has been writing for the past 100 years (or thereabout). I'm referring to legislation giving broad powers to un-elected bureaucrats (which is essentially what the Patriot Act was). They've been passing essential legislative duties onto others for years, enabling those bureaucracies to enact all types of rules which infringe upon personal liberties (overreach), and now they are "surprised" that these agencies are doing things like this...it's everywhere. Most of our Congressmen and Senators can't be bothered with the details...pass something now, we'll figure out the details later...until those details come back to bite them in the proverbial rear.

 

 

I'm restricting my discussion to the NSA, but this is the key, and allows them their "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" moment. Sen. Ron Wyden is the only one of the lot of them I recall ever seriously pushing against this, and his persistence has met with Agency stonewalling and public indifference from most of his colleagues (some of whom have publicly endorsed what I consider to be shocking restrictions on the rights of citizens on a case-by-case basis).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I figure I have been marked for years, because I lived in the Middle East for many years and have a lot of Arab friends who I still correspond with/have FB contact with. So, I'm sure I've been flagged, but feel helpless to do anything about it. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

What surprises me is that people are surprised.

But I think it is. Where was the outrage with the Patriot Act?

 

 

I'm surprised at the level of surprise. People like me who were outraged over the Patriot Act were called unpatriotic. This is exactly what we said it would lead to. Now suddenly everyone is shocked and outraged? Where were they 12 years ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody worries facebook agents will show up at your door, accuse you of wrongdoing and make you disappear for years in a prison cell without trial. Government can. I never thought I would ever fear anything like that in the U.S., but I no longer think we are immune. Did anybody link this article from the Atlantic? This is what I am trying to say.

"All the infrastructure a tyrant would need"

http://www.theatlant...d-obama/276635/

 

 

Since there is a never-ending revolving door between the private sector and the public, I assume my every move is being watched (not by humans, rather computers). Unless I choose to go off grid, way off, I see little I can do. The government is not the only "body" that has access to my data, has guns, can take away what is mine, and ultimately take my life. There's just too little time to fret over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there is a never-ending revolving door between the private sector and the public, I assume my every move is being watched (not by humans, rather computers). Unless I choose to go off grid, way off, I see little I can do. The government is not the only "body" that has access to my data, has guns, can take away what is mine, and ultimately take my life. There's just too little time to fret over it.

 

Most of us have no cause to fret. It's primarily the people with accidental incidental ties to terrorists, the Brandon Mayfields and the Lotfi Raissis, those placed on the watchlist and the no-fly list for little more than the spelling of their name or visiting the wrong coffee shop on the wrong day. It's the people who can be apprehended based on suspicions and hidden away without any recourse. And without adequate safeguards, it's people like the ex-spouses of slightly unhinged persons with access to the databases, etc. All that data, just beckoning is quite the temptation. If the program is secret (ish) and the mechanisms are secret (ish) and the safeguards are not up for discussion, who is there to trust to root out and stop abuse?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there is a never-ending revolving door between the private sector and the public, I assume my every move is being watched (not by humans, rather computers). Unless I choose to go off grid, way off, I see little I can do. The government is not the only "body" that has access to my data, has guns, can take away what is mine, and ultimately take my life. There's just too little time to fret over it.

 

And happy belated birthday! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people really think that all this data really prevents terrorists though? The government was warned and talked to the older brother before the Boston Marathon bombings. Did that stop them? If they have warnings and contacts about people and still can't figure it out, how can I expect them to gather massive amounts of data on its own citizens and be able to use it to prevent a thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people really think that all this data really prevents terrorists though? The government was warned and talked to the older brother before the Boston Marathon bombings. Did that stop them? If they have warnings and contacts about people and still can't figure it out, how can I expect them to gather massive amounts of data on its own citizens and be able to use it to prevent a thing?

 

 

Nothing is going to beat leg work IMHO. And honestly, I think there's a more than a bit of posturing and entrapment going on. See Mother Jones on FBI entrapment of terrorism suspects.

 

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/fbi-terrorist-informants

 

There was case here, of Mohamed Muhamed, that I couldn't help but wonder what might have happened if authorities had gone to the (then) boy's family and community early on instead of egging him on. It was obvious at the beginning that he had no contacts that would make it worth paying worth him for so long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read an article in the Guardian about how the NSA is going to expose all of the plots they've prevented through data mining, but senators (conveniently) aren't buying it. I feel so good these guys are (finally) standing up for us, don't you? thumbdown.gif
 

I'll give them that they might find the data mine tool useful if they have something specific they are looking for and they have an urgent need (Boston Marathon). However, I just don't think it's worth the cost. I think it could also be used against anyone just as easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more difficult to find and stop a potential terrorist attack in this manner (randomly scanning information looking for "something" suspicious), than it would be to target a particular person and get as much info on them as possible. I think I read that something like 800,000 people have an advanced level of security clearance (similar to Snowden's) that they could have access to such data? That's a lot of people. So if anyone had an individual axe to grind, it might be easy to do so. Are we counting on all 800,000 of these people to be of such upright moral character that they wouldn't dream of doing so?

 

Secondly, how hard would it be to influence, threaten or blackmail someone who might be in a position of power? There are things people do that are illegal, borderline illegal, or just downright embarrassing. They could easily be compromised.

 

Third, with all the rapacious financial institutions (big banks, hedge funds, wall street whizzes) looking for the tiniest bit of an "edge" in information so they can parlay that into a huge investment payoff -- I'm thinking this is ALREADY being done. To the detriment of everyone else's investments, of course.

 

There are more problems that I can think of, but this is a start. The fact that more than half the people seem to be "okay" with this in the name of "fighting terrorism" makes me more than a little ill. Makes me wonder who is benefiting the most from the "terrorism," and who may have allowed it to occur for reasons I don't even want to think about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In March, Clapper responded "no" and "not wittingly" to a question from Wyden about whether the NSA collects "any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans." Clapper has since admitted that was the "least untruthful" answer he could have given.

 

 

Yeah, he claimed not to have understood Wyden's question, even though Wyden had provided it his for consideration a day prior and gave him a chance to clarify after the fact.

 

Clapper has to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

think I read that something like 800,000 people have an advanced level of security clearance (similar to Snowden's) that they could have access to such data?

 

This is not how things work.

 

Let's assign letters for levels to make things simple. So, we will say that A is the lowest level of security clearance and we will say that G is the highest level. People with A Level clearance are not given access to all A Level documents. People with Level G clearance cannot go into a database and look at all government documents labeled Level G. At nearly every level people are only allowed access to information that directly pertains to their work. Random snooping is likely to result in the loss of security clearance. The "need to know" factor comes into much greater play at level G than it does Level A.

 

So, there might be X number of people with any level of security clearance, but that doesn't mean that all of those people have access to a complete database...if one existed.

 

The *worst* thing about all of this? It is a waste of manpower to tap my phone because I used an unfortunate combination of words in an email that directly relates to my volunteer duties. When everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority.

 

I guess I see enough of the government to not believe that it is really capable of using the random information it is collecting to any truly nefarious purpose. IMO, those harms are far more likely to come from the data mining done by private companies. The government is not efficient enough to do anything with the vast amounts of information it is collecting. It cannot manage things like figuring out we have moved, even though it moved us. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not how things work.

 

Let's assign letters for levels to make things simple. So, we will say that A is the lowest level of security clearance and we will say that G is the highest level. People with A Level clearance are not given access to all A Level documents. People with Level G clearance cannot go into a database and look at all government documents labeled Level G. At nearly every level people are only allowed access to information that directly pertains to their work. Random snooping is likely to result in the loss of security clearance. The "need to know" factor comes into much greater play at level G than it does Level A.

 

So, there might be X number of people with any level of security clearance, but that doesn't mean that all of those people have access to a complete database...if one existed.

 

The *worst* thing about all of this? It is a waste of manpower to tap my phone because I used an unfortunate combination of words in an email that directly relates to my volunteer duties. When everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority.

 

I guess I see enough of the government to not believe that it is really capable of using the random information it is collecting to any truly nefarious purpose. IMO, those harms are far more likely to come from the data mining done by private companies. The government is not efficient enough to do anything with the vast amounts of information it is collecting. It cannot manage things like figuring out we have moved, even though it moved us. ;)

 

 

:iagree:

Yep. Classified information is compartmentalized and accessible on a need to know basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

:iagree:

Yep. Classified information is compartmentalized and accessible on a need to know basis.

 

 

I'm just wondering how THIS guy (Snowden), who works for a contractor, not the government itself, has enough of a clearance that the government is worried about him spilling "top level secrets" to foreign governments (apparently).

 

I also wonder if this played into the outing of Gen. Petraeus' affair last fall. "Everybody" wouldn't have to have access to everything, in order for "somebody" to do major damage to someone else, or the country in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not how things work.

 

Let's assign letters for levels to make things simple. So, we will say that A is the lowest level of security clearance and we will say that G is the highest level. People with A Level clearance are not given access to all A Level documents. People with Level G clearance cannot go into a database and look at all government documents labeled Level G. At nearly every level people are only allowed access to information that directly pertains to their work. Random snooping is likely to result in the loss of security clearance. The "need to know" factor comes into much greater play at level G than it does Level A.

 

There will be roomfuls of analysts paid to come up with new ways to play with the data. And when there's data on everyone, sortable in any which way, searches can be done without looking like they're targeting a specific individual. Heck, there are studies out showing how people can be identified using aggregated data sorted by zip code. This isn't my main concern, but it's not inconceivable, any more than is the database being hacked.

 

The *worst* thing about all of this? It is a waste of manpower to tap my phone because I used an unfortunate combination of words in an email that directly relates to my volunteer duties. When everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority.

 

You might see it another way if you've been placed on a watch list and have no one to contact and no means to get off.

 

I guess I see enough of the government to not believe that it is really capable of using the random information it is collecting to any truly nefarious purpose. IMO, those harms are far more likely to come from the data mining done by private companies. The government is not efficient enough to do anything with the vast amounts of information it is collecting. It cannot manage things like figuring out we have moved, even though it moved us. ;)

 

It depends how you're looking at individuals or on a systemic level. I happen to think the system is not designed to exonerate, and the lucky few who get eventually cleared after being erroneously swept up all too often find their lives destroyed in the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering how THIS guy (Snowden), who works for a contractor, not the government itself, has enough of a clearance that the government is worried about him spilling "top level secrets" to foreign governments (apparently).

 

I also wonder if this played into the outing of Gen. Petraeus' affair last fall. "Everybody" wouldn't have to have access to everything, in order for "somebody" to do major damage to someone else, or the country in general.

 

The government contracts with private companies and many contractors have security clearances that enable them to access information needed to do their jobs. It is not at all unusual for people outside of the military and government service positions to have a security clearance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest erinbeth

I guess I'm surprised that people are surprised. I felt like the Patriot Act opened up a door that certainly wasn't going to be closed again.

 

This is how I feel about it also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us/cfp-us-race-against-time/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 I find myself wondering about articles like this. It doesn't specifically invoke NSA, but it is Homeland Security, but aren't they related? I thought Homeland Security was to protect us from terrorist attacks, but here it looks like a classic law enforcement.

 

Is this type of story being highlighted right now to quiet people who are concerned about privacy?

 

Of course, I am happy that a little girl was saved from rape and that many other children were rescued. But is this somehow meant to imply that if the govt couldn't just collect all our data and then go rummaging through it, that that little girl may have been raped and possibly lost her life? That if I insist on privacy and warrants for searches than I'm condemning little children to torture?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2...tml?hpt=hp_t1�� I find myself wondering about articles like this. It doesn't specifically invoke NSA, but it is Homeland Security, but aren't they related? I thought Homeland Security was to protect us from terrorist attacks, but here it looks like a classic law enforcement.

 

Is this type of story being highlighted right now to quiet people who are concerned about privacy?

 

Of course, I am happy that a little girl was saved from rape and that many other children were rescued. But is this somehow meant to imply that if the govt couldn't just collect all our data and then go rummaging through it, that that little girl may have been raped and possibly lost her life? That if I insist on privacy and warrants for searches than I'm condemning little children to torture?

 

I agree... it's such a doubled edged sword.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh....I want to go to a far off land and disappear, I think!

 

Faith

 

Far off lands are no escape, I'm afraid. There's considerable upset worldwide about the extent to which US secret services have been mass gathering data overseas.

 

L

Link to post
Share on other sites

Far off lands are no escape, I'm afraid. There's considerable upset worldwide about the extent to which US secret services have been mass gathering data overseas.

 

L

 

 

ARGH!!!!!!

 

Oh, and dd looked at that list of words. She's a medic (first responder) so she figures that they probably have CIA following her! LOL

 

Faith

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that they've been "doing it for years" and "why should anyone be surprised by this?" is not the issue.... and it doesn't mean we should just move along and act like there's nothing to see here.

 

True.. I point things out like that because people like to blame our current President and Congress, when in fact, it started long before they came along.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

True.. I point things out like that because people like to blame our current President and Congress, when in fact, it started long before they came along.

 

The OP addressed that already: "I hope we can discuss this without resorting to partisan jabs and swipes. This has been signed off on during both a Republican and Democratic presidency and members of Congress are aware of and have approved what is going on."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The OP addressed that already: "I hope we can discuss this without resorting to partisan jabs and swipes. This has been signed off on during both a Republican and Democratic presidency and members of Congress are aware of and have approved what is going on."

 

 

Yes she did............. and I was clarifying why so many point out that it's not new. I hardly made it partisan. I didn't put blame on any specific person or party. There are many to blame, on both sides, for where we are now and how we got here. Many on both sides also deserve credit for the good, essential parts of the Patriot Act and similar legistlation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The government contracts with private companies and many contractors have security clearances that enable them to access information needed to do their jobs. It is not at all unusual for people outside of the military and government service positions to have a security clearance.

 

 

Apparently Contractor Snowden has quite a bit of information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting is that irl, most people I know are discussing whether or not Snowden is a traitor or a whistleblower (he did not follow whistleblower guidelines, from what I understand).......... they stopped talking about the actual information about a day after it hit the news. May be due to living in a military community....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

:lol:

 

You aren't kidding. I don't know how many times I have been looking things up only to realize how suspicious it would seem.

 

 

My son had a question when he was taking AP Chemistry and the instructor advised him not to google and look up any information online because it might give someone the wrong impression.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another right bites the dust.

Salinas v. Texas - Supreme Court decides that if you choose to stay silent, but you do not verbally invoke your right to stay silent while in a voluntary, non-police custody interview, that silence can be used to incriminate you in trial. The law, is quite convoluted, of course, but this is what it comes down to.

 

Our rights are slowly getting whittled away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another right bites the dust.

Salinas v. Texas - Supreme Court decides that if you choose to stay silent, but you do not verbally invoke your right to stay silent while in a voluntary, non-police custody interview, that silence can be used to incriminate you in trial. The law, is quite convoluted, of course, but this is what it comes down to.

 

Our rights are slowly getting whittled away.

 

 

Wow. I find that truly shocking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do people think of the Snowden thing now? I read an article this morning that said it was likely that he would be debriefed by Russian authorities if he flew into Russia as previous reports have stated. Then other news items are saying that Russian officials are saying he never crossed their borders.

 

I wonder if he pondered the possibility that everything he had could be forced from him by a foreign government? I could understand what he did was essentially whistle-blowing in calling attention to the privacy invasion going on unbeknownst to the American voting public, but the potential for foreign governments to get all the information makes me think differently.

 

However, I think it is hard for us to know what is actually happening and likely that all sides are manipulating perception through the media.

 

Of course what motivates Snowden or what happens to his info doesn't change the situation of what is happening to privacy.

 

ETA: This was out of date as soon as I wrote it. (I took a break and posted something I had been thinking about since checking the news this morning.) So now Putin has said that Snowden is in the country and that his intelligence agents are not working with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...