Big Brother is Watching You

[homerfobe]

Just shut up already weirdo.

Go fornicate thyself. You got a backbone like a dog, I have confidence you'll have no problem.

That doesn't even make sense. What's wrong with you anyway?

Think about it. It'll come to you.

[bannination]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/ns ... =1&_r=1&hp


Sounds to me that the NSA is preparing for a civil war.... against us.


Oh yeah, and something I told ombudsman about earlier...... bu bu but it's only metadata. Right.....

But the agencies’ goal was to move away from decrypting targets’ tools one by one and instead decode, in real time, all of the information flying over the world’s fiber optic cables and through its Internet hubs, only afterward searching the decrypted material for valuable intelligence.

[homerfobe]

Clearly, homerfobe thinks about it, a lot.

As well as you. Here, Vrede, Vrede, Vrede...come get your bone.

[O Really]

And yet, while apparently taking time out from peeking at emails to do something nefarious to some guy on the street, the NSA managed to turn up a message out of Iran to attack US interests in Iraq if Syria gets bombed, probably including the embassy in Baghdad. Of course, the RW Loons would like nothing more than for another embassy to be attacked. Even better if DoS people are taken or injured. I dont know how those guys keep up with what they're for. Oh yeah, that would be anything opposing Obama.

[O Really]

Whatever one might think of the political honchos, those actually doing the listening are pretty good at their jobs. And they know that some people try diversions. For example, back in my (dark ages) time, it wasnt unusual for either Israel, Egypt, or Jordan to send out fake messages just to spook the others. Some of us were not fooled.

[O Really]

Did you ever discover that you were wrong or that what you learned did not match the public presentation?

We're not discussing the quality of those listening, we're discussing the application of that quality and the results of that listening that we're selectively told about as filtered through the political honchos. For example, Iraq - Was the intel we were spoon fed "pretty good"?

Wrong? Moi? Of course. Almost any piece of information has to be looked at in context with others. If you don't have the context, you've got a fair chance of being wrong. But you might be right. If you got a message about retribution against the US for bombing Syria, would you slough it off? I wouldn't. Even knowing it might not be totally accurate.

And the public presentation rarely matches the actual facts. For example, one side runs its helicopters across a border. The infringed country shoots down two of them, claim to have shot down four. The infringing country claims not to have lost any. US press doesn't care unless it was US helicopters.

As to Iraq, I doubt that what we were spoon fed had much relationship to what those collecting intel actually said.

[O Really]

I didn't mean you personally, sorry, I'm sure you were "pretty good".

I'd be more worried about voter retribution for bombing Syria.

That's troublesome. Obama isn't up for further re-election. But his going rogue could affect Hillary, who seems determined to give herself a handicap by backing Obama's preference for interference. If he bombs Syria, or takes action past that, it's not going to work well. And anybody who was part of it is going to get some blame.

[O Really]

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense ... reach.html

[O Really]

Indeed... http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00313

[O Really]

My main complaint about PATRIOT - from the beginning and continuing - is that a person can lose his/her normal defense rights by being accused of being a "terrorist." If there were still a "House Un-American Activities Committee" they ought to investigate PATRIOT. The way it's supposed to work is that you get accused, the state has to prove you're guilty, and you either get convicted or not. It's not supposed to be that by simply being accused, you can be held indefinitely in some dungeon somewhere and get beat on the soles of your feet.

So I don't have any problem heading out with the pitchforks and torches for PATRIOT allowing, in effect, conviction by accusation. OTOH, (and there is always an OH), the law has been in effect for more than 10 years, and there don't seem to be many reports of people getting hauled off into the night never to be heard from again. There don't seem to be many stories of people being accused without reason, held, beaten, and then turned loose, either. People do get accused, charged, sometimes convicted, sometimes not - pretty much like it's supposed to be. So is it possible - possible - that there aren't enough abuses of rights, even within what is actually allowed, to generate enough stories for Johnny Manonthestreet to get riled up?

[O Really]

I would never be so presumptuous to argue with your facts, but your first sentence there casts an overly broad net for the topic - or at least the part of the topic I'm addressing. For example, we undoubtedly do "imprison more of our people than anywhere else on the planet," but most of those were at least tried and convicted for crimes not related to accusation of terrorism nor related to deprivation of rights. I'm pretty sure cheerleading for executions, despicable though it may be, isn't new in the bloodthirsty USA, and it didn't start nor increase with PATRIOT or alleged terrorist tracking.

My point is the same as always. Johnny Manonthestreet may be riled up, but he's riled up about the wrong stuff. He's worried some NSA geek is going to find out he's addicted to cute kitten vids when he should be yelling about the laws that allow for greater abuses than have yet - yet - been exhibited. Johnny's not going to care much about torture that involves some swarthy-looking guy that was caught with bomb directions in his pocket. But he needs to connect the dots and see how close it is from "swarthy-looking guy with bomb" to Johnny's cousin with a bag of fertilizer. You and I may find Gitmo a "national shame," but we're apparently in the minority. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -facility/

My original question, phrased differently and largely from Devil's advocacy, is wondering if it's possible that those who could, under PATRIOT, haul lots of citizens away in the night by calling them "terrorists", choose instead mostly to follow normal protocol - investigate, collect evidence, present a probable cause and resulting charge for trial by jury in open court?

[O Really]

I'm not able to compartmentalize the way you do. I see a seamless web of militarism, classism, islamophobia, racism, imperialism, corporatism, intentional fearmongering, etc. all overlapping in goals and tactics and every week we learn that "terrorism" is defined more broadly in justifying NSA, etc. actions than you or I would define it.

You're a Butterfly Effect theorist, I take it?

[O Really]

I am exclusively partisan, no doubt. But maybe not for the reasons most people might think. Although their ranks are thinning, there are or have been some very good Republicans. Problem being, politics is a team sport. People don't get elected to office and "vote their minds," or even vote what the constituents want. They tend to vote along party lines - at least on things that are controversial and significant. So that nice, intelligent, reasonable Republican you thought you were voting for lines up with the loons when the chips are down.

[O Really]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think enough Dems line up the same way and that our national policy and practices are the result, as you demonstrated with the PATRIOT Act vote.

They do, but not nearly as lock-step as the Republicans. If they were, P-Lo could have gotten a better health plan passed faster. Dems have a broader spectrum than Republicans, which pretty much guarantees some defectors on most any issue. But adding any votes to the R side just assures more passage of hard right-wing, ummm, "ideas."

[O Really]

From the report... "His biggest crime? Pasting a link, in a chat room, to documents that were leaked by Anonymous to WikiLeaks."

Would you agree that statement is not entirely accurate nor complete as to the the charges he collected or the actions he took?

[O Really]

Demand Progress didn't mention the stolen credit card numbers in the linked data, nor the self-videoed taunt/threat to the FBI guy by name. I'd agree that the decision on this case will have major impact on internet usage, but this fellow doesn't have exactly the cleanest hands.

[O Really]

So - Brown seems to have been running a Napster, allowing collaborated access to files stored elsewhere, consisting not of copyrighted music but of stolen information including credit card numbers and authentications. It's way more complicated than "prosecuted for posting a link." Post a link to kitten vids and you probably won't get a visit from the Feebs. Post a link to kiddie porn and you might. There is no practical difference from posting a link and posting the file. Nor whether the data actually resides on your machine or somebody elses. Let's say instead of data, it's cash. Brown didn't steal it but he knows where it is and he tells his associates how they can access it. Let's say it's data, and consists entirely (instead of in part) of an identity theft tool box. Brown didn't steal the numbers, but he tells some people how to access them, relying on them not to use the numbers illegally. Make up any story you like, and you still get stolen information, potentially dangerous to innocent parties, distributed through his link. It wasn't just the links to music that got Napster shut down. It was copyright violations committed through those links.

[O Really]

Yes, there are a bunch of charges and maybe he should be guilty of some of them, I don't know. However, it does seem that the most serious charge with the longest possible sentence is the one that Demand Progress is objecting to. Do you read it all differently?

Here's the breakdown of longest potential sentence, by charge... http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/adding-10 ... rett-brown

To say he "faces 107 years" as if that's realistic is a bit of a stretch. And then to compare the maximum potential combined sentences to actual sentences handed down (like the 10 years to the guy that actually stole the files) is pretty worthless. A more decent legal analysis would be to look at the charges, make ones best guess as to whether he might actually get convicted of them, and then use a typical (no max) sentence for conviction on those particular charges. Then consider whether any sentences he got would like by served concurrently or consecutively (likely concurrent), and whether he gets credit for time served (undoubtedly). So finding accuracy in whether he's getting a shaft or not, or whether he's a living example of the jackboots at the door, is hard to get to if you have to go through all caps screaming poor guy's up for `107 years for posting a link. It might be an accurate estimation of his legal situation might be awful enough, without added exaggeration.

[bannination]

[O Really]

107,105, whatever. But it wasn't intentional. That error, along with a couple more I caught after the fact in my post were due more to my using a tablet than trying to distort. But the difference in our desire for literalcy bit again. The article you linked wasn't the only one I read about Brown. The tone, if not literal print, of most of them was to scream about poor ol' Barret getting (up to) 105 years for posting a link.

I do agree with the L3's analysis in the last paragraph, and it's generally what I said. "105 years" doesn't mean "105 years." It's not just one charge, as I think the guy who stole the data was convicted of. An "up to" total of several charges doesn't compare to a sentence handed down for a particular manslaughter conviction or whatever. I have no doubt that the charges are stacked higher than they realistically ought to be. That's what prosecutors do. I have no doubt that doing so helps get a conviction for something, either by a negotiated guilty plea or court decision. That's what prosecutors do. Defense always claims charges are outrageous and totally unfounded.