Big Brother is Watching You

[O Really]

... U.S. officials said ...

This is one of those instances where supposedly secret info. is divulged that is favorable to the government and no one objects or condemns the journalists that publish it.

The author may have been fed some propaganda, but I doubt he stole the information. Besides, I don't know that everybody would consider droning in Syria to be "favorable to the government."

[Vrede too]

My point was that secrecy and theft are malleable terms depending on whether they advance the goals of the national security state or not.

Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras didn't steal any information, either, yet they have been widely condemned for their reporting, often by other journalists that are all too happy to publish "secrets" like those contained in your link.

Few here oppose attacking ISIS by whatever means. Even I have mixed feelings.

[O Really]

Few here oppose attacking ISIS by whatever means. Even I have mixed feelings.

Whoever you are, what did you do with Vrede and Too?

[Vrede too]

Touche.

I still oppose it, but less so than our other Middle East misadventures. It's not like I've ever been fond of misogynists, beheaders, oppressors, the uber-violent or the ultra-religious.

Anyhow, Obama has gotten far more heat for supposedly not doing enough about ISIS than for doing too little. I'm on the fringe re such things and I don't see where reports of his "secretly" droning them can do him real harm.

[rstrong]

Anyhow, Obama has gotten far more heat for supposedly not doing enough about ISIS than for doing too little.

"Exercise a no-fly zone this evening."
- Newt Gingrich, 3/7/11

"I would not have intervened."
- Newt Gingrich, 3/23/11

[Vrede too]

The Feds Need a Warrant to Spy With Stingrays From Now On

[O Really]

The Feds Need a Warrant to Spy With Stingrays From Now On

And... "Although the new policy is something civil liberties groups have been seeking for years, the new federal policy does not cover local and regional law enforcement, who also use stingrays to track suspects."

That must be comforting. Barney gets to keep his toys.

[Vrede too]

Saw that, and I'm pretty sure the feds will just have the locals do their dirty work for them unless state law catches up or federal law/court rulings restrict the locals.

[O Really]

Saw that, and I'm pretty sure the feds will just have the locals do their dirty work for them unless state law catches up or federal law/court rulings restrict the locals.

Or when the bad guys quit using tech.

[Vrede too]

Or when the good citizens quit using tech?

[O Really]

That wouldn't be me.
But lots of people know where I am from my mobile. Cops know my car/SunPass went through the toll booth at a particular day and time. Cops can see video that says I filled up my gas tank yesterday and used Ingle's gas points. Ingles' knows when I was there and what I bought (or at least what was bought on the Advantage card I used). Amazon reminds me I was shopping for Levi's last month and btw do you need more dog food yet? It's not a really good world for anybody wanting to hide or is seeking what used to be "privacy."

[Vrede too]

Stingrays enable tracking of your comms with clients, or theirs with you.

[O Really]

Stingrays enable tracking of your comms with clients, or theirs with you.

I didn't know it could snag content. Thanks. That might make it more objectionable, but it's not like cell calls are all that secure from intercept anyway.

[Vrede too]

I meant the fact of your comms with clients. However:

... The Justice Department addressed another issue around the use of the devices by asserting that the cell-site simulators “may not be used to collect the contents of any communication in the course of criminal investigations. This means data contained on the phone itself, such as emails, texts, contact lists and images, may not be collected using this technology.” Although law enforcement agencies have long insisted that the devices do not collect the contents of communication, questions have remained about whether they are capable of intercepting such data and, if so, whether they can be abused for this purpose. The new policy makes it clear that the devices should not be configured for intercepting data....

It's more than just location and cell call conversations.

[O Really]

I'm not sure I would oppose the use of a particular tool simply based on that it "could possibly" be abused. Clearly some cops abuse the use of firearms, but I wouldn't say it would be a good idea to disarm all cops because of that. Not just with cop stuff, but I think our society as a whole puts too much emphasis on the exceptions and tends to tossing out the baby with the bath water.

(speaking of which, I recently learned the origin of that expression. Back when there was no running water and people took baths no more frequently than weekly, everybody used and re-used the same water. The baby (babies) were washed last. So there was at least a theoretical risk that when everyone was done and the bath water was tossed, the last baby done could still be in the tub.)

[Boatrocker]

I'm not sure I would oppose the use of a particular tool simply based on that it "could possibly" be abused . . . .

I think history has shown us that there is no "could possibly." If the opportunity for abuse exists, it will be abused; If not on day one, then on week one. Remember all those pledges of non-abuse by the FBI right after 9-11? Remember how the FBI started abusing their new unlimited power right out if the gate?

[Vrede too]

Sorry, missed the Sat Sep 05 post.

There's been an unbroken string of invasions of privacy, racism, xenophobia, expansion of the prison-industrial complex and repression of dissent since at least Hoover and McCarthy. The only "could possibly" are the rare occasions when the national security state for some reason doesn't employ extant technological tools to abuse us.

[O Really]

"Ah! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

[O Really]

If the opportunity for abuse exists, it will be abused;

True that, but there has never been any power granted to anyone that couldn't be abused. And no law passed has ever achieved 100% compliance. That's the NRAish argument. You can't totally prevent 100% of gun homicides and suicides and accidents, so why bother.

[Vrede too]

:?: :?: :?:

The gun control argument, one you've made many, many times, is that we should place reasonable limitations on the weaponry and the possession of them. Why not the same thing for government power and tools? In the current tangent we're discussing warrants for Stingray use, not un-inventing Stingray. Isn't that better than LEOs claiming authorization because "some watery tart threw a sword" at them?

P.S. In case you ever want to post YT videos directly, what you do is click on our YT tab and copy the YT code after the "=" , in this case "dOOTKA0aGI0", and paste it inside the YT boxes that appear here, like so:



Quote me to see what I mean. A hiccup sometimes occurs if you've linked to the video from another page. If it happens, just search the video title on YT and you'll get the original code without junk code that was added by linking from elsewhere.