Big Brother is Watching You

[Ombudsman]

I'm starting to think a hormonal NSA worker has taken possession of Vrede's account.

[bannination]

I get the feeling that those who are least upset about this NSA surveillance are people who don't have much civil liberties knowledge.

WRONG. I'm a member of the ACLU, and I think that Snowden should be drawn and quartered for releasing information that might, just might, save my life or your life, or the lives of marathon runners or skyscraper workers. This has been going on for over a decade, and now, all of a sudden, folks are getting their panties stuck in their crack over it. Wake up. We live in an age of fear of terrorists. If we don't react and something happens, y'all will be screaming that the government didn't do anything to protect you.

Sheesh. Much ado about nothing.

BTW, it doesn't take a secret government program to read my Facebook page, or my Twitter posts, or anything else I do on the Internet. Hell, my boss can look at my computer at work and know everything I've posted or read during work hours. If you don't want anyone to have your personal shit, don't post it.

Case in point: I googled car insurance the other day to check rates. Within 24 hours, I had a call from an insurance agent asking if he could help me. And, I DID NOT post my phone number or address...I just searched the sites. Nothing is sacred in cyberspace.

Sorry, you do not spy on your own citizens to prevent terrorism. I have no business knowing what my neighbor is doing on the internet or saying on the phone, and neither does my government. Corporations on the other hand...... I think this has much more to do with profit than protecting the country.

Age of terrorism? Really? Gain some perspective. How many people die of terrorism each year in the U.S.? Comparing that with any other leading cause of death and see if putting money there couldn't be INCREDIBLY more beneficial. Is there anything you would not accept under the name of protecting you from terrorism?

We're not talking about things you yourself make public. We're talking about things you have a expectation of privacy for.

You're really okay with groups linked to Al Qaeda try to transport Strontium 90 from Uzbekistan into Kazakhstan? How many people will die if Al Qaeda manages to get a suitcase nuke or make a dirty bomb? We know they're trying to. We should just sit back and let it happen?

Terrorists that are smart enough to make dirty bombs, or any nuclear arms aren't going to be using unencrypted communications anyway. They aren't stupid. I don't use unencrypted communication even between family members, so there you go.

Personally I don't trust the government OR corporations (Is there a difference anymore?) with my private none-of-their business communications.

[bannination]

Sorry, you do not spy on your own citizens to prevent terrorism. I have no business knowing what my neighbor is doing on the internet or saying on the phone, and neither does my government. Corporations on the other hand...... I think this has much more to do with profit than protecting the country.

Age of terrorism? Really? Gain some perspective. How many people die of terrorism each year in the U.S.? Comparing that with any other leading cause of death and see if putting money there couldn't be INCREDIBLY more beneficial. Is there anything you would not accept under the name of protecting you from terrorism?

We're not talking about things you yourself make public. We're talking about things you have a expectation of privacy for.

Well, you wouldn't spy on your own citizens if you define "terrorism" narrowly enough to include only acts committed by non-citizens, but it's been demonstrated that US Citizens are also capable of terrorism.

And with terrorism, the score isn't kept by how many get killed, it's kept by how many get frightened enough to affect their lives. You aren't going to quit going to the bank just because one got robbed. But after Boston, a lot of people will be afraid of big crowds. After 9/11, practically everything in the US was changed, including running ourselves into an economic ditch chasing shadows in Iraq and Afghanistan, creating and tolerating DHS, living under tighter surveillance everywhere and ever increasing security efforts. Sure, there are a lot more people killed in traffic accidents and probably cop shootings than by terrorists. But nobody personalizes a guy in Cali driving off a bridge or somebody getting killed by a cop in Detroit. A school shooting, on the other hand, and people start worrying about their kids' school; people losing legs in an apparently random bombing, and we start thinking it could have been us.

Vigilance in protecting against terrorist acts is as much about managing societal impact as it is about actually catching eeeveel people.

Eeeveel people, or people they need to get dirt on for whatever reason, or people they need to make disappear.... now they have their whole lives on record, everyone has broken a law at some point. I'm afraid now, if one becomes an important enough figure and it's against the governments interests, they will discredit and/or jail you. Just look at the wikileaks debacle.

Who's watching the watchers? Apparently no one.

[Troll Patrol]

...4.) Explain how I lied 20 times. ( i really liked that one.)...

completely dishonest…deceptively edited my quote…dishonestly edited my quote…blatant dishonesty in deceptively editing my quote…deceptively edited my quote

So far, your best shot was a couple of articles in ThinkProgress

Your source until it didn't say what you wanted it to say.

...you edited out of my statement…My actual statement was…you deceptively lopped off the end of my sentence…you edited that part out…you're lying about it by claiming every word is there...It's not…Look at that big blank spot…I do believe that "every single word" is not there…edited to make it appear…My valid explanation was edited out…(attachment #1)…(attachment #2)

18, damn I'm good. Would have gone on longer if I hadn't proved you wrong, twice . Then:

...deceptively moved it…moving the reason I gave…you deceptively move them…deceptively moved something…You deceptively moved words…you just moved it…part you moved…dishonest.

8 more of the wingnuttiest, paranoid, childish attacks in lieu of just owning your 18 previous lies. Now, add your doubting the "20 times". 27, so far.

Are you really that self-unaware or did you just think you could get away with it this time?

You're being such an ongoing, inventive, excuse-making, irresponsible sleazeball about this clear lie about me, I'm not bothering to read the rest. Try CPF.

Note how often it's deception and dishonesty when I did not do what I'm accused of, a "mistake" when Stinger does it 27 times.

Now 28 "mistakes".

...But, all that pales in comparison to what's next.

After lying 20 times or so about my creating a "blank spot", even a couple of times with pictures after I'd showed you and linked you reality, you then lamely try to redeem a shred of dignity by claiming that I moved something I never moved, and that the same style of responding to items immediately and point by point that you've seen me use for years is now some deceptive plot on my behalf targeted at you. Wow, just wow, and you all think I'm paranoid! Of course, I know that you're denying liking your source just until it didn't say what you wanted it to say. That was my point, goofball, I don't believe it and I said so as soon as you mentioned it again. Why should I care a whit about responding to the same tired pleas of your not being so selective about your own source? Suck it up and disagree, but don't try and convince anyone that there was deception on my part when all that was ever there was a timely and specific response.

As it was, your argument against my point followed my point. On what dumb planet is that to your disadvantage? Shades of the "false accusation" that just turned out to be your confusion over what I clearly posted. You just make up reasons to be offended.

You screwed-up so big - lying 20 times or so despite my objections and responses - the only decent thing for anyone with a shred of honor to do would have been to post, "Opps," and nothing more. Instead, you actually believe that you can still make an effective point in this tangent after proving yourself to be so poor at comprehension, research, accurate quotation, responsibility and honesty. Amazing.

As Ombudsman says, what is wrong with you?

First of all, your logic is as fuzzy as your math. When I stated that you moved part of my sentence, I stated the facts. That's not falsely accusing you of anything. I wrote a complete sentence. You inserted your comment AND MOVED the rest of my sentence below the first part of my sentence and your comment.

If you didn't move it, as you ridiculously claim, how did it get down there?

Stating facts is not lying.

You claim almost 20 "lies" by parsing my comments into little separate bits. Okay, Clinton. What is the meaning of "is"? Have your little claim by separating one comment into 8 "lies" or whatever.

But I never saw the rest of my sentence because you moved it. (Lie some more.) If I were to have done that, I would have had to hit the "Return" button three times. That would be moving the end of the sentence down the page, conveniently out of the ways. But that's just me. You, obviously, have gods looking out for you who move it down the page so you can insert your comments.

It wasn't where I put it, so how did it get to where it was?

Not seeing that my words were still there, only lower, makes it a mistake, by definition. When I didn't see it after you tried to point it out, that makes it an embarrassing double-dumbass mistake on my part, but still a mistake. You can continue your flights of fancy, but, by definition, a lie is an intentional deception. A mistake is an error. I made a mistake. I couldn't try to intentionally fool you because you knew the words were still there, just in a different place. So, if it's unintentional, it's a mistake . . . at least by the world's definition.

Now you are lying by intentionally claiming I lied when I didn't. See how it works? I don't know how you think you can get away with that.

By the way, I note that you (as is your usual won't) allow yourself superpowers that others can't use. You falsely claim I deceptively edited a sentence by leaving out an irrelevant part that made no difference in what the part I quoted said. But I, not being Vrede, can't make the same claim that you deceptively edited a sentence when you moved the second part down below so you can insert your comment and claim it makes some sense. If one is guilty, the other is guilty. Funny how you get to make up all the rules to always favor your side.

Finally figured Vrede out huh?

[Dryer Vent]

Who here would run for office or lead an activist group if every single thing they did when they were 17-22 years old would become part of the discussion at the whim of some nameless, faceless government operative?

It already does. Who are you kidding. Look at all the fallen soldiers from the last few elections. As for me, there is no one with a memory long enough to remember what I did at 17. Plus, even a picture of Obama smoking a doobie didn't lose him votes...probably gained him a few.

[bannination]

Who here would run for office or lead an activist group if every single thing they did when they were 17-22 years old would become part of the discussion at the whim of some nameless, faceless government operative?

It already does. Who are you kidding. Look at all the fallen soldiers from the last few elections. As for me, there is no one with a memory long enough to remember what I did at 17. Plus, even a picture of Obama smoking a doobie didn't lose him votes...probably gained him a few.

No way, not even nearly the same scope and scale that can be done now. Think about it, every single word you've ever said on the phone in a database ready to be pulled at a moments notice. Every email, every website..... hm.....

Sorry, I don't see the benefits. Well I do, but it only benefits corporations and the government or positions of power.

[Ombudsman]

Ditto.

Dryer Vent, why aren't you responding to my page 18 post about your complete misunderstanding of my earlier post?

Probably because you're still not making any sense.

[Ombudsman]

Who here would run for office or lead an activist group if every single thing they did when they were 17-22 years old would become part of the discussion at the whim of some nameless, faceless government operative?

It already does. Who are you kidding. Look at all the fallen soldiers from the last few elections. As for me, there is no one with a memory long enough to remember what I did at 17. Plus, even a picture of Obama smoking a doobie didn't lose him votes...probably gained him a few.

No way, not even nearly the same scope and scale that can be done now. Think about it, every single word you've ever said on the phone in a database ready to be pulled at a moments notice. Every email, every website..... hm.....

Sorry, I don't see the benefits. Well I do, but it only benefits corporations and the government or positions of power.

I was trying to find an article I read from Wired the other day but can't locate it. The author made the point that there are currently many obscure laws on the books. For instance, in Maine you can be arrested for possessing a lobster under a certain weight. Doesn't matter if you bought it at the grocery store, if you're in possession of it you can be arrested. If the government is tracking your every statement, it's only a matter of time before you do or say something you can be prosecuted for.

The difference though in this instance is that they aren't tracking phone conversations. They're tracking who the calls are made to.

[Ombudsman]

...Dryer Vent, why aren't you responding to my page 18 post about your complete misunderstanding of my earlier post?

Probably because you're still not making any sense.

I see, you also thought my obvious and clearly stated mocking of your "reasoning" was meant to be taken as a serious expression of my views. I'm not surprised, you're not very comprehension "savvy".

Your mocking doesn't make sense, because what I said does make sense. You feeling okay?

[O Really]

Look, I know some people in government do criminal things; I know some in authority take advantage of that authority; I know shit happens. But it's astounding to me the number of otherwise intelligent people who have no confidence in the government itself - just because it's the government. That lack of confidence and deep distrust includes not just elected officials but the military, law enforcement, judicial system, and apparently everyone who works therein. It includes agencies that haven't actually done anything wrong as well as those whose wrongs have been exposed and corrected.

The greater good is not served when the exception (cop shoots wife's girlfriend) is served up as the face of the norm (all cops are crooked or incompetent). Nor when we're more afraid of what the government "might" do than we are of what is actually being done.

[bannination]

In general and in my experience the more tech savvy you are, the more one is against this kind of spying both on a government level and corporate level. (Much less the blending of the two.) We *know* exactly how it can be used or abused.

Just IMHO.

[bannination]

The difference though in this instance is that they aren't tracking phone conversations. They're tracking who the calls are made to.

Sorry, that's just not true. I have some personal experience with this, so I'd say trust me.... However, sources are always nice:



Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell indicated during a House Intelligence hearing in 2007 that the NSA's surveillance process involves "billions" of bulk communications being intercepted, analyzed, and incorporated into a database.

Former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente told CNN last month that, in national security investigations, the bureau can access records of a previously made telephone call. "All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not," he said. Clemente added in an appearance the next day that, thanks to the "intelligence community" -- an apparent reference to the NSA -- "there's a way to look at digital communications in the past."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589 ... one-calls/

Because of its highly classified status, little is publicly known about the actual implementation of the NSA domestic electronic surveillance program. Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit including limited technical details known to him personally in support of a class-action lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in federal district court in San Francisco in January 2006 on behalf of AT&T customers who alleged that they had been damaged by the telecommunications corporation's cooperation with the NSA. The lawsuit is called Hepting v. AT&T.[59][60]

A January 16, 2004 statement by Mr. Klein includes additional technical details regarding the secret 2003 construction of an NSA-operated monitoring facility in Room 641A of 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco, the site of a large SBC phone building, three floors of which are occupied by AT&T. [61][62]

According to Klein's affidavit, the NSA-equipped room uses equipment built by Narus Corporation to intercept and analyze communications traffic, as well as perform data-mining functions.[63]

In an article appearing in the January/February 2008 issue of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers journal of Security and Privacy, noted technology experts from academia and the computing industry analyzed potential security risks posed by the NSA program, based on information contained in Klein's affidavits as well as those of expert witness J. Scott Marcus, a designer of large-scale IP-based data networks, former CTO at GTE Internetworking and at Genuity, and former senior advisor for Internet Technology at the US Federal Communications Commission.[64] They concluded that the likely architecture of the system created serious security risks, including the danger that such a surveillance system could be exploited by unauthorized users, criminally misused by trusted insiders, or abused by government agents.[65]

Journalist Barton Gellman reported in the Washington Post that David Addington - who was at that time legal counsel to former Vice President Dick Cheney - was the author of the controlling legal and technical documents for the NSA surveillance program, typing the documents on a Tempest-shielded computer across from his desk in room 268 of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and storing them in a vault in his office.[66]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warra ... ontroversy

I just do not see how anything about this is positive.

[Ombudsman]

...Dryer Vent, why aren't you responding to my page 18 post about your complete misunderstanding of my earlier post?

Probably because you're still not making any sense.

I see, you also thought my obvious and clearly stated mocking of your "reasoning" was meant to be taken as a serious expression of my views. I'm not surprised, you're not very comprehension "savvy".

Your mocking doesn't make sense, because what I said does make sense. You feeling okay?

No, it did not make sense. Your unmediated, absolutist declaration about the "tech savvy" has been utterly debunked, both here by rstrong and banni and in the real world by dozens of tech savvy groups (yes "groups", not your nonsensical "companies"). Why are you too wussy to admit it, you're embarrassing yourself.

Just out of curiosity, what mood disorder have you been diagnosed with? I have a pretty good idea. Just wondering if I'm right.

[Ombudsman]

It's not that surprising that a Big Brother cheerleader unable to admit clear factual error would adopt the Stalinist tactic of accusing folks that prove him wrong of having a mental illness. Cognitive Dissonance

So you haven't been diagnosed yet? You might want to look into that. Your behavior the past few days is rather bizarre.

[Ombudsman]

I'm sorry you're not tech savvy. I personally don't see it as a weakness like you do and didn't mean it as an insult as you took it. I'm sorry you took it personally. But it was your choice to do so. I'm not responsible for the choices you make.

[Dryer Vent]

Ditto.

Dryer Vent, why aren't you responding to my page 18 post about your complete misunderstanding of my earlier post?

I have the attention span of a gnat, and you have the tenacity of whatever is the most tenace.

[O Really]

I don't care that much about "criminal" exceptions, though they are also a grave risk when given so much intrusive power. What if Snowden was a KKKer rather than a privacy advocate? I'm more concerned with the well known, historical and recent, legal, systemic abuses courtesy of our national security state that I've listed here, not all of "government", and I'm concerned about the obvious potential for future abuses if we acquiesce now.

We can all cite our parade of horribles on practically any issue. But I think you cast a too-wide net on what is eligible to ride in the parade.

Besides, you (generically, not personally) keep blaming agencies like NSA for the "crimes" allowed by PATRIOT. With all the hand-wringing over the phone records "scandal" it appears to be legal. Scream at those who made it so, and have the authority to make it not so.

[Dryer Vent]

Longstanding civil disobedient that I am I've always been more concerned with "right" than "legal". In that context it doesn't make that much difference to me whether what the NSA is now doing is legal or not, though thanks to secrecy and SCOTUS timidity we don't even know yet whether it's legal. At least one element of PATRIOT has been struck down pending appeal, the not so secret National Security Letters. I may be wrong but I'm not crazy to hope that other parts of PATRIOT are eventually also found to be unconstitutional. Regardless, I will continue to believe that PATRIOT and much of what stemmed from it is an abomination and will continue to speak and act accordingly.[/color]

Like it or not, we are a nation of laws, a nation founded on laws. We are not a nation of "feelings." What you think is "right," another might think is "wrong." With the law, you can like it or not, but it is absolute until it is either struck down by SCOTUS or changed by the Congress.

I was in court one day when a guy said to the Judge, "I'm throwing myself on the mercy of the court." The Judge, who is quite a character, admonished him saying, "this court has no mercy, we just have law."

[bannination]

FBI Admits That Obeying The Constitution Just Takes Too Much Time

Yes, I'm sure it's more convenient for the government to not have to wait an hour or so to get this info. And it's more convenient not to have to wait for a telco employee to make sure the request is legit and to retrieve the info, but we don't get rid of our Constitutional protections because of convenience for the surveillance state. The whole point of the rights of the public against such intrusions is that we, as a country, have made a conscious choice that surveillance over the population is not supposed to be convenient. It's supposed to involve careful checks and balances to avoid abuse. It's a shame that so many in our own government don't seem to recognize this basic point.

Nor apparently, many on this forum.

[Dryer Vent]

Like it or not, we are a nation of laws, a nation founded on laws. We are not a nation of "feelings." What you think is "right," another might think is "wrong." With the law, you can like it or not, but it is absolute until it is either struck down by SCOTUS or changed by the Congress...

True, and I've always accepted the consequence of my actions. But, I and history honor the abolitionists, suffragettes, salt marchers, Anti-Apartheid Movement, nuclear weapons testing opponents, Plowshares, and freedom riders more than we do the people that put them in jail. You?

I got thrown in jail in Washington, DC in the 80s for singing "We shall overcome" on the lawn of the South African embassy. They called it trespassing. I spent several years working with AIM and even traveled with some of their founders to protest COINTELPRO. I was in the million person march for disarmament in NYC in the 80s. I got pulled over by the cops for speeding traveling in the same car as John Trudell and Bill Kuntsler in Custer, South Dakota - the look on that cop's face was priceless. I was a delegate to the DNC for Jesse Jackson in '84. I spent quite a bit of time in rural Maine trying to get funding for programs to help the folks who lost their jobs when the shoe and chicken industries pulled out. I served on the state board of directors for CROP/Church World Service and Bread for the World. You?