talkpolitics | (no subject)

Entry tags:

constitution,
law

(no subject)

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd
http://www.cato.org/blog/why-nsa-collecting-phone-records-problem
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

There are a significant number of people who respond to any revelation that government is violating the law (yes, the Constitution is part of the law) with a shrug and "I've got nothing to hide". These people are selfish fools at best. They are not looking at the bigger picture and/or aren't considering other people. Plus, they probably aren't paying attention to the fact that everyone in America is currently a criminal, that everyone violates a law with serious penalties at some point, whether you know it or not. (And the fact that that is the case is another problem, but that's outside the scope of my point here.)

Even Biden and Obama railed against what they are themselves supporting now, before they were in power. That alone should be enough to make you stop and think about what having that kind of power available can do to people.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yep.

One of these things is not like the others.

Not a big deal, not a big deal, not a big deal, END OF THE FUCKING WORLD

Edited 2013-06-13 05:14 (UTC)

The Obama administration has overseen a sharp increase in the number of people subjected to warrantless electronic surveillance of their telephone, email and Facebook accounts by federal law enforcement agencies, new documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday revealed. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html)

Back then, "pen registers," which collect outgoing data like phone numbers, or "trap and trace" devices that collect incoming data, were physical devices that had to be attached to phone lines. It was an arduous process that limited widespread use.

Not so today. From the feds to local Mayberry cops, all that law enforcers need in order to obtain an order allowing surveillance is to file a procedural request with a judge certifying that the information will be used in conjunction with a criminal investigation. With contemporary technology, telecommunications providers can comply with those orders at the push of a button.

The Washington Post said the surveillance program involving internet firms, code-named PRISM and established under Republican President George W. Bush in 2007, had seen "exponential growth" under Obama, a Democrat. It said the NSA increasingly relied on PRISM as a source of raw material for daily intelligence reports to the president. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/08/us-usa-security-records-idUSBRE9560VA20130608)

Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, called the program "deeply disturbing" and beyond what should be constitutionally acceptable.

"It is a huge gathering of information by the federal government. The argument that it protects national security is unpersuasive," he said.

meanwhile...

The NSA is currently finishing construction on its Utah Data Center, a new $1.2 billion storage facility near Salt Lake City. When it's finished, the data center will be able to hold and process five zettabytes of data, according to NPR. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130612-nsa-utah-data-center-storage-zettabyte-snowden/)

so yeah, you can try to derail the discussion by playing the race card, or you can acknowledge that advances in technology, and ever expanding domestic surveillance by the government have made this a more important issue.

You're sure digging a lot to find reasons. Hit a little close to home?

You're doing a fantastic job of dismissing the issue with the "it's because Obama is black!" schtick.

by digging a lot do you mean using the internet? and no.

I notice you use "this is what you really mean so I'm going to argue against this other thing instead" a whole lot.

do you have a point?

(no subject)

the-rukh.livejournal.com - 2013-06-14 08:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

whoasksfinds.livejournal.com - 2013-06-14 23:53 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

the-rukh.livejournal.com - 2013-06-15 17:12 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

whoasksfinds.livejournal.com - 2013-06-16 01:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

the-rukh.livejournal.com - 2013-06-16 05:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

whoasksfinds.livejournal.com - 2013-06-16 22:23 (UTC) - Expand

All the snooping was put in place in response to 911 and fighting the war on terror, the motive was there for at least a decade, the resources only improved since then. It is however more important then ever.

Edited 2013-06-14 01:42 (UTC)

and since gathering and storage capabilities, along with the collection of data itself, has been expanding exponentially, maybe its time to take a closer look at these programs.

it's been long past time, which is one of points I was trying to make. Seeing how rapidly communications technology has grown over the past couple decades, the situation we're in now should've been expected.

Edited 2013-06-14 02:54 (UTC)

i don't think people expected that the government would be surveilling and cataloging this much domestic data under this administration.

(no subject)

rimpala.livejournal.com - 2013-06-14 06:52 (UTC) - Expand

True: I'm not seeing a blue tie on GHWB.

BLUE TIE ARMAGEDDON!

I'm not sure why you can't detect the differences here. In fact, It was known that Obama was conducting warrentless wiretaps for sometime (just like Bush), and it wasn't the "END OF THE FUCKING WORLD." In fact, it wasn't covered in the media barely at all, and it was covered extensively when it was found that Bush was doing it. Can you seriously not figure this out?

Pst! (whispers) He probably can. But that's not the point. ;)

Rather rude, don't you think?

If I wanted to be rude, I would've been. Sorry if you were offended, though.

Look all I'm saying is that I've been suspicious of this kind of internet monitoring since Bush's Patriot Act, when I learned about this latest Prism incident surfacing I wasn't the least bit surprised. This is me, not surprised. Because people only care about who's in office at the time, this to me says this problem isn't going away.

Edited 2013-06-13 13:44 (UTC)

Because people only care about who's in office at the time, this to me says this problem isn't going away.

I agree that a lot of people base their criticisms on the letter next to the presidents name, and not any sort of actual ideals. This is a problem, however, not everyone does that.

My response was to the acting like there are no new revelations here, and that Bush got away with everything while Obama can't get away with squat because of the color of his skin. That is simply a distraction and demonstrably false on top of it.

I should also add: suspecting is not the same as knowing

Edited 2013-06-13 14:26 (UTC)

My suspicions were enough that I watch whatever I say online on the likely hood that someone is watching. though at the same time I know it's futile. I'm glad I never had real political ambitions because I'm sure any opponent I'm up against could dig up all kinds of dirt on me, taking things as simple as what videogames and movies I like and somehow turn me into a pariah through it.

I mean do you ever think of it? Ever figure that someone powerful out there knows whatever embarrassing mistakes you've made as a kid? What your most personal thoughts are in terms of religion and politics? How about some weird sexual fetish you have? There's gotta be something about you that can be ridiculed to no end.

Edited 2013-06-14 01:50 (UTC)

I assume that to be the case and don't worry about it.

Also despite all the media coverage that's been against the Bush version of this, it still continued and has only increased. I doubt contacting today's congress will help any, as SOPA and the other stupidly-named proposals has shown, if there's anything that seems to motivate those deadbeats it's Big Brotherhood and more power over the internet.

It wasn't Obama hunting season.

Oh that's right, I forgot about that revelation a few months back that Obama was black. After that, the media was just being big meanies to him.

I think you're making about 40 thousand with these few words, so congrats on packing them in anyways.

First of all, "The Media" reports whatever they think will be headlines. Often, that's whatever they've been slipped by the aide of a powerful guy who says "This is goinna be big". Fox news, as having been actually set up as the outlet for conservatism by Nixon media consultant Roger Ailes is somewhat of an exception, but even there, there's enough employees that if something is going to be big, it's likely to get coverage. Now, this is obviously a giant generalization as the media is millions of people with their own beliefs and agendas, but you get the idea. Nothing I mentioned was about "The media" trying to do some sort of concerted action. You couldn't get "The media" to park a car.

Second, I don't think that conservative politicians are any more nor less racist than the places they come from, however what they are is politically savvy. And they know coming out and saying "We don't like him because he's black!!" would be a very bad political move. But they also know their constituents. They know they can get away with stuff like "Well why, DOESN'T he show his birth cirtificate? It's not like he has anything to hide, or does he? *wink wink*" And they have been fomenting that sort of gut level resentment in their base for a very long time.

So, when one guy comes out and says "I have proof!" they pounced. Now, they didn't have to verify the proof because they knew this thing has been going a long time, they helped set it up.

In the end what I'm saying, is that conservative politicians pander to their base, just like any other politician. It just happens to be that a very large portion of their base are rather xenophobic and really hate that there's a guy with a foreign sounding name in the highest office in the country.

Aren't you a walking liberal cliché. Oh, whats that you say? The CORPORATE media only reports on what it can sell, and the only people buying are the RACIST Republicans. It couldn't be, you know, that people are upset at a unprecedented level of data collecting on ordinary Americans. It has to be because Obama is BROWN!

Your narrative doesn't make a lick of sense.