Dmtdust wrote:

The crap is just getting higher.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju … :Position1

Back when Homeland Security first proposed this program I supported the limited use for tracking phone calls from outside the U.S. from known terrorists to Americans.  Now, it seems as though the program has morphed into the gathering of all information so it can be sorted and sifted for any possible terrorist links or who knows what.  Coincidentally, Orwell's 1984 was published 64 years ago today.  "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

Is anyone even remotely surprised by this?

I have assumed, since well before 9/11, that any non face-to-face communication was potentially being monitored. 

And judging by the behavior of western civilization (a la Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), privacy hasn't been a concern for some time.

Tall Paul wrote:

So, you were before it before you were against it? Does your memory also extend as far as the code name of the operation Dick Cheney put it place to guarantee a 100% take of phone and email traffic in the States?

Can you liberals finally just get past Bush & Cheney and start thinking about how we protect ourselves from government overreach?  Does saying Bush did it too make it OK with you?  If not, shut up about it and stand up for your rights. 

Yes, Bush had a data collection system.  It was set up only to monitor traffic between terrorists inside and outside the U.S.  But like every instance where we allow the camel's nose under the tent, the beast eventually lords over our household.  Today we discover it wasn't just Verizon cell phones.  They are monitoring EVERYTHING!  They say they are only looking for foreign targets.  And if you believe that..........

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post.

And then there's Prism.

Last edited by phreddy (2013-06-07 11:03:36)

Emmeran wrote:

Back when Homeland Security

I'm actually intensely offended and alarmed that we even have a "Department of Homeland Security" everything about that reeks of bad ideas and government intrusion.


And people want to get rid of EPA, Education and OSHA to shrink government yet keep this thing??

More people are led by fear than not.  Weird, but there ya go.

phreddy wrote:

Can you liberals finally just get past Bush & Cheney and start thinking about how we protect ourselves from government overreach?  Does saying Bush did it too make it OK with you?  If not, shut up about it and stand up for your rights. 

Yes, Bush had a data collection system.  It was set up only to monitor traffic between terrorists inside and outside the U.S. ...

I was with you Phred on us all gathering round the campfire to roast marshmallows until you went and spoiled any fraternal urging with such tripe as that naked Bush apology. What have you damaged yourself with so many years filling your noggin' with wingnut rantings you just can not let it go even when you want to?

Feel free to delude yourself, but the various internal spying programs we are seeing exposed today were developed under the Bush administration, and continued under Obama. They were from the beginning intenet on gathering up Americans internal communications of all types. Yesterday Feinstein suggested that this same Fisa order has been continuously renewed since Bush put it in place.

“As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been in place for the past seven years,” Feinstein said. “This renewal is carried out by the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] under the business records section of the Patriot Act. Therefore it is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress.”

Now for the dodge

“Every member of the United States Senate has been advised of this,” said Chambliss in a press conference. “To my knowledge there has not been any citizen who has registered a complaint. It has proved meritorious because we have collected significant information on bad guys, but only on bad guys, over the years.”

The next link should love you long time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/busin … ss&emc=rss

XregnaR wrote:

If the NSA is doing something that worries people, then DSA is probably doing something that will make them shit themselves in terror.....

Details, please.

choad wrote:

XregnaR wrote:

If the NSA is doing something that worries people, then DSA is probably doing something that will make them shit themselves in terror.....

Details, please.

If I told you, then I'd have to kill myself.  then you.  Then a puppy.  Then myself again.

The upside, at least no one with two brain cells to rub together will ever trust these evil venal cunts again.

NYTimes wrote:

The companies that negotiated with the government include Google, which owns YouTube; Microsoft, which owns Hotmail and Skype; Yahoo; Facebook; AOL; Apple; and Paltalk, according to one of the people briefed on the discussions...

In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of the plans discussed was to build separate, secure portals, like a digital version of the secure physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some instances on company servers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/techn … ss&emc=rss

TheVerge wrote:

Google's Larry Page denies PRISM involvement, says secrecy 'undermines the freedoms we all cherish'

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/7/440732 … nvolvement

Gawker wrote:

Zuckerberg Releases Statement Calling PRISM Charges "Outrageous"

http://gawker.com/zuckerberg-releases-s … -512038573

The Bradley Manning of the hour speaks!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju … rveillance

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/us/fo … ss&emc=rss

Woah, that is the most remarkable stand for someone to take. A clear concise argument for reigning in policies that stand no democratic review and are only held back from turning against our own people at the whim of whomever are our future authorities.

Once he reached the conclusion that the NSA's surveillance net would soon be irrevocable, he said it was just a matter of time before he chose to act. "What they're doing" poses "an existential threat to democracy", he said.
...

For him, it is a matter of principle. "The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to," he said.

A commenter says: I don't even know how to express my feelings at this. An American citizen, who has exposed illegal government activity that violates both the letter and spirit of the Constitution, has to hide out in Hong Kong and hope for foreign asylum.

This is not the country I grew up in.

I wonder what Em's take on this will be? Given that Snowden claims to have carefully sorted through what he would release to avoid harming people but outing the most essential methods of our war efforts. Does that make him different than Manning? Does such document dumps become justified by applying such consideration. What about this would make Snowden a hero vs Manning a traitor?

Snowden: "I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."

If so many of you believe the whole world knew all along that our government was listening in on every email, phone, cell, and social media communication, then it wasn't much of a secret.  I suspect the terrorist networks are at least as informed as our High-Street heads.  Therefore, what has Snowden done except out a poorly kept secret?  Manning, on the other hand, turned over tactical and strategic information which had life and death consequences to our troops and our informants.  Notwithstanding the expressed consequences for a soldier who turns over military secrets.

Tall Paul wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Manning, on the other hand, turned over tactical and strategic information which had life and death consequences to our troops and our informants.

Name one.

Here is a list.  The prosecution has already stated they will present the details of actual damages he caused at the penalty phase of his trial.

Were he not a young gay kid, his support would be minimal.

Emmeran wrote:

Again, unlike Ellsberg, he does not seem to be a stable individual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ell … g_break-in

Guess we'll never know.

phreddy wrote:

Tall Paul wrote:

Did I read your statement correctly? Did you actually say that the prosecution of Bradley Manning is justified because evidence of guilt will only be presented after his conviction? Way to promote truth, justice and The American Way, Superman!

No Paul, you did not read my statement correctly, which is not unusual.  I said evidence of the damage his crimes have caused will be presented at the penalty phase of his trial.  You probably don't know that proving damage caused by his actions is not needed to convict him of aiding the enemy.  However, after he is convicted, the judge takes those damages into account when deciding his fate.  This is why you always see the family of the victims testifying during this phase.  I hope this was helpful and enlightening for you.

You're right, I didn't know that proof of guilt was not required to prove guilt, Comrade.

Last edited by Tall Paul (2013-06-10 20:30:04)

Stands to reason, all those immigrants and all, plus the old red connections.

While I do think this is the most important (and expected) exposure in the last hundred years and she does appear to be smoking hot I also must remind everyone that one man's junk is another man's treasure.

Thanks To Fnord For This:

Last edited by Dmtdust (2013-06-11 12:21:05)

Good for you phreddy. You found another reason to make yourself feel superior. But the fact is, and was, that ALL phone calls and emails were being monitored for key words or phrases. I clearly recall seeing lists of terms which would flag your calls for review.

So keep telling yourself the lies and believing them. (sarcasm) It will make you a better person in the end. (/sarcasm)

phreddy wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Thanks To Fnord For This:

For Democrats, it's all a matter of politics.  It's OK to trample your civil rights so long as a Democrat doing the trampling. 

Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists.

And don't tell me the Republicans have flipped too, because back in 2006 we were told monitoring was only of known terrorists.  This was and is fine with Republicans today.  Dems, on the other hand, were dead set against it back then, but now monitoring every American is just fine.  Hypocrites!!!

Er.... no.

I thought we were done with that version of the game.

phreddy wrote:

XregnaR wrote:

Keep playing that dems vs. repubs card Phreddy.  It's worked great so far, and has been 100% accurate....

I hope you noticed that I was simply responding to Dusty's nasty little snipe at Bush.  I really don't give a shit who started all this invasion of privacy, I just want it to stop.  And, doing so will require the majority of Dems to revert to their previous position of believing it is a violation of civil rights.

G. Washington started this little game here in America - good luck at ending it.