The dangers of our new normal...

[Adam]

 

Stricter controls on whom? (I'm asking because I'm gauging your stance on this issue since you haven't participated much in this overly long thread, not trying to be pedantic).

The NSA. I could see oversight that if someone is found to be an American civilian, their stuff won't be thoroughly inspected without due process. But anything beyond that is likely way too much

[Deranged Rhino]

The NSA. I could see oversight that if someone is found to be an American civilian, their stuff won't be thoroughly inspected without due process. But anything beyond that is likely way too much

 

Appreciate the clarification.

[Adam]

 

Appreciate the clarification.

No problem. My personal opinion is that I'd like to see all of that gone. But I don't see how it would be practical

[Deranged Rhino]

http://time.com/3999527/att-nsa-spying/

 

at&t helped!

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20150815-att-helped-the-national-security-agency-spy-on-the-internet-on-a-vast-scale.ece

 

Here's a better source, and if you notice the dates the cooperation started (1985), it should be a wake up call to those of you thinking these programs are meant to fight terrorists in a post 9/11 world.

[GG]

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20150815-att-helped-the-national-security-agency-spy-on-the-internet-on-a-vast-scale.ece

 

Here's a better source, and if you notice the dates the cooperation started (1985), it should be a wake up call to those of you thinking these programs are meant to fight terrorists in a post 9/11 world.

Ok before I respond in fuller form tomorrow tell me exactly what you find objectionable in that piece.

[Azalin]

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20150815-att-helped-the-national-security-agency-spy-on-the-internet-on-a-vast-scale.ece

 

Here's a better source, and if you notice the dates the cooperation started (1985), it should be a wake up call to those of you thinking these programs are meant to fight terrorists in a post 9/11 world.

 

AT&T does not collect or share any personal information gained through customer records, conversations, or transmitted data except for ANI/ALI (automatic name identification/automatic Location Identifier) on calls to 911. Cooperating with the NSA on delivering metadata is a different critter altogether, but anything like I described is not only a firing offense, but they also prosecute for that.

[Deranged Rhino]

Ok before I respond in fuller form tomorrow tell me exactly what you find objectionable in that piece.

 

The article was for Gator as it provided much more information on the AT&T / NSA partnership he brought up a few days ago. The most illuminating of which is the timing of these programs, most were created long before 9/11 or any War on Terror... because these programs are not designed or intended to fight terrorism. These programs are designed to limit and control American citizens' abilities to protest or enact meaningful change against the federal government. Something that's been proven time and time again both through the NSA leaks and within this thread.

 

What I find objectionable about this is what I've found objectionable since the beginning: that these programs have flipped the script on the American public. We have a system of government wherein the people are supposed to be the watchdogs of the federal government, but these programs reverse that constitutional necessity. Instead, we now live in a country where the federal government treats citizens as threats to their power, threats that must be monitored and observed to keep the federal government (not US citizens) safe. Safe from what? Not terrorists. Safe from US citizens.

 

This is a complete reversal of how our system of government is supposed to work, not to mention an egregious constitutional violation of the highest order -- yet it's one most US citizens don't think twice about because they've been sold a bill of goods about safety. It's bull ****. And this article shows just how bull **** it is. I've got no problem if you get a warrant, and AT&T and federal government did that plenty of times. But all it took was fear to flip the switch from legal to illegal -- and that's a huge problem.

 

"AT&T began turning over emails and phone calls “within days” after the warrantless surveillance began in October 2001, the report indicated."

[Azalin]

 

"AT&T began turning over emails and phone calls “within days” after the warrantless surveillance began in October 2001, the report indicated."

 

That's a misleading statement. They didn't hand over any content, just that contact between parties had been made. I'm not saying that I like that, just that they weren't handing over content. You can't 'hand over' a phone call - voice recordings are not made without a warrant for a wire tap. No telecom company has the data storage capability necessary to gather and store content.

 

As a matter of fact, the information that's gathered is also available to the customer by clicking on your account information and drilling down to your call history, and is included in your monthly statement.

[Joe Miner]

 

That's a misleading statement. They didn't hand over any content, just that contact between parties had been made. I'm not saying that I like that, just that they weren't handing over content. You can't 'hand over' a phone call - voice recordings are not made without a warrant for a wire tap. No telecom company has the data storage capability necessary to gather and store content.

 

As a matter of fact, the information that's gathered is also available to the customer by clicking on your account information and drilling down to your call history, and is included in your monthly statement.

Forget phone calls, what about all the dick picks?

[Azalin]

Forget phone calls, what about all the dick picks?

 

um....you tell me.

[GG]

 

The article was for Gator as it provided much more information on the AT&T / NSA partnership he brought up a few days ago. The most illuminating of which is the timing of these programs, most were created long before 9/11 or any War on Terror... because these programs are not designed or intended to fight terrorism. These programs are designed to limit and control American citizens' abilities to protest or enact meaningful change against the federal government. Something that's been proven time and time again both through the NSA leaks and within this thread.

 

What I find objectionable about this is what I've found objectionable since the beginning: that these programs have flipped the script on the American public. We have a system of government wherein the people are supposed to be the watchdogs of the federal government, but these programs reverse that constitutional necessity. Instead, we now live in a country where the federal government treats citizens as threats to their power, threats that must be monitored and observed to keep the federal government (not US citizens) safe. Safe from what? Not terrorists. Safe from US citizens.

 

This is a complete reversal of how our system of government is supposed to work, not to mention an egregious constitutional violation of the highest order -- yet it's one most US citizens don't think twice about because they've been sold a bill of goods about safety. It's bull ****. And this article shows just how bull **** it is. I've got no problem if you get a warrant, and AT&T and federal government did that plenty of times. But all it took was fear to flip the switch from legal to illegal -- and that's a huge problem.

 

"AT&T began turning over emails and phone calls “within days” after the warrantless surveillance began in October 2001, the report indicated."

 

So for starters, you're using a story about undersea telephone cables to Japan & Europe as your thesis that US government is suppressing dissent in the US?

[Adam]

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20150815-att-helped-the-national-security-agency-spy-on-the-internet-on-a-vast-scale.ece

 

Here's a better source, and if you notice the dates the cooperation started (1985), it should be a wake up call to those of you thinking these programs are meant to fight terrorists in a post 9/11 world.

They are meant to fight terrorists. But many things don't end up serving their initial purpose

[TakeYouToTasker]

They are meant to fight terrorists. But many things don't end up serving their initial purpose

You know what else was meant to fight terrorists?

 

[Adam]

You know what else was meant to fight terrorists?

 

lol I don't get the reference, but he looks pretty badass

[Deranged Rhino]

 

So for starters, you're using a story about undersea telephone cables to Japan & Europe as your thesis that US government is suppressing dissent in the US?

 

No, I am not. As I stated, the article was specifically to reinforce Gator's lackluster source on the issue, specifically the timing. That's it.

 

The rest is rehashing of my argument which incorporates everything on the issue that's been covered in this thread. The biggest being the shift in how our constitution and federal government operate post 9/11. Something which is still undeniable, even by you.

 

They are meant to fight terrorists. But many things don't end up serving their initial purpose

 

They are not meant to fight terrorists. When you look into how these programs work, and what they do best, it doesn't take you long to determine these programs are TERRIBLE for preventing terrorism. They do not function in that way, despite the claims to the contrary. They are retroactive collection tools, designed to store and accumulate massive amounts of information -- too much to be of any use in a proactive "war" on terrorism. But the thing they do really, really, really well is control and limit American citizen's abilities to enact change or protest the federal government by detonating the 1st, 4th, and 6th amendments.

 

This is because that is the true, and only, purpose of these programs. Fighting terrorism is how they sold the American public on it -- but it was an outright lie -- as has been proven with every leak, every whistleblower, every article that comes out. The only people who are denying this are the ones who either don't question the federal government or don't understand the extent they've been played.

Edited August 17, 2015 by GreggyT

[IDBillzFan]

lol I don't get the reference, but he looks pretty badass

 

You don't recognize the reference? Here...let me give you another clue.

 

"TELL ME WHERE THE BOMB IS!?!?!?!"

 

He says that twice in every episode.

[Adam]

 

No, I am not. As I stated, the article was specifically to reinforce Gator's lackluster source on the issue, specifically the timing. That's it.

 

The rest is rehashing of my argument which incorporates everything on the issue that's been covered in this thread. The biggest being the shift in how our constitution and federal government operate post 9/11. Something which is still undeniable, even by you.

 

 

They are not meant to fight terrorists. When you look into how these programs work, and what they do best, it doesn't take you long to determine these programs are TERRIBLE for preventing terrorism. They do not function in that way, despite the claims to the contrary. They are retroactive collection tools, designed to store and accumulate massive amounts of information -- too much to be of any use in a proactive "war" on terrorism. But the thing they do really, really, really well is control and limit American citizen's abilities to enact change or protest the federal government by detonating the 1st, 4th, and 6th amendments.

 

This is because that is the true, and only, purpose of these programs. Fighting terrorism is how they sold the American public on it -- but it was an outright lie -- as has been proven with every leak, every whistleblower, every article that comes out. The only people who are denying this are the ones who either don't question the federal government or don't understand the extent they've been played.

This is probably an unfairly vague question, but how would you go about it?

[DC Tom]

 

You don't recognize the reference? Here...let me give you another clue.

 

"TELL ME WHERE THE BOMB IS!?!?!?!"

 

He says that twice in every episode.

 

Or "CHLOE!!! WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!!!!!"

[GG]

 

No, I am not. As I stated, the article was specifically to reinforce Gator's lackluster source on the issue, specifically the timing. That's it.

 

The rest is rehashing of my argument which incorporates everything on the issue that's been covered in this thread. The biggest being the shift in how our constitution and federal government operate post 9/11. Something which is still undeniable, even by you.

 

 

Will just address the points in the Dallas News article and will later return to the longer post from last week.

 

This is the exact type of misinformed opinion provided by the journalists that feed the minds of conspiracy nuts. And just like I said in our prior discussions, this article magnifies the bigness of the programs without providing proper context to make things seem worse than they are.

 

Case in point - It talks about how the government has had a decades long partnership with AT&T, but skims over the fact that decades ago, AT&T was a virtual telecom monopoly. Who else was the government supposed to be working with?

 

It also goes to pains to compare AT&T with Verizon and couldn't understand why NSA had more contracts with AT&T than with Verizon, especially if the two companies are roughly the same size. But that's not really true. The two companies are roughly the same size from total revenue standpoint, but they're nowhere near the same size when it comes down to internet and telecom transport, with AT&T being about twice the size of Verizon and has a far greater share of international traffic and overseas connections. Of course acknowledging that would change the story's narrative, so why address it in the story?

 

In fact, if you believe that the goal of the NSA is to collect information on ordinary Americans, then the NSA should have the same number of arrangements with Verizon as with AT&T, because Verizon has a bigger number of wireless US customers. So which is it?

 

The links dating back to the '80s, all relate to trans-oceanic cables which carry international traffic and that's what NSA is interested in. The information that AT&T provided to NSA in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was directed by the FISA court. There have been numerous investigations on that, and AT&T acted under the law.

 

And lastly, if these mechanisms put in place over decades are meant to stifle dissent and protest the government, they have done a truly horrible job of that (but not surprising given the federal government's ability to do thing right)

 

Please tell me exactly how these programs have succeeded in stifling dissent?

 

The funniest comment about this line of thinking came from Maddox's best page in the universe where he was dissecting the truther movement - his point was, if the government was evil enough to arrange for the murder of 3,500 of its citizens, why would it not kill a few pests that exposed the truth about 9/11?

 

At a certain point, common sense and logic has to enter the discussion.

[Adam]

 

Or "CHLOE!!! WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!!!!!"

I don't get to watch much tv