Deranged Rhino Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 2015 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. It's hilarious you deem this stuff still "conspiracy" when it's been proven that it's happening. It's been proven why it's happening. It's been proven, at least in a general context, the scope of these programs. The only conspiracy being pushed is being pushed by those who feel the 1st, 4th, and 6th amendments are still operational within this system. They are not. We've been had. And you can keep on harping on one article while ignoring the 48+ pages of sources and conversations about this issue but the bottom line is still the same: The Federal Government believes that American Citizens are a threat to its power and thus need to be monitored 24/7. There's no other explanation that can be offered without being laughingly stupid and/or short sighted. As a self avowed neocon, I get why you don't have a problem with this turn in policy. Still doesn't make it right. This is probably an unfairly vague question, but how would you go about it? It's a fair question, it's entirely relevant and I've been up front about not having all the answers. I don't. It's hard to have all the answers to a problem when we're not being told the truth about these programs or their intent. But that shouldn't prevent me from raising the alarm over egregious constitutional violations. My issue from the beginning has been the collection and storage of metadata (as well as calls, emails, photos, the whole gambit). There's no need to store and collect this data, certainly not for American Citizens sitting at home. There's certainly no need to do so in secret with little to no oversight or even involving the judicial branch of our system of government. This isn't about fighting the war on terror. This is about our rights as US citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 This isn't about fighting the war on terror. This is about our rights as US citizens. I'm with you in principle on most of this stuff, but don't ignore what I posted above (post # 948). With regard to the AT&T involvement, you can take what I say as gospel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 2015 I'm with you in principle on most of this stuff, but don't ignore what I posted above (post # 948). With regard to the AT&T involvement, you can take what I say as gospel. Missed that earlier in the morning rush, apologies: 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. I appreciate the insight, and know it's misleading without context. It wasn't my intent to mislead, I just combined two thoughts into one for GG's questions. The article was posted to support Gatorman's original Time article which was severely lacking in insight or details -- which is a separate issue than what I've been bloviating about for the rest of the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Missed that earlier in the morning rush, apologies: I appreciate the insight, and know it's misleading without context. It wasn't my intent to mislead, I just combined two thoughts into one for GG's questions. The article was posted to support Gatorman's original Time article which was severely lacking in insight or details -- which is a separate issue than what I've been bloviating about for the rest of the morning. I know you're intention wasn't to be misleading, but whether they intentionally were or not, the person who wrote that article sure was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I know you're intention wasn't to be misleading, but whether they intentionally were or not, the person who wrote that article sure was. You are correct sir. That article was grossly misleading in its presentation of fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 It's hilarious you deem this stuff still "conspiracy" when it's been proven that it's happening. It's been proven why it's happening. It's been proven, at least in a general context, the scope of these programs. The only conspiracy being pushed is being pushed by those who feel the 1st, 4th, and 6th amendments are still operational within this system. They are not. We've been had. And you can keep on harping on one article while ignoring the 48+ pages of sources and conversations about this issue but the bottom line is still the same: The Federal Government believes that American Citizens are a threat to its power and thus need to be monitored 24/7. There's no other explanation that can be offered without being laughingly stupid and/or short sighted. As a self avowed neocon, I get why you don't have a problem with this turn in policy. Still doesn't make it right. The conspiracy I'm referring to is people thinking that there's a grand conspiracy at the top of the federal government to stifle critics and take over the population. That's the main fuel behind the truther movement, and 9/11 was the culmination of the grand plan to frighten people enough that they would accept draconian military government oversight. But if you look around, none of that is happening, The takeover that is happening though, is not by some sinister star chamber but by the ever encroaching bureaucratic state that controls every facet of the everyday life. I'm not concerned about the alarms that you are raising or what Snowden traitorously exposed. That stuff works best in the sci fi fantasy of movie screens. You keep asking for proof that show these programs are working, yet ignore the numerous arrests made in the last year of people aligning with ISIS and planning to go to Syria for training. But apparently that's not enough because they were caught before they did anything. So to you, better proof would be a conclusion of a Law & Order episode with a neat wrap up of how the bad guy got caught. Ever since this republic was founded, intelligence operations and fears of foreigners have been tied around it borders. If you insist on dragging the Founding Fathers and the Constitutional amendments into the discussion, you should also educate yourself with the Alien & Sedition Acts. You know, the ones passed by the Founding Fathers, and these acts' vestiges are still used to justify covert intelligence. So which is it? You claim to be ok that the nations all spy on one another, but when there's live evidence of that spying, you automatically think that the spying program is directed at the US citizenry. How do you equate an article that talks about US snooping on the UN with limiting liberties for US citizens. Simple question, since we're living in the new normal, and by that I'm assuming the Internet Era over the last twenty years, what evidence do you have that freedoms have been curtailed or that we're moving towards a totalitarian regime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 29, 2015 Author Share Posted August 29, 2015 West Point Professor calls on US Military to target legal critics of War on Terror: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/29/west-point-professor-target-legal-critics-war-on-terror Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 West Point Professor calls on US Military to target legal critics of War on Terror: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/29/west-point-professor-target-legal-critics-war-on-terror No, that's not what the paper said. I've read it. It's a far-right-wing rant against law professors who make the law rather than teach it, but it's not any sort of a call for a pogrom. My favorite part is as he's talking about the "Laws of Armed Combat" (LOAC), then discusses the group of 200 or so professors select and influential professors as the "LOAC Academy" ("LOCAC"). Then progresses to discuss the 40 or so in that group who are "contemptuously critical LOACA scholars." Or the "CLOACA." You may not agree with the position, but you have to appreciate the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 BT, Greggy, you can't call the NSA program illegal, for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 1, 2015 Author Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Google facing accusations of rigging Indian elections, faces $1.4 billion fine: http://thenextweb.com/google/2015/08/31/google-could-face-a-1-4b-fine-in-india-for-rigging-search-results/ Edited September 1, 2015 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Google facing accusations of rigging Indian elections, faces $1.4 billion fine: http://thenextweb.com/google/2015/08/31/google-could-face-a-1-4b-fine-in-india-for-rigging-search-results/ $1.4 billion. You dropped a decimal point. And rigging search results. Not election results. Edited September 1, 2015 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 1, 2015 Author Share Posted September 1, 2015 $1.4 billion. You dropped a decimal point. Caught it as soon as I hit post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 4, 2015 Author Share Posted September 4, 2015 Alexander vs Greenwald: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/2000-cases-may-be-overturned-because-police-used-secret-stingray-surveillance/ar-AAdXuBn More than 2,000 cases could be overturned in Baltimore as the first motion for a retrial is filed accusing the state’s attorney’s office and the police of “deliberate and willful misrepresentation” of the use of the secret surveillance equipment known as Stingrays. * * * * * * * * * * Manufactured by the Harris corporation and around the size of a briefcase, Stingrays are one of a class of surveillance devices known as “cell-site simulators,” which pretend to be cellphone towers in order to extract metadata, location information, and in some cases content from phones that connect to it. . . . a Guardian investigation in April revealed a non-disclosure agreement that local police and prosecutors were forced to sign with the FBI before using the Stingray devices, which mandated them to withdraw or even drop cases rather than risk revealing Stingray use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 12, 2015 Author Share Posted September 12, 2015 “One of the dynamics that has really changed post-Snowden is the conversations that traditionally have taken place between the media and the intelligence community — when the media has a story, and they go to the IC and say we’re going to run with this story, and there’s a discussion of, OK, what impact would that have, and the newspaper’s willingness to effectively self censor, not publish out of the public interest — I think that dynamic has changed,” Schiff said during a roundtable discussion at the annual Intelligence and National Security Summit at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. Top-secret documents turned over to journalists by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the vast scope of the U.S. surveillance apparatus. “The celebrity, for lack of a better word, that’s been attributed to Snowden encourages other people to make disclosures, and this is a great challenge,” Schiff said. https://theintercept.com/2015/09/10/rep-schiff-says-post-snowden-press-rush-publish/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 So now we're glorifying traitorous behavior because it makes one a celebrity? I don't think I like this new normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 So now we're glorifying traitorous behavior because it makes one a celebrity? I don't think I like this new normal. There's this 20-25 year cycle in American society where we glorify anti-establishment types. Goes all the way back to John Brown and earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 It's called a search function, Gator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 It's called a search function, Gator. "Let's take down our defenses" --Deranged Greggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 "Let's take down our defenses" --Deranged Greggy Once again you demonstrate your innate ability to misconstrue one's point. My point is these are not defenses at all. Defenses are supposed to protect us. The tragic events in Paris once again demonstrated that even with these pervasive and unconstitutional measures to "defend us", they were unable to prevent an attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts