The dangers of our new normal...

[GG]

 

I admit that's entirely possible. Though every bit of information I've learned in the past two years about this subject, from first hand sources within various intelligence services and second/third hand sources says otherwise.

 

 

 

Sure, but like I said, neither one have any real chance of winning. So are they really empowering anyone or merely giving the illusion of power?

 

 

 

Again, 2008 was different from 2016 in a lot of ways. Citizen's United being one but not the only.

 

And let's not forget that as soon as Obama actually got in office, he wound up following the same script that Hillary would have (more war, more surveillance, sold out to various lobbies he rallied against etc.)

 

 

Less informed? I'm not arguing people are less informed. More apathetic, maybe conditioned to be so either directly or indirectly by the divisiveness and political tribalism, but not there are certainly more opportunities for people to be informed than ever before in our history thanks to technology.

 

More repressive -- yes, I am arguing that. We've seen the chilling effect mass surveillance has already had on the way people communicate. People joke about watching what they type into search engines out of fear of ending up on a "list". That impacts free speech, free expression, and represses intellectual curiosity to a great extent.

 

 

I would like to hear your arguments, in all seriousness. I'm not trying to monopolize the conversation. Let's hear it.

 

I'm not arguing for changing any constitutional rights, merely restoring them. We've already seen our constitutional rights assaulted in the name of fighting terrorism, there's no question about that.

 

You probably know your US history, so I don't need to go through the nation's periods where Constitutional rights were clearly invaded to a collective shrug, followed by a never mind. The political rhetoric is tame compared to the founding fathers' letters and editorials. Yet we survived.

 

I'm not concerned about the new surveillance state because I choose to apply a historical context to a new technology, and understand that today's Internet is as revolutionary as the steam engine, railroad, electricity, telegraph, photo camera, telephone, automobile, and all other innovations that have come before and frightened the population. Yet despite the fears (and you will see the same fearmongering about the telephone as you do about the Internet) the new technology has opened and empowered the population, as opposed to oppressed it.

 

It's mind boggling that you think we're going to be more controlled now, than in an age when there were two newspapers, three national radio stations and three national TV broadcast stations. And you keep clutching to the Citizens United ruling in thinking that Obama wouldn't have won in 2008 if that ruling was in effect back then. That notion is just insane, because he didn't benefit from TV commercial time or traditional donor support. No matter how much more money Hillary would have sunk into the campaign would have helped her. He was the shiny new object that was getting more visibility across various media channels that are impossible to corral by any one entity.

[DC Tom]

Has anyone actually studied and measured the influence of money in politics, or is this all philosophical musings? For all the talk of it, I don't recall ever seeing it objectively confirmed.

[GG]

Has anyone actually studied and measured the influence of money in politics, or is this all philosophical musings? For all the talk of it, I don't recall ever seeing it objectively confirmed.

 

The only tangible measure that I'm aware of is the rise of TV ad dollars every 4 years. Of course, there's no correlation to the effect of that spending (say hi to Jeb)

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I read through that link and there is nothing definitive that shows there is a systemic legal breach of peoples privacy in there. The closest thing that I found other than a few security experts assumptions of systemic breaches was an instance where a FISA judge questioned the government's possible overreach on a particular case.

 

I must have missed it, can you copy and paste me where there is a definitive systemic legal breach of peoples privacy from that link or anywhere else? Data collection in a lock box doesn't count.

 

Go read the primary sources on WikiLeaks, any of the numerous stories linked through this thread, and/or watch Citizen 4 for specific examples. The "particular case" you're referencing encompassed over 30 million Americans' data -- not exactly a drop in the bucket. If you look closer at the original Guardian stories and links you'll see there are countless examples of NSA agents using their powers to monitor their exes, trade nude photos taken from private sources etc. There is/was/still is a "culture" of this kind of behavior. They've never, ever been just storing data in a lock box and waiting for warrants. They're actively searching and using this data and private information for their own purposes.

 

For the record, I'm not and never have been against collecting and searching citizen's data when there's judicial oversight and warrants are obtained. I'm not advocating for a world wherein the United States doesn't have intelligence agencies actively working for the nation's security.

 

What I am against is the government taking the position that it must monitor US citizens for it's own protection, constitutional rights be damned. That's not how our country is supposed to work. We were founded on the principle that it's the people's job to watch over the government to assure it doesn't become a threat to the people, not the other way around.

 

And I assure you if you actually take the time to read the primary documents, read through the links in this thread (or any of the countless others that you can find with a Google search and some discernment on your part), you will find repeated and routine violations of a large number of citizen's right to privacy and due process. The evidence is undeniable.

 

To believe what you are propagating is to believe that several different levels of government are in on a systemic scheme of spying on US citizens. From the Judicial branch (in which FISA has to sign off on it), intelligence services, congress to the executive branch. In other words, it would be conspiratorial.

 

Again, I'm not talking about theory. I'm talking about reality.

 

It's a reality that we're being spied on by our own government. Not even NSA denies this (anymore, they did until the evidence was overwhelming). You can call that a conspiracy but to do so you have to turn a blind eye to literally hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents and testimony proving otherwise.

 

So why is there a conspiracy from the government to "snoop" on US citizens if it isn't for protecting the homeland?

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's proven to be true and ongoing. And if you need to ask why the government would want to spy on its own people I have to question your grasp of human nature and history in general.

 

Information is power. And governments since the beginning of governments have sought to spy on their own people in an effort to remain in power. The more information you have as a ruler, the easier it is to stop threats before they metastasize. That's how they have sold these programs to the public, they're designed to stop terrorists before they act. Yet, as we've seen time and time again, the reality is quite different. These programs do nothing to prevent terrorism, the amount of data is too much, too fast for it to be of any use in a proactive fight against individual terrorists or cells.

 

But it's not really terrorists these programs are designed to monitor. It's us. People literally live their lives online today. Most business and social interactions leave a digital trail, not to mention nearly every American carries around with them a computer and monitoring system on their person nearly 24 hours a day. If you have to ask why a central government of any nation would be interested in monitoring, collecting, and storing every bit of information they can get their hands on then you need to crack open a history book and get to learning.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[Magox]

 

 

Go read the primary sources on WikiLeaks, any of the numerous stories linked through this thread, and/or watch Citizen 4 for specific examples. The "particular case" you're referencing encompassed over 30 million Americans' data -- not exactly a drop in the bucket. If you look closer at the original Guardian stories and links you'll see there are countless examples of NSA agents using their powers to monitor their exes, trade nude photos taken from private sources etc. There is/was/still is a "culture" of this kind of behavior. They've never, ever been just storing data in a lock box and waiting for warrants. They're actively searching and using this data and private information for their own purposes.

 

 

 

This is unlawful and it's not something that the government is in on, but rather some rogue agents breaking the law for their own purposes.

 

Nothing I have ever read about the NSA surveillance program has ever shown me that the government has attempted and/or been approved by FISA to spy on its own citizens for any purposes outside of its intended goal. All I have read is a few security experts that assume that some wrongdoing is occuring and instances of rogue agents abusing the tools that are available to them. That is why I was asking if you could copy and paste me some of the instances that you were referring to that show a systematic legal breach of peoples privacy.

 

Yes, you could make an argument that a few agents breaking the law is a systematic breach, but I don't consider that to be an example of what I am talking about. I am referring to a coordinated effort by the government to snoop on its own citizens to "remain in power" as you say. I have never read anything close to being definitive backing what you claim, aside from assumptions.

 

I will gladly change my view on this if I could actually see proof of your assertions.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Magox

[GG]

I will gladly change my view on this if I could actually see proof of your assertions.

You won't because it doesn't exist.

[Magox]

You won't because it doesn't exist.

 

We've been reading about this for years and I have yet to see any proof that suggests the government is involved in a coordinated scheme to spy on its citizens for the nefarious purposes that Greg believes it to be.

[GG]

 

We've been reading about this for years and I have yet to see any proof that suggests the government is involved in a coordinated scheme to spy on its citizens for the nefarious purposes that Greg believes it to be.

 

He also chooses to gloss over news that the program may not be as expansive as he fears.

 

The report indicates that when the N.S.A. conducts Internet surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act, companies that operate the Internet are probably turning over just emails to, from or about the N.S.A.’s foreign targets — not all the data crossing their switches, as the critics had presumed

 

..

 

In one such case, a group of AT&T customers represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued in 2014 that the government was getting a copy of all Internet data and rooting through it. But the Justice Department said litigating the allegation would reveal state secrets, and a judge dismissed the claim in February 2015, writing cryptically that secret documents showed that “the plaintiffs’ version of the significant operational details of the Upstream collection process is substantially inaccurate.”

 

 

 

Read the Jewel decision. The court basically said that the plaintiffs' assertions of the breadth of the US government's spying is full of it.

[Tiberius]

 

He also chooses to gloss over news that the program may not be as expansive as he fears.

 

 

 

Read the Jewel decision. The court basically said that the plaintiffs' assertions of the breadth of the US government's spying is full of it.

So finally, this debate, at long last, is settled!

[GG]

Bumping up the thread for Greggy to carry on the tangent discussion in the other thread.

 

Do you think that Snowden's actions have been a net positive or net negative for ordinary folks across the world?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

We've been reading about this for years and I have yet to see any proof that suggests the government is involved in a coordinated scheme to spy on its citizens for the nefarious purposes that Greg believes it to be.

 

Considering you've not read all the materials, nor do you have a true understand my opinion on this issue, it's not surprising that you haven't seen any proof. You have to know what I'm arguing in order to understand what I'm arguing, do you not?

 

You believe this is an irrelevant issue because only people with something to hide should really be afraid of government spying (per your arguments in this very thread). If you want to keep your head in the sand and pretend that this isn't happening, in light of the literal HUNDREDS of first hand documents proving otherwise, that's your right.

 

And it's my right to point out that kind of willful ignorance is exactly how they hoped most people would respond when this story began to break over three years ago now. So you're doing your part, fighting the good fight. Gotta keep those terrorists on the run

 

 

Bumping up the thread for Greggy to carry on the tangent discussion in the other thread.

 

Do you think that Snowden's actions have been a net positive or net negative for ordinary folks across the world?

 

Bringing to light the fact that the head of NSA lied before congress when directly asked about data collection? Making millions of Americans aware that they are living without constitutional protections we used to take for granted? Yes, it's a net positive for US citizens to understand that their government is lying to them, has been lying to them, and will continue to lie to them as they violate the constitutional rights of its citizens on an hourly basis. The only people this is a net negative for are in the federal government itself.

 

Information is power. People, neocons especially, laughed at Binney when he came out warning about this well before Snowden. They called him and those who had the audacity to believe the man who helped create these systems conspiracy theorists peddling the crazy. Then Snowden came out with his documents and proved not only were the conspiracy theorists right, they undersold the issue.

***********************************

 

Secret Court Takes Another Bite out of the Fourth Amendment:

 

Defenders of the NSA's mass spying have lost an important talking point: that the erosion of our privacy and associational rights is justified given the focus of surveillance efforts on combating terrorism and protecting the national security. That argument has always been dubious for a number of reasons. But after a November 2015 ruling [.pdf] by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was unsealed this week, it's lost another chunk of its credibility. The ruling confirms that NSA's warrantless spying has been formally approved for use in general criminal investigations. The national security justification has been entirely blown.

 

That's because the secret court, over the objection of its hand-selected amicus, determined that once information is collected by the NSA for "foreign intelligence" purposes under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, that information can be searched by the FBI for regular criminal investigations without any need for a warrant or prior court oversight. Although the FISC has signed off on the FBI's procedures claiming this authority for years, this ruling from late 2015 may be the first time the FISC has actually considered their legality.

Section 702 is the law that the government uses to conduct two massive NSA programs: access to communications as they travel the Internet backbone (called Upstream) and access to communications stored with service providers like Google and Facebook (called Prism).

According to this ruling, communications like email and Facebook posts collected by the government under the broad authority of section 702 that the FBI has access to—including all "raw" Prism data—can be mined for any "evidence of a crime" and used against you, even if you're inside the United States.

(much more at the link)

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/secret-court-takes-another-bite-out-fourth-amendment

Edited April 22, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[Magox]

 

Considering you've not read all the materials, nor do you have a true understand my opinion on this issue, it's not surprising that you haven't seen any proof. You have to know what I'm arguing in order to understand what I'm arguing, do you not?

 

 

 

Just copy and paste an example of the government involved in a definitive systemic legal breach of peoples privacy. I want to give what you are saying a shot of being true. Nothing you have provided shows this or even comes close to proving your point.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Just copy and paste an example of the government involved in a definitive systemic legal breach of peoples privacy. I want to give what you are saying a shot of being true. Nothing you have provided shows this or even comes close to proving your point.

 

I have. You've ignored it. Do your own homework.

 

You don't seem to care to even understand my point before attempting to pass judgement on it. If you could accurately summarize my point it'd be easier for you to try to debate it.

 

*******************************************************************

 

Why does the court charged with protecting our privacy keep doing the opposite?

 

The controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court – derided in recent years as a rubber stamp for the NSA, and which normally operates inalmost complete secrecy – just released an opinion from November 2015 in which federal judge Thomas Hogan sharply criticized the spy agency.

Hogan said he was “extremely concerned” about lax practices at the NSA and FBIregarding how they handle the vast quantities of data they collect. Worse, for four years, the agencies held on to personal information gathered by surveillance ruled unconstitutional in 2011, all while keeping it hidden from the court.

Yet after saying all this, the judge went on to reapprove all the surveillance the NSA asked for. It’s almost hard to keep track of how many times the courts have criticized spy agencies for breaking their own rules, the law or the fourth amendment, and then allowed them to proceed unimpeded.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/21/fisa-court-privacy-data-collection-surveillence

***************************

 

FBI's PRISM slurping is 'unconstitutional' -- and America's secret spy court is okay with that:

 

Hopes that reform to the US government's mass surveillance infrastructure would yield real results have been dealt a blow after the opinion of a public advocate to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was rejected.

Amy Jeffress was asked to give her opinion on the FBI searching in the vast PRISM database for details on US citizens. She declared that it was unconstitutional since it broke the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches).

Her opinion was rejected [PDF], however, by FISC judge Thomas Hogan and the practice will be allowed to continue.

Under the terms of the public advocate, Jeffress is not allowed to appeal the decision so she will not have an opportunity to pick apart the court's counterarguments.

(snip)

However, the FBI routinely searches for information on US citizens in that database – typing in their email address to see what exists, for example – and Jeffress said that was illegal because the FBI was restricted neither to serious crimes nor to issues of national security.

In other words, as soon as the FBI starts an investigation into anyone, it can do a full search for everything it has on them in the PRISM database.

Jeffress argued that approach does not comply with the Fourth Amendment and goes "far beyond the purpose" that the data was gathered for. She recommended that in future there be a "written justification" before the database is searched.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/20/public_advocate_fbi_actions_are_unconstitutional_secret_court_nah_were_good/

**********************

 

Documents reveal inner-workings of UK spying databases

 

The UK government has kept so-called Bulk Personal Datasets (BPDs)—large collections of personal information, the majority of which relates to people not of any interest to intelligence agencies—a closely guarded secret. In January, for example, the Home Secretary Theresa May refused to say whether the country's spies access medical records.

Now, a large cache of internal GCHQ documents obtained by campaign group Privacy International provides more information about how these datasets are obtained, what they potentially contain, and how they are handled by intelligence agencies.

“Although bulk personal datasets constitute only a tiny proportion of the data GCHQ obtains, its retention and use of such datasets represent a significant interference with many people's right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),” reads one document. “This interference must be justified in terms of its necessity and proportionality.”

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/documents-reveal-inner-workings-of-uks-spying-databases

**********************

 

(Chomsky, Snowden, Greenwald talk privacy)

 

[GG]

 

I have. You've ignored it. Do your own homework.

 

You don't seem to care to even understand my point before attempting to pass judgement on it. If you could accurately summarize my point it'd be easier for you to try to debate it.

 

*******************************************************************

 

 

The issue is that we are providing data points from official government reviews and adjudicated court cases, while you cite Chomsky & Snowden. None of your sources have proven that there have been mass violations of the 4th Amendment.

[Magox]

 

I have. You've ignored it. Do your own homework.

 

You don't seem to care to even understand my point before attempting to pass judgement on it. If you could accurately summarize my point it'd be easier for you to try to debate it.

 

 

The closest thing you've produced to backing your assertion that the government is systemically legally breaching peoples privacy in order to spy on them for purposes of "power" outside of their stated confines has been this:

 

However, the FBI routinely searches for information on US citizens in that database – typing in their email address to see what exists, for example – and Jeffress said that was illegal because the FBI was restricted neither to serious crimes nor to issues of national security.

 

 

I think the key word here is "routinely". If that is the case, then I would consider this to be a breach. However, the problem is this is her opinion, which not only was rejected by the court but hasn't even been brought back on appeal.

 

I've done my homework and I've concluded that there is no such breach. Not to say that this is definitive, because there is a possibility that it exists, but I have yet to see any evidence that proves your argument that the government is spying on its citizens for purposes of "power".

[Deranged Rhino]

 

The issue is that we are providing data points from official government reviews and adjudicated court cases,

 

 

As have I. Let's not pretend that Snowden and Chomsky are my only sources in 55 pages of articles, primary sources, and relevant video testimony.

 

 

 

None of your sources have proven that there have been mass violations of the 4th Amendment.

 

Incorrect.

 

 

The closest thing you've produced to backing your assertion

 

You have yet to accurately summarize what my position is, so forgive me if I don't take seriously your efforts to debate it.

 

 

I think the key word here is "routinely". If that is the case, then I would consider this to be a breach. However, the problem is this is her opinion, which not only was rejected by the court but hasn't even been brought back on appeal.

 

 

...Because appeals are not permitted by the court, but don't let details get in the way of your argument, or the fact that the ruling of the court itself is double-talk and easy to take apart on a constitutional basis if an appeal were permitted.

 

You're also ignoring the several other cases wherein justices outside of the secret courts have agreed to the unconstitutionality of these programs.

 

 

I've done my homework and I've concluded that there is no such breach. Not to say that this is definitive, because there is a possibility that it exists, but I have yet to see any evidence that proves your argument that the government is spying on its citizens for purposes of "power".

 

That's not my argument.

 

Again, it helps to know what you're trying to debunk before you try to debunk it. Otherwise you reveal your true goal, it's not discussion or education. You've made up your mind and have closed it off to discussion.

 

But that's cool. Willful ignorance is your right.

.

[Magox]

 

As have I. Let's not pretend that Snowden and Chomsky are my only sources in 55 pages of articles, primary sources, and relevant video testimony.

 

 

 

Incorrect.

 

 

You have yet to accurately summarize what my position is, so forgive me if I don't take seriously your efforts to debate it.

 

 

...Because appeals are not permitted by the court, but don't let details get in the way of your argument, or the fact that the ruling of the court itself is double-talk and easy to take apart on a constitutional basis if an appeal were permitted.

 

You're also ignoring the several other cases wherein justices outside of the secret courts have agreed to the unconstitutionality of these programs.

 

 

That's not my argument.

 

Again, it helps to know what you're trying to debunk before you try to debunk it. Otherwise you reveal your true goal, it's not discussion or education. You've made up your mind and have closed it off to discussion.

 

But that's cool. Willful ignorance is your right.

.

 

You've yet to present anything that effectively makes the case that the government is systemically breaching people's privacy rights outside of the 4th amendment. GG and I have both asked for you to present something that unequivocally backs up this claim but the only thing you have done is make your own opinionated case (which is fine because it adds your context, but doesn't prove anything) and provide a few links that offer opinions from other people that share your view.

 

Information is power. And governments since the beginning of governments have sought to spy on their own people in an effort to remain in power. The more information you have as a ruler, the easier it is to stop threats before they metastasize.

 

 

I thought that was part of your argument, then if it isn't part of your argument then why make it part of your case.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, I know it's pretty clear that your believe that the 4th amendment is being broken, that's fine, I disagree. But to my understanding you are taking it to a different level. Which is that the government is systemically spying on its own people for the purpose of "power".

 

If I have misunderstood you, then why do you believe they are spying on us?

[GG]

In the end you succumb to the conspiracies, and that large amounts of anything - be it data or money - are a necessary evil to you and they're the items that drive governments to do bad things. So while I admit that money & power are huge aphrodisiacs, they do not necessarily mean that everybody suddenly turns into a Lex Luthor with a need to amass as much as possible. Everything you linked goes to a sole source, and the reporting is based on the presumption that evil acts are occurring.

 

Yet, despite evidence that things may not be as bad as feared, that doesn't deter the Snowdens & Greenwalds from propagating their crap. Because if they stopped to look at things objectively, they would end up looking like idiots for releasing a massive trove of classified material that's caused a lot more harm than good (especially for people who live in truly repressive lands). So their choice is to double down on fear mongering, despite more and more evidence coming to light that disproves their allegations.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

You've yet to present anything that effectively makes the case that the government is systemically breaching people's privacy rights outside of the 4th amendment. GG and I have both asked for you to present something that unequivocally backs up this claim but the only thing you have done is make your own opinionated case (which is fine because it adds your context, but doesn't prove anything) and provide a few links that offer opinions from other people that share your view.

 

 

Incorrect. Your failure to read the material I've given you or led you to is not the same as me not presenting anything. The government has been and is continuing to breach our constitutional rights in the name of fighting terror.

 

This is undeniable, as is the truth that these programs are terrible at doing their stated purpose in the first place.

 

 

I thought that was part of your argument, then if it isn't part of your argument then why make it part of your case.

 

You asked why governments would be interested in collecting data. I answered it.

 

The why isn't mysterious, nor are the obvious pitfalls and dangers, unless you're completely trying to evade the pertinent issues of the debate.

 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, I know it's pretty clear that your believe that the 4th amendment is being broken, that's fine, I disagree.

 

Despite the reams of information proving that our constitutional rights are being violated that have come to light in the past 16 years -- let alone the last 3 -- you still disagree.

 

That's the definition of willful ignorance. No amount of discussion will turn your head when it's buried in the sand.

 

But to my understanding you are taking it to a different level. Which is that the government is systemically spying on its own people for the purpose of "power".

 

Incorrect. You're conflating the worst case scenario, which I have brought up, with my actual position on the matter.

 

My position is that we need to be having this discussion without the cloud of terrorism hovering over it because it's a distraction. We need more oversight and more transparency, not less. This thread was started when the Patriot Act was being put up for renewal for that specific purpose.

 

Everything else is speculative on my part, admittedly so, in an effort to not only have the conversation we need to have, but to open the eyes of folks who are unaware this type of malfeasance is ongoing.

 

 

If I have misunderstood you, then why do you believe they are spying on us?

 

That's a question for the government, is it not? I can only speculate. Which I have, in great length and detail, because there has been virtually no substantial debate on this issue in government or within our national conversation. The war on terror is the perfect tool to distract and derail any meaningful debate on these issues because selling fear is easier than telling the truth.

 

The facts are pretty simple if you're willing to look at the issue with an open mind which, so far, you've yet to demonstrate the willingness to do.

 

Fact: Mass data collection and surveillance was sold to the American public as a necessary means to fighting and preventing terrorist attacks on US soil and abroad.

 

Fact: The collection programs in question are so vast, the data collected so voluminous, that to this day they are unsuitable for their stated job.

 

(Recent events prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt: Boston, Brussels, Paris, San Bernadino -- all instances where the perpetrators were on the radar of various intelligence services around the globe before they acted yet the powers that be were unable to stop them -- even with these massive programs for which we're being asked to willingly surrender constitutional rights our ancestors died to give us.)

 

Fact: We've seen a very recent example of our government waging war against private US citizens purely for ideological reasons. The IRS going after Tea Party and right leaning organizations should be an eye opener to the ways in which this massive collection of data (the overwhelming majority of which is irrelevant to the war on terror) can be misused by our government.

Knowing those three facts, how much do you really trust the government not to overstep their constitutional limits within a system that has little to no oversight or transparency?

The bedrock principle this nation was founded upon was the notion that it's our job to watch out for governmental overreach. Yet, within this discussion, that entire ethos has been flipped on its head. The government is arguing it has to monitor every American citizen, privacy and due process rights be damned, because every US citizen is a potential threat. Not to the people or property -- but to the government itself. That's antithetical to everything this country is supposed to stand for.

Once governments begin to think and approach surveillance with that mentality, it's a short, slippery slope into the abyss of totalitarian oppression. History proves this to be true 100% of the time. To think it'll be no different in modern day America is to be willfully ignorant of not only history but human nature. The simple act of being observed changes how people think, write, speak and act. It doesn't even matter if they're being actively observed or not, just knowing that it's possible they are being observed has a chilling effect on all forms of communication and thought that run contrary to the establishment. This kills democracy and free thought. Orwell and Huxley wrote extensively about these issues decades ago more eloquently than I ever could.

That slide into a totalitarian state wherein every ideological thought that runs contrary to the establishment is censored and/or repressed is the worst case scenario of how this all ends up. I'm not arguing it's the world we're living in today. We still do live in a democracy -- I think -- and we have the ability... no the duty to find a middle ground between protecting our vital civil liberties and keeping our country safe from acts of terror.

That requires being honest about what's happening and why. I'm not, and have never been, arguing that this is a Machiavellian plot to steer us into a totalitarian future. I genuinely believe that the majority of politicians and officers working in NSA or any other alphabet soup agency are motivated by the desire to protect Americans. I know too many of them to think otherwise. But unexpected consequences happen all the time, and the unintended consequences of these programs are obvious yet they're often dismissed by politicians and officers alike because it's too uncomfortable to think about. If we're unable to even discuss these issues without having the fear mongering hawks derailing the conversation with apocalyptic language about what will happen should we abandon these programs, then we've already lost the battle before it's even begun.

Yes, !@#$ ups happen. No one or no agency is perfect. But we're not talking about one or two instances were these programs which were supposed to stop terror have failed. We're talking about the loss of hundreds of lives that these programs promised to prevent and yet, as we've seen, they have literally no hope of doing so. If these systems are not able to prevent terrorist acts, even when we know the names and locations of the suspects, is it not fair to question their purpose if not their effectiveness?

 

We're being asked as US citizens to trust that the government will use this data only with the proper oversight and constitutional restrictions while the evidence is undeniable that's never been the case. There is little to no oversight, there are little to no thoughts given to our constitutional rights to due process and privacy. The data is not being stored in a lock box, it is being pilfered and used in various ways each and every day by the very government who's asking us to trust them.

 

These are not speculations, these are proven facts. And they are a grave threat to not just our democracy, but democracies around the world.

 

In the end you succumb to the conspiracies, and that large amounts of anything - be it data or money - are a necessary evil to you and they're the items that drive governments to do bad things. So while I admit that money & power are huge aphrodisiacs, they do not necessarily mean that everybody suddenly turns into a Lex Luthor with a need to amass as much as possible.

 

 

As stated above (and in many, many, MANY other of my posts) this has never been my argument. But you don't need "everybody" to turn into Lex Luthor. Just a handful.

 

Everything you linked goes to a sole source, and the reporting is based on the presumption that evil acts are occurring.

 

Incorrect. I've linked Snowden's docs, Binney's testimony, countless other opinion pieces and videos. They're not a single source and not everyone presumes evil acts are ongoing.

 

Yet, despite evidence that things may not be as bad as feared, that doesn't deter the Snowdens & Greenwalds from propagating their crap. Because if they stopped to look at things objectively, they would end up looking like idiots for releasing a massive trove of classified material that's caused a lot more harm than good (especially for people who live in truly repressive lands). So their choice is to double down on fear mongering, despite more and more evidence coming to light that disproves their allegations.

 

I'd love to hear how Snowden's leaks have caused more harm than good (especially for people who live in truly repressive lands). Truth isn't harmful, it's empowering.

[Deranged Rhino]

The NSA won't tell Congress how many Americans it's spying on because our democracy is broken:

 

Congress is trying to learn more about the NSA's surveillance programs, and it's not going well. In a letter delivered today to director of National Intelligence James Clapper, a group of 14 legislators (eight Democrats and six Republicans) asked for a ballpark figure on how many Americans are having their data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Section 702 is the legal justification for many of the NSA's most invasive programs, including PRISM. But we still don't have an exact idea of how broad its reach is. So Congress asked! They passed FISA, after all, so it's only right that they should know how it's being used. They don't need an exact number on the Americans caught up in PRISM, just a ballpark. Is it a thousand? A hundred thousand? 318 million? Take an educated guess.

They've wanted that guess for a while now. Even before Snowden, members of Congress were asking for details on how 702 was being used, but it's gone on for five years now and the NSA has not responded in any way.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/22/11490278/nsa-congress-prism-702-spying-democracy-broken

More, same story different source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/spy-chief-pressed-number-americans-ensnared-data-espionage-182125613--finance.html

 

More: https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/stymied-by-nsa-members-of-congress-ask-really-basic-question-again/

Edited April 23, 2016 by Deranged Rhino