Page 23 of 48 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 477

Thread: Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

  1. #221
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    It is a sickness, you're right. When you are totally incapable of conceptualizing that someone can have a different viewpoint than your own but might not be wrong, that's very much a psychological sickness.

    You disagree with something. That's fine. That doesn't mean the system is broken or that it's time for armed insurrection. All that means is that you disagree with something. Learn to manage your emotions.
    I understand different points of view. I do not understand the evil that men do in the name of security.

    The system is broken if a vote means nothing. If our choices are Tweedledee or Tweedledum then it is time to go back to basics and actually follow the Constitution. If we fail how is it possible to not have a revolution? History shows that people will suffer for a long time but not forever.

    So we fix it or we end it. Revolutions are horrible, destructive, rending things. So we have to pull on our big boy pants and fix it.

  2. #222
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    then fortunately for you, you live in a representative republic with periodic elections of our representatives. I would urge you to ensure that your representative, and Senator Shelby understand your position, and if they disagree with you, to attend their campaign events to ask them about it. Or, you could support primary opposition to either.


    You cannot have government without giving it power.
    I do know you took or swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Why do you so easily give it up?

    Sessions gets it. Shelby perhaps not. Brooks gets it. I have already asked his Huntsville office for an explanation of his failure to vote to defund this program. I believe he will hold a Town Hall meeting.

  3. #223
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

    Quote Originally Posted by greyhat View Post
    Sounds like your volunteering for testing- nice.. What's with you guys and all this talk of armed insurrection? Have you never had an admin or two that you didn't like? Com'on you guys sound like real nut jobs.
    I speak from history. Tyranny can be endured for a time. We have slipped the constraints of the Constitution. It is time to return to them. My generation won't rebel. Nor the one behind mine. But two or three from now...

  4. #224
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,105

    Re: Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    I do know you took or swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Why do you so easily give it up?
    ...I am not convinced that the NSA program violates the Constitution?

    Sessions gets it. Shelby perhaps not. Brooks gets it. I have already asked his Huntsville office for an explanation of his failure to vote to defund this program. I believe he will hold a Town Hall meeting.
    Interesting - can you show Sessions' statements on this program? Shelby I trust... well, that's not true, I can throw some people quite far, depending on leverage, and how I'm feeling at the moment.

  5. #225
    Professor
    Capster78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    08-24-15 @ 02:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,253

    Re: Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    I never said that about all politicians. I do think most are willing to bend a few rules or act against the public interest in a covert way to get elected, to get another bill they consider more important passed, or to get an endorsement or campaign contribution. The quality of our particular government is not the primary problem, human nature is the problem. I don't like giving too much power to anyone.
    Would you agree that NOT using the technology available to catch criminals that WILL use technology to harm us is giving to much power to criminals? This technology is not going to dissapear because you ban the government from using it. By banning it outright, you just give another tool the criminals can use that our government can't use to apprehend them. In essence, you are passing that power from our government to criminals and rougue states that don't have a problem using it. I would rather allow our government to have that tool in their toolbox and know about them having it. All the while, forcing them to be transparent when it is used in order to ensure it is being used responsibly.

    Several people I have debated in this forum claim that privacy protection laws should no apply to cell phones and e-mail.
    I have yet to see anyone say that the government should have free reign on monitoring personal conversations.

    Films were censored by the government for decades, television and radio is censored by the government except late at night, and there have been numerous attempts to to impose censorship on audio recordings and the internet.
    I have not seen this censorship here in the U.S. other than to protect sensitive information that pertains to national security. You may make the argument as to what constitutes sensative information. However, I suspect, you are the type that probably believes all information should be available regaurdless of how sensitive our government thinks it is. Which has always left me scratching my head because it flies in the face of privacy. Much of the information the government holds as sensitive or secret is held precisely to protect the citizens it is responsible for protecting. Then again, you may also be one of those types that believes that the government should be small an ineffective and that you have the ability to protect yourself. Which is probably what you do believe. Many people who hold this belief can hold it because there has not been an invasion on american soil in hundreds of years. The reason is because they have been protected for so long by the government and it's military so they have no sense in what it would actually be like to protect oneself from an outside threat. All you have to do is take a trip to a country where the government is ineffective in protecting it's people and you will find people that would be arguing the complete opposite and would be begging the government or some outside government such as the U.S. to come and protect them as many countries have done.

    I don't think we agree on the parameters of inappropriate spying. I consider government collection of data that citizens reasonably think is kept confidential by the vendors they use (i.e cellphone and internet metadata and content) an invasion of privacy.
    Well, that is the problem. There is not one vendor that could possibly garuntee 100% protection of your information. So already, your setting the system up for failure. The internet is to large and has to many holes in it to garuntee 100% protection. I don't think you will ever be able to attain that.

    I believe that government regulations should require genuine informed consent when businesses collect confidential information from customers. The other issue is government collection, retention and analyses of confidential personal information, which beyond certain information necessary for tax collection etc., should require a specific warrant or genuine informed consent.
    I believe there already is a process any government agency has to go thru to attain personal information that is equivalent to attaining a warrent. Will this ever satisfy you, probably not. No matter the process, I don't think they could create one that would satisfy you. And if they could, the process would be so full of bureaucracy that it would be completely ineffective.

    You may be right about the enduring popularity of social media. I don't think people have given genuinely informed consent to the collection of confidential personal information and the sharing of that information with the governement for retention and analyses.
    The internet can only be considered public domain. There is no way any government or agency could possibly police it. Any government or agency that could possibly police it would be a very large and expensive government. And if my sense is correct, you are probably one who wants a smaller government. You can't have your cake and eat it to. You are eventually going to have to make some concessions.

    I don't think the government is going to spy on just anybody. I think they are mostly going to spy on legitimate criminal suspects and enemies of the governement. But, if individual government employees, contractors and elected officials are not carefully monitored and effectively prevented from misusing these tools and information, it will be used for personal or political gain or revenge.
    Entirely possibly and it has already happened. The best we can do is come together as an international community and all agree that we will not protect these individuals from the laws that should be preventing them from misusing their positions.
    - There was never a good war, or a bad peace.
    - Idealistically, everything should work as you planed it to. Realistically, it depends on how idealistic you are as to the measure of success.
    - Better to be a pessimist before, and an optimist afterwords.

  6. #226
    Advisor greyhat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    08-31-13 @ 01:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    562

    Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    I do know you took or swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Why do you so easily give it up?
    Maybe some of us don't ascribe to the notion that constitutionality is determined by one sole individual (ie you or I) but rather by law, with SCOTUS being the ultimate adjudicator.

    If you believe the programs are unconstitutional then I recommend that you take legal action; sue the government if you'd like to, although you'll find that you lack legal standing therefore rendering your argument pointless.

  7. #227
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,881

    Re: Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

    Quote Originally Posted by greyhat View Post
    Maybe some of us don't ascribe to the notion that constitutionality is determined by one sole individual (ie you or I) but rather by law, with SCOTUS being the ultimate adjudicator.

    If you believe the programs are unconstitutional then I recommend that you take legal action; sue the government if you'd like to, although you'll find that you lack legal standing therefore rendering your argument pointless.
    You can't sue the government because you won't be able to obtain any information on NSA programs or the secret law that facilitated it via FISA courts. People have already tried and the government won't give it up. Several congressmen have contacted the Intelligence Committee repeatedly and either have received no response or were flat out denied access to the documents regarding information on the programs they are supposed to vote on for funding.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  8. #228
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Would you agree that NOT using the technology available to catch criminals that WILL use technology to harm us is giving to much power to criminals? This technology is not going to disappear because you ban the government from using it. By banning it outright, you just give another tool the criminals can use that our government can't use to apprehend them. In essence, you are passing that power from our government to criminals and rougue states that don't have a problem using it.
    I am not against using surveillance technology within constitutional limits, I am against the government collecting and retaining data on virtually everyone. I want the government to investigate people when they have reasonable suspicion and I want them to obtain a warrant before invading anyone's privacy. Its pretty sad if that is now seen as a radical idea. I have yet to hear good reason why the government can not just obtain warrants when they are needed.

    They are not following constitutional limits now and the current practices are not transparent. That is why Snowden's release of information has raised such a fuss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    I I have yet to see anyone say that the government should have free reign on monitoring personal conversations.
    I have. The government is saying that it has a right to obtain and retain telephone and internet use metadata and even monitor content, that is not constitutional or appropriate in my view.


    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    I have not seen this censorship here in the U.S. other than to protect sensitive information that pertains to national security.
    Television and radio are censored except after 10pm.



    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    You may make the argument as to what constitutes sensative information. However, I suspect, you are the type that probably believes all information should be available regaurdless of how sensitive our government thinks it is. Which has always left me scratching my head because it flies in the face of privacy. Much of the information the government holds as sensitive or secret is held precisely to protect the citizens it is responsible for protecting.
    I think we need a better process for determining what is considered secret by the government. Far too often, secrecy is used to hide policy decisions, especially foreign policy decisions, illegal activities and mistakes made by the government.

    An excellent example is the drone assassination program which was kept secret until the info was revealed by the press. (although it was never a secret to the people in the regions where it was deployed) That was a major policy decision that should have been made publicly by our legislators, especially since it means we are becoming militarily involved in nations that we have not declared war on. Congress doesn't need to select targets or deal with other details, but they should have had the opportunity to create the policies governing and limiting the program.



    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Then again, you may also be one of those types that believes that the government should be small an ineffective and that you have the ability to protect yourself. Which is probably what you do believe. Many people who hold this belief can hold it because there has not been an invasion on american soil in hundreds of years. The reason is because they have been protected for so long by the government and it's military so they have no sense in what it would actually be like to protect oneself from an outside threat. All you have to do is take a trip to a country where the government is ineffective in protecting it's people and you will find people that would be arguing the complete opposite and would be begging the government or some outside government such as the U.S. to come and protect them as many countries have done.
    I am not a Grover Norquist small government advocate, I am a liberal who supports civil liberties for all. I have been to East Germany while the wall was up and saw how grim and lifeless a surveillance state can be. As a human rights advocate and a member of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International I am very familiar with the many human rights abuses that happen throughout the world in the name of national security and anti-terrorism.

    I don't have a problem with constitutional programs for our defense. However, our military is largely involved in building empire and protecting corporate interests worldwide. The hundreds of military bases we have overseas are generally not there to protect our citizens in the USA. Our excessive foreign intervention puts our residents at greater risk from blowback more that it keeps us safer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Well, that is the problem. There is not one vendor that could possibly garuntee 100% protection of your information. So already, your setting the system up for failure. The internet is to large and has to many holes in it to garuntee 100% protection. I don't think you will ever be able to attain that.
    I don't expect perfection. I want legal limits on data sharing without genuinely informed consent. Having people agree to twenty pages of user agreements displayed in a small scrolling box on a web page that includes intentionally confusing legal language giving away one's right to privacy in order to use the service is not genuinely informed consent. Having language stating that the service provider will comply with government information requests as required is not informed consent when the government starts collecting data on all users of the service, not just those under suspicion. Especially when the service provider makes no effort to verify the legitimacy of the government's request.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    I believe there already is a process any government agency has to go thru to attain personal information that is equivalent to attaining a warrent. Will this ever satisfy you, probably not.
    It is a secret process with no one representing the publics' right to privacy. There is no effort to track how many of these requests actually result in obtaining relevant information. There needs to be much more transparency, including after the fact notification to those whose privacy was wrongly invaded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capster78 View Post
    Then again, you may also be one of those types that believes that the government should be small an ineffective and that you have the ability to protect yourself.
    Wrong. I support a reasonable amount of defense and security, I just want it to be legal and reasonable. If you look at the state of the world and recent history with open eyes, you should conclude that government abuses are at least as much of a threat to individuals as war and terrorism. There is a good reason why the former residents of East Germany or Chile et al are not begging for a return to the cold war era surveillance state. Instead, they are trying to prosecute the government officials who claimed that they were protecting them from terrorists.

    You make good arguments, but you should stick to discussing what I say, not what you think I believe.
    Last edited by Hard Truth; 08-05-13 at 02:59 PM.

  9. #229
    Advisor greyhat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    08-31-13 @ 01:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    562

    Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    You can't sue the government because you won't be able to obtain any information on NSA programs or the secret law that facilitated it via FISA courts. People have already tried and the government won't give it up. Several congressmen have contacted the Intelligence Committee repeatedly and either have received no response or were flat out denied access to the documents regarding information on the programs they are supposed to vote on for funding.
    The ACLU, EFF and other have tried and the reason they've failed is because they lack legal standing. The intel committee are made of congressmen so if Rep John Doe is denied is bc he isn't a member of the committee and is not authorized to have access to this- that's why a committee exists.

  10. #230
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

    Quote Originally Posted by greyhat View Post
    The ACLU, EFF and other have tried and the reason they've failed is because they lack legal standing. The intel committee are made of congressmen so if Rep John Doe is denied is bc he isn't a member of the committee and is not authorized to have access to this- that's why a committee exists.
    Applying legal standing in these cases creates a Catch 22 that makes getting the courts to rule on these issues virtually impossible. The Catch 22 is created because the government won't reveal whose privacy is invaded, so no one can obtain standing. The one exception that made some headway was when the government mistakenly released some info.

Page 23 of 48 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •