The Oppressive Growing Police State

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Anyone who thinks the NSA is actually listening in to THEIR private phone-calls and taking notes is a raging narcissicist. The NSA really doesn't care about your banal conversations (even if it's about your pot deals or your adulterous affair or whatever else you're trying to keep secret). If they want to snoop in on a few calls by people they suspect of terrorist activity, I say go for it if there's real fear of an impending attack or a terror cell in the country. I just can't get myself to care about this much. I'm sure that makes me an unpatriotic, big-brother loving pinko who values security over liberty, blah blah blah. But what if the government has the tools to stop another 9/11, such as phone-taps without warrants, and an attack happens because we didn't do everything in our power to prevent it when we had the chance? How will we feel then?

 

[Alex_Spider]

Anyone who thinks the NSA is actually listening in to THEIR private phone-calls and taking notes is a raging narcissicist. The NSA really doesn't care about your banal conversations (even if it's about your pot deals or your adulterous affair or whatever else you're trying to keep secret). If they want to snoop in on a few calls by people they suspect of terrorist activity, I say go for it if there's real fear of an impending attack or a terror cell in the country. I just can't get myself to care about this much. I'm sure that makes me an unpatriotic, big-brother loving pinko who values security over liberty, blah blah blah.

Why not? They have the technology and the resources to do it. Just like they did the Patriot Act. And not just the US. Many other countries could do that as they have showed they have the political views inclined in wiretapping the citizens. Look at Guantanamo Bay, how did they imprisoned all those "terrorist suspects"? Obviously by surveillance of their phone and social media. Not by actual terrorist acts.

But what if the government has the tools to stop another 9/11, such as phone-taps without warrants, and an attack happens because we didn't do everything in our power to prevent it when we had the chance? How will we feel then?

You know what would be even safer? If every citizen had an implanted GPS system tracking every move, recording his meetings and conversations with other people. Lock the doors after 7pm and everyone stays home and so on. See where this leads to? Insanity and dictatorship.

The fear of "one probable terrorist" attack shouldn't be the excuse for the wiretapping of the population. Thai is not how you deal with "Terrorism".

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Why not? They have the technology and the resources to do it. Just like they did the Patriot Act. And not just the US.

So you really think the NSA is paying its agents to listen in on Alex Spider's phone calls? Somehow I think they have bigger fish to fry.

Many other countries could do that as they have showed they have the political views inclined in wiretapping the citizens. Look at Guantanamo Bay, how did they imprisoned all those "terrorist suspects"? Obviously by surveillance of their phone and social media. Not by actual terrorist acts.

I thought 99% of those imprisoned at Gitmo came from Middle Eastern countries. I wasn't aware we sent American citizens there. So who got sent to Gitmo as a result of a warrantless wiretap call in the continental USA? Please let me know. And most of those Gitmo suspects were caught fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or Yemen. But if they were tracked down via social media or internet trails, it's because they were already suspected of being involved in plots somehow, whether planning them, financing them or carrying them out. They didn't pull those names out of a hat. And I, for one, am glad they're in Gitmo rather than planning wide-scale carnage in whatever country they were caught in.

You know what would be even safer? If every citizen had an implanted GPS system tracking every move, recording his meetings and conversations with other people. Lock the doors after 7pm and everyone stays home and so on. See where this leads to? Insanity and dictatorship.

Oh great. The ole' hackneyed slippery-slope argument. I dislike slippery-slopes because you can speculate about any endless list of apocalyptic hypotheticals by exaggerating the argument enough. "You know what's next? Drones shooting lasers down on us and incinerating us!" "Or we get rounded up and sent to re-education camps." Let's stick to arguing the issue at hand, which is warrantless wire-taps of terror suspects.

The fear of "one probable terrorist" attack shouldn't be the excuse for the wiretapping of the population. Thai is not how you deal with "Terrorism".

So what's your suggestion? How would you keep the country safe?

 

[Alex_Spider]

So you really think the NSA is paying its agents to listen in on Alex Spider's phone calls? Somehow I think they have bigger fish to fry.

Well they don't have to pay any agent to do the surveillance. It is impossible with such a large population. But with today's software computers could track possible "dangerous" words related to a terrorist act and that information could be passed automatically in the list and so on.

I thought 99% of those imprisoned at Gitmo came from Middle Eastern countries. I wasn't aware we sent American citizens there. So who got sent to Gitmo as a result of a warrantless wiretap call in the continental USA? Please let me know. And most of those Gitmo suspects were caught fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or Yemen. But if they were tracked down via social media or internet trails, it's because they were already suspected of being involved in plots somehow, whether planning them, financing them or carrying them out. They didn't pull those names out of a hat. And I, for one, am glad they're in Gitmo rather than planning wide-scale carnage in whatever country they were caught in.

I didn't mean that Americans are imprisoned in Gitmo. As for the Middle East related terrorists you can't know for sure if they caught them fighting first or plan a terrorist attack and then tracked their calls or the other way around. The certain thing is that they can and they did track them via social media or internet trails. They have the means to do so. That's what matters.

Oh great. The ole' hackneyed slippery-slope argument. I dislike slippery-slopes because you can speculate about any endless list of apocalyptic hypotheticals by exaggerating the argument enough. "You know what's next? Drones shooting lasers down on us and incinerating us!" "Or we get rounded up and sent to re-education camps." Let's stick to arguing the issue at hand, which is warrantless wire-taps of terror suspects.

It is an exaggerated example but so is the surveillance of our phones and social media. You can't expect to have such a thing going on and pretend everything will be in control and only the guilty ones will get prosecuted. And as for the laser thing there is already happening in some capacity. Just take a look at the innocent civilian loses that take place in the Middle East from the drone killings that supposedly only search for "terrorists".

So what's your suggestion? How would you keep the country safe?

I just don't support extreme solutions that could our judgment and might lead us into a form of dictatorship. Honestly I don't have a solution other than fighting crime or terrorism through conventional means and try as much as possible to fight fanaticism in our schools, home etc that leads to terror acts.

Our choice of politics is also is a major factor.

 

[SentinelMind]

So you really think the NSA is paying its agents to listen in on Alex Spider's phone calls? Somehow I think they have bigger fish to fry.

The information can be used to block and intimidate all opposition to government programs and policies. Tyrannical CIA head J Edgar Hoover was adamant on wiretapping and blackmailing opposition, including Martin Luther King Jr.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/

What happens if the government has juicy embarrassing information about your personal life....might motivate you to step down from protesting a decision the government is making, wouldn't it? Maybe not, but you would at least consider it.

That's why our Founders were so adamant on fourth and fifth amendment in Constitution. The government has an huge disposal of arsenal to try prosecute and indict loads of individuals who were causing a problem. No matter how squeaky clean you think you are, a vindictive government official who had access to your personal information could probably find something...taxes, finances, relationships, speeding ticket, social activity..in your life to create a reason to prosecute you. You didn't dot your i on your taxes and you told your girlfriend over the phone....time to prosecute. You're uncertain whether you were allowed to carry friend's package of goods over border..time to prosecute.
This government doesn't have resources (thank God) to indict every little trivial incident that occurs within their borders...but allowing warrantless wiretaps would allow officials to hypocritically target those they don't like...like the IRS did to the Tea Party. The Founderes were adament on making sure the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment get into the Constitution to prevent ridiculous and selective overprosecution for political enemies of the current occupants of high office. Why give the government more ammunition to harrass and bully you around?

 

[enterthemadness]

Rand Paul might sue Govt.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/09/rand-paul-says-he-might-sue-government/


I'll join him in doing so. Make it happen, I'll sign the petition.

I'm going to be seeing if I can challenge this at the Supreme Court level. I'm going to be asking the Internet providers and all of the phone companies; ask your customers to join me in a class-action lawsuit," Paul said on FOX News Sunday.

"If we get 10 million Americans saying, 'We don't want our phone records looked at' then maybe someone will wake up and things will change in Washington."

 

[The Question]

I think this interview is of interest to pretty much everyone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-interview-video

 

[Alex_Spider]

I think this interview is of interest to pretty much everyone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-interview-video

Great find

 

[Thundercrack85]

Not often I agree with Sentinel, but he's right on the money.

Right now it's just snooping (which btw is already a bad thing), tomorrow it's everything else. Intimidation, blackmail, censorship, etc.

That's the kind of environment crap like this fosters.

Which would make you think politicians would be a bit more interested in all this. Just imagine what an unscrupulous president (or perhaps at this point I should say "a more unscrupulous president") could do with dirt on senators and congresspeople. We're talking phone records, e-mails, text messages, photos, etc.

Not to mention of course journalists, whistleblowers, etc.

 

[enterthemadness]

I dunno where to post this at, but the Libertarian Party Facebook page hit the nail on the head. This past Friday...btw, the Libertarian Party Facebook page is at 346,013 likes as of this posting.

Mr. President and the NSA,

Going through our private phone records is a lot of work, and very expensive. And since we aren’t huge fans of paying you to invade our privacy, we thought we’d save you the time and save ourselves the money by answering your questions openly, publicly, and transparently:

Q: Are Libertarians associated with any organization with any anti-government goals of any kind?
A: Yes. Our goal is to dismantle most or all of government. Many of our members are associated with many other anti-government, pro-freedom groups as well.

Q: Do Libertarians intend to use violence?
A: No, we leave that to the experts: the Federal government. Our goal is to stop you from engaging in nonstop and unnecessary violence around the world. No terrorist we know of has caused as many needless civilian deaths and as much destruction to property as the U.S. Federal government.. We want to shut down military bases and bring our troops home. At home, we want to end the ludicrous swat team raids on peaceful civilians, and have the government stop using violence against peaceful citizens.

Q: Do you intend to distribute government secrets to enemies of freedom?
A: Right now, the Federal government IS the biggest enemy of American freedom. Distributing Federal government secrets to the Federal government would be as pointess as, well, most government programs.

Q: What other subversive goals do you have?
A: We plan to take back our fundamental rights to live our lives without unjustified interference. We will regain control over our education, our recreation, and the fruits of our labors. You can read a full list of our subversive goals here: www.lp.org/platform .

 

[Anita18]

I think this interview is of interest to pretty much everyone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-interview-video

There's a more in-depth article here about him: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

Just popping in to say....he is an incredibly brave man. Maybe a bit idealistic and stupid (considering the possible ramifications), but there's a very fine line between bravery and stupidity if you think about it.

The fact that one of their own was not on board with this, says a lot. I suppose there would be always one or two "bad apples," but I have not met anyone who say, works at Apple and prefers PCs.

I'm kind of with JJJ - I don't believe that the NSA gives a crap about what I personally do, or my friends and family (for the most part - although we are ethnically Chinese). But the fact that they can, and in fact ARE, is in itself disturbing. As Snowden said, "An analyst can target anyone anywhere." That's something we should decide on as a democratic society.

 

[The Question]

There's a more in-depth article here about him: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

Just popping in to say....he is an incredibly brave man. Maybe a bit idealistic and stupid (considering the possible ramifications), but there's a very fine line between bravery and stupidity if you think about it.

The fact that one of their own was not on board with this, says a lot. I suppose there would be always one or two "bad apples," but I have not met anyone who say, works at Apple and prefers PCs.

I'm kind of with JJJ - I don't believe that the NSA gives a crap about what I personally do, or my friends and family (for the most part - although we are ethnically Chinese). But the fact that they can, and in fact ARE, is in itself disturbing. As Snowden said, "An analyst can target anyone anywhere." That's something we should decide on as a democratic society.

It doesn't directly effect the life of the average person, and from what I can tell it doesn't even do a whole lot in terms of preventing or investigating crime. But it can be very easily used to squash protest movements and silence journalists, and we know for a fact that it's been used to do the former. The NSA actually had evidence that the Boston Marathon Bombers were up to something over a year before the actual bombing, but they ignored it and instead poured their resources into spying on Occupy Protestors. They ignored an actual threat and instead focused on breaking up peaceful protests, and as a result the constitutional right to civil disobedience was hindered and denied and three people were murdered. That's entirely ****ed up.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well let's not turn this into a classic case of "first they came for the...".

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[Alex_Spider]

I'm kind of with JJJ - I don't believe that the NSA gives a crap about what I personally do, or my friends and family

You don't believe that the government which by nature wants to be in control of as much things as possible, wouldn't utilize the already advanced technology to "prevent" any act of destabilizing the political status quo by a group of its citizens? Did you watch what the NSA guy said in the video?

It doesn't directly effect the life of the average person, and from what I can tell it doesn't even do a whole lot in terms of preventing or investigating crime. But it can be very easily used to squash protest movements and silence journalists, and we know for a fact that it's been used to do the former. The NSA actually had evidence that the Boston Marathon Bombers were up to something over a year before the actual bombing, but they ignored it and instead poured their resources into spying on Occupy Protestors. They ignored an actual threat and instead focused on breaking up peaceful protests, and as a result the constitutional right to civil disobedience was hindered and denied and three people were murdered. That's entirely ****ed up.

This is something people don't understand but even if the government monitored everything, there would still be terrorist attacks and all that, like the Boston bombings you mentioned. Not that it is necessarily an inside job but because it is not possible to prevent all of the terrorist attacks.

 

[Anita18]

You don't believe that the government which by nature wants to be in control of as much things as possible, wouldn't utilize the already advanced technology to "prevent" any act of destabilizing the political status quo by a group of its citizens? Did you watch what the NSA guy said in the video?

I don't doubt that at all, but I doubt that they would be interested in ME personally, because I am flippin' boring and there's nothing to see. Unfortunately, most people don't care unless they personally are involved, but I've seen the hubbub for the past few days on Twitter, because my new career is in the Internet business and we care about freedoms and things.

Just because it doesn't involve us personally doesn't mean we should let it happen. Not only are we all treated like potential terrorists, but how much resources are being spent on this program and "anti-terrorist" overreaches? It obviously isn't free, and it's being hoisted on us without our consent.

This is something people don't understand but even if the government monitored everything, there would still be terrorist attacks and all that, like the Boston bombings you mentioned. Not that it is necessarily an inside job but because it is not possible to prevent all of the terrorist attacks.

Exactly. Boots on the ground are likely a more efficient way of stopping terrorist attacks than tracking what EVERYBODY does online or on the phone. Stuff can get lost in the cracks.

 

[Alex_Spider]

I don't doubt that at all, but I doubt that they would be interested in ME personally, because I am flippin' boring and there's nothing to see. Unfortunately, most people don't care unless they personally are involved, but I've seen the hubbub for the past few days on Twitter, because my new career is in the Internet business and we care about freedoms and things.

And that's exactly the point. Even if you 're boring and not hiding anything, they will keep monitoring you because the act will pass and we all gonna be suspects for the rest of our lives.

Just because it doesn't involve us personally doesn't mean we should let it happen. Not only are we all treated like potential terrorists, but how much resources are being spent on this program and "anti-terrorist" overreaches? It obviously isn't free, and it's being hoisted on us without our consent.

Exactly. Boots on the ground are likely a more efficient way of stopping terrorist attacks than tracking what EVERYBODY does online or on the phone. Stuff can get lost in the cracks.

I will add that with the power that corporations have today and how commercialized our society has become, in the end the only ones who will benefit from this will be the private companies, trying to sell us things they know we are interested in. Might sound ridiculous but not far fetched at all.

 

[Alex_Spider]

http://the-free-foundation.org/tst6-10-2013.html

Government Spying: Should We Be Shocked?

Last week we saw dramatic new evidence of illegal government surveillance of our telephone calls, and of the National Security Agency’s deep penetration into American companies such as Facebook and Microsoft to spy on us. The media seemed shocked.

Many of us are not so surprised.

Some of us were arguing back in 2001 with the introduction of the so-called PATRIOT Act that it would pave the way for massive US government surveillance—not targeting terrorists but rather aimed against American citizens. We were told we must accept this temporary measure to provide government the tools to catch those responsible for 9/11. That was nearly twelve years and at least four wars ago.

We should know by now that when it comes to government power-grabs, we never go back to the status quo even when the “crisis” has passed. That part of our freedom and civil liberties once lost is never regained. How many times did the PATRIOT Act need renewed? How many times did FISA authority need expanded? Why did we have to pass a law to grant immunity to companies who hand over our personal information to the government?

It was all a build-up of the government’s capacity to monitor us.

The reaction of some in Congress and the Administration to last week’s leak was predictable. Knee-jerk defenders of the police state such as Senator Lindsey Graham declared that he was “glad” the government was collecting Verizon phone records—including his own—because the government needs to know what the enemy is up to. Those who take an oath to defend the Constitution from its enemies both foreign and domestic should worry about such statements.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers tells us of the tremendous benefits of this Big Brother-like program. He promises us that domestic terrorism plots were thwarted, but he cannot tell us about them because they are classified. I am a bit skeptical, however. In April, the New York Times reported that most of these domestic plots were actually elaborate sting operations developed and pushed by the FBI. According to the Times report, “of the 22 most frightening plans for attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 were developed in sting operations.”

Even if Chairman Rogers is right, though, and the program caught someone up to no good, we have to ask ourselves whether even such a result justifies trashing the Constitution. Here is what I said on the floor of the House when the PATRIOT Act was up for renewal back in 2011:

“If you want to be perfectly safe from child abuse and wife beating, the government could put a camera in every one of our houses and our bedrooms, and maybe there would be somebody made safer this way, but what would you be giving up? Perfect safety is not the purpose of government. What we want from government is to enforce the law to protect our liberties.”
What most undermines the claims of the Administration and its defenders about this surveillance program is the process itself. First the government listens in on all of our telephone calls without a warrant and then if it finds something it goes to a FISA court and get an illegal approval for what it has already done! This turns the rule of law and due process on its head.

The government does not need to know more about what we are doing. We need to know more about what the government is doing. We need to turn the cameras on the police and on the government, not the other way around. We should be thankful for writers like Glenn Greenwald, who broke last week’s story, for taking risks to let us know what the government is doing. There are calls for the persecution of Greenwald and the other whistle-blowers and reporters. They should be defended, as their work defends our freedom.

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

 

[enterthemadness]

Iceland *may* give a certain someone Asylum.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...asylum-assistance-as-US-calls-for-extradition


I hope he love ice and snow and ****.

 

[Thundercrack85]

He won't make it to Iceland.

Still this will be kind of awkward if they do decide to prosecute him, since he could be the next Ellsberg.

Last thing Obama needs. Maybe they'll let him disappear into China.

The general public has the the same attention span as a pod of seals.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Assange mentioned this before it was kewl.

 

[Alex_Spider]

"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things ... I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under,"

In an interview on The Guardian's website, Mr Snowden said: "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."

He said: “The National Security Agency has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting.

"If I wanted to see your emails or your wife’s phone [records], all I have to do is use intercepts.”

In a stark warning, he said that surveillance was not being properly constrained by policy, and would grow beyond control.

He added: "There will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it'll be turn-key tyranny."

Mr Snowden has said he is aware that he was risking arrest and imprisonment after making his shocking revelations, and that he "will be made to suffer for my actions".

"I've not intention of hiding, I've done nothing wrong. The greatest feat that I have regarding the outcome of these disclosures for America is that nothing will change.

"People will see in the media all of these disclosures, they'll know the lengths the government is going to to grant themselves powers unilaterally, to create greater control over American society and global society, but they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things, to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests."

Mr Snowden said he had raised his concerns at work, but went public after they were dismissed.

He said he was willing to sacrifice a comfortable life "because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

Such a noble man. He isn't afraid speaking the truth and stand for what is right for the people. Funny how many jump on him and consider him to be a "Traitor". If the Founders of the Constitution were to return today I bet my money they would still oppose to citizen surveillance just like Snowden did.

 

[enterthemadness]

Oh oh....68% of the public according to a Rasmussen poll think the Govt is LISTENING TO THEIR CALLS OMG THE HORROR.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...likely_gov_t_listening_to_their_conversations

I wonder if Obama is buying a e-cig right about now...just a crap load of them.

 

[Cosmic]

I agree with what Snowden is trying to do, but I disagree with his methods. He could've fought this battle without leaking Top Secret documents and possibly throwing his life away. Other people are doing it every day on the radio, via the internet, and in print. And anyways, the leaked info should not shock or surprise anyone. Some people are acting as if they just found out about the Patriot Act this week. He did get the mainstream media to start talking about it, and he did make an honest effort to refrain from releasing docs that would've harmed individuals, which I give him credit for.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

More damage and death is caused by Alcohol-related violence. To prevent this from happenning, we should find a way to track how many drinks we have, who we are drinking with, and store a profile of everyone's favorite and most bought drink. We should also monitor our phone calls because we want to stop the next drunk from running over a pedestrian or T-boning that minivan full of kids.

 

[Alex_Spider]

More damage and death is caused by Alcohol-related violence. To prevent this from happenning, we should find a way to track how many drinks we have, who we are drinking with, and store a profile of everyone's favorite and most bought drink. We should also monitor our phone calls because we want to stop the next drunk from running over a pedestrian or T-boning that minivan full of kids.

Car accidents also kill a large amount of population every year. But no. We have to spend our recourses and money in the surveillance of the citizens instead of improving the health system and prevent mobile accidents.