I figured this topic needed its own thread.

[bengalrick]

I think that the Bengals starting Rey Maualuga over Burfict in the middle will have a greater effect on my life than this situation.

 

 

This comment makes me speechless.

 

What if a far right wing nut job were president and he was using this program to nullify his opponents and black mail them? Yeah it sounds like a crappy movie's story line but it isn't completely out of question. The program is already in place apparently and under the blanket of 'making our country more safe because of terrorism concerns.' All that would need to be done is change the filters a little and the president could potentially have his hands on some powerful information... And in this case, something that would specifically affect you (and me) considering neither of us are far right wing nut jobs...

 

You really think that little of your 4rth amendment rights?

[Jim Finklestein]

 

 

This comment makes me speechless.

 

What if a far right wing nut job were president and he was using this program to nullify his opponents and black mail them? Yeah it sounds like a crappy movie's story line but it isn't completely out of question. The program is already in place apparently and under the blanket of 'making our country more safe because of terrorism concerns.' All that would need to be done is change the filters a little and the president could potentially have his hands on some powerful information... And in this case, something that would specifically affect you (and me) considering neither of us are far right wing nut jobs...

 

You really think that little of your 4rth amendment rights?

 

Exactly!

[MichaelWeston]

 

 

This comment makes me speechless.

 

What if a far right wing nut job were president and he was using this program to nullify his opponents and black mail them? Yeah it sounds like a crappy movie's story line but it isn't completely out of question. The program is already in place apparently and under the blanket of 'making our country more safe because of terrorism concerns.' All that would need to be done is change the filters a little and the president could potentially have his hands on some powerful information... And in this case, something that would specifically affect you (and me) considering neither of us are far right wing nut jobs...

 

You really think that little of your 4rth amendment rights?

 

 

The only way that people are saying this is awful is by coming up with crazy scenarios that are outside the bounds of what they are doing here.  Obama has specifically said they are not listening to our conversations. I don't think they are reading them either.

 

I agree that in that scenario it wold be bad. But it would also be bad if lets say, 5 banks ran the country.

[bengalrick]

 

 

The only way that people are saying this is awful is by coming up with crazy scenarios that are outside the bounds of what they are doing here.  Obama has specifically said they are not listening to our conversations. I don't think they are reading them either.

 

I agree that in that scenario it wold be bad. But it would also be bad if lets say, 5 banks ran the country.

 

But to me it sounds like the hard part of my crazy scenario is already accomplished. The data is being mined already. I don't think we should take anyone's word for it that it won't be taken advantage of. It isn't illogical that the most powerful person in the world could get their hands on the data they are mining.

 

Look I don't think (or at least pray that I am right) that Obama is using this information to black mail his opponents. But one thing that has proven itself true throughout history is that power corrupts. And just imagine how much power someone could have if they had access to the data mining program that is being discussed here. Honestly I feel that the program itself has more science fiction to it and is less believable than thinking if political powers would use it.

[Jamie_B]

 

 

The only way that people are saying this is awful is by coming up with crazy scenarios that are outside the bounds of what they are doing here.  Obama has specifically said they are not listening to our conversations. I don't think they are reading them either.

 

I agree that in that scenario it wold be bad. But it would also be bad if lets say, 5 banks ran the country.

 

 

Most people can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can be outraged over this as well as outraged over the plutocracy issues we face. This is not a distraction from that. This is an issue that needs to be investigated.

[Khatmandude]

I believe that government should be big in those areas we can't trust the private community; oversight of the financial system, environment, food and drug safety and health care.  I also think the roll of the government is to invest in those projects or areas that are usually unprofitable/impossible for a private company to invest in; infrastructure, education, some types of research and development etc.

 

The only problem with that, which I agree with in theory btw, is that these agencies have themselves been corrupted.  Corporations and government have revolving chairs...back and forth.  Hell, just look at Monsanto's employees and look at their governmental positions.   The FDA approved aspartame in a highly suspicious manner.  People who sit on boards of corporations are high ranking officials in the government.  The whole system is corrupt, that's why I don't see that as a viable solution at the moment.  Everything mentioned above (food, education, healthcare etc...) has been infiltrated by the tentacles of corruptness. 

 

 

Thats a compliment.

 

You seem concerned about mythical things that are not happening and/or extreme possibilities.

 

I have some robot insurance that I am selling. Never know, robots could attack. What plan should I sign you up for.

 

We live in a time of outrage for the sake of outrage and it's not tied to your political perspective.

 

First I thought you were naive, now I see you're willingly this stupid.

 

 

And therein lies the problem.  By declaring "War on Terror", Bush essentially gave our military and intelligence communities war time powers that will last in perpetuity.  You can't have a war on "terror" because there will always be people somewhere that want to blow stuff up.  And it seems the majority of Americans are ok with this.  

 

Hey if it helps stop another Boston Marathon Bombing then it's worth it.  

 

Except it didn't.  

 

Obama campaigned specifically AGAINST this type of behavior and now is not only continuing Bush's policies but making them worse.  His crackdown on whistleblowers should be a glaring alarm to the rest of us.

 

Terrorism is the new boogey-man.  We have to have something to 'unite against'.  The cold war is over....enter terrorism.  Muslims don't accept or pay usury/interest.  The banking cartel doesn't like that......Islam = Terrorists.  The masses eat it up because that's what they're fed. 

 

 

 

This comment makes me speechless.

 

What if a far right wing nut job were president and he was using this program to nullify his opponents and black mail them? Yeah it sounds like a crappy movie's story line but it isn't completely out of question. The program is already in place apparently and under the blanket of 'making our country more safe because of terrorism concerns.' All that would need to be done is change the filters a little and the president could potentially have his hands on some powerful information... And in this case, something that would specifically affect you (and me) considering neither of us are far right wing nut jobs...

 

You really think that little of your 4rth amendment rights?

 

It's amazing isn't it?  How people will so easily be duped into accepting 'security' at the cost of their liberties.  People will rationalize it and fight with all they've got.  They'll fight, they'll beg to be put in the prison that is currently being constructed. 

 

 

 

The only way that people are saying this is awful is by coming up with crazy scenarios that are outside the bounds of what they are doing here.  Obama has specifically said they are not listening to our conversations. I don't think they are reading them either.

 

I agree that in that scenario it wold be bad. But it would also be bad if lets say, 5 banks ran the country.

 

5 banks running the country?  Try less than 5 running the fucking world.   Every nation is in debt to whom?   I don't think you're on a search for knowledge though...simply shit that will allow you to continue to live comfortably without exploring the possibility that the government gives zero shits about you.  

[MichaelWeston]

 

The only problem with that, which I agree with in theory btw, is that these agencies have themselves been corrupted.  Corporations and government have revolving chairs...back and forth.  Hell, just look at Monsanto's employees and look at their governmental positions.   The FDA approved aspartame in a highly suspicious manner.  People who sit on boards of corporations are high ranking officials in the government.  The whole system is corrupt, that's why I don't see that as a viable solution at the moment.  Everything mentioned above (food, education, healthcare etc...) has been infiltrated by the tentacles of corruptness. 

 

 

First I thought you were naive, now I see you're willingly this stupid.

 

 

Terrorism is the new boogey-man.  We have to have something to 'unite against'.  The cold war is over....enter terrorism.  Muslims don't accept or pay usury/interest.  The banking cartel doesn't like that......Islam = Terrorists.  The masses eat it up because that's what they're fed. 

 

 

It's amazing isn't it?  How people will so easily be duped into accepting 'security' at the cost of their liberties.  People will rationalize it and fight with all they've got.  They'll fight, they'll beg to be put in the prison that is currently being constructed. 

 

 

5 banks running the country?  Try less than 5 running the fucking world.   Every nation is in debt to whom?   I don't think you're on a search for knowledge though...simply shit that will allow you to continue to live comfortably without exploring the possibility that the government gives zero shits about you.  

 

You have an assumption that the government is out to get you. It's a strange paranoia. Your words are all hyberbolic or cliche filled. Nothing of substance. You know, there could be grizzly bears in Cincinnati. We need to start some Grizzly Bear patrols asap.

 

This has been going on for years and no one cared. Now everyone is making up hairbrained schemes to find a reason to be outraged by it.

 

Internet muscles are my favorite kind.

[Jim Finklestein]

 

You have an assumption that the government is out to get you. It's a strange paranoia. Your words are all hyberbolic or cliche filled. Nothing of substance. You know, there could be grizzly bears in Cincinnati. We need to start some Grizzly Bear patrols asap.

 

This has been going on for years and no one cared. Now everyone is making up hairbrained schemes to find a reason to be outraged by it.

 

Internet muscles are my favorite kind.

 

I don't really think the government is out to get us... unless they feel it is in their best interest to do so.  As Maher said the other night and I am paraphrasing, I kind of trust that Obama isn't using this information illegally, but what about the next wingnut we elect?

 

Look, if there is nothing nefarious going on, why not shed some fucking transparency on it.  Seriously, do you think by releasing this information, that terrorists can circumvent it?  Using what, smoke signals?  As you say, it's been going on for years now so the terrorists aren't going to see this and say "Whoa!"  

 

Our entire government was set up to provide checks and balances.  I don't believe a FISA court that has NEVER turned down a request by an administration to wire tap or use the programs discussed is acting as a check or balance, but rather rubber-stamping the process. 

[Jamie_B]

 

You have an assumption that the government is out to get you. It's a strange paranoia. Your words are all hyberbolic or cliche filled. Nothing of substance. You know, there could be grizzly bears in Cincinnati. We need to start some Grizzly Bear patrols asap.

 

This has been going on for years and no one cared. Now everyone is making up hairbrained schemes to find a reason to be outraged by it.

 

Internet muscles are my favorite kind.

 

 

uhm what do you think the folks screaming abou the patriot act were screaming about? people did care

[Jamie_B]

 

I don't really think the government is out to get us... unless they feel it is in their best interest to do so.  As Maher said the other night and I am paraphrasing, I kind of trust that Obama isn't using this information illegally, but what about the next wingnut we elect?

 

Look, if there is nothing nefarious going on, why not shed some fucking transparency on it.  Seriously, do you think by releasing this information, that terrorists can circumvent it?  Using what, smoke signals?  As you say, it's been going on for years now so the terrorists aren't going to see this and say "Whoa!"  

 

Our entire government was set up to provide checks and balances.  I don't believe a FISA court that has NEVER turned down a request by an administration to wire tap or use the programs discussed is acting as a check or balance, but rather rubber-stamping the process. 

 

 

I do think there is merit to the argument that we dont nessasarly want it all out in the open as you dont want our enimies to know what tatics are being used so that they can then change their behaivor, however I do absolutely believe an investigation needs to be done internally if nessasary.

[Jim Finklestein]

Right now I am under the impression that if I message someone or call them, it might very well be recorded.  More so for me since I am in Canada talking to people in the states.  I am sure the terrorists feel the same way.   To me, one of the things that makes this so nefarious is the whole secrecy thing.  Make it "Classified" then no one can fight it in court.  

[Khatmandude]

 

You have an assumption that the government is out to get you. It's a strange paranoia. Your words are all hyberbolic or cliche filled. Nothing of substance. You know, there could be grizzly bears in Cincinnati. We need to start some Grizzly Bear patrols asap.

 

This has been going on for years and no one cared. Now everyone is making up hairbrained schemes to find a reason to be outraged by it.

 

Internet muscles are my favorite kind.

 

 

Ah yes, the paranoia tactic.   Just as I expected from someone of your 'caliber'.   You have a handbook for this?  You actually give people advice in life no?  Now that's a scary thought. 

[MichaelWeston]

 

 

Ah yes, the paranoia tactic.   Just as I expected from someone of your 'caliber'.   You have a handbook for this?  You actually give people advice in life no?  Now that's a scary thought. 

 

Whenever things dive into the realm of personal attacks it is apparent that you have little else to say.

[Jim Finklestein]

For shits and giggles let's set aside the whole "violating my rights and privacy argument" for a second.  Who actually thinks its cost effective to actually save EVERY phone conversation made in the United States, let alone all of the internet activity.  Not only are these programs extremely intrusive and wide ranging, but damn they have to cost a fortune as well.

[MichaelWeston]

 

I don't really think the government is out to get us... unless they feel it is in their best interest to do so.  As Maher said the other night and I am paraphrasing, I kind of trust that Obama isn't using this information illegally, but what about the next wingnut we elect?

 

Look, if there is nothing nefarious going on, why not shed some fucking transparency on it.  Seriously, do you think by releasing this information, that terrorists can circumvent it?  Using what, smoke signals?  As you say, it's been going on for years now so the terrorists aren't going to see this and say "Whoa!"  

 

Our entire government was set up to provide checks and balances.  I don't believe a FISA court that has NEVER turned down a request by an administration to wire tap or use the programs discussed is acting as a check or balance, but rather rubber-stamping the process. 

I definitely see your point, my guess is that there hasn't been transparency because of the blow up that is happening now. I think people don't really understand what is going on and they think people are going to take away their guns, make them stop drilling for oil, give their money to poor people and kill their grandmothers. I follow alot of external Us media and everyone that I have seen outside of the Us has been kind of like meh. Who cares.

[MichaelWeston]

For shits and giggles let's set aside the whole "violating my rights and privacy argument" for a second.  Who actually thinks its cost effective to actually save EVERY phone conversation made in the United States, let alone all of the internet activity.  Not only are these programs extremely intrusive and wide ranging, but damn they have to cost a fortune as well.

Are they doing that? Or is that just rumor. And I actually have no idea how easy that would be to save. I thought they just had information about who called who and how long.

[Khatmandude]

 

Whenever things dive into the realm of personal attacks it is apparent that you have little else to say.

 

I have plenty to say to others....as evidence by the rest of my post.   And it wasn't a personal attack, simply an observation.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt for the longest time and thought you were simply naive.  Now i see you're willingly ignorant.   It's understandable, most people are that way.  You're 'normal' :) 

[MichaelWeston]

 

I have plenty to say to others....as evidence by the rest of my post.   And it wasn't a personal attack, simply an observation.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt for the longest time and thought you were simply naive.  Now i see you're willingly ignorant.   It's understandable, most people are that way.  You're 'normal' :)

 

evidenced by. When you are passing on your infinite wisdom learn to use the English language.

 

"You actually give people advice in life no? Now that's a scary thought." Saying that's an observation and not a personal attack is one of those internet cliche statements that only people who spend too much time on the internet think is rational or witty. You don't have depth to go to so you use cliches and surface level discussions about vampires attacking unicorns. Grow up Peter Pan. There are rational conversations that can be had if you just leave the personal out of it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5_bIiWR0nM

 

You were talking about the thing I devote my life's work to and how I am not good at it because I disagree with you about a topic on the internet.

 

It reminds me of this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8062QEFk5g

[Khatmandude]

Grammar smack....nice.  I'm sure you've never erred in developing a post.  I apologize that my lack of mastery of the english language (my 4th language learned) left you unable to discern the meaning in my post.  I'll be more careful next time.  No, it's not about a single thread on the internet....it's the implications of such an attitude that I find concerning.  No worries, I'm not going to continue this here.  You can PM me if you want to continue to 'discuss'. 

 

Mr. Finklestein, I apologize for the misdirection of the thread. 

[MichaelWeston]

Grammar smack....nice.  I'm sure you've never erred in developing a post.  I apologize that my lack of mastery of the english language (my 4th language learned) left you unable to discern the meaning in my post.  I'll be more careful next time.  No, it's not about a single thread on the internet....it's the implications of such an attitude that I find concerning.  No worries, I'm not going to continue this here.  You can PM me if you want to continue to 'discuss'. 

 

Mr. Finklestein, I apologize for the misdirection of the thread. 

 

Several internet behavioral cliches embedded here. "I am better than the agitation I started" is the most clear one. The second is the dropping of information outside of the discussion meant to boost up your own personal self worth. "I'm not a jerk because I speak 4 languages and could probably beat you in an arm wrestling match."

[MichaelWeston]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf

 

Interesting study. 4% of people believe that shapeshifting reptilian people control our world by taking over government positions of power.

[MichaelWeston]

FWIW's, its not that I don't think some of you bring up some valid points here. It's that the opposite opens such a can of worms that it's just not even worth thinking about. It either is or it isn't but it is so unlikely to effect my life that I don't think it's worth the fear that some have. This just seems like one of those things where I will assume positive intent, go on with my life and hope it never affects me.

[Jim Finklestein]

I understand your point MW.  I doubt it will ever effect me personally. I don't tend to create a big footprint on the internet and my cell phone calls would bore everyone.  I just don't think we should be living our lives by hoping we will be overlooked or that we should keep our heads down and big brother will pass over us.

 

Heck even Snowden isn't saying we shouldn't be using this technology.  His purpose was to bring to light what was going on so there could be a public discussion and debate about it.

 

It just really frustrates me how willingly the American public gives up it's Constitutional Rights to Privacy and Illegal Search and Seizure in the name of fear.  I REALLY find it humorous that many of the Republicans that are saying they agree with this are the same ones that do not want Gun Registrations because the Government could then theoretically track down everyone that owned guns.

[Jim Finklestein]

 

FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government Surveillance Requests

—By Erika Eichelberger

After last week's revelations extensive National Security Agency surveillance of phone and internet communications, President Barack Obama made it a point to assure Americans that, not to worry, there is plenty of oversight of his administration's snooping programs. "We've got congressional oversight and judicial oversight," he said Friday, referring in part to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which was created in 1979 to oversee Department of Justice requests for surveillance warrants against foreign agents suspected of espionage or terrorism in the United States. But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That's a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.  

"The FISA system is broken," Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Journal. "At the point that a FISA judge can compel the disclosure of millions of phone records of US citizens engaged in only domestic communications, unrelated to the collection of foreign intelligence…there is no longer meaningful judicial review."

But according to Timothy Edgar, a top privacy lawyer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Council under Bush and Obama, it's not quite as simple as the FISC rubber stamping nearly every application the government puts in front of it. 

The reason so many orders are approved, he said, is that the Justice Department office that manages the process vets the applications rigorously... [S]o getting the order approved by the Justice Department lawyers is perhaps the biggest hurdle to approval. "The culture of that office is very reluctant to get a denial," he [told the Journal].

Still, the entire process is closed. The FISC court hears evidence for surveillance applications presented solely by the Department of Justice. The court does not have to release its opinions or any information regarding such hearings.

In February, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), wrote a letter to the FISC asking the court to consider releasing portions of its opinions to the public by "writing summaries of its significant interpretations of the law in a manner that separates the classified facts of the application under review from the legal analysis, so as to enable declassification." After the revelations on the spying programs last week, Sen. Al Franken called the same thing. 

In response to the senators' letter, the FISA court's presiding judge, Reggie B. Walton, said in March that it would be very difficult to release summaries of the court's opinions to the public, because the legal analysis in most opinions is "inextricably intertwined" with classified information.  

This post has been corrected. A commenter pointed out that a previous version stated that the FISA court has rejected .0003 percent of all government surveillance requests. The correct percentage is .03. Apologies for the bad math.

 

[BengalBacker]

At least MW got the message.

 

http://youtu.be/L9DFlqVFrWE