I figured this topic needed its own thread.

[Jamie_B]

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.

 

 

So.Much.This.

[MichaelWeston]

At least MW got the message.

 

http://youtu.be/L9DFlqVFrWE

 

100%.

 

It's way better then hearing voices that tell me that the government is out to get me.

[Jim Finklestein]

I don't necessarily believe the government is out get us per se.  I DO believe the intelligence agencies are jealous of their powers and will do anything to keep them and even expand them.  I do believe that a FISA court that agrees to tapping 99.7% of the time is NOT a reliable check and balance.  I do believe that only the few members of Congress in the House Intelligence Committee know what is going on.  I do believe that absolute secrecy is an environment ripe for corruption.

 

Did the founding fathers believe that "Government was out to get them" when they split the government into three separate entities creating the checks and balances it did?  Obama seems to be saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."  Our government was set up to do exactly that and right now it's not happening.  The FISA court stands for FORIEGN Intelligence Surveillance.  Do they use the same criteria for DOMESTIC taps as they do for Foreign?

[Jim Finklestein]

Also I don't believe my next door neighbor is out to get me, but I am not going to give him access to my bank accounts or internet activity either.

[MichaelWeston]

I don't necessarily believe the government is out get us per se.  I DO believe the intelligence agencies are jealous of their powers and will do anything to keep them and even expand them.  I do believe that a FISA court that agrees to tapping 99.7% of the time is NOT a reliable check and balance.  I do believe that only the few members of Congress in the House Intelligence Committee know what is going on.  I do believe that absolute secrecy is an environment ripe for corruption.

 

Did the founding fathers believe that "Government was out to get them" when they split the government into three separate entities creating the checks and balances it did?  Obama seems to be saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."  Our government was set up to do exactly that and right now it's not happening.  The FISA court stands for FORIEGN Intelligence Surveillance.  Do they use the same criteria for DOMESTIC taps as they do for Foreign?

The FISA stuff was explained above. There is a vetting process prior to the court that is makes it so those brought before the court are likely to get rubber stamped.

 

I definitely see your fears here, but I don't share them.

 

Citizen's United is the decision that affected our lives. This won't.

[Jim Finklestein]

Citizens United will be overturned eventually.  Doubt this will.

[Jamie_B]

At least MW got the message.

 

http://youtu.be/L9DFlqVFrWE

 

 

You did this same thing with the Pelosi "pass it to see what's in it" quote, the context of both matters, and in the context he is talking about here is the idea held by the anarchist faction of our society, that anything the government does in the role of aiding society is tyranny, and on that I agree with him. I do think that surveillance needs exteme oversight and that the FISA court could be a little more stringint, but the idea that anything the goverment does is tyranny is bunk.

[Jamie_B]

Citizens United will be overturned eventually.  Doubt this will.

 

 

God I hope so.

[MichaelWeston]

I just want to re-iterate that I might be wrong on this, but

 

Citizens United will be overturned eventually.  Doubt this will.

 

I hope you are right.

In terms of emails, how do they know if I send one internationally?

[Jamie_B]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rQNdBmPek

[Homer_Rice]

Citizens United will be overturned eventually.  Doubt this will.

Balkin paper from 2008. If you like the abstract, download the full paper. Worth the time to read.

[Homer_Rice]

A more radical perspective: The Constitution Shredders

 

Ironic quote included:

“I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.”

— Barack Obama, March 30th, 2007

[MichaelWeston]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-outraged-his-private-information-being-co,32783/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

[BengalBacker]

 

 

You did this same thing with the Pelosi "pass it to see what's in it" quote, the context of both matters, and in the context he is talking about here is the idea held by the anarchist faction of our society, that anything the government does in the role of aiding society is tyranny, and on that I agree with him. I do think that surveillance needs exteme oversight and that the FISA court could be a little more stringint, but the idea that anything the goverment does is tyranny is bunk.

 

There is no context where what Nancy Pelosi said is acceptable.

 

I've never met an anarchist. The ones I've seen on the internet are generally 19 years old and have barbells sticking out of their nose. People who want less government control aren't Anarchists, they're closer to Constitutionalists.

[BengalBacker]

http://youtu.be/3ux1hpLvqMw

[Jim Finklestein]

I thought this was funny.

 

[Homer_Rice]

Some history via book review

 

Closing paragraph:

 

Naturally, it’s all in the name of stopping terrorism, but the misuse of intelligence-gathering for political purposes, from Ralph Van Deman and the Palmer Raids to J. Edgar Hoover and his meddling with a university board of regents, should make us aware that such things can happen again. The combination of electronic data collection, a vague and nebulous foreign threat, and tens of billions of dollars pouring into “homeland security” each year is a toxic mix, ripe for new demagogues. Subversives is a timely warning. That essay question on the 1959 University of California entrance exam is one we must never stop asking.

[|Elflocko|]

I'll just put this here:

 

Dog 'N Pony Show

[Khatmandude]

Take the tin foil hat off!  This is all for our safety and security!   Seriously, has there ever been a precedent where the government wasn't looking out for the best interests of its citizens?   NO!!!!  Never in history has it happened!  Did your reptilian friends tell you the government is out to get you because you people keep sounding like whack jobs.....

 

BJ had a good quote on Facebook the other day.....something about either burying your head in the sand or looking for the truth.....both require digging.  Good times. 

[|Bunghole|]

 

Look, if there is nothing nefarious going on, why not shed some fucking transparency on it. 

 

Seriously. It's what a lot of people say to comfort themselves "If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about!". Turn that back on the NSA and the government.

 

 

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.

 

I am sure the NSA budget is massive (and classified) but I also wonder if they truly store every iota of data they collect or if their analysts use more of a algorhythm/keyword software based search.

[MichaelWeston]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-mostly-alarmed-that-governments-top-program,32792/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

 

Following reports Sunday that the source of the leaked National Security Agency surveillance practices is 29-year-old government contractor Edward Snowden, polls revealed today that beyond concerns about privacy, Americans are primarily distressed that sensitive government programs are apparently being managed by kids who were still in high school when 9/11 happened. “Sure, this raises troubling questions about liberty and security, but what’s really bothering me here is that there are people in very high positions handling national security matters of grave importance who are the same age as my son,” Virginia resident Karen Linder said of the Gen-Y whistleblower. “He’s had, what, six years of experience? Let’s get some older guys in there. How about someone in his 40s who’s lived a little bit, who’s maybe old enough to have voted in more than two elections.” Linder went on to add that she was, however, impressed that the millennial had a job.

[BengalBacker]

http://youtu.be/eIA1lQBqH1s

[Jim Finklestein]

I find it interesting that the Justice Department says that the FISA court has no jurisdiction on one hand, yet they use the FISA court as a sop to the public in that the government must get approval from the FISA court to view the NSA data...  

 

 

Justice Dept. Loses a Round in Battle to Keep Surveillance Wrongdoing Secret

—By David Corn

 

Last week, I reported that in the midst of revelations about the National Security Agency's extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications, the Justice Department was fighting to keep secret a court opinion that determined that the government, on at least one occasion, had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.

Last year, after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) released a declassified statement noting that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court had found that the US government had engaged in surveillance that had circumvented the law, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public-interest outfit that focuses on digital rights, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Justice Department for any FISA court opinion or order that had reached such a conclusion. FISA court proceedings and opinions are top secret, and the Justice Department said, in essence, "get lost." EFF sued, and in the course of the proceedings, the Justice Department revealed that the FISA court in 2011 had indeed produced an 86-page opinion concluding a government surveillance program was not constitutionally kosher. But the department provided no details regarding the program that the opinion covered, and it contended the opinion could not be released because it was classified and the department itself did not have the authority to release a FISA court opinion, under that court's rules.

So EFF went to the FISA court last month and filed a motion that essentially asked the court to tell Justice that there was nothing in its rules that would prohibit a federal court from ordering the agency to release this opinion. And last week, the Justice Department responded, filing a motion arguing that the FISA court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the EFF motion. It also claimed that if the FISA court did rule in favor of EFF on this point, the court would create a precedent that could lead to the release of redacted opinions that would be "misleading to the public about the role of this Court." That is, the Justice Department was issuing a stark warning to the FISA court: Agree with EFF, and who knows what will happen. "A release involving the disclosure of some parts of a FISC opinion while concealing other parts creates a substantial risk of public misunderstanding or confusion regarding this Court's decision or reasoning," the department's motion stated.

The FISA court did not buy the agency's arguments. On Wednesday, it handed EFF a slam-dunk victory in this side battle, ruling, "The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the EFF Motion and that the FISC Rules do not prohibit the Government's disclosure of the Opinion in the event it is ultimately determined by the District Court to be subject to disclosure under FOIA." So now the Justice Department cannot hide behind its claim that FISA court rules prevent it from releasing the opinion in response to a FOIA lawsuit.

EFF, though, has not yet reached the promised land. It still must beat the Justice Department in district court on the substance of the dispute: Can the government be forced to release a FISA court opinion—or portions of it—that declared a government surveillance program unconstitutional?

The FISA court, says David Sobel, a lawyer for EFF, "has made clear that there is nothing in its own rules that prohibits disclosure of the 2011 opinion we're seeking. So we go back to district court and continue our fight under FOIA, having removed DOJ's argument that it has no discretion to release FISC material." Pointing to this FISA court decision and a bill recently introduced in Congress that would require the declassification of certain FISA court opinion, Sobel says, "We might be on the verge of rethinking the degree of secrecy that surrounds all these activities." But he still has a tough fight ahead in this case, for the Justice Department has certainly demonstrated it will fiercely oppose disclosing an opinion revealing government surveillance gone wrong—even when the nation's most secret court has no objection.

 

 

 

 

whoops here is the link to the article above

 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/fisa-court-justice-department-eff-surveillance

[MichaelWeston]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-government-has-no-right-to-pry-into-what-goes,32815/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

By Ariel Castro

 

 

I’ve been keeping up with the news recently, and as you’ve probably seen, this last week has been marked by several shocking revelations concerning the conduct of the National Security Agency and the federal government’s overall attitudes toward the privacy of the American people. It’s spawned a vigorous debate, but to me, the answer couldn’t be any clearer: No matter what pretexts the presidential administration might have about protecting the American people, the government simply does not have the right to poke their nose into what goes on in the privacy of your own home.

Bottom line: Your home is your sanctuary. And in your home, you should be able to do whatever you want for how long you want without worrying about someone spying on you.

The fact is, this country was built on a few fundamental principles, not least of which is the inalienable right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the U.S. Constitution, we as citizens are entitled to no less, which means what we do in our living rooms, kitchens, and basements is off-limits to prying eyes. That’s one of our most basic rights as Americans, is it not? And if the government gets its way, it’s going to have free reign to invade our homes and disrupt the lives of you and everybody living under your roof.

Think about what that could mean for a second. Our location, our conversations, our hobbies—authorities could know everything about you without ever having talked to you. Who we speak to on the phone, who we email, who we tie up, whom we associate with—the government thinks they should have free access to all of it.

It’s like something out of 1984!

Look, I get that we live in troubled times and it’s important for law enforcement to have the tools necessary to keep the American people safe. After all, there are a lot of very sick and twisted people out there. But the fact is, if we give Uncle Sam a blank check to do whatever he deems necessary, it’s not going to stop at a few wiretaps. I mean, today it’s your phone calls, tomorrow you might see the police kicking down your door, poking in every corner of your home like you’ve got something to hide, which you don’t because you’re innocent.

And it could get even worse than that. After all, once Big Brother has the go-ahead to meddle in our personal lives with impunity, who knows where it could end? By the time it’s all said and done, we could be living in some kind of twisted totalitarian state where our private lives are thrust out into the open, every secret revealed. Can you imagine how embarrassing that could be? To have everyone in the country know what you do behind closed doors with, say, I don’t know, vacuum cords and shackles? Imagine what the court of public opinion would think about you. They’d probably want to hang you right there on the spot. So, if that breach of personal privacy were to start happening, are we going to feel safe in our own homes? Are we going to be able to trust our neighbors? It’s pretty scary to think about, and frankly, it’s pretty disturbing.

That’s why I think it’s important that we as a democratic society make our voices heard on this matter. It’s been said that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither, and I couldn’t agree more. The right to privacy is sacrosanct. And if we voluntarily forfeit that right? Well, that’s just not the America I want to live in.

[|Bunghole|]

That was a soberingly serious piece from the Onion. I liked it, but it doesn't fit in with your stance in this thread, MW.