Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Big Brother spies on Americans

Civil Liberties 2013 NSA Domestic Spying Obama Administration

  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#21 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 12:25 AM

View Postscherzo, on 09 June 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

  The guy who wrote the Patriot Act says it doesn't allow for hoarding civilian information at this level. And no one in his right mind would have supported it if it did.


This is like saying the financial crisis wasn't a foreseeable crisis as soon as Clinton let Glass/Steagall lapse.  Every law that ends up reaching beyond its original intention has a million authors crying "But that's not what we meant".  When what it really is is lazy legislating because they don't foresee all the ways the law can be perverted.  In fact they write loopholes into the laws.  Every Congress has done it.  Much the same way lawyers and accountants pour over the tax code to find a tax break, WH lawyers pour over laws, writing papers, all about how a certain law applies to the current situation.   Have the last 13 years taught us nothing?

The writers of the Patriot Act are not innocent here.  I said it then and I say it now.  It is a bad piece of legislation that we the people have suffered every day for.  Pissed because a new President expanded on an already unconstitutional law [imo]?  Where were you when the Patriot Act was passed, and where were you when it was re-authorized?  Because I saw the potential abuse of the law back when, and preached to a complacent majority around here to no avail.  Welcome to my club.  I'm glad you now see it, and I am glad you see how this administration has expanded upon the law, but please don't throw out an author's lament about "that's not what we meant" because that was exactly what it had the potential to mean.

And get ready, come 2016, we'll have another President promising to never use this power against the people of the US in order to get elected, but tell me, will you ever believe any administration again?

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#22 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 12:33 AM

Yes I'm sure the writers of the Patriot Act are protesting their innocence.  Of course they are.  But this doesn't excuse their lack of foresight, their insistence on reacting based on fear, and what I view as deliberate obtuseness about the consequences of LEGAL PRECEDENTS.  Dumbshits everyone of them. And worse than that as to some of them.
Posted Image

#23 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 12:33 AM

View Postscherzo, on 09 June 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

The guy who wrote the Patriot Act says it doesn't allow for hoarding civilian information at this level. And no one in his right mind would have supported it if it did.

Which is why a lot of people didn't support it -- because they argued that it opened the door to exactly the sort of surveillance. Just because the guy who wrote the law said, "Oh, no, it'll be fine," that doesn't mean he's right. And it doesn't absolve him of responsibility.

Quote

btw...if you were sitting around in your pajamas just dying for an excuse to confront me, you should have at least looked for something contradictory I've said on this subject

Something like, say, this?

Btw I always find it amusing how the folks who can't wait to admonish "the herd" for being afraid of Islamic murderer's plotting their death...quake their boots clean off at the prospect of ANY government action designed to prevent it. Sorry, but if the Holland Tunnel blowing up troubles me slightly more than Agent 86 rummaging through my garbage, I don't think a lecture on the Constitution is warranted. I sometimes wonder if the people apoplectic about the Patriot Act, even KNOW this country has a compulsory income tax that requires me to report every penny I make to the government, under threat of imprisonment. Hmmmm, I think I'd rather have my calls monitored. Posted Image

Or this?

Anyone truly terrified that their telephone records are available to a government security agency, needs to seriously address their own fear threshold.

And then there's the contradiction embodied in your posts in this very thread, in which you wax hysterical about the "0bama Crime Syndicate" without acknowledging that the very surveillance programs for which you're excoriating Obama were begun under President Bush. Which is why I'm not going to bother wagging my finger at Obama, because like Cait said, the specific president or party isn't the problem. If you give the NSA this much power, they're gonna use it, whether there's a Republic or a Democrat or a criminal Chicago Muslim-loving socialist in the White House.

Edited by Dev F, 10 June 2013 - 12:40 AM.


#24 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 12:35 AM

View PostCait, on 09 June 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

View PostDev F, on 09 June 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

  I believe that was a point many who were opposed to such measures made at the time -- that you shouldn't support overly broad laws just because you happen to trust the president currently in charge of implementing them, since presidents change and eventually the implementation will fall to someone you don't happen to support politically.

That was exactly the point then.  And, I would remind those that are OK with surveillance because they believe in Obama, that in 2016 there will be an as yet unknown President elected who will have all the power that BOTH Bush and Obama have put in place.  This is no longer a "program"  This is an infrastructure of constant surveillance that every subsequent President and NSA [etc] will use.  What will partisans think if Hillary is elected?  Or Christie?  Or Allen West?  Or Al Franken?  Michelle Bachman?  Think outside the partisan box.  Please.

I will repeat this.  This is not a partisan issue.  You cannot talk about this without looking at both Bush and Obama.  It does not matter "who started it".  Each subsequent President will take up where the last one left off, AND ADD TO THE POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.  So unless you can guarantee that each and every future Administration will be benevolent, wise, capable, and not seduced by power, I'd advise everyone to get off the partisan train and help grab some of our rights back.

Ye gods and little fishes, THANK YOU Dev F.  It's so nice to discover that there are still other people who understand the big picture.
Posted Image

#25 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 06:14 AM

Given that Google is American, and as a non-US citizen I have no rights as far as the US government are concerned, should I be worried?
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#26 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 09:19 AM

Quote

And then there's the contradiction embodied in your posts in this very thread, in which you wax hysterical about the "0bama Crime Syndicate" without acknowledging that the very surveillance programs for which you're excoriating Obama were begun under President Bush.
Dev you haven't been paying attention. I've been using the term Crime Syndicate to describe this administration long before this NSA business came up.(you'd think a guy that compiles everything I've ever posted would know this) Or maybe you were too busy using those fan fiction skills concocting excuses for our King to notice? :think:

BTW those old posts from that "scherzo best of" folder on your harddrive, denote consistency not hypocrisy. Supporting the implementation of a law isn't quite the same thing rubber stamping it's abuse by ANY administration. But it amazes how your obsessive search for conservative villainy continues to leave the biggest hypocrite on the playing field free of criticism. It's a devotion which requires complete and total abandonment of principle, and that clearly isn't a problem. I can acknowledge that concerns about privacy back during the passing of Patriot, have been vindicated by the actions of the Crime Syndicate. Yet here you are still completely willing to walk through fire for 0bama.

Quote

This is like saying the financial crisis wasn't a foreseeable crisis as soon as Clinton let Glass/Steagall lapse.  Every law that ends up reaching beyond its original intention has a million authors crying "But that's not what we meant".  When what it really is is lazy legislating because they don't foresee all the ways the law can be perverted.
OK I don't lay the financial crisis at the feet of Glass/Steagall, but I understand the analogy you're trying to make. Cait most conservatives could draw up a 40 gig laundry list of laws and regulations that have been abused by government. The Patriot Act can certainly be tossed into that mix today, but it's original intent was relevant in responding to Dev's ludicrous implication that conservatives support NSA compiling data on EVERYBODY.

Edited by scherzo, 10 June 2013 - 09:20 AM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#27 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 09:47 AM

View Postscherzo, on 10 June 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

Dev you haven't been paying attention. I've been using the term Crime Syndicate to describe this administration long before this NSA business came up.
Well, obviously. My point is, you're suggesting that these NSA programs are part and parcel of whatever crazy nonsense you think Obama is doing to destroy our freedom, when in fact it's stuff the NSA has been doing since before Obama was even elected. This is the hypocrisy of the right wing ideologues: if Bush did it, whatever, I'm happy to have the government listen in on my phone calls in the name of freedom; if Obama does it, omigod! criminal syndicate!!

Quote

(you'd think a guy that compiles everything I've ever posted would know this)
Don't flatter yourself. I found those posts with a five-second Google search. But that's a nice attempt at heads-I-win-tails-you-lose, to dare me to provide evidence of your inconsistency, and then accuse me of cyberstalking you when I provide it.

Quote

BTW those old posts from that "scherzo best of" folder on your harddrive, denote consistency not hypocrisy. Supporting the implementation of a law isn't quite the same thing rubber stamping it's abuse by ANY administration.
First of all, the whole point of my original post was to take issue with this perspective, because of course a president you don't agree with politically is eventually going to be in charge of implementing the law. Which is something everyone, left and right, ought to take into account when deciding whether to support the law in the first place.

Second, you're not just condemning the Obama administration's implementation of the law while supporting the Bush administration's. You are condemning the exact same actions to which you pledged your full-throated support under Bush. You did in fact say that you were fine with the "NSA compiling data on EVERYBODY." You said you would be fine with the feds searching through your trash if it meant stopping the next terrorist attack. You said that only people with a deranged sense of priorities would be scared if the NSA had access to their phone data.

Indeed, in the second thread I linked to, you're actually scoffing at any objection to the exact same telephone surveillance program you now think is far beyond the pale. Literally the same program; the thread starts out with a link to an article about how "the government has been secretly collecting records of ordinary Americans' phone calls in an effort to build a database of every call made within the country."

Edited by Dev F, 10 June 2013 - 09:48 AM.


#28 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 09:59 AM

View Postscherzo, on 10 June 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

OK I don't lay the financial crisis at the feet of Glass/Steagall, but I understand the analogy you're trying to make. Cait most conservatives could draw up a 40 gig laundry list of laws and regulations that have been abused by government. The Patriot Act can certainly be tossed into that mix today, but it's original intent was relevant in responding to Dev's ludicrous implication that conservatives support NSA compiling data on EVERYBODY.

Are you honestly saying that the Bush administration passed a fine law that met the situation correctly and that it's just mean old crime lord Obama who is abusing it?  Really?  Are you really splitting the hair of "spying on them"  "not all of us" to make your point?  

There were hearings with testimony about the abuses of the NSA programs under the Bush administration.  The Justice Department nearly had resignations en masse because of the [in their opinion] illegal program.  James Comey testified to it before Congress.   It was illegal then.  It's worse now.  But it was self-evident back THEN my friend.  Anyone not caught up in a partisan love affair with Bush could see it.  It's sure easy to see now too.

https://www.eff.org/...spying/timeline

Follow that link for a time line on NSA wiretapping and eavesdropping.

Or..

http://blogs.village...loggers_f_9.php

Quote

One thing's for sure: Many of us back in the day opposed the Patriot Act and all the expansions of the national security state that came after the 9/11 attacks, and nobody gave a shit -- except rightbloggers, who called us idiots and/or traitors.

So it has been interesting, if not surprising, to see what great civil libertarians these erstwhile data-cops have suddenly become.

Quote

This week Rush Limbaugh told us that we must resist the NSA and tyrant Obama's "coup d'etat." "The mature thinkers that weighed in and sound reason and levelheadedness assured us that there was nothing to fear here because this was just metadata, and in fact this is something we should all be thankful that the government is able to do," said Limbaugh. "...I'm listening to all the smart people tell me this, my mind is about to explode, and I'm saying, 'Do these people not realize what we just learned in the last three weeks?' ...clearly there's a coup d'etat going. You know it and I know it. This is what animates us. This is why the Tea Party exists."

Something about that sound a little unRushlike to you? Let's bring some Rush Limbaugh, vintage 2005 up from the cellar: "Ask the families, ask the people who were in the World Trade Center towers right before they were attacked if they are more concerned with the loss of their civil liberties than the loss of their lives," wailed Limbaugh. "...I'm not going to accept the premise that civil liberties have been violated... Patriot Act hasn't been diddly-squat to me... The press is disloyal as ever, nobody is stopping their anti-American reporting apart from a prosecutor that they demanded."

Quote

Last week, John Hinderaker of Power Line was outraged by the NSA news, and pleaded, "hasn't the time come to lay the government's cards on the table? It strikes me that whatever price might be paid in our anti-terror efforts will be small compared to the value of arriving at a consensus about what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy in the 21st century." Also, he wanted "a much fuller and more systematic disclosure of what the federal government is currently doing by way of data collection... As a starting point, we could use some truthful testimony by Obama administration officials before Congressional committees."

Time-tunnel, take us to 2006, when Hinderaker was much less interested in the sight of the government's cards: "Liberals are jumping up and down about USA Today's publication of another leak relating to the National Security Agency," said Hinderaker. "It's considered a news flash that the NSA is collecting data on phone calls, with the cooperation of almost all of the major telecom companies, to look for suspicious patterns." 2006 Hinderaker also said of the then-recent London terror bombings, "sounds like they should have listened in on those calls. These are exactly the kind of communications that are intercepted by the NSA under the terrorist surveillance program that has been widely denounced by Democrats."


Or...

http://www.cnn.com/2.../01/nsa.spying/


Quote

President Bush on Sunday defended his administration's use of wiretaps on U.S. citizens without a court order, saying comments he made in 2004 that "nothing has changed" in the use of wiretaps were not misleading.

He also said that the recent exposure of the clandestine wiretapping program -- which set off a storm of criticism and controversy -- harms the country.
Democratic and Republican senators on Sunday expressed support for congressional hearings to review the program, which President Bush secretly authorized shortly after the September 11 attacks.

It allows the National Security Agency to intercept domestic communications without a warrant, as long as one party is outside the United States.
The president has come under heated criticism from many lawmakers, particularly Democrats, who have questioned the legality of the program.
Critics say that judicial checks and balances are a critical part of government and that the courts have a record of supporting presidential requests for wiretaps important for U.S. security.
Bush on Sunday described his program as "necessary to win this war and to protect the American people," and added that the program has been reviewed "constantly" by Justice Department officials.


So please, do not sit there and try to tell us that the Bush Administration did not abuse the very same powers the Obama Administration is abusing now.  It was not 50 years ago.  It's still part of recent memory, except for those who cannot come to grips with what actually occurred under that Administration.  They are the very same powers that the next Administration will no doubt abuse.  And why?  Because the law allows them to do it.  And to not see what door the Patriot Act would open up is either pure ignorance or willful denial.

Obama hasn't carried the Patriot Act to new evil heights.  He's merely "carried on" the a tried and true Bush tradition.

And as much as I love partisan sparing with you scherzo [and lord help me I do love it :) ], I much prefer it when we agree on topics.  And, we do agree on this one in essence.  But, to get caught up in partisan bickering over who was "worse" Bush or Obama misses the real point.

It's the real point we agree on.  Let's not forget that.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#29 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 11:20 AM

Quote

And as much as I love partisan sparing with you scherzo [and lord help me I do love it :) ], I much prefer it when we agree on topics.  And, we do agree on this one in essence.  But, to get caught up in partisan bickering over who was "worse" Bush or Obama misses the real point.
I didn't bring up Bush Cait. Maybe the lecture should be directed at the person who did? Making it a who's worse contest is apparently the hard left's default defense mechanism. Fact is I would have been incensed at this revelation no matter which party was pulling the strings. Clearly this is not the case for everyone.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#30 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 11:46 AM

View Postscherzo, on 10 June 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

Fact is I would have been incensed at this revelation no matter which party was pulling the strings.
So you're just going to ignore that I linked to a thread from 2006 in which it was mentioned that the government was building a database of everyone's phone calls and you thought it would be crazy to worry about it? I guess it's because conservatives love facts so much more than liberals.

Edited by Dev F, 10 June 2013 - 11:46 AM.


#31 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 12:51 PM

View PostDev F, on 10 June 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

View Postscherzo, on 10 June 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

Fact is I would have been incensed at this revelation no matter which party was pulling the strings.
So you're just going to ignore that I linked to a thread from 2006 in which it was mentioned that the government was building a database of everyone's phone calls and you thought it would be crazy to worry about it? I guess it's because conservatives love facts so much more than liberals.
Well in 2006 we had a single story based on the testimony of an anonymous source that failed to make a ripple, at a time when even the slightest suggestion of Bush administration criminality was guaranteed to make headlines for weeks. What we have today is documented evidence of the data collection complete with a court order. I already admitted the black helicopter crowd has had their concerns vindicated by the past weeks revelations, and my mistake was dismissing the possibility it was occurring exactly as exclusively reported.(even now it reads illogical as an anti-terrorism measure) Were the evidence then as compelling as what we know now, I'd have had a different reaction. If you think this is simply a manifestation of my undying support for Team Dubya, I'll say again...you haven't been paying attention.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#32 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:35 PM

View Postscherzo, on 10 June 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:


Well in 2006 we had a single story based on the testimony of an anonymous source that failed to make a ripple, at a time when even the slightest suggestion of Bush administration criminality was guaranteed to make headlines for weeks. What we have today is documented evidence of the data collection complete with a court order. I already admitted the black helicopter crowd has had their concerns vindicated by the past weeks revelations, and my mistake was dismissing the possibility it was occurring exactly as exclusively reported.(even now it reads illogical as an anti-terrorism measure) Were the evidence then as compelling as what we know now, I'd have had a different reaction. If you think this is simply a manifestation of my undying support for Team Dubya, I'll say again...you haven't been paying attention.

See this works both ways.  There was a knee jerk reaction back then, to any Bush criticism that sometimes overlooked real problems. It reminds me of the knee jerk reactions to Obama criticism now, but that's an aside.  An interesting one, but an aside nevertheless. And, I have been paying attention, and I know you don't cling to the good ol days of the Bush Administration.  You've said, and I listened, that you in fact hated having to defined Bush for real issues when the libs went crazy with Bush derangement syndrome.  I can understand that now.

That said, how the information that came out in the hearings into the fired US Attorneys re: the midnight raid on Ashcroft's hospital room, to get the NSA program of surveillance OK'wed by the Justice department, can be construed as testimony from an anonymous source is beyond me.  Granted, it was strange testimony to come out in that particular investigation, but the news was all over this testimony at the time.  

The AG, and the Deputy AG would NOT sign off on the program which they thought was unconstitutional.  That didn't bother you?   How far was the Bush administration going with NSA surveillance?  Far enough that their own Justice Department would NOT sign off on it.  The revised program is what Obama inherited, and yes probably expanded on. We don't know for sure that he expanded on Bush's program.  All we know is that Obama got caught by the leaks info.  Bush had no whistle-blower.  But, we can garner from Comey's testimony that Bush was willing to push the envelope past what Justice felt was legal.  That didn't bother you at the time?  

As a refresher to anyone who wants to view it, here is the youtube video of his testimony.



That said, I quite agree that other than as a time line discussion, the Bush bashing can rest a bit and we can continue with the hear an now--which is bad enough all on its own.  But, you surprised me with your statements about the Bush NSA stuff.  I didn't mean to belabor the point.  You just surprised me.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#33 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 02:36 PM

I think a lot of stuff can be chalked up to people not paying attention because of who was saying it.  It becomes a default response to an extent.  Cait has been on this all along, she's the reason I started paying attention to it back in 2006, as I've said before.  What matters is that you see now that this a bad policy, scherzo.  That Obama decided it was okay worries me more because he knows the pitfalls and dangers of this type of program because he's decried it in the past.  You can only chalk so much up to him coming to the full realization of what it actually means to be president to excuse some of the stuff he condones.  The drone attacks and this were things he didn't agree with before.   So what happens when a person becomes president?  The threats become tangible in a way they aren't when you are just a regular politician running for office.  Being in charge of the military and responsible for protecting the country makes a person see the wisdom in having certain options available to them.  The truth is, everyone is a potential threat in some way given the right circumstances.  A country that was founded under the conditions ours was has ingrained in people a dual mentality. We want our government to work and so long as people feel elections are working, it does or seems to even if the process is corrupted by greed. Any government is always concerned the citizens might rebell given the right conditions and a government will protect itself from that potentiality.  It's the only reason they would want the data on everyone and to keep the info long-term. Our politics are a reflection of how fickle we are, people are okay with something under one President but not the next. America is a polarized place and they should just come out and tell people they think they are protecting us from ourselves.  It's why I'm not for taking away guns from everyone when people with mental problems shoot up places.  It always begins in the most benevolent of ways to get certain powers, even if the people behind a measure have good intentions, then one day the perfect confluence happens and a person comes to power who wants use all the tools that have been created to make people feel safer to lord over them.  You really have to wonder about the nature of who really runs our government, politicians come and go but the people who run the programs on the daily level are entrenched. Thankfully this man had the courage to tell Americans what is going on, even knowing what the CIA is capable of like extraordinary rendition. No, I'm not a tin foil hat person who has stock-piled weapons(I don't like guns), nor do I think someone is out to get me, but those militia nuts do have some valid points.  If the government showed up with tanks and missiles a hand gun wouldn't make much difference, but if the government doesn't have to worry about it's people putting up resistance it makes it easier to do what they want.   It makes it a lot easier to pick out people who might potentially be a problem down the road.   The government already has these lists with thousands of people's names on them that they can't seem to use to stop from committing crimes.  Why? Maybe because they are too busy trying to look at everyone.

#34 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 02:55 PM

View PostBobby, on 10 June 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

  Thankfully this man had the courage to tell Americans what is going on, even knowing what the CIA is capable of like extraordinary rendition. No, I'm not a tin foil hat person who has stock-piled weapons(I don't like guns), nor do I think someone is out to get me, but those militia nuts do have some valid points.  If the government showed up with tanks and missiles a hand gun wouldn't make much difference, but if the government doesn't have to worry about it's people putting up resistance it makes it easier to do what they want.   It makes it a lot easier to pick out people who might potentially be a problem down the road.   The government already has these lists with thousands of people's names on them that they can't seem to use to stop from committing crimes.  Why? Maybe because they are too busy trying to look at everyone.

I'm glad Snowden revealed his identity.  I think he is safer being public.  Remaining anonymous was not going to keep him safe, and it would have been much easier to render him without any of us ever knowing.  Which, when you think about it, is a damning statement make about our own government.  I think they can still get him, but it will be harder.  He can't just end up dead in a hotel room.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#35 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 03:46 PM

This would be funny if it weren't so true!

Attached Files


Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#36 ShotenStar

ShotenStar

    Collector of Silly Mares

  • Islander
  • 182 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:37 AM

While many people wrangle about which political world view is right or wrong on this issue and how this might play out in the future, I would like to suggest you are worried about the wrong players.  The government is a relatively small threat to your personal health and safety.  The bigger threat is the large corporations who do this same data mining.  Why?  Consider our basic legal structure:

-individuals and corporations may do whatever they want, so long as it is NOT EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN in law or regulation

-government workers and Agencies may do ONLY THAT WHICH IS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED in law or regulation

This is why you have things like the Bank crashes and housing market crashes, ENRON and WorldCom frauds, etc.  Because there were no laws or regulations that said "don't do that", companies were free to play fast and loose according to their own definitions of making a profit.

This is also why you hear regular loud and long complaints about 'government failures' ... FEMA being too slow to respond to a crisis, the DMV employee who can't solve a basic problem because she has no authorization to take that particular action, etc.

In the case of the Intel Community, the laws and regulations are quite specific about what can be done with data.  Employees are required to learn and regularly review those laws and regulations and regular audits of the data stores verify the laws and regulations are being followed.  Failure to play by the rules can cost an employee his clearance and his job, at a minimum, and may net him jail time.  Despite what Hollywood portrays, Intel Community employees have some very high ethics and are very rule driven.

Any corporation that does the same, and even greater, more detailed, data mining has no such rules or obligations ... they have their lovely little 'we respect your privacy' statements and are quick to apologize when they have a data breach and thousands of credit card numbers are stolen.  But laws preventing them from harming you are few and far between.

If Snowden had been a true 'whistleblower' and revealed any actual breach of the laws and regulations that resulted in an innocent person being arrested, we would all have a case for concern.  But revealing the existence of a program / capability that has been around and effective for a long time is just one little twerp with a martyr complex trying to get his 15 mins of fame.

*star*

Edited by ShotenStar, 11 June 2013 - 08:39 AM.

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Douglas Adams

#37 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:02 PM

We can be concerned about both corporations and the government spying on us.  Government workers are people and people break laws all the time and play fast and loose with the rules.  In a program with no transparency you are willing to believe they are saints that always follow the rules.  Many a politician and worker has been found to break the rules.  Paging Richard Nixon!  Paging the IRS workers who supposedly saw fit on their own(yeah right!) to target conservative groups.  Paging Stalinist Russia! Paging the Gestapo! Yeah, I godwinized the thread because you seem to be chiding the rest of us like we should be A-OK with this program just because someone has a rule on the books.  We are concerned that the program even exists, to hell with any justifications or excuses that people have to follow the rules.

#38 ShotenStar

ShotenStar

    Collector of Silly Mares

  • Islander
  • 182 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:43 PM

There are Congressional Committees and judges in the FISA courts who are providing the oversight.  'Joe Public' does not need to know the details and 'transparency' is just another word prurient interest.  

And, yes, a rogue employee can cause trouble, just like a rogue armed with assault weapons causes trouble for all those nice law-abiding gun owners.  A well-maintained , internal audit system has a far better chance of catching the odd rogue than does public meddling.  Given the thousands of people with security clearances and the massive amounts of intel handled every day, consider how few breaches actually occur.

*star*

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Douglas Adams

#39 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:16 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 07 June 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

But there is no law saying people have to use Verizon.

You'd be surprised to know exactly how much Verizon gets away with.  I just spent the last three months getting a medical necessity exemption to the now required bulk cable here in Geezerville.  Like most of the other HOAs here, mine took a hefty bribe to change the rules, and now my neighbors are discovering that, not only do they have to get bulk cable, but the measly $5/month savings are more than made up for by the hefty increases for premium cable.  I've been told not to discuss my situation with my neighbors, 5% of whom never took bulk cable and don't want it now, and the HOA is living in fear that Verizon will discover my exemption, which they will, of course, when they show up to install the system and I refuse them entry.  Meanwhile I have the VA, ADA, my congressman and a long history of avoidance therapy on my side, and the HOA is sweating bullets.  Not my problem that they made a deal with the devil.    :shrug:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#40 ShotenStar

ShotenStar

    Collector of Silly Mares

  • Islander
  • 182 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 06:11 PM

View PostNonny, on 11 June 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

View PostLord of the Sword, on 07 June 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

But there is no law saying people have to use Verizon.

You'd be surprised to know exactly how much Verizon gets away with.  I just spent the last three months getting a medical necessity exemption to the now required bulk cable here in Geezerville.  Like most of the other HOAs here, mine took a hefty bribe to change the rules, and now my neighbors are discovering that, not only do they have to get bulk cable, but the measly $5/month savings are more than made up for by the hefty increases for premium cable.  I've been told not to discuss my situation with my neighbors, 5% of whom never took bulk cable and don't want it now, and the HOA is living in fear that Verizon will discover my exemption, which they will, of course, when they show up to install the system and I refuse them entry.  Meanwhile I have the VA, ADA, my congressman and a long history of avoidance therapy on my side, and the HOA is sweating bullets.  Not my problem that they made a deal with the devil.    :shrug:

Color me confused.  How does a medical condition relate to bulk cable service?  I can see a HOA requiring that residences be wired for cable service, but how can they possibly require you to subscribe?

---------

Never mind.  I did some research and now understand the 'bulk pricing' issue a bit better.  Yeah, I would fight that too.

*star*

Edited by ShotenStar, 11 June 2013 - 06:41 PM.

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Douglas Adams



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Civil Liberties, 2013, NSA, Domestic Spying, Obama Administration

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users