Obama and NSA Surveillance

Politics US Politics
61

Or you happen to have Muslim friends or family members and communicate with them overseas often.

Or you’re involved in animal or environmental or human rights groups that the gov wants to keep track of. Or again you are friends or family with such people and communicate with them often overseas. Or your spouse does. Or your kids.

Or you have friends or family members who are prominent politicians or activists outside America and the government wants to spy on them.

I mean what are the odds? Six degrees is just a joke, eh?

[quote] There are billions, perhaps trillions of emails, Facebook posts, phone calls, tweets, blogs, forum postings etc made every day. These may be scanned for certain keywords but unless you trip multiple triggers, no human will ever read anything you write or listen to anything you say (other than those you intend too).

Trip enough triggers, and there’d need to be multiple levels of automated scanning first, and perhaps some agent may get tasked with assessing it.[/quote]

I see. So the system is largely useless, but the system is protecting us from terrorist threats.

62

[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“Fox”][quote=“cfimages”]If you really think that they are reading your email you’re either a fool or have an overactive ego. There are billions, perhaps trillions of emails, Facebook posts, phone calls, tweets, blogs, forum postings etc made every day. These may be scanned for certain keywords but unless you trip multiple triggers, no human will ever read anything you write or listen to anything you say (other than those you intend too).

Trip enough triggers, and there’d need to be multiple levels of automated scanning first, and perhaps some agent may get tasked with assessing it.[/quote]
So that’s OK? It might not be a problem. What are you thinking? Let’s target the private emails of all those who enter parliament. If they have done nothing wrong what do they have to worry about? Let the people decide. Let’s target the private email of all leaders of the media. If they have done nothing wrong what do they have to worry about?[/quote]

The first access I ever had to the net was in the early 90’s at uni. The professor told us then that nothing on the net is private.[/quote]

That’s not true. Your banking is private. Your emails are private. Your telephone calls are private. Nothing is private unless someone decides to steal that information and use it for their own purposes. I have conversations with my wife that are private. My father quite frequently had the: ‘Just between you and me and the gate post’ conversation with me. If you cannot accept and honor that, you are the natural enemy of integrity. No matter who you are Dante reserved the deepest realms of hell for just these types of people.

63

No, what’s amazing is that you still pretend to live as though this is the 1950s. Security sucks, Patdowns sucks. But you know what sucks more? Bombs. In Boston, on airplanes. There should have been a lot more attacks. There haven’t been. Why not? Did the bad guys give up? No. We did something and the awful effect it had on us, joe blow, is that our fucking email was scanned. Stop being a vagine majori.[/quote]

I don’t have a problem with America’s descent into totalitarianism. I find it highly amusing and look forward to the inevitable further tightening of the screws. Have a nice trip.[/quote]
Yeah, it’s just awful. I went to a Yankees game last month. They wouldn’t allow people to bring in aerosol cans of sunscreen. BASTARDS! And and, I moved and changed my address at the Post Office. Those gubmint DICKS told the companies I invest in and they automatically changed my mailing address for me, without even telling me! It was so convenient I barely noticed their jackboots. :unamused:

64

[quote=“Fox”][quote=“cfimages”][quote=“Fox”][quote=“cfimages”]If you really think that they are reading your email you’re either a fool or have an overactive ego. There are billions, perhaps trillions of emails, Facebook posts, phone calls, tweets, blogs, forum postings etc made every day. These may be scanned for certain keywords but unless you trip multiple triggers, no human will ever read anything you write or listen to anything you say (other than those you intend too).

Trip enough triggers, and there’d need to be multiple levels of automated scanning first, and perhaps some agent may get tasked with assessing it.[/quote]
So that’s OK? It might not be a problem. What are you thinking? Let’s target the private emails of all those who enter parliament. If they have done nothing wrong what do they have to worry about? Let the people decide. Let’s target the private email of all leaders of the media. If they have done nothing wrong what do they have to worry about?[/quote]

The first access I ever had to the net was in the early 90’s at uni. The professor told us then that nothing on the net is private.[/quote]

That’s not true. Your banking is private. Your emails are private. Your telephone calls are private. Nothing is private unless someone decides to steal that information and use it for their own purposes. I have conversations with my wife that are private. My father quite frequently had the: ‘Just between you and me and the gate post’ conversation with me. If you cannot accept and honor that, you are the natural enemy of integrity. No matter who you are Dante reserved the deepest realms of hell for just these types of people.[/quote]

Sorry,I didn’t explain that well.

He didn’t mean that anyone should be able to access private data, he meant that the internet itself could not be made secure enough to protect private data, and the only way to keep it private was not to put it online in the first place. No matter whether it should be secret or could be kept private, those that wanted to would always have access to it.

65

[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“Fox”][quote=“cfimages”][quote=“Fox”][quote=“cfimages”]If you really think that they are reading your email you’re either a fool or have an overactive ego. There are billions, perhaps trillions of emails, Facebook posts, phone calls, tweets, blogs, forum postings etc made every day. These may be scanned for certain keywords but unless you trip multiple triggers, no human will ever read anything you write or listen to anything you say (other than those you intend too).

Trip enough triggers, and there’d need to be multiple levels of automated scanning first, and perhaps some agent may get tasked with assessing it.[/quote]
So that’s OK? It might not be a problem. What are you thinking? Let’s target the private emails of all those who enter parliament. If they have done nothing wrong what do they have to worry about? Let the people decide. Let’s target the private email of all leaders of the media. If they have done nothing wrong what do they have to worry about?[/quote]

The first access I ever had to the net was in the early 90’s at uni. The professor told us then that nothing on the net is private.[/quote]

That’s not true. Your banking is private. Your emails are private. Your telephone calls are private. Nothing is private unless someone decides to steal that information and use it for their own purposes. I have conversations with my wife that are private. My father quite frequently had the: ‘Just between you and me and the gate post’ conversation with me. If you cannot accept and honor that, you are the natural enemy of integrity. No matter who you are Dante reserved the deepest realms of hell for just these types of people.[/quote]

Sorry,I didn’t explain that well.

He didn’t mean that anyone should be able to access private data, he meant that the internet itself could not be made secure enough to protect private data, and the only way to keep it private was not to put it online in the first place. No matter whether it should be secret or could be kept private, those that wanted to would always have access to it.[/quote]

I understand, but it then characterizes the crime; it doesn’t justify it. Those that wanted to would always have access to it, presumably. Take for example your banking information. Should the government want access to such information, they potentially would always have access to it. They do, too. If you make a transaction of more than 10,000 dollars or more then the bank is obligated to report such a transaction as a potential drug crime. War on drugs.

It is the ability to create a buy-in environment that is the essential issue. At present the buy-in environment relates to the War on Terrorism. In logic, it is called a non-sequitur argument where the conclusion does not follow on from the premise. The premise in this case is that terrorism can be controlled by monitoring personal communications so we must monitor all personal communications to control terrorism. However, that simply defies logic. Terrorism cannot control terrorism, it escalates it. It is like drone attacks. Drones are a terrorist weapon. Listening to all personal communication is a terrorist act because it terrorizes people. It reduces your ability to speak freely about your concerns. It relies on the weakest of all arguments. If you are doing nothing wrong, what have you to worry about? Well I have to worry about what is considered wrong. If I don’t agree with you, am I wrong? That is a matter of opinion not of fact. Ask Galileo. It is simply dumb and has its routes in notoriety, such as Goebbels: “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly … it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” He was right in that: ‘All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.’

That is grade four American history.

66

Or you happen to have Muslim friends or family members and communicate with them overseas often.

Or you’re involved in animal or environmental or human rights groups that the gov wants to keep track of. Or again you are friends or family with such people and communicate with them often overseas. Or your spouse does. Or your kids.

Or you have friends or family members who are prominent politicians or activists outside America and the government wants to spy on them.

I mean what are the odds? Six degrees is just a joke, eh?[/quote]

I get that. In the late 90’s I was heavily involved in the environmental movement in Australia, with groups like Earth First (who I believe the FBI now lists as an eco-terrorist group), and was part of the planning group S11 Alliance that organized the S11 protests in Melbourne en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S11_(protest , which was infiltrated by an undercover policeman. I’ve also been on staff for Greenpeace and Amnesty Intl, and involved in a bunch of other environmental activist groups.

But, there is just so much that is credible that they are looking for (eg Obama alone gets over 10 000 death threats per year) that almost all what they are doing is automated and very, very little is actually read by human eyes.

67

[quote=“Fox”][quote=“cfimages”][quote=“Fox”][quote=“cfimages”][quote=“Fox”][quote=“cfimages”]If you really think that they are reading your email you’re either a fool or have an overactive ego. There are billions, perhaps trillions of emails, Facebook posts, phone calls, tweets, blogs, forum postings etc made every day. These may be scanned for certain keywords but unless you trip multiple triggers, no human will ever read anything you write or listen to anything you say (other than those you intend too).

Trip enough triggers, and there’d need to be multiple levels of automated scanning first, and perhaps some agent may get tasked with assessing it.[/quote]
So that’s OK? It might not be a problem. What are you thinking? Let’s target the private emails of all those who enter parliament. If they have done nothing wrong what do they have to worry about? Let the people decide. Let’s target the private email of all leaders of the media. If they have done nothing wrong what do they have to worry about?[/quote]

The first access I ever had to the net was in the early 90’s at uni. The professor told us then that nothing on the net is private.[/quote]

That’s not true. Your banking is private. Your emails are private. Your telephone calls are private. Nothing is private unless someone decides to steal that information and use it for their own purposes. I have conversations with my wife that are private. My father quite frequently had the: ‘Just between you and me and the gate post’ conversation with me. If you cannot accept and honor that, you are the natural enemy of integrity. No matter who you are Dante reserved the deepest realms of hell for just these types of people.[/quote]

Sorry,I didn’t explain that well.

He didn’t mean that anyone should be able to access private data, he meant that the internet itself could not be made secure enough to protect private data, and the only way to keep it private was not to put it online in the first place. No matter whether it should be secret or could be kept private, those that wanted to would always have access to it.[/quote]

I understand, but it then characterizes the crime; it doesn’t justify it. Those that wanted to would always have access to it, presumably. Take for example your banking information. Should the government want access to such information, they potentially would always have access to it. They do, too. If you make a transaction of more than 10,000 dollars or more then the bank is obligated to report such a transaction as a potential drug crime. War on drugs.

It is the ability to create a buy-in environment that is the essential issue. At present the buy-in environment relates to the War on Terrorism. In logic, it is called a non-sequitur argument where the conclusion does not follow on from the premise. The premise in this case is that terrorism can be controlled by monitoring personal communications so we must monitor all personal communications to control terrorism. However, that simply defies logic. Terrorism cannot control terrorism, it escalates it. It is like drone attacks. Drones are a terrorist weapon. Listening to all personal communication is a terrorist act because it terrorizes people. It reduces your ability to speak freely about your concerns. It relies on the weakest of all arguments. If you are doing nothing wrong, what have you to worry about? Well I have to worry about what is considered wrong. If I don’t agree with you, am I wrong? That is a matter of opinion not of fact. Ask Galileo. It is simply dumb and has its routes in notoriety, such as Goebbels: “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly … it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” He was right in that: ‘All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.’[/quote]

I certainly agree re drones.

I think it might be how I define listening - to me that means a human being actually listening to a conversation (or reading an actual email etc). But most of what they are doing is automated scanning for keywords which doesn’t require human involvement (other than to set parameters at the start). To me they are 2 different things. Having an actual human listening in to everything, yes that’s going too far. Having a computer program scan for keywords however is not worth worrying about.

68

[quote]
But, there is just so much that is credible that they are looking for (eg Obama alone gets over 10 000 death threats per year) that almost all what they are doing is automated and very, very little is actually read by human eyes.[/quote]

That just goes with the territory. He can get a Pope mobile. If you are the president, you need to inspire belief not enforce it.

69

[quote=“Fox”][quote]
But, there is just so much that is credible that they are looking for (eg Obama alone gets over 10 000 death threats per year) that almost all what they are doing is automated and very, very little is actually read by human eyes.[/quote]

That just goes with the territory. He can get a Pope mobile. If you are the president, you need to inspire belief not enforce it.[/quote]

Most of his are likely just out and out racism which no amount of inspiring will change.

70

Or you happen to have Muslim friends or family members and communicate with them overseas often.

Or you’re involved in animal or environmental or human rights groups that the gov wants to keep track of. Or again you are friends or family with such people and communicate with them often overseas. Or your spouse does. Or your kids.

Or you have friends or family members who are prominent politicians or activists outside America and the government wants to spy on them.

I mean what are the odds? Six degrees is just a joke, eh?[/quote]

I get that. In the late 90’s I was heavily involved in the environmental movement in Australia, with groups like Earth First (who I believe the FBI now lists as an eco-terrorist group), and was part of the planning group S11 Alliance that organized the S11 protests in Melbourne en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S11_(protest , which was infiltrated by an undercover policeman. I’ve also been on staff for Greenpeace and Amnesty Intl, and involved in a bunch of other environmental activist groups.

But, there is just so much that is credible that they are looking for (eg Obama alone gets over 10 000 death threats per year) that almost all what they are doing is automated and very, very little is actually read by human eyes.[/quote]

I was wondering about that given you have talked about your history before.

Look, I could agree, or disagree less, to this if it was transparent, well regulated, and there had been a long and vigorous debate about it in public. But there wasn’t and when this broke the president continued to lie that Americans weren’t being targeted. They are and there are so many loopholes to get around the so-called rules that they are meaningless.

The onus is basically on the communication itself to prove it is not of foreign origin. :laughing:

What is sadder, is once again, the west loses the moral high ground with respect to places like China. They’ve got security concerns, too. Big ones. So why should they care about the niceties of privacy when even the west tramples over this in the name of national security?

71

Actually, I wonder if because of my background and that I’ve known they do stuff like this since long before 9/11, if I’ve become used to it to the point where it no longer shocks me. Although I’m no longer involved in the activist community, I’ve got friends who are, some of whom just last week were getting themselves arrested for trespassing on a military base and lying in front of Humvees, during the Aust / US war games in Queensland.

72

Odd though that your shock has morphed into acceptance don’t you think?

Or are you just resigned to this is how the world is? I don’t mean that in a snotty teenage liberal way, just as a question.

73

Resigned and familiar I’d guess. 10 years ago it would have bothered me. Now I’m just used to it.

74

It hasn’t attracted much press or comment, but the last week has been very interesting. Bradley Manning got sentenced to 130 years in prison after a military show trial (coming after a couple of years of prison torture) - eerily reminiscent of the Stalin years in Russia. Meanwhile in Russia, Edward Snowden was granted political asylum. The situation with Julian Assange remains the same, though it was just recently revealed that US$18,000 per day is being spent to stake out the Ecuadorian embassy in London (not sure who is footing the bill - care to guess?). Does anyone seriously believe that this is being done because of the official excuse (that the Swedish police need to interview him in Stockholm because his condom is alleged to have broken)?

Let’s face it, the NSA and Obama have done a fine job of trashing the USA’s reputation (not that Bush was better - he was truly awful). Funny how the world has changed since year 2000. Just a mere 13 years ago, I never would have thought that I’d be saying (or even thinking) that, relatively speaking, Russia is more free, and moral, than the USA. It’s a shocking turn-around, but it is what it is. The moral high ground has shifted.

75

I’m used to it, but it still bothers me deeply.

76

[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]It hasn’t attracted much press or comment, but the last week has been very interesting. Bradley Manning got sentenced to 130 years in prison after a military show trial (coming after a couple of years of prison torture) - eerily reminiscent of the Stalin years in Russia. Meanwhile in Russia, Edward Snowden was granted political asylum. The situation with Julian Assange remains the same, though it was just recently revealed that US$18,000 per day is being spent to stake out the Ecuadorian embassy in London (not sure who is footing the bill - care to guess?). Does anyone seriously believe that this is being done because of the official excuse (that the Swedish police need to interview him in Stockholm because his condom is alleged to have broken)?

Let’s face it, the NSA and Obama have done a fine job of trashing the USA’s reputation (not that Bush was better - he was truly awful). Funny how the world has changed since year 2000. Just a mere 13 years ago, I never would have thought that I’d be saying (or even thinking) that, relatively speaking, Russia is more free, and moral, than the USA. It’s a shocking turn-around, but it is what it is. The moral high ground has shifted.[/quote]

It’s attracted reams of press and comment. Which bastion of freedom is it where Manning could have got away with what he did. He can thank Assange who probably put him up to it, he obviously doesn’t care if a kid rots in jail, or about anyone but himself. Too bad the well-known US patsies Sweden are sticking it to him, it’s not his fault at all of course but a massive conspiracy to prevent him from gracing the world with his presence.

Snowden too. Let him try that in Russia if it’s so moral, and good luck to him.

77

[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]It hasn’t attracted much press or comment, but the last week has been very interesting. Bradley Manning got sentenced to 130 years in prison after a military show trial (coming after a couple of years of prison torture) - eerily reminiscent of the Stalin years in Russia. Meanwhile in Russia, Edward Snowden was granted political asylum. The situation with Julian Assange remains the same, though it was just recently revealed that US$18,000 per day is being spent to stake out the Ecuadorian embassy in London (not sure who is footing the bill - care to guess?). Does anyone seriously believe that this is being done because of the official excuse (that the Swedish police need to interview him in Stockholm because his condom is alleged to have broken)?

Let’s face it, the NSA and Obama have done a fine job of trashing the USA’s reputation (not that Bush was better - he was truly awful). Funny how the world has changed since year 2000. Just a mere 13 years ago, I never would have thought that I’d be saying (or even thinking) that, relatively speaking, Russia is more free, and moral, than the USA. It’s a shocking turn-around, but it is what it is. The moral high ground has shifted.[/quote]

It’s attracted reams of press and comment. Which bastion of freedom is it where Manning could have got away with what he did. He can thank Assange who probably put him up to it, he obviously doesn’t care if a kid rots in jail, or about anyone but himself. Too bad the well-known US patsies Sweden are sticking it to him, it’s not his fault at all of course but a massive conspiracy to prevent him from gracing the world with his presence.

Snowden too. Let him try that in Russia if it’s so moral, and good luck to him.[/quote]

If you have done nothing wrong, what have you got to worry about?

Thanks Tempo Gain. Now we know what we have to worry about.

Lawyer Clint privilege is the foundation of our Anglo/American law. It traces back to the Roman Empire. It is the oldest legal privilege there is. The US is making a mockery of it. Why not protest that? It would seem to me to be the bravest thing a person could do. Listening in on private conversations is the most treacherous thing one can do. Much, much more treacherous than a passionate out burst of violence. That is more akin to a natural disaster.

So which bastion of freedom are we talking about well lets start with Cicero and natural rights and freedoms. Or Jefferson who cites Cicero as the greatest influence on the US constitution and rights of the public.

78

Religious wars bring out the worst in human beings and only end in one of two ways: genocide or going AWOL after decades or centuries of pointless slaughter. Americans apparently believe there’s a third, magical way which they’ve never articulated which justifies the depravity they’re slowly slipping into but they and their descendants for generations to come will be sorely disappointed when they one day realize it was nothing but an illusion.

79

I think the best way to deal with these issues is to understand and exploit them but not support them. For example, I am willing to buy JP Morgan Chase Manhattan shares because one would be mad not to considering they just sucked up all of the US’ mortgages. Using understanding of their nonsense to your own benefit is your true measure. That is the case of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer. Do you share that?

80

Pox Americana is easy pickings because it’s so busy bankrupting itself funding its global war machine and endless wars it can’t compete in the global economy. If it ever decided to go AWOL from the thousand year religious war it’s signed up for though and beats its swords into plough shares things could get tough.