The Policed States of America: Verizon Call Monitoring & More

[Oldgamer]

Such a sad direction our country is going in. Arm yourselves for the rebellion.....

edit: maybe not a good idea to post that...

Is going in?? We are already there, and have been for quite some time.

 

[fskimospy]

again, total lack of vision is not helpful.
Imagine that NSA database in the hands of Hitler, how would it have changed history? There would have been little to no possibility for internal resistance to the Nazi machine because everything would have been known. The rounding up of the Jews would have been quicker and more complete because the private info of Jews (stolen and databased at headquarters) would have made it possible to tag the Jewish people... no voluntairy sewing on of stars required.

All phone converstations captured (full speech to text)... any keywords containing anything related to Jewish Culture tagged... and those people picked up for questioning. Any friends of any Jewish people (as identified from the "robust social graph of the population" <-- something america is building) rounded up for questioning.

Any individuals with any procilvities that would be counter-productive to the Nazi war machine identified by their digital lives as acquired and archived... simply mine the data and pull out anyone fitting the profile of a troublemaker.

Facial recognition systems identifying everyone in every photograph, no need to torture people anymore to get that data.

Just a few ways that database would have helped Hitler... only now that database is built and being expanded in the USA... and we are to just cross our fingers that the people in control will always be nice guys from this point and forward into eternity.

...again, no vision amongst the populace is why we are in this mess. Those who defend this monstrosity through constant deflection make one question their motives.

This is so dumb that it barely merits a response, and this will be my last one on this. Let me just say that I'm entirely unsurprised that you decided to start 'questioning my motives' for saying that relating this to the Holocaust is dumb.

Technological capabilities always have good and bad parts. If Hitler II came into power in the US, the presence or absence of this program at this time would not matter as 'ol Adolf Jr. would be able to set one up himself. Attempting to compare this to genocide is an insult to the real victims of genocide, and you should be ashamed of yourself, either for actually believing it or being naive enough to be tricked into it.

 

[colonelciller]

I know how the FISA warrant system works. Anyone who is interested in reading about the FISA court for informational purposes shouldn't take their knowledge from a Youtube video anyway.

if you truly do and you are here defending it as you have been then you are a part of the problem.

as to the content of the video, it is from Democracynow.org which is well-established news agency. I chose the youtube link of their video because it allows one to link directly to the relevant parts.

that last sentence reads as a desparate attempt to deflect and defend this monstrosity any way possible... it's not becoming.

as to the recommendation that we should seek knowledge outside of non-corproate news channels... I'm a little baffled. Since all of the information is classified and only select govt officials are allowed to know the nature of the secret interpretations of the Patriot Act and FISA... how are we to gather such info? How did you gather such info? would be interesting to know.

Sentator Ron Wyden explaining just this:
http://youtu.be/WcgR057wgoQ?t=5m30s

 

[colonelciller]

This is so dumb that it barely merits a response, and this will be my last one on this. Let me just say that I'm entirely unsurprised that you decided to start 'questioning my motives' for saying that relating this to the Holocaust is dumb.

Technological capabilities always have good and bad parts. If Hitler II came into power in the US, the presence or absence of this program at this time would not matter as 'ol Adolf Jr. would be able to set one up himself. Attempting to compare this to genocide is an insult to the real victims of genocide, and you should be ashamed of yourself, either for actually believing it or being naive enough to be tricked into it.

again, a stubborn lack of vision.
goodbye

 

[mchammer187]

Regardless of your other threads - you single out Bush here. I did not say this reflected the totality of your thoughts on responsibility by both sides - just that you ignore it initially (I will add some clarification and add 'in this thread') which IMO only serves to add fire to the partisan wars.



Seems odd to include it in the same paragraph you quote me in then but fair enough.

Bush started it Obama continued it. I see Obama as a small piece in this puzzle though because Congress has the power to end this and won't though they rarely get singled out.

The blame I see cast around the forums is Obama 60% Bush 40% whereas it should be Congress 90% Bush 5% Obama 5%.

Its the same thing that is going on with Apple avoiding taxes and going before Congress. It is utterly ridiculous that the one that makes the rules is the one complaining about how the system is being abused. Everyone that has been against Patriot Act since the inception could easily see this coming 12 years ago and if you couldn't your head has been in the sand.

 

[shady28]

The blame I see cast around the forums is Obama 60% Bush 40% whereas it should be Congress 90% Bush 5% Obama 5%.

I basically agree with the sentiment, but I think the blame is more like 100% Bush, 100% Obama, and 100% congress.

This isn't about Dems vs Repubs.

It's about The State vs The People.

The sooner people realize this the better. All other 'issues' are unimportant when your basic freedom and rights are subject to direct oversight by State Agents.

Those "freedoms" can be removed at any time by said State Agent deciding to classify you as a 'terrorist' for any reason deemed proper by The State.

Right now those reasons might be considered 'reasonable' (if we knew what the criteria was), but in the future? Maybe if you voted Republican. Maybe if you voted Democrat. More likely if you voted anything other than Republican or Democrat, you would be labelled, because these two parties are effectively the same.

That means we are not free.

At any point, Bush, Obama, or Congress, could have eliminated these policies. In fact, they could have simply not renewed them - do nothing and the programs die - but both presidents and both the past and present congress renewed these policies.

Both parties, both presidents, and all of congress are to blame.

Which means we are to blame.

We have become apathetic.

 

[sixone]

I basically agree with the sentiment, but I think the blame is more like 100% Bush, 100% Obama, and 100% congress.

This isn't about Dems vs Repubs.

It's about The State vs The People.

The sooner people realize this the better. All other 'issues' are unimportant when your basic freedom and rights are subject to direct oversight by State Agents.

Those "freedoms" can be removed at any time by said State Agent deciding to classify you as a 'terrorist' for any reason deemed proper by The State.

Right now those reasons might be considered 'reasonable' (if we knew what the criteria was), but in the future? Maybe if you voted Republican. Maybe if you voted Democrat. More likely if you voted anything other than Republican or Democrat, you would be labelled, because these two parties are effectively the same.

That means we are not free.

At any point, Bush, Obama, or Congress, could have eliminated these policies. In fact, they could have simply not renewed them - do nothing and the programs die - but both presidents and both the past and present congress renewed these policies.

Both parties, both presidents, and all of congress are to blame.

Which means we are to blame.

We have become apathetic.

Well said!

 

[shady28]

Two words :

Google Glass

 

[palehorse]

Two words :

Google Glass

Google Glass is just another input device. There are certainly privacy concerns surrounding their use, but their existence does not do much to compound the issue of the Federal government tapping into ALL data, regardless of source.

There are apparently billions or trillions of data at their fingertips already, so what's a few more?

 

[Oldgamer]

Obama flat out lied on television to everyone saying that PRISM and all the data collection on US citizens is overseen by congress, and reviewed and monitored, because it isn't! FISA is a a secret, everything they do does not allow anyone in congress to be apart of and kept from them, and they have successfully implemented such secrecy to the point that even the higher up courts have ruled in favor of no one being able to take action against this, because if you don't know your being monitored, or your information is being gathered without warrant or cause, then you can't take anyone to court.

This is just a sham, and even many congress members did object to all of this, some expressed concern, and a lot of them said they were kept out of the dark as to the extent of the collection of data.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama flat out lied on television to everyone saying that PRISM and all the data collection on US citizens is overseen by congress, and reviewed and monitored, because it isn't! FISA is a a secret, everything they do does not allow anyone in congress to be apart of and kept from them, and they have successfully implemented such secrecy to the point that even the higher up courts have ruled in favor of no one being able to take action against this, because if you don't know your being monitored, or your information is being gathered without warrant or cause, then you can't take anyone to court.

This is just a sham, and even many congress members did object to all of this, some expressed concern, and a lot of them said they were kept out of the dark as to the extent of the collection of data.

This is false. The House and Senate intelligence committees most certainly oversee FISA. Here are statements from both committee chairmen on the issue:

House:
http://theweek.com/article/index/245298/congresss-intel-heads-endorse-program

Senate:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...eases?ID=2884b789-fbb9-422f-8adb-ad1a52666904

If we're going to talk about this, we should have accurate information.

 

[palehorse]

This is false. The House and Senate intelligence committees most certainly oversee FISA. Here are statements from both committee chairmen on the issue:

House:
http://theweek.com/article/index/245298/congresss-intel-heads-endorse-program

Senate:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...eases?ID=2884b789-fbb9-422f-8adb-ad1a52666904

If we're going to talk about this, we should have accurate information.

Actually, in the press conference today, Obama did make the claim that ALL in Congress have been briefed on the programs (plural!).

Enough Congresscritters have come forward and stated that is not true to make it reasonable to question Obama's honesty on the issue.

I think it's safe to say that only the Intel committees were briefed on the full scope of the programs, so only they were aware of just how broadly the Patriot Act is being interpreted.

 

[werepossum]

However, the CIA sent out memos almost daily that stated a terrorist attack by al queada was iminent months before 9/11. They were sounding alarms but no one took the warnings seriously. Bin Laden was even openly touting that he was going to carry out attacks on the US.

A memo stating that "Osama says he's going to attack" is hardly useful intelligence. You seem to be faulting Bush for not saying "Quick, guys, guard everything!"

And yes, I'm aware that certain members of Congress have been briefed on this ongoing operation. I'm simply unaware of how that makes it alright.

And what is this shit measured against anyway? Can the gov say, and prove, that this seizure has actually done a damn thing? No, and it never will. Short of the best-case occasional touting of stopping something due to this the rest will be hidden and so nobody will ever have anything to measure the efficacy of such practices.

As that NY times editorial mentions, as many have mentioned for years, the war on terror is used as an excuse to do anything, this despite no way to measure the effectiveness of these highly invasive and bothersome policies.

These things are typically only good for finding criminals or terrorists after the fact, although sometimes we get lucky and stop something. But as you say, although the justification is using terrorism, this information will be used in other ways. Empower government and that power will be used, as government sees fit.

I basically agree with the sentiment, but I think the blame is more like 100% Bush, 100% Obama, and 100% congress.

This isn't about Dems vs Repubs.

It's about The State vs The People.

The sooner people realize this the better. All other 'issues' are unimportant when your basic freedom and rights are subject to direct oversight by State Agents.

Those "freedoms" can be removed at any time by said State Agent deciding to classify you as a 'terrorist' for any reason deemed proper by The State.

Right now those reasons might be considered 'reasonable' (if we knew what the criteria was), but in the future? Maybe if you voted Republican. Maybe if you voted Democrat. More likely if you voted anything other than Republican or Democrat, you would be labelled, because these two parties are effectively the same.

That means we are not free.

At any point, Bush, Obama, or Congress, could have eliminated these policies. In fact, they could have simply not renewed them - do nothing and the programs die - but both presidents and both the past and present congress renewed these policies.

Both parties, both presidents, and all of congress are to blame.

Which means we are to blame.

We have become apathetic.

Agreed, well said.

 

[Oldgamer]

Actually, in the press conference today, Obama did make the claim that ALL in Congress have been briefed on the programs (plural!).

Enough Congresscritters have come forward and stated that is not true to make it reasonable to question Obama's honesty on the issue.

I think it's safe to say that only the Intel committees were briefed on the full scope of the programs, so only they were aware of just how broadly the Patriot Act is being interpreted.

^^ This right here, and I was just watching an elected official saying that congressmembers cannot have full access to FISA meetings, and they are limited as to what they can see or be involved in. Had to do with super top secret, everything classified out the ass shit..

 

[Oldgamer]

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (most commonly known as FISA), a secret intelligence court was created to authorize government wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations. Since its initial enactment, FISA has been steadily expanded in ways that pose an increasing threat to individual rights.

Under FISA procedures, all hearings and decisions are conducted in secret. The Department of Justice has not disclosed even the most basic information about the court's activities despite repeated requests from Congress, the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups.

Furthermore, by skirting reports of illegal warrants and unlawful surveillance by the FISA court itself, the FISA Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have failed to address several fundamental issues.

A bipartisan group of Senators, including Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), have introduced legislation called the FISA Oversight Bill (S. 436) that would ensure our elected officials are able to provide appropriate oversight over the secret FISA court.

This bill would not hinder law enforcement but instead would simply require the public accounting of basic information such as the number of Americans subjected to surveillance under FISA and the number of times that FISA information has been used for law enforcement purposes. This bill has not been passed or implemented.

People from across the political spectrum agree that secret courts need oversight to prevent illegal surveillance and other invasions of our rights. FISA powers are broad, and the secrecy of the proceedings makes FISA powers susceptible to abuse. Without oversight there is no accountability and this secret court could rampantly issue improper and illegal warrants.

 

[Oldgamer]

In addition:

The government has not been forthcoming with even the most basic information about the operation of this secret court. Without this legislation, the government will continue to operate in secret, in contradiction to traditions of fairness and open government that have been the hallmark of our democracy.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, in the press conference today, Obama did make the claim that ALL in Congress have been briefed on the programs (plural!).

Enough Congresscritters have come forward and stated that is not true to make it reasonable to question Obama's honesty on the issue.

The quote that I see is this:

What you’ve got is two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, have been repeatedly authorized by Congress,” the president said. “Bipartisan majorities have approved them. Congress is continually briefed on how these are conducted. There are a whole range of safeguards involved. And federal judges are overseeing the entire program throughout.

That most certainly does NOT mean all members of Congress, it means Congress as a body. This oversight is conducted through the intelligence committees, as you do not brief all 535 members of Congress on top secret material.

Are you referring to a different quote? If not, your previous statement was just incorrect.

 

[Oldgamer]

The problem here is congress members are so constrained under a FISA court they can't speak out about their concerns, everything has been made super secret.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem here is congress members are so constrained under a FISA court they can't speak out about their concerns, everything has been made super secret.

Yes, the members of the intelligence committees cannot choose to unilaterally disclose classified information to people that are not cleared for it. Come on guys, I can't believe you're making me defend this. There are few people on here who are bigger critics of this secret spying than me, but you have not thought through the issues here.

Congress did not have to re-authorize FISA without changing the disclosure requirements. They chose to, as recently as 2012. If Congress is unhappy with the information it is getting, they can change that. They choose not to.

 

[momeNt]

If you don't like the level of privacy, go somewhere else. That is what freedom truly means. Nobody is forcing Americans to stay here, that is when you truly have a police state.

 

[fskimospy]

The real issue here is that Congress decided to make all this shit legal and keeps reauthorizing it. In this case as in so many others, Congress is too craven to actually stand up for not just our rights, but even its own institutional power. They want the ability to complain about lack of disclosure without actually having to do anything to fix it. Gross.

You want a more transparent, more adversarial FISA court? Me too. You want more limits on the government's ability to spy on you? Me too. The idea that Congress is somehow in the dark on this? Laughable.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, the members of the intelligence committees cannot choose to unilaterally disclose classified information to people that are not cleared for it. Come on guys, I can't believe you're making me defend this. There are few people on here who are bigger critics of this secret spying than me, but you have not thought through the issues here.

Congress did not have to re-authorize FISA without changing the disclosure requirements. They chose to, as recently as 2012. If Congress is unhappy with the information it is getting, they can change that. They choose not to.

Perhaps you can see how your spirited defenses of secret spying might confuse our perceptions of you as its biggest critic.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps you can see how your spirited defenses of secret spying might confuse our perceptions of you as its biggest critic.

If you guys are having problems with reading comprehension that are so severe that you can't see how correcting basic misconceptions (warrants vs. non-warrant, disclosure requirements to Congress) is not equal to defending these programs then you have far larger problems outside of this.

How are people supposed to debate something when they are not even clear on the basic facts of the case?

 

[Bowfinger]

Perhaps you can see how your spirited defenses of secret spying might confuse our perceptions of you as its biggest critic.

Perhaps I can pose this in such a blatant example that even you will be forced to understand it:

Me: Werepossum is a terrorist who built a bomb that killed 32 children. He is an evil person who supports terrorism against innocent children.

Werepossum: WTF? I didn't build a bomb, I didn't kill anyone, and of course I do not support terrorists attacking innocent children. I have been one of the biggest critics of any terrorists attacks.

Me: Perhaps you can see how your spirited defense of terrorism might confuse our perceptions of you as its biggest critic.
​

When the premise of your criticism is inaccurate, correcting your errors is not the same as supporting your target.

If you guys are having problems with reading comprehension that are so severe that you can't see how correcting basic misconceptions (warrants vs. non-warrant, disclosure requirements to Congress) is not equal to defending these programs then you have far larger problems outside of this.

How are people supposed to debate something when they are not even clear on the basic facts of the case?

Exactly so. This seems to be a theme in several recent threads.

 

[palehorse]

The quote that I see is this:
That most certainly does NOT mean all members of Congress, it means Congress as a body. This oversight is conducted through the intelligence committees, as you do not brief all 535 members of Congress on top secret material.

Are you referring to a different quote? If not, your previous statement was just incorrect.

I misspoke when I said "programs (plural!)" It appears that he only claimed that all of Congress has been briefed on the program involving telephone calls. You are correct that he only used the generic "Congress has been briefed" concerning the additional programs (internet companies, emails, etc) -- which was apparently limited to the Intelligence Committees.

"Now, the programs that have been discussed over the last couple days in the press are secret in the sense that they&#8217;re classified, but they&#8217;re not secret in the sense that when it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed on this program." -- Obama, 7 June 2013

(EDIT: I think you can see that Obama made it a little bit confusing when he himself switched from the plurals "programs" and "they're" to the singular "program" in the same sentence/breath quoted above. I'm going out on a limb that those word choices weren't accidental...)

I, for one, find it disturbing (it would be "amusing" if it wasn't so damn serious) that they can't/won't give all 535 members of Congress a TS/SCI clearance. I think we all know why they can't -- one word, "leaks"... or another word, "politician" -- but, that fact still says everything we need to known about the character of, or characters in, our Legislative branch...