NSA and your communications

I knew from the beginning of my time on this majestic earth that technology was going to get out of hand and that the government uses it to spy on us.

 

I wander who has to go through the porn on everyone's computer.

 

It's inexcusable. I don't care what there reasons are. And from what I can tell, I'm not the only one who thinks so. Europe is pissed.

 

It’s inexcusable. I don’t care what there reasons are. And from what I can tell, I’m not the only one who thinks so. Europe is pissed.


Well while I understand their reasoning I also believe its gone too far. Maybe their honest about it today but no one should have that kind of power since it will invite all kinds of privacy concern. Also this...security doesn't even make me feel safe. I don't think this would even work. Won't terrorists simply change the method they use to plan attacks? Ever hear of codenames and stuff?

For a government in huge debt it seems to have no problem fueling the military industrial complex. President Obama is no different then our last President. Just following the status quo. Eisenhower's fear of this invasive government seems to be becoming true.

We have to stop this. We are going down a road I was not raised to believe existed in America.

 

The NSA's wiretapping was done without a FISA court warrant. The NSA's Prism project was done WITH a FISA court warrant. Which brings up a problematic issue with the FISA law, it doesn't limit or hold responsible for domestic surveillance or intelligence gathering. The FISA court was always understood to be very uncritical but with new information hinting they have never denied one petition for a FISA warrant gives me the impression that this is a rubber stamp court.
The domestic surveillance and intelligence gathering has been happening from time immemorial, what is a bit new is the new hyper-surveillance issue with new technologies making the distinctions in privacy much more difficult to measure, which is a topic I brought up on the last board.

How I feel about it? I think the NSA has sincere and benign intentions of seeking out potential organized crime and terrorism. I have objection to the construction of infrastructure that could be used with less sincere or benign purposes. I believe that the plethora of data the NSA is collecting most likely lacks the proper data-mining artificial intelligence to be a big contributor to the intelligence community and that less abrasive measures could be taken to accomplish the same goals of domestic surveillance and intelligence gathering.

What would I like done? I think it is time for a FISA court that has jursidiction over these cases should have more openess to review by the congress and perhaps relevant state organs. I also think the burden required in the FISA court should be raised and a judge appointed who is going to be more critical than the one that there is now.

I agree with the ACLU and ever so surprisingly High Justice Antonin Scalia that the FISA court is essentially issuing blank warrants for the purpose of surveillance and intelligence gathering, which is a direct violation of the bill of rights and the intention it was written. But for better or worse I don't see anything changing about this long  judicially tolerated practice.

In the most ideal of worlds FISA, the PATRIOT act, and similar legislation should be reversed since they in so many ways act like an anti-bill of rights undermining and contradicting bill of rights in everything that was noble about it. But... I really just don't see that happening any time soon. In a sense it reminds me of the old expression, "The road to hell is paved in good intentions."

 

I think Dragon put things nicely, I can hardly think of much to add.

As a non-American the implications of these pieces of American policy (that are already dubious in their own country) on a foreign populace bother me. If the NSA is perfectly willing to spy on its own people I don't see any reason why they would shy away from spying on foreigners.

 

Apparently President Obama has reluctantly agreed to support reform that may include increased openness/transparency, public relations by these agencies, civil liberties/privacy advocates within the organizes themselves, increased burden of proof by the FISA court, increased oversight, an adversarial judge in the FISA court, and to put in safeguards to prevent the systems being used against Americans.

 

I wander who has to go through the porn on everyone’s computer.




I wonder who's the poor bastard charged with monitoring 4chan?



@Topic



Out of the latest news, our government is basically digging a bigger grave than Neville Chamberlain did with trying to deal with Hitler's little party in Europe. First they decide to spy on our phones domestically, then our social networks (FB, Twitter, etc), and now they decide to monitor Angela Merkel's phone calls? If these morons have any sort of common sense (which I think has been flushed down the toilet after they decided to shut down the government for two weeks), they'll stop all this crap now so we can salvage whatever's left of what we once called a "nation".

 

They have no right to such things. It's one thing to spy on other countries but to spy on your own people makes it seem as though American citizens are the new enemy.

 

They have no right to such things. It’s one thing to spy on other countries but to spy on your own people makes it seem as though American citizens are the new enemy.




Actually, they sort of do. If you've ever read the Constitution, it does not state anywhere that individuals have any rights to privacy/



Also, I fail to grasp the concept of spying on our allies' communications. I can understand if it was an ally like Pakistan or something like that, where our "friendship" is a bit shaky, but to spy on clear allies like Germany is completely unprecedented. What? Does Obama think that the Germans are gonna start a new fascist government and have another killing spree across Europe? That's about as likely as Israel and its neighbors finally making nice and deciding not to throw their fun little toys across their borders.

 

Takeshi wrote:
They have no right to such things. It’s one thing to spy on other countries but to spy on your own people makes it seem as though American citizens are the new enemy.



Actually, they sort of do. If you’ve ever read the Constitution, it does not state anywhere that individuals have any rights to privacy/



Also, I fail to grasp the concept of spying on our allies’ communications. I can understand if it was an ally like Pakistan or something like that, where our “friendship” is a bit shaky, but to spy on clear allies like Germany is completely unprecedented. What? Does Obama think that the Germans are gonna start a new fascist government and have another killing spree across Europe? That’s about as likely as Israel and its neighbors finally making nice and deciding not to throw their fun little toys across their borders.


I think that the 4th ammendment covers us. I may be a senior college student in biology, but I think that'd be unreasonable searches.
The idea is that if a group of German muslims decides to make an attack there or abroad we can tell them. And there's no real problem to the US government even if Germany doesn't want this. If it's the US that is being spied on, we possibly could make a third party that says stop this shit if both sides say that it's still necessary, and if it's someplace like Pakistan we need them for regional politics. But Germany, oh they'll just tell us to stop, and then we continue and that continues ad infinitum.

 

Timekeeper wrote:

Takeshi wrote:
They have no right to such things. It’s one thing to spy on other countries but to spy on your own people makes it seem as though American citizens are the new enemy.
Actually, they sort of do. If you’ve ever read the Constitution, it does not state anywhere that individuals have any rights to privacy/ Also, I fail to grasp the concept of spying on our allies’ communications. I can understand if it was an ally like Pakistan or something like that, where our “friendship” is a bit shaky, but to spy on clear allies like Germany is completely unprecedented. What? Does Obama think that the Germans are gonna start a new fascist government and have another killing spree across Europe? That’s about as likely as Israel and its neighbors finally making nice and deciding not to throw their fun little toys across their borders.
I think that the 4th ammendment covers us. I may be a senior college student in biology, but I think that’d be unreasonable searches.
The idea is that if a group of German muslims decides to make an attack there or abroad we can tell them. And there’s no real problem to the US government even if Germany doesn’t want this. If it’s the US that is being spied on, we possibly could make a third party that says stop this shit if both sides say that it’s still necessary, and if it’s someplace like Pakistan we need them for regional politics. But Germany, oh they’ll just tell us to stop, and then we continue and that continues ad infinitum.


The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, so it would be up to them whether or not that is covered.  But, in my opinion, yeah that makes sense.  I don't feel that they have the right to just do that under the table.  However, we live in an age where warfare is almost solely anti-terrorism efforts, cyber-warfare, gorilla fighting, and counter espionage.  In other words, most everything is under the table.  Though things going on without the peoples consent or knowledge has been happening for a long time.  But it seems to be a central focus these days.

Personally, I think it's wrong, but I also don't really care.  I can see how it could be a slippery slope and raises the question "what else could they be hiding?"  Certainly it is an invasion of privacy and wasn't done through exactly legal channels or methods.  But at the same time, to wire tapping and surveillance in particular, I feel kind of indifferent.  I certainly don't have anything to hide.   Of course I've seen government statements on how to determine if someone could be a terrorist and the descriptions could fit just about anyone.

If it helps them catch the bad guys, I don't care.  But I don't care if they stop doing so either.  There are certainly other methods of finding "home-grown" terrorists or sleeper cells.

So I guess, overall, I'm indifferent, or have a mild opinion

 

Heh. When it comes to respecting privacy outside of the United States, of non-american citizens, and for intelligence gathering with some purpose of national security the courts have generally ruled that the fourth amendment does not apply. HOWEVER the issue in this matter is not constitutional law but rather treaty obligations (implied and explicit). The United States has more or less agreed not to do covert surveillance on or within allied nations aligned with NATO (this is overly simplified).​

 

Heh. When it comes to respecting privacy outside of the United States, of non-american citizens, and for intelligence gathering with some purpose of national security the courts have generally ruled that the fourth amendment does not apply. HOWEVER the issue in this matter is not constitutional law but rather treaty obligations (implied and explicit). The United States has more or less agreed not to do covert surveillance on or within allied nations aligned with NATO (this is overly simplified).

​

I don't know a huge amount about these things, but as I understand it US intelligence has some standing agreement with UK intelligence to surveil UK citizens, so I have my doubts as to how much impact these treaties will have.

 

Skeptical Dragon wrote:

Heh. When it comes to respecting privacy outside of the United States, of non-american citizens, and for intelligence gathering with some purpose of national security the courts have generally ruled that the fourth amendment does not apply. HOWEVER the issue in this matter is not constitutional law but rather treaty obligations (implied and explicit). The United States has more or less agreed not to do covert surveillance on or within allied nations aligned with NATO (this is overly simplified).​

I don’t know a huge amount about these things, but as I understand it US intelligence has some standing agreement with UK intelligence to surveil UK citizens, so I have my doubts as to how much impact these treaties will have.
The key word is "covert" (in the sense of concealed, secret, disguised, deceptively, without permission). But something that the Obama administration is oddly not arguing is that all of the NATO allies do some spying on each other and in a sense that can be healthy for the alliance. President Obama has a history of thinking that our intelligence and espionage has become senselessly too broad, unwarranted, inefficient, and offensive. NOT that he disagrees with the idea or programs themselves but rather that there should be some curtailing of these powers of state... so maybe it is not too surprising.

The United States is progressively becoming in more 'hot water' as the metaphor goes in regards to respecting international obligations be it sovereignty of other nations, treaties, the paying of debts, to rights of civilians or non-combatants at GITMO, and the treatment of our own allies. And sadly not all of this is President Obama's wanting or doing... he does not have an easy job.

 

I read something funny that it was possible that the NSA was even spying on the Vatican. Guess they thought the pope was a terrorist

I'm tired of Obama claiming ignorance. No one can be that clueless and be a president. The guy knew all about this and probably thought nothing was wrong about it.

 

I read something funny that it was possible that the NSA was even spying on the Vatican. Guess they thought the pope was a terrorist I’m tired of Obama claiming ignorance. No one can be that clueless and be a president. The guy knew all about this and probably thought nothing was wrong about it.​

​

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDfmUK833hc[/video]

While I am very skeptical about President Obama's alleged 'plausible deniability' and I disagree with it as a policy... but it has become entrenched within the law, policies, and practice of government. So it is possible... but President Obama is playing a dangerous game of invoking such a defense so frequently as it will greatly discredit him or his advocates if it shown to be wrong...

The Daily Show did a wonderful tease of President Obama on how frequently he invokes this defense at the end of the above video... Because the video is out of date some of the issues in it have since been somewhat resolved or discredited... But it is still relevant.​