Slashdot Mirror
NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring
Thanks to Bruce Schneier for pointing out the testimony from NSA Director Michael Hayden, in which he talks about how the NSA worked pre-9/11 and post. And, as Bruce pointed out "...[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety."
> where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety
Just dont ask me after a traumatizing event. I might say some things I regret down the road.
"Old man yells at systemd"
that the average American would want the line between liberty and safety drawn right at the national borders of the USA.
Ie the rest of the world is unsafe and the USA has liberty.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Counting on the government for saftey is like counting on them to spend your tax dollars wisely.
I choose Maximum Liberty. Please draw the line there.
Write to your senators. Write to your representative. Hell, write to your governors and state legislatures, just make it clear that you're not in favour of further restrictions on our rights.
Senators can be found here:
U.S. Senate Home
Representatives can be found here:
Representative Member Directory
If you do this, you have some form of say in our government, or at least a chance at influence. Don't waste it.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
With millions of cargo shipments coming in and thousands of planes in the air daily there's no way to secure it. The plans we've come up with seem similar to Microsoft's plans for 'Security'... i.e. The US governement seems to be securing their position rather than securing the people. I'd rather live in fear of terrorism than fear of the US government, something that's becoming more fearful everyday.
put the what in the where?
1 Eliminate civil liberties making security
:)
2
3 FREEDOM!
[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety
This is not good enough. Because liberty is a more abstract concept than security, people tend to choose security on the principle that only criminals have something to hide ... until their liberty is eroded to the extent that it causes them problems, by which time it is too late to go back.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Governments all around the world have been using the horrible events of September 11th to take away the rights guaranteed their citizens. It is not true, though, that giving up our rights actually makes us more secure.
Every time someone looks at the United States and wrongly believes that we live under a despotic and evil government, the world becomes a bit more dangerous for Americans. The sort of person who thinks that the United States is a horrible place is far more likely to be supportive to the insanity of radical-Islamist terrorism.
On the other hand, every time someone looks to the United States and envies our elections, our freedoms, our optimism, that is a victory in the war on terrorism. And with enough victories like that, I think that the world can truly become a safer place.
... on Tuesday.
Apparently, though, the US is just fine with (even welcoming and asking for more of) the kind of government that would pass USAPATRIOT.
Be careful what you wish for, USACITIZEN.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
I know that violating people's civil liberties including taking away their right to speech, privacy and due process makes it easier for law enforcement, but aside from being unconstitutional, it's also bad policework.
If you racially profile your suspects, then the Timothy McVeighs slip through. If you tap everyone's phone, then you become bogged down in terabytes of data -- most of which is useless. If you suppress the speech of the hate mongers and racists, then you don't know who is a hate monger or racist.
Civil liberties aren't just respectful of constitutional and human rights, they also help law enforcement do their job right. So don't ask for a line to be drawn. Try playing by the rules instead.
CAN we draw a line distinguishing safety and liberty?
Through liberty.. there will always be safety.. in the sense that.. someone (the government) will always control our liberty.. and at the same time a government will do all it can to protect its country, even if it includes hindering our liberty.
If one were to go around chanting anti-american remarks and burning the flag, by the Constitutional law.. they have every right to do that, but our government will see it as a threat and most likely arrest the individual.
Unfortunately, freedom and safety are both two very strenuous issues when being discussed together, but as far as "the line" goes.. I personally don't think a line can be drawn..
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
""...[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety." "
Why don't you just intercept their constituents' phone calls, email, web traffic, faxes, pages, and all other forms of electronic communications, and then you'll know exactly what they want.
Oh.. wait..
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
They crossed it about 5 minutes later when the Patriot Act passed. And don't kid yourselves, it has been said the patriot act is supposed to be somewhat limited and a temp measure....Yeah Right a Temp measure like the Federal Income Tax was supposed to be when it passed...
Honestly I scared...of all of the things going on...Homeland Security is a term that scares the hell out of me....
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Amen!
The concept of "Homeland Security" was invented 215 years ago with the 2nd amendment to our Constitution.
--- witty signature
This is like saying that we need to draw the line between electricity use and pollution. Wrong. We need to innovate. The answer to a security issue isn't to take away freedoms to make it easier on us; the answer is to use more advanced methods to maintain privacy and liberty AND enhance security.
While the question is phrased that way -- liberty vs safety -- it's the only question we can answer. If we say: liberty is inviolate, now how else do we protect people? Then that question may be answered instead.
these people are not elected, so they have no incentive to protect your rights.
Realisticly, do the people whom are elected do have a overwheming incentive to protect our rights?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
I voted. I voted for Libertarian candidates because I, like many people here, believe that the less intrusive government is, the better.
Writing letters and making phone calls only goes so far. No matter how many letters or phone calls legislators receive, it's still the same person who ignores them. The real solution is to get these people out of office and elect people who are more likely to give our concerns a voice.
So the next time you feel that our legislators truly aren't looking out for our interests, get your ass out of your chair and vote.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
"During that session I even said without exaggeration on my part or complaint on yours that if Usama bin Laden crossed the bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario to Niagara Falls, New York, U.S. law would give him certain protections that I would have to accommodate in the conduct of my mission. And now the third open session for the Director of NSA: I am here explaining what my Agency did or did not know with regard to 19 hijackers who were in this country legally."
It seems then, that the safest place for a terrorist to hide would be in US.
While you do not elect them, they are a government agency and they ultimately report to elected officials (indeed, this report is written for a Senate committee).
I am not an American, but I have met and worked with many fine people employed by the National Security Agency and I believe they are a great credit to your country. They are actively protecting you from real threats, and they have no secret agenda to destroy your freedoms.
In that light, the question posed here is entirely appropriate. There is a compromise between freedom and security, and the NSA is exactly right to ask the government to decide where the compromise should end up. And rest assured, it will end up where the American people say it should end up.
That may or may not give you some comfort. The decision-making capabilities of the American people can be questionable at times.
I personally think Michael Hayden stated the issue he faces, and we all face, extremely clearly, and thereby did us all a favor. I also think Benjamin Franklin drew the line where it needs to be drawn -- do not sacrifice essential liberty at all, and especially not for temporary safety.
The task we face is to determine which liberties are essential. I'd start with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and especially the First and Second Amendments. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of conscience and expression. The Second Amendment guarantees that individual citizens, rather than the government, hold the balance of power.
I'd also point to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as important. We must not carelessly and capriciously deny due process to those whom we suspect. Historically, when we have, we've done no good -- for the others or ourselves. (Remember the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII?)
Does anyone see anything important I've missed?
Catherine
The NSA is probably the most secretive organization in the world, after the Freemasons and the Elks
Something tells me you are forgetting an organization.
Lets be philosophical, shall we. The most secretive organizations in the world you (read: your average person) probably don't even know about, or its something people 'joke about'.
Yeah, I'm a Republican AND a geek. It is possible.
Draw the line between liberty and safety where it was on September 10, 2001.
It was not lack of security infrastructure that "allowed" the 9/11 attack. We had the infrastructure in place.
The hostile conspiracy had been testing the vigilance (or lack thereof) of the airport security screenings to _measure_ their complacency.
The hostile conspiracy was using techniques to keep their plans secret that would still work even if the present levels of internet monitoring and envelope steaming had been in place.
We have not really gained security. Observe that the perpetrator of the Anthrax letters still hasn't been identified, much less caught. Observe that the 2nd worst attack on U.S. territory, in OK City, was perpetrated by a U.S. citizen who used a rented panel truck. Safety still is just as illusory as it was before 9/11.
What has changed is that we've sacrificed liberty (or had it sacrificed for us) to create the image of security, without any real gains in security. Heavens, even Ashcroft admitted that U.S. agression abroad would probably increase our risk of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Security is not the objective. Control is the objective.
Draw the line between security and safety where it was before. We'd spent 35 years of hard civil liberties work to keep the words "national security" from being carte blanche for the abuse of our civil rights. Now we've got to regain that progress all over again. We _will_ regain it, even if it takes another 35 years to relearn the lessons.
Give me liberty or give me death. That seems pretty straight forward to me. If I have to die because I have freedom, so be it. I'm not gonna give it away, just so I can be "safe" and comfortably numb. That's where my line is drawn.
Is it not possible that, having already made the decision for security over liberty back in the 1970's when the tools of self defense were banned from aircraft (and post offices, and schools, I might add), these formerly free United States had become a haven for terrorists without any help from the NSA?
Didn't anybody ever watch "Red Dawn?"
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
Sheesh, where do folks get goofy ideas like this? Travel, see the world! There are a thousand places I'd rather be than one of the scarier parts of Boston, Chicago, New York, DC (and yes I've often been to or lived in these places). It says something about how the rest of the world is mostly OK, and much of our world sadly is not.
And, anyway, "security" here includes security from one's own gov't -- one of the fundsmental concepts the Revolutionary War was fought over, and the Bill of Right designed to address.
"I then gave the NSA workforce a challenge: We were going to keep America free by making Americans feel safe again."
This could be interpreted a number of ways, but it seems as though he realizes the biggest threat to civil liberties comes from scared citizens.
The decision-making capabilities of the American people can be questionable at times.
Oh, you mean like this?
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah.
The 9th and the 10th which pretty explicitly limit federal powers to those granted to it by the people, while reserving those not explicitly graned to the states and the people.
Unforuntately, the 9 idiots on the bench have effectively destroyed both of these amendments, and are doing a bangup job on the 4th.
We, in the US, live in a climate of fear that has been nurtured by our government and the media for a very long time. We have ignored many of the problems in nations throughout the world and focused on being the toughest MF'er on the block. As king of the heap, we have to protect our position. In order to do that we have to justify it to the American people by daily demonstrating the need for that protection--that everyone is out to get us. It becomes a catch-22 situation. The need for security and the means of ensuring that security creates an ever increasing need for more security. Of course, ultimately, our rights must suffer.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
First we should start by questioning the assumption that loss of liberty even will buy us safety.
This needs to be done, on a point-by-point basis for each and every liberty that is being compromised. In engineering decisions there's always 'nice to have' and 'must have'. There are also times when the customer is asking for the wrong thing, and you can give a different solution that satisifes him even better than what he'd asked for. As far as I can see, current liberty/security tradeoffs appear to be a shopping list, without effectiveness review or modifications.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The decision-making capabilities of the American people can be questionable at times.
Everytime I think about these things, I'm reminded of the basic theme to Star Wars. When will the citizens of the US vote for GWB to be our supreme and all-powerful tyrant?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Whoa, they have to ask Disney AND the oil industry? Unprecedented!
(PS: It's a joke. Please don't tap my phone line.)
Absolutely. This is why many citizens have called from police review boards responsive to elected officials. Consider, for example the Red Squads of the Los Angeles Police Department. Established outside the review and control of elected officials, the LAPD has seen itself as an elite "government within a government", to the point of keeping files on elected officials.
You are damn right I don't trust unelected and unaccountable police officials!
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
I find this remark very interesting, because a great American once said this:
"Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That man was Ben Franklin, and his words are more true today than ever before.
I couldn't resist. Go easy on me.
Evil is the money of root.
You only missed your fourth amendment right to not have your home torn apart in a search whenever someone in power decides that it's time to put you back in line.
Or your fifth amendment rights to not be hounded by the prosecution, and tried innumerable times on (possibly the same) bogus charge.
Or your sixth amendment right to be tried promptly, or to face your accusers and their accusations, or be able to call witnesses in your defense, or ask for the assistance of a lawyer.
Or your seventh and eighth amendment rights.
There are some easy ways to be safe in an interdependent community: pay close attention to your government and get them to try and be a force for good in the world.
h t/WTC_zawahiri0101002.html
1) Instead of bombing attacking Iraq for oil (come on, you don't honestly expect the rest of the world to believe its a terrorist thing do you?) why not actually encourage democracy in the Middle East? Sure there will be some Islamic governments elected. Let them run things for a bit to deflate them. It has been said by a late Quebec politician that "when one is in opposition, one can speak poetry, but when one is in power, one must speak prose." Let the fundamentalists speak prose for a while. That'll allow their voters to see the backwards bumkins they really are.
If you absolutely insist upon bombing Iraq, state that you could live with Iraq's next government joining OPEC and pledge that no US owned oil industry interests will be allowed to profit from Iraqi reserves (That goes for you too Cheney! ; ) ). Only then will most of the world know that the Administration is sincere. (Like that is going to happen.)
2) Try giving some aid to help out the little guys in under developed countries instead of supporting brutal regimes which happen to be friendly to your economic 'interests'. Sure you can cow-tow governments, but you can't cow-tow people living under those governments, and those people hating the US government has been your problem of late. Continuance of this policy just helps the recruitement efforts for Al Qaeda and other organizations like it. US supported Egypt (a "friendly") will round up more fundamentalists in the name of a "war on terror", torture them, and eventually release them as well adjusted citizens without a care in the world. Egypt's government has helped create this froot loop: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonig
The USA doesn't give much aid to the poor in the world in terms of its wealth. And one third of that budget goes to Isreal to buy helicopters, tanks, etc. The Isreali government is not the "kinder gentler" sort--not that the PLO or Hamas is... But when non-US news casts show the results of helicopters firing missles at a car full of Hamas dudes on a crowed street, everyone knows that Apache(TM) helicopters--"Made in the USA". Whether you agree with the Isreali actions or not, this imagery speaks louder than any US government commercial could to Muslims. In order to extend the image of the US being a "promoter of democracy, peace and freedom" outside your borders, your government should learn when to "take the toys from the boys". Not simply for the symbolism, but also for the practical well being of the world, and for your own citizens too.
3) Take a stand. Take a stand for democracy in China. Trade is important but not everything. Don't pander to the Russian government for their vote on the security council by giving them a free ride on their war in Chechnia. They are brutal to the Chechins who want their own state, and always have. Not saying taking hostages is a great thing either. duh.
4) If Americans truely believe in democracy, they cannot simultaniously believe that the US government's foreign adventurism can be represented by the wishes of foreign citizens. These people do not vote on the policies that affect them and so their well being is not a major consideration. Nobody asks average Iraqis whether they are "better off now than in the last four years". Not the Iraqi government for obvious reasons, but not the US government either. They're screwed either way.
How to change that? Participate in the international community when others want help, not just when you want help. There have been a bunch of international agreements which the US has been absent from the table: Agreements on child soldures, land mines, non-proliferation of nuclear materials, international courts, Kioto. The US has not been at the table with most other civilized countries, but suddenly GB wants the UN's help to legitimize it's war efforts, saying the UN will be a League of Nations if it allows Iraq to ignore the UN!!!! Well, kettle black pot calling. George shoulda been there two years ago. Not like the UN is far away.
It isn't that the US is a modern Roman Empire or a Nazi Germany. It is simply that the US uniquely has such an opportunity to make the world a better place and in so doing, earn a good name for itself. Sadly, it appears to be squandering this opportunity because it can't get out of it's 50s thinking: play this state against that state and we'll come out ahead. Al Qaeda has begun to think out of the box and shown that individuals--not only states--can have tremedous destructive power. As a countermeasure, shouldn't the US learn to think outside of the box to help improve the lot of the unlucky individuals in the world, not simply the wellbeing of their puppet governments?
Improving the security of US citizens in the world cannot be viewed as simply a military affair. Nor can it be improved simply by espionage as the NSA would have people believe. It is not closing off your borders to someone who happens to be born in Syria.
It is largely because the US is being seen as the power that helps prevent you from voting for the future leaders in your own country, as in Saudi Arabia. Or being buddy-buddy with the state that shells your house as in the refugee camps in Palistine. Or pals with the Russian government that deports your village to Siberia as in Chechnia. Or financier of the government that tortures you for your regigious beliefs.
Rationally none of this justifies killing people, but if it was your country, family, village or you, you might not be rational anymore.
So improve your image in the world by improving yourselves. This is how to be safe.
Cheers,
-b
Oh, sorry, is this Kuro5hin? ; )
The level of freedom a society can handle is directly proportional to the level of self-discipline they maintain. If there is no self-discipline, the society will impose third-party discipline, whether that be the state or the neighbors, thereby eliminating the freedom of the undisciplined, and, frequently at the expense of the rights of the disciplined.
The government and media recently have turned this debate into a balance between security and freedom, but the reality is that a society can very well have both as long as the members are willing to discipline themselves without the need of an intervening society that is attempting to protect itself from a genuine or supposed threat.
The other part of this equation, then, is that the society consists of self-disciplined individuals who want to ensure that the line between security and freedom is not being redrawn in the face of conjectured threats or threats that do not affect the disciplined. If an undisciplined segment of the society wants to attempt a powergrab, then it will be by manufacturing and exaggerating threats so that the disciplined are willing to redraw the line needlessly.
The undisciplined fraction in society is like a flea on a dog's tail, and the disciplined class is more often than not, chewing its own tail to the bone in an effort to rid itself of the menace.
Libertarians In A Nutshell - As a party, Libertarians support the political philosophy of "libertarianism." This philosophy states that you, as an individual, know best how to live your own life. Not the government.
Obviously, you don't know a whole hell of a lot about Libertarianism or you wouldn't make such sweeping generalizations about us (yes, I am one) and our ideas. Not all Libertarians believe that we can one day just scrap police and fire protection, get rid of the entire governmental structure and leave people to fend for themselves. We don't want to destroy the world as we know it and replace with entirely privatized options. It's this kind of FUD that keeps the party down.
The LP wants to:
# Substantially reduce the size and intrusiveness of government and cut all taxes.
# Let peaceful, honest people offer their goods and services to willing consumers without a hassle from government.
# Let peaceful, honest people decide for themselves what to eat, drink, read, or smoke and how to dress, medicate themselves, or make love, without fear of criminal penalties.
# The U.S. government should defend Americans and their property in America and let the U.S. taxpayer off the hook for the defense bill of wealthy countries like Germany and Japan.
Stick to posting about topics you know. www.lp.org would be a good start to your reading.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.