Slashdot Mirror
Americans Not Bothered by NSA Spying
Snap E Tom writes "According to a Washington Post poll, a majority (63%) of Americans 'said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism.' A slightly higher majority would not be bothered if the NSA collected personal calls that they made. Even though the program has received bi-partisan criticism from Congress, it appears that the public values security over privacy."
Let me guess, these polls were done by phone?
... how do you feel about that? ... you mean they can record transcripts of phone calls? ... we do use AT&T.
Washington Post: Hello, do you have a minute to take a survey?
Citizen: Of course I do!
Washington Post: Great! We were just wondering whether you're concerned with the recent news of the NSA?
Citizen: You mean the fact that they are collecting the phone call records made and recieved by each citizen of the United States?
Washington Post: Yes, probably even this very phone call right now
Citizen: I'm fuckin' pissed!
Washington Post: So you're conncerned? You know, on our last poll about the NSA, the one where we covered them routing and recording phone calls, people sure answered differently.
Citizen: Wait a second
Washington Post: Yes, probably even this very phone call right now
Citizen: Ah, I've changed my mine. I am completely fine with this acceptable form of combating terrorism. Sic Heil Bush & all that jazz. I love my country and would sacrifice every bit of privacy for it. Goodbye!
My work here is dung.
Then they'll have neither.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Benjamin Franklin must be spinning in his grave...
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
from the getting-the-government-they-deserve dept.
Nuff said.
This guy's the limit!
It depends on how the data is handled and stored, who gets to analyze it, how long it's kept, where else it can be used, etc., etc., etc. And it depends on whether it is legal or not.
It's might be OK for the NSA to use who you call to establish close ties to a terrorist.
It's not OK for the current conservative White House to use your phone contacts to estimate your opinion of the current energy policy.
It's not OK for Homeland Security to use your phone contacts to require extra screening at airports because you work with legitimate exporters in the middle east.
It's not OK for the RIAA to gain access (via the FBI?) to your phone contacts to use for guilty by association accusations in their ridiculous lawsuits.
Bottom line, do you trust this Presidency to stay within the law governing privacy, search and seizure, and due process? At this point, the current administration has basically said (without using so many words) that they are above the law. However, as an American citizen, I can very definitely say they are NOT above the law. This country is a country ruled by law and there is nothing short of a coup that the president can do about it. In fact, according to the law, if the President acts outside of the law, he (by law) would no longer have presidential authority. It's about time our elected officials learned how to stand up to the White House. Terrorism or no terrorism, the United States of American is first and foremost a country ruled by law, not by men.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
-Thomas Jefferson
...A slightly higher majority would not be bothered if the NSA collected personal calls that they made...
Just so long as they spoke dirty and pretended to be a girl
"Hi my name is Agent Sexbitch and I'm not wearing my regulation black suit. I'm a naughty agent...."
-- "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!"
Knowing that their answers may be monitored, what do you think they'd say? These, after all, were done over the phone.
We're talking about Americans here. They're much better at rhetoric about how great and free they are than actually getting upset when their leaders turn out to be blatantly trampling rights enshrined in the constitution.
It's been a long time.
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone May 11, 2006 among 502 randomly selected adults.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Why are stories like this a surprise? The American people, by and large, are perfectly happy with their new totalitarian fascist state.
Those who really value freedom and democracy would be best served by leaving the damned place so we can see those who remain for the festering boil on humanity's behind that they truly are.
it appears that the public values security over privacy
How do they come to the conclusion that spying is equivalent to security? Allowing assumptions like this to slip into one's language create the way towards further invasions of basic rights.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Randomly snatching up people from the streets and interrogating them would give more security than this!
Where is the hard data that secretly/unconstitutionally violating a whole nation's rights would have any positive effects? If anything the whole thing just encourages rogue groups serving their own interests to exploit everything they can and without being accountable to anyone. There is a reason we have (had) privacy and it's not because the state is so kind to us, but because in the long run, it makes economic sense! So basically by allowing this, people are causing at the very least damage to the economy so to everyone in the USA.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Baa!
Tell me how many other recent events haven't shown the disconnect between those who preach and preen in Washington and the population at large?
Immigration reform almost plays identically, the people want action and the politicians want face time.
I am not surprised at the poll numbers. Simple reason really, Americans on a whole don't really care about much unless its affecting them directly. This apathy if you will call it that is part of the built up "immune" system most develop to deal with the world around them.
What is becoming more evident to many of us is just how disconnected Washington DC politicians are from those of us who put them there. Those twits are more interested into playing to the cameras than doing what we want. Worse, they have the gall to ignore us and then wonder why we don't want them back?
when voting sometimes I think the (I) next to the name should indicate who to vote against this year.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
All privacy issues aside, what good does it do to monitor every phone call if the bad guys are using pre-paid cell phones? Something tells me that a majority of bad guys are not signing up for cell phone contracts to conspire against the government.
Say the government does note a phone call made from a prepaid phone that happens to be conspiring, at the end of the call (or several) the bad guy will just throw away that phone and get another.
So is tracking every single call really doing anything to benefit national security?
/whisper/ Thanks for the candy!
Coming soon to a country near you:
"According to a Washington Post poll, a majority (63%) of Americans 'said they found the daily anal cavity searches to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism.' A slightly higher majority would not be bothered if the NSA collected samples from their anal cavity. Even though the program has received bi-partisan criticism from Congress, it appears that the public values security over privacy."
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Those who attempt to gain karma by trying to summarize a complex issue with a one-line quote will have have done neither.
Anyone who utters the words: "If you've done nothing wrong, then what are you afraid of?" should immediately be put on the no-fly list.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
And the other 37% were put straight onto the NSA potential terrorist list.
To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
In other news, a survey found that the majority of Americans don't understand why the rest of the world view them as dumb, mindless sheep.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
I find this poll suspect - it CERTAINLY has a sampling bias error for starters
where were these people, what was their demographic, did they include cell phone users, etc
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Scaring Americans into giving up their privacy is really getting old. A large scale terrorism attack is still very much possible today. Mistake after mistake has shown this. It's a dog and pony show. The presentation has changed, but gaping holes still exist. Amercians somehow believe losing their rights is helping terrorism, but in reality its not. Before 9/11 terrorism was almost non-existant in America. After 9/11 it's almost non-existant. Looking at raw numbers, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of things you should be more worried about killing you than a terrorist. Statistically I'd be more worried about being killed by a shark in the US.
And I can't believe people are actually fooled into thinking somehow terrorism is a major threat. If you want to save the most amount of lives with the least amount of effort, fight obesity. It accounts for most of the top killers in America today.
But obesity isn't patriotic. You can't hang a flag outside your house supporting the war on fat.
Get a fucking clue people. Terrorism isn't a threat to your daily lives. If you actually think it is, then you've been emotionally manipulated by people who want your money and/or votes.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
shows that 83% of all statistics are made-up on the spot
"Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Okay, the NSA is just making correlations between calls. However, if any actor can be tied to Kevin Bacon in 6 steps, and any person to the President in 6 steps, doesn't this mean the NSA can tie any phone user to a terrorist at will in 6 steps or less?
"I called my auto mechanic, who called a customer, who once called a lawyer friend, who represented a terrorist. So now I'm flagged as 'communicating with a terrorist'".
Worse, the only way to weed out such 'spurious connections' is, of course, to get more detailed records of exactly who was called, and why, and what was said. So the concept is inherently flawed and can only be fixed by further privacy violations.
A.
Did anybody else think they were reading an Onion article?
Who are they polling? Joe Sixpack? Why does it seem I am so consistently diametrically opposed, opinion-wise, to the "average" American? ...
In a separate poll, 99.9998% (margin of error, 0.5%) of Slashdotters said the NSA has no business monitoring domestic telephone conversations in any way, "terrorism" or no.
But they do care a lot about security. It's not just a culture of terrorism, but it is a big push today everywhere. It's more of a culture of fear that society perpetuates on itself. I recommend reading Corey Robin's Fear for more about this.
Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
But not when the public is to afraid to respond with forethought! Sometimes, we need the age of our Senators to play its very real and calculated role and tell everyone the dangers of "guilty until proven innocent." Per Ben they may deserve neither security or freedom, but we still must tell the public loudly and frequently why we must check this encrouchment of our liberty for fear of where it may take us.
Perhaps X-Men 3 could play a role in this discussion?
PaGeN
When a Ball Dreams, It Dreams it's a Frisbee.
This is a very new story. People's ultimate reaction to it will depend a lot on the way the media covers the story, and whether they even bother to cover it. If they cover domestic spying the same way they did the run up to the War in Iraq, of course, nobody will care, because they will all have been lied to and misled. On the other hand, if the media raises the point that there's a legal way for the government to do this, but for some reason they don't want to do it legally, and then go on to describe the fact that the special terrorist-fighting judges that have been 99.9% supportive of the Administration's efforts to fight terrorism are being purposely kept out of the loop because the President and his men don't want anybody to know what they're really doing, well then, that's a different story. Then again, it may be too late for op-ed columns and political blogs to have any effect. When the Administration stops even bothering to keep up the appearance of responsible leadership, we have definitely entered "V for Vendetta" territory. It might be that only massive numbers of people in the streets is the only way for America to stay free.
You are welcome on my lawn.
... and therefore it really doesn't matter what the majority thinks. Sure, there is a strong influence of public opinion on the creation of new laws, but basic rights are protected against the tyranny (or apathy) of the majority.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
2/3 of x population is stupid/ignorant. Holds true where I work, seems to hold true in this poll, my friends, family...
Of that 63%, 50% were promised that they would not be deported if they answered yes.
So just use some kind of encryption
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
As we all know "terrorism" is the root password to the Constitution. This question asks only about terrorism. I wonder what their answers would be if the question was:
"Do you find the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate drug use?"
or
"Do you find the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate copyright infringment?"
We all know these programs will not be used for only terrorism, but for everyday crimes. Will people care then?
Americans pride themselves (ourselves) as being strong and tough. The reality is that our country would not be in the state it is in if Americans weren't so utterly terrified of terrorism. Is it terrifying? Yes. But that's what toughness is - standing up to something that scares you. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be gun toting crazy fucks who prowl the borders searching for terrorists to chase with assault rifles. Instead it seems the party now stands for giving up personal freedom to hide from the terrorists behind a wall of helplessness. C'mon, you need to pick one, having guns, or having the government watch and protect you like your mother. You don't get both. Then again, I guess if the government only illegally detains arab citizens it's not so bad. Sigh...
They only polled 502 people and did it all in one night. It seems like that would lend itself to sampling errors.
...us getting the government they deserve.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
Corporations already have this info. Corporations run this country.
Hell, Exxon declared war on Iraq.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
A couple of years ago I brought the data mining crap up with the guys at the bar, and they all did the "If you didn't do anything wrong" bit.
They they got on the phone to their coke dealers and made some sports bets.
Duh.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Americans who have given up on caring about anything truthful being discussed in today's world are not bothered by NSA spying.
Seriously, if the NSA will not give security clearances (thereby stopping the investigation) to the Federal Prosecutors trying to investigate this alleged spying on Americans, does the US actually have ANY checks and balances on uncontrolled power?
More importantly, does anyone even care?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
They should care about what the usa patriot act did; basically said that any information that was gather in the persuit of terrorists could be handed over to doj (and others) for their use; the patriot act that so many have been busy defending turned the FBI into the KGB. And yet, the same group will continue to defend it and not notice the fact that a number of interesting breaks have occured recently. Has anybody been paying attention to the news about how certain mafia has been caught, or coast to coast gangs have been stopped, or how karl rove KNEW so much about the democrats, or ....
And yet, what do you bet that the democrats do not notice all this; or go along with the quieting of sibel edmunds just because a few dems will also be caught in the net.
USSA is now here.
They are not all of Americans. They are those Americans who read their paper. Come on seriously now. 63% is a high number of people who would agree to this. I see this number being more representative of higher-middle class conservative individuals.
I've come up with a way to reduce—perhaps even eliminate—our dependence on foreign oil as an energy source.
As more and more civil liberties are trampled upon, faster and faster will the Founding Fathers spin in their respective graves.
If we attach magnets to each Founding Father, then wrap copper wire around each of them, we should have a potentially unlimited energy source. Well, at least until the Libertarians get elected in significant numbers—so yeah, come to think of it, it truly is unlimited.
The AC frequency, of course, might be unpredictable. In fact, I'd suspect it will be ever-increasing, which could create some technical issues to overcome. But we're smart people, I'm sure we can figure it out.
What do you all say? Shall we write up a grant proposal?
OK. But do we have a right to use anonymity/privacy to hide wrongdoings? At the time of the founding of the Republic and drafting the US Constitution, the world was a very different place. People knew each other, and would watch strangers. We now have mechanized mobility and electronic communications. Shouldn't monitoring be similarly enabled to preserve balance?
Clearly abuses must be avoided. But at what cost? Aren't there better ways (like "Fruit of the Poisoned Vine") to stop abuse without unduly impairing activity? Aren't the police & government "innocent until proiven guilty" too?
Queue all the prejudice U.S.A. bashing by those so eager to degrade another group of people that a survey of 502 people casts a shadow large enough to place a nation of 300 million under it.
I hate you people!! It's bad enough that you believed that this was not happening all along. Long before September 11th. But now that you know about it, you're glad to give up your rights/freedom/privacy!!!
They were doing it from at least the 70's that I know of and it hasn't provided ANY security! It has only stripped you and me of our freedoms.
You people suck! This "news", the latest in a recent string of "revelations", should have cause complete outrage in 100% of the American population. Instead you display apathy and the government discusses making future such revelations crimes against the state!
"Those who attempt to gain karma by trying to summarize a complex issue with a one-line quote will have have done neither."
--flynt (248848)
A push poll is one where they decide in advance what they want to find, and construct loaded questions that people will have to answer their way. I suspect that this was a push poll. WKRC TV in Cincainnati did a similar poll on last night's news asking whether NSA domestic spying was an invasion of privacy, or homeland security. 70% said invasion of privacy.
How ya like dat?
Can you site in the Constitution or the Bill of Right where it states that the list of people you call on your phone is an essential liberty?
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
it appears that the public values security over privacy
What a load of BS. What you should have said was that the public values security over the "privacy" of known Al Qaeda agents trying to murder us.
If you aren't Al Qaeda, if you aren't calling Al Qaeda, and if Al Qaeda isn't calling you then you aren't being spied upon without a warrant. Period, end of story, nothing more to see here. Those who call this issue domestic spying are flat out liars and spinsters. Call it what it is -- Al Qaeda spying. Domestic spying sounds much more threatening to the American people, but even when you lie you still have 63% of the people informed about the issue going along with the program. This is not a tragedy, it is not a sign of the decline of America. If anything it is testament to the intelligence of the American people. We aren't falling hook, line and sinker for the mainstream media's BS catch of the day.
Just patent it... You'll be fine.
I thought of including that theory in my post, but I didn't want it to be even more lame than it already is ;-)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
When you don't teach people about the importance of civil liberties, it's no wonder they don't defend them. Bring back civics classes!
I'm thinking (I), (R), or (D) next to the name indicates who to vote against this year.
Every Incumbent, every Republican, and every Democrat has failed us. Time to try something new. Just not sure what.
Played around with being a Libertarian for a while, but that's not really what I want.
What I'd like to find is a party of the middle class. Which class is that?
Republicans seem to be the party of the rich, Democrats seem to be the party of the poor.
Who is looking out for all us middle class citizens? I'll join that party. But I don't know if such a thing exists.
The point is not how ignorant the general public is, the point is that the government is breaking the law. Mind you, it can change the law if it wants too, but the fact is, it hasn't changed the law.
This a far cry from attempting to record every call. The corporate data miners are putting together far more information on private citizens then this. And yes, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the NSA has agreements, err, back doors, with some of the data mining companies to help put it all together.
People (and the press) should focus there energies first on the bits that do seem clearly illegal, like wiretapping without warrants.
Why do people fly off the handle over things like this. This program does not invade your privacy. The phone companies have much more specific and personal information about you and your dialing habits. The information the gov't receives is a phone number and what phone numbers that it called. They do not receive you name, address, social security number, yadda yadda. The database is there so that when they uncover a terrorist in the US, they can search the database for that phone number and find out who that terrorist is calling. Information like that would have prevented 9/11. Get a grip and stop assuming the gov't is out to get you. No need for the tin foil hats today.
In recent news, the NSA has been sticking cameras up people's asses looking for terrorists. Citizens respond that they don't mind the irritation so much since these same people usually have something up their ass, and they don't need privacy so much anyway. Celebrities don't seem to need theirs.
It's "Sieg Heil"... *sigh*
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Where is the outrage over limits on free speech that were passed in the name of campaign finance reform? How about the restrictions on firearm ownership? The primary beneficiaries of gun control are criminals and corrupt cops, neither groups now have to worry about armed citizens fighting back. How about the mess that is the War on Drugs? Where is the left-wing outrage over speech codes that let individuals decide that since they were offended, that someone can lose their job, get expelled from school or any other number of totalitarian powers over others for merely being offensive?
This is like getting royally pissed off that no one cares about a criminal kicking your dog after no one cared that every woman in your family got brutally raped, your family got robbed, your sons sent to prison for sticking their tongues out at a cop and the police get to put security cameras all around your property because they don't like you. Both of you groups, liberals and conservatives, had brought us to this point. The last 14 years have proved that neither liberals or conservatives give a damn about letting Americans live non-regimented lives as everything from MySpace to phone records are getting regulated in the name of creating a more "orderly and safe society."
If you think that the state has any role beyond securing life, liberty and property you are part of the problem, not the solution.
It's a database of numbers calling numbers. It's also the largest database in the world. I honestly don't see where it could be a threat to me unless the NSA has decided to investigate me for some reason.
In all reality, this database will probably only be used to search for calling patterns by people being investigated, looking for their regular contacts. Ideally, this thing could, from a single suspect, identify an entire terrorist cell and their point of contact outside the US.
There is always the worry of the slippery slope, though. Could this be used for something more nefarious than simply looking for networks of bad guys? Probably. What we need to do is identify potential abuses and demand accountability so that the system can't be used in the wrong way.
Rather than simply labelling this a Bad Thing, we should see if there's a way to make it work without threatening the average citizen. It is too useful to dismiss because it might be used against us.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
If you think what the NSA is collecting is bad, why not take a look at what you send the IRS every year. (Assuming you're living in America.)
So big whoop....
So from what the papers, tv, radio, the courts and the 4th Amendment say, this is legal. Doesn't change the fact that it's wrong, though.
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
It's time to start using an encrypted VoIP that doesn't use DES (which NSA owns the patent on). Besides the problem is that all of this "security" is reactive and doesn't really stop anything.
Bipartisan backlash is to be expected. Democrats hate it for obvious reasons and Republicans hate it because many of them aren't getting relected this fall thanks to their disastrous policies that have run America into the dirt these last 6 years (Sorry folks "the truth" means nothing..only the facts).
Maybe more Americans would reject the NSA domestic spying if Bush and his minions weren't relentlessly lying about the scope and depth of the program. Maybe if they were reminded that the Bush administration can't keep secrets, or if they were reminded that presidents can't wiretap political enemies, though they will certainly try, more people would reject it. Americans are always anxious to appear "patriotic", especially when told every day that we're at war for our existence, and we've been attacked by maniacs who would destroy us. Ask us on the phone if "you support the president", and we're at least 50% more likely to say "yes". Especially when we know the president is listening, and dimly remember that he can send anyone to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib for reeducation.
--
make install -not war
Then your politicians can say with a straight face - your government does not spy on you.
If you are of interest in the UK
A US base will do the real fun spying for the UK government.
Then UK politicians can say with a straight face - your government does not spy on you.
If you are of interest to the USA - Australia, Canada, England and New Zealand have you in the dictionary 24/7. Phone, fax, email any part of the world and they will know.
What is new?
More funding and a post Church Committee generation to young or dumb to understand the assassinating people parts
or how to add up counts of perjury.
The really fun part is a generation of terrorists know that phone calls = death.
From explosive mobile phones - Yehin Ayyash in 1996
to sat phones that attract big guided bombs - Dzhokhar Dudaev in 1996
to Bin Laden wondering sat phone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee [wikipedia.org]
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
So what if the GOV records every single phone call and credit card transaction everyone makes in their life? How is this going to change what you do? Why the hell do you care? Unless you are conducting criminal activity I don't see why you are concernced. Who cares if they know Jennifer called Mary 45 times because her boyfriend broke up with her. The ONLY difference between now and then is now they are admitting to recording all this, when in fact they probably have been for 20 years secretely, besides, anyone with $50 can buy your whole life on a CD-ROM, its not like you have any real privacy to begin with. Take the blue pill.
really expect anything else from a bunch of sheep that have no concept of democracy or their rights?
I can't even recall the last time I answered the phone when I didn't recognize the caller ID entry.
Yet another previously trusted solution that is no longer useful, but still clung to by those unwilling to accept change.
~Lake
They obviously have all this information and more. Examples of the RIAA and such were suggested consumers of this information. Telco employees cannot be bought? Everyone seems to think the data is "safe" in the hands of the telco's. Just reading /. one gets a sense of some decisions the telco's have made that aren't in our best interest. I don't know that I trust them any more than the NSA or our government.
I kinda get the feeling that this majority might just be afraid to say they mind. And in the words of Nirvana: "Just 'cause you're not paranoid, don't mean they're not after you."
"You know you're narcissistic when you quote yourself in your sigs." -- PRoPAiN!
But just in case anyone is wondering, not only is the NSA out of line, they are wasteing taxpayers money and their own time. But that aside, what do they do with the info? Where do they store it and how safe is it? Uncle Sam doesn't have a good running record when it comes to keeping their computers locked down.
Finally, I love this question:
...for the feds to invade your privacy, even if it will do absolutely no good, or for the feds to not invade your privacy?
/. community!)
What do you think is more important right now - (for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy); or (for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats)?
Why not ask:
By the way, what is a terrorist? All the people on the phone are thinking, "Terrorist = crazy religious radical from the Middle East that blows himself up along with lots of innocent people." But what if we define terrorist as anyone who doesn't have the best interests of the US government? Or who speaks out against the US government? Or won't do what the government tells them to do? (Good grief, that's the entire
People are excusing the NSA's actions based on a definition of a word that may not be the same for the NSA or our government. Even if it is the same today, will it be tomorrow?
How many of you are doing some sort of logging, or in charge or have charge over security? Firewall logs? An IDS? Maybe Websense or SurfControl for a little content filtering?
Now... maybe you work for a company. RIght to work, company pays you they own you, etc etc. But... not all of you do. Some of you work for the government. Some work in education. Do you have the right to see these logs? Should you record the websites that students and government employees visit? Well. What if you suspect a break-in, or fraud? You have access to the VOIP system, can you correlate the call log? Start playing Columbo? If you proxy outbound SSL as I do, is it ok to go look at any financial transactions the employees made? Maybe a bank deposit? Maybe putting something they stole up for sale on Ebay? Is that ok?
These are all rhetorical questions for the most part. Most of the slahdot crowd isn't going to be well enough versed in privacy laws to know where the boundaries lie in the public sector. It's meant to make you consider the challenge the FBI and NSA face in an open society. Without log analysis of some sort, there are just too many ways to coordinate activities too easily that are untraceable. Cells are able to set up shop and use communication methods to coordinate precise and deadly attacks. Look at the bombs in Spain on the trains, all detonated with cellphones. What are they supposed to do? How would you try and catch these guys if you didn't employ log collection? Eventually, the bad guys will go to encryption, but the src and dst endpoints of calls/packets/carrier pigeon messages will always reveal important patterns.
Nobody values privacy more than I. The trick is congressional oversight, and using the principles of democracy correctly. Subverting FISA and taking knowledge away from the legislative branch of government, making laws un-applicable so that the judicary is compromised, and concentrating all the power in the executive branch with covert teams that have no checks isn't going to help. They need access to the log data, they just need some way to keep it from being abused against political dissidents. It's already started, it's been shown that this administration has looked into the files of their political rivals so the slope is already greased up and the slide has begun.
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The issue at hand was scrapping nukes in favour of conventional forces (the series was done in the 1980s).
The older one asks a series of questions such as "Are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?", "Do you think young people lack discipline?" etc, culminating in "Would you be in favour of re-introducing National Service?" - to which all the answers were "Yes".
A second set of questions was then asking, which were more negative, such as "Are you worried about levels of crime?", and the end result this time was "Would you oppose re-introducing conscription?". This set also recieved consecutive "Yes" answers.
Clearly, then, it's not too hard to see how they got people to say what they wanted them to say. It's just politics, sadly.
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
This isn't Bush's fault (well, the spying part is). This is the fault of the American people. Fucking sheep. We deserve to suffer for this. And we will.
If we don't stand up and say "Enough!" now, then we might as well forget about exercising our rights in the future. If the government can simultaneously violate the 4th amendment rights of 200 million Americans and not catch hell for it, then we're fucked. Game over. No more democracy. It was a fun experiment, but apparently people are stupid and want to be ruled with an iron fist. Democracy is hard. It requires too much thinking, voting, paying attention and other hard stuff. Stuff that's hard is bad! Waaahhh!!
We've got the government we deserve.
Electric Monkey Pants
You realize that the phone companies are already collecting all of this information in order to produce your phone bill?
Do you further realize that the phone companies share this information with their business partners and use it internally to try to upsell you phone and related services?
So is it worse that the NSA does this or that big business does it?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Maybe RESPONSE INJECTION. Intercept the call and insert own response.
All these polls are such shams. "X% of Americans" this and that... did they ask all americans? Hell... why even vote for a president or vote for anything when the media can assign a general consensus/value/thought for the American people? This is so silly.
They ask a handful of people and then use the % as a perception for all Americans, so stupid.
Gary McKinnon breaks into government and military computers with no passwords and the Bush administration holds 10 million American citizens under the magnifying glass. The government has done nothing in 10 years to prevent inconceivably simplistic IT invasions. How hard is it to enforce password creation?
It's my opinion that someone(s) in the US government profits from America being invaded on as many fronts as possible.
Me personally I don't think so, but you might disagree.
What's your opinion?
Anonymous Cowards are at -6...
Yeah, yeah, I know the government and media have balsted with them with scarifying hype for almost 5 years, but deep down "the land of the brave" is utter bullshit. MOST Americans MOST of the time are total chickenshits that will agree to any goddamned thing to alieviate (in their minds at least) the slightest danger--nevermind that their lives are more threatened by driving to work every day or chowing down that double cheeseburger at lunch than by the "threat" targeted by some massive surveillance program.
Our fellow citizens are truly the dream constituency for those intent on building a "transparent society", aka surveillance state. And (big) brother, are we going to get it.
It would be nice if all this wiretapping had really made us more secure. Unfortunately it has resulted in squat, except for violating our rights. Plus, if they wanted to do this, then they should have done it legally. The way that they did it was illegal, and each unwarranted wiretap case has a potential sentence of 5 years in prison. Please remember that the president is not SUPPOSED to be above the law.
Clearly the poll shows a big percent of the american public are fucking dip shit ass wipes. The great to see americans try to ship freedom when so few people actually appreciate it and give a shit to study what it means. And here I thought everyone is suppose to read the constitution in high school, learn the bill of rights and realize that freedom was paid with blood. Yes, the founding fathers died for it, so respect your ancestors and get off your god damn ass.
Translated out of legaleze: No court order was necessary for said action.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
From the poll:
. ...11........24...........2
45. It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It has analyzed calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
------- Acceptable ------ ----- Unacceptable ------ No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opin.
5/11/06......63.......41.........22.........35...
The 22% "somewhat acceptable" had a reason for not answering "strongly". It seems a safe bet that the attached stipulation for this is that there's a nagging feeling that we don't know for sure that the info will be used properly. i.e. any action taken based on the data compiled be handled in a legal, transparent way with lots of oversight.
So isn't the poll really saying that only 41% strongly trust that the gov't will handle this information in an upfront manner?
I don't see what fundemnetal liberty is being squashed here. You can go about your day as you did before, say what you want to whomever. There are just looking for terrorists. Terrorists hide among the people and use our very own communication networks (cell phones, email, etc) to coordinate and conceal there activities. Back in the early days of the Republic, such enemies wanting to attack us would need to congregate with each other, face to face. If they communicated via the posrtal service, do you think the Constitution would prohibit the government from recording who you sent letters to to see if you are communicating with known enemies of the state? You may think that the "War on Terrorism" is just a cliche, but it is a real war, with fronts, and armed forces clashing across the planet. from insurgents in Irag, to terrorists in the london subways, to the trains of madrid, to the philipines marzist & islamic alliance to overthrow that government, cells in singapore, tankers full of vx gas set to blow to in the capital of jordan, or even the tropical resorts of bali -- only a fool would delude themselves into thinking that there isn't a war going on with people fighting and dieing in it every day. 1 thing is for sure, even Thomas Jefferson would approve, since after all he did launch a "War on Piracy" that lastest nearly 20 years.
20+ years ago "Four Legs good two legs Bad!"
In the very near future...
"Four legs good two legs Better!"
It's all about the little changes over times... People simply acquiesce to the slight changes and after several years of it, someone *might* look back and think "how the hell did we get here?"
I think the 63% (who thinks it's ok) care LESS about our country then they think they do. Obviously, they don't pay enough attention to the situation and the very real, possible path it leads us all down.
Clinton lied and no one died! Bush lies and thousands die!
Clinton gets a hummer, big freaking deal. Bush's Administration (mostly Rummie, Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz) screw the country and apparently 63% of the country like it.
Disgusting.
Again this is MY opinion, don't like it? I don't care. It's my opinion and I am one of the few in this country who actually cares enough to call their political representatives.
I think these people should be investigated. How do I know that these people are useing this to stop public dissident. these people could be using this to investigate democrats, independents, etc.
Blond hair, blue eyed people didn't have to wory about hitler.
Christans don't have to worry about republicans.
"A slightly higher majority would not be bothered if the NSA collected personal calls that they made."
Slightly higher? Hell, these people must have been stoned immaculate! I mean, did they feed the survey members hash brownies, then start grilling them on security questions?
Interviewer: Here, have another brownie.
Stoner: Thanks man, these are some good brownies.
Interviewer: Would it be okay if the NSA monitored your phone calls.
Stoner: Yeah man sure, you got any chips man?
Interviewer: Here, have another brownie.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
There's a very good possibility that people will still be supportive. Why is that? Because the vast majority of Americans just do not have even a basic understanding of their government and the various security organizations, and the roles, jurisdictions and limits of each.
I lived in a number of parts of the US, from Arkansas and Washington to Cali and Vermont. When it comes to the people I have met, few had such knowledge. You couldn't talk to them about such issues, because they had no idea how the system worked. They usually did tend to take the stance parrotted by the mainstream press, and often times the government.
The only place where I found people with any degree of knowledge was Vermont. However, considering its historic roots and generally better level of education, that's not surprising.
We don't see any domestic opposition to such horrendous acts against freedom in America because most Americans can't even comprehend the situation itself. They just don't realize what is going on, and who is behind it. Changing the poll questions slightly would likely have little impact, as they are not the problem.
lets see.. according to TFA 502 people were involved in this cold call based survey.
let me break this down in terms of statistical bias.
first off.. this so called "study" being offered by organizations which are supposed to be factual news sources uses only 502 people to infer the opinion over over 350 million us citizens.
Further, it's done by cold call..
Most people i know who value their privacy get a caller ID and don't bother picking up the phone at all unless they recognize the number!
This means that anyone who participated in this survey didn't care enough about their own privacy to screen out telemarketers!
These organizations can no longer be called news sources. I'm sorry but those methods just don't work as far as objective, thorough, and unbiased journalism.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Have you not noticed all the coast-to-coast gangs that have been busted lately? How about the mafia that has been captured? Ever wonder how Karl Rove did so well against the dems last election?
Sadly, most Americans are not paying attention. Worse, the dems are also not paying attention.
now.. i can just ask NSA for the phone records and produce them for my divorce and subsequent ugly case..... i called the phone company and they said they wont keep it for more than 6 months..
coooll... go NSA:-D.. screw tel companies.
Are you bothered by the executive violating federal law to collect personal data on you? (note, they are not getting any judicial oversight)
Answer... YES
I predict all those indignant Democratic senators (Leahy, Feinstein) will now fade back into the woodwork. Nobody in congress acts on principle anymore. Leadership, that cornerstone requirement of *representative* democracy, is sorely lacking in the face of all this near-continuous polling.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
They value the "appearance" of security over privacy. They don't really seem to care whether any of the security programs are actually effective.
Actually, it's a shitty analogy, but it does get your attention for long enough to look at the real argument:
Those that understand that there is a threat to personal freedom by the simple building of enormous cross-referenced databases already know about echelon. The TFH crowd warned us about the "no such agency" and later about "echelon", both of which were later confirmed, and whose existence has now passed into the realm of common knowledge.
So the response of those people who understand the threat is to say to the rest of the good subjects of King George "See, I told ya so."
And the rest of the good subjects response is consistently "You're a nutball. If this has been going on for years and I didn't notice, why should I care now?"
The period of this political cycle (liberty-repression-liberty...) in this country seems to be about 50-75 years. We're just starting into the hardcore authoritarian portion of the cycle. Next comes overt McCarthyism. Take the "flag burning amendment" as a marker for our official entry into that one.
Enjoy the ride, folks, and, remember--it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The good news is that this is nothing new, and this, too shall pass.
What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.
According to Jefferson, we're about 30 years overdue. I say we're not quite ready yet, but I think I'll see it in my lifetime.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
I think this apathy can be summed up by Britney Spears:
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."
With faith in your government like that, you do not question anything as it is a balance between what colour lipstick matches the new SUV and having personal privacy.
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
I'm not worried about this NSA situation at all as long as they are only recording phone numbers and not any personal information.
Let me preface my next comment by saying that I love this country and all of the freedoms that I take for granted. With that said, I'm not pleased to see certain groups of people slam the government for trying to protect it's citizens. How is a completely open society suppose to protect itself? How can we keep our plans for protecting oursleves a secret when we have people forcing the government to reveal it's plans? This is something that we have yet to find an answer to.
I also find it strange that there are people who blame Bush, Clinton, the cabinet members, FBI, CIA, NSA, and Congress for 9/11 but they won't let these people/agencies try to protect us against future attacks. What happens if there is another attack on our country and we find out later that one of these "questionable spying techniques" would have stopped the attacks and saved lives? Who's to blame then?
These questions need to be out in the open. Why aren't our representatives putting politics aside and trying to come up with a protection plan that most of the country will support?
Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Easier to set up a police state...
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Apparently that's no joke, as can be seen here (that's where the subject's title is from).
I dug this up since yesterday they were talking about this on WNYC, and they had some people on the show which commented about this "fact" that people don't mind the spying; well, they said it's all about how this is presented to the people being asked - if you give it the usual anti-terrorism spin, then of course they won't mind. However, if you present to them the actual activities taken by the FBI/etc, then they'll have a totally different reply.
Eh? There are plenty of pissed off people in this country. The problem is that the news doesn't really report about it that much. As its been breaking new-er news basically every other day; in regards to our government. The problem is that our government seems to like sweeping our complaints under the carpet and whistling while they work.
Its my opinion all 3 branches need to be completely cleaned out and new people voted into place; with exception to the offices that are appointed. The problem is that the majority of voters (that actually vote) are a bunch of sheep and believe most of what they see on tv.
I will admit that I voted for Bush. Would I have changed my vote? no. And the reason being that Kerry (imo) didn't give me a good reason for voting for him. Had the dems run someone more able than Kerry I would have probably voted a different way. Most of my concerns don't really involve Bush anyways. He doesn't control how Congress works. The House and Senate are the main people I have gripes. In the end they are the ones who vote on the different bills being passed. Even if Bush vetos the House can override.
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
The biggest crimes against humanity were performed by governments. The 20th century is full of examples. This whole "terrorism" thing has it's shadowy spots (http://www.justacitizen.com/). Besides, if you are listening to us, then who is listening to you? Who is going to audit the auditors?
It is important that we be reminded of the proper course of action when our system starts to fail (as it seems to be doing now):
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I mean think of all the other injustices that we put up with on a daily basis. Even if we were outraged by it. We would get over it in a couple of minutes. Thats just how we are. Sad really.
Going back to the survey in question, people are informed that only calling patterns are analyzed...there is no listening or recording of phone calls. People don't seem too worried about calling patterns. I'm sure if you phrased the question so it implied the government was listening and recording calls, the results would be much different.
Also, it is interesting to see that there is a downward trend in people thinking personal privacy should be sacrificed for possible terrorist investigations. It was high right after 9-11, but is slowly going down. Is this not a hopeful sign for privacy advocates?
...with each day that passes.
With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.
It never ceases to amaze me how relevant TOS and TNG still are after all these years.
[End of Line]
But what I don't want to hear is a bunch of witless complaining (from the same "We're talking about Americans here") about how the FBI (on Bush's watch! that lazy bastard!) didn't see an attack, an arms shipment, etc., coming ... just like on 9/11! Because the phone records are going to be there.
Did you know that at least two of the 9/11 hijackers were ON TERRORIST WATCH LISTS before they entered the US PERFECTLY LEGALLY AT AN AIRPORT? Seriously. Read the 9/11 commission report if you don't believe me. There were LOTS of leads that could have been followed up on without even thinking about opening the door to universal roving wiretaps, and they were all ignored. THOSE were the missing dots. No need to pop a hard-on about fantasy scenarios.
My sig is too lon
This guy was shipped off to Syria by the US government and tortured. And here is their justification:
"The Syrians believed that Arar might be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Why? Because a cousin of his mother's had been, nine years earlier, long after Arar moved to Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police reported that the lease on Arar's apartment had been witnessed by a Syrian-born Canadian who was believed to know an Egyptian Canadian whose brother was allegedly mentioned in an al Qaeda document." (quote from a this SFGate story).
So I wonder how long it will take until they just kill a few thousand people every year and save everyone the trouble.
That's OK with everyone...Right?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Exactly. On top of that, the only people who have the time and desire to sit there and talk to unsolicited phone callers are insane.
How many people can you easily imagine telling unsolicited phone callers to piss off, or saying they just don't have time to talk to this unscheduled caller? A lot, I'm guessing. People who have nothing better to do or even weirder yet enjoy taking polls are not an accurate representation of the general population.
One of the many things I hate. thingsihate.org
The rest of the world have known you guys are being spied upon (along with everyone else) for years. The latest(?) generation of which being Eschelon which happily monitors every phone call, cell phone and byte of data flying about. It's not like the spooks have even been that secret about the whole thing.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
You know, there's an awful lot of talk about privacy, but if you'd bother to read the constitution, you'll find out there's nothing in there about it whatsoever.
And here's just a tiny thought, in case you'd forgotten: we ARE at war, you know. Sure, our lives continue on like normal, and there's no visible sign of it on our streets, but that doesn't change the fact that right now there are several million islamofascists plotting our demise.
The NSA isn't making transcripts of every call made. They're only tapping calls made to and from suspected terrorists inside the US when the other caller is outside the US.
And as for them having a database of all calls, does it bother anyone that that database was started back in 1995, under Bill Clinton's watch? Of course not, because nobody knows it. And even if they did, I bet people would find some way to excuse it.
Face it, this is all just a massive display of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Roosevelt was actually opening peoples' mail during WWII. His domestic spying was rampant and went far, far deeper than anything the Bush administration is doing.
I'm quite certain this post will modded down as flamebait by people less interested in the truth and more interested in advancing their own agenda, but that's life.
I'm appalled at how President Bush has gotten away with extending Presidential Power to such limits that he has effectively put himself above the law. The administration has refused to answer specific questions about the NSA Spying program, while denying Congress the right to question administration officials in an open forum, thus effectively putting the spying program beyond ANY oversight. How scary is that?!
And this... from a President from the Republican party?! This is the party of less government? HA! This party has so enraged traditional Republicans and terrified Americans of every other stripe that I'm inclined to believe (hope), that the neo-cons are banished once and for all in 2008.
63% of Americans are idiots. They honeslty thing "terrorism" is more of a threat to American lives than, say, drunk drivers or cigarettes.
Statistics from 2002: * Heart Disease: 696,947
* Cancer: 557,271
* Stroke: 162,672
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,816
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 106,742
* Diabetes: 73,249
* Influenza/pneumonia: 65,681
* Alzheimer's disease: 58,866
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 40,974
* Septicemia: 33,865
* Suicide: 30,622
* Murder: 16,110
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that our "war on terrorism" has costed us more than we spend on all of these other problems combined... maybe even by an order of magnitude. There's a difference between "We were attacked! Let's do nothing." and "We were attacked! Let's get our intelligence agencies to talk to start talking to each other and let's increase airline security." And there's a huge difference between the latter and "We were attacked! Let's spend close to a trillion dollars on wars and homeland security and allow the government to do unlimited search and seizures without warrants, force protesters into Free Speech Zones because they're (supposedly) a security risk, allow indefinite imprisonment without trial, allow the government to strip anyone of their USA citizenship without trial, and allow the NSA to monitor every single USA citizen when none of the terrorists on 9/11 were actually USA citizens.
You want a definitive change that will make America safer vs. terrorists? Here ya go, this is the only one that will work: switch to biodiesel/ethenol/hydrogen (with a trillion dollars of spending, we COULD make this happen) and tell Israel they're on their own (sucks to be them, but I would have no sympathy for someone who founded a nation in the Antartic and complained when their toes started falling off... similarly, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the all-too-predictable holy war Israel has been drawn into.)
Or, you and the rest of America can grow some fucking balls and realize that freedom isn't free. The price we pay isn't measured in dollars or even in the lives of our soldiers--it's measured by the lives of you, me, and every other civilian. Every day we put our lives on the line, even though our risk vs. terrorism and murder could be lessened if the government took draconian measures such as tagging us, putting cameras in our houses, and monitoring every single call we make. But that's not a fair tradeoff, not when murder and terrorism represent such a tiny tiny percent of our country's problem. We should not be monitored in any way without a warrant, and you're a damn fool for not seeing how this could be abused.
For just expressing an unpopular opinion?
One of the many things I hate. thingsihate.org
The Founders were very concerned about freedom of assembly--the curtailment of that freedom was one the methods dictators, in this case King George and the Tories, use to suppress dissent. If the 'government' could monitor the revolutionary meetings and find out who attended, they could then quietly round the participants up one by one later. In the modern age, the telephone is used to arrange many meetings. If any government wants to repress freedom of assembly and quash dissent, what better way than to have a list of a dissenter's contacts to round up for questioning? A few police dragnets and stakeouts and the matter is closed. They don't need to know the content of the call--association is 'guilty' and you are on the call list so you are brought in for quesitoning. Sure, there is a remote possibility the NSA _might_ find find some terrorists in this net, but this brute force drift net is going to trap and drown as a 'side kill' our freedom with much more certainty. The fact that this escapes the average American is no surprise--most of them have never read the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution and many don't recognize paragraphs from them when given in a poll. Freedom is too important to be trusted to the uneducated mob.--they won't miss it until they need it and then it will be too late.
Call your telephone provider, and cancel your service if they are providing this information to the NSA. I did this earlier this morning.
Seriously if a majority of Americans believe they need to limit their right of privacy to feel more secure than, in a democratic nation, it should be done. However, when at international events and we all here the star spangled banner we can all giggle at the line "and the land of the free". The majority of Americans can pretend to be free all they want but they will hardly be a model of freedom for any other people to practice.
Just wait until the next version of "Edgar J Hoover or Joseph McCarty" gets access to this type of technology.
Edgar will know what dress everyone is wearing to the party and where they got it.
And keep his job despite being a social deviant.
Joseph will know where all the commies are.
And not have to worry about anyone taking the 5th on the stand.
You can be a nut job or a true believer, but any zealot with a tool like this would a very bad idea.
Ponder these people, "Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, or Adolf Hitler"
What would they have done with this type of technology ?
This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
You know, I see this sentiment a lot. And for the most part, I agree with your post. The "terrorists" do not seem to be as great a threat as we a led to believe. I mean, think about it - they are flying OUR planes into our buidlings. It's not as if they are a well-funded, military-industrialist state or anything. They aren't making planes over there. They aren't creating NEW weapons to kill us. They aren't even making their own ammunition. They are buying most everything they use. Who knows from where.
But still, sometimes I still sit back and wonder what the ramifications would be if a nuclear bomb went off in a large city in the US. The repercussions would be enormous and unpredictable. REALLY unpredictable from a social and economic viewpoint. And that, is most certainly, a "bad thing" from any viewpoint, certainly from a capitalistic one.
I may be wrong, but I think it's that thought that worries people. As technology advances and more and more people master what we have at our disposal, there will come a time when they (the terrorists or "our enemies") will get access to a nuclear weapon. And if they can get it here, all hell will break loose.
(and I presume you agree that they ARE trying to wreak havoc over here. You don't argue that point, do you?)
It has nothing to do with catching the CIA funded terrorists. These Nazis that funded Hitler do not want to catch the mythical terrorist because you need to be terrorized to give up your freedom. As Hitler did in his day, they created their own Reichstag to expand their powers. This newspeak is all about conditioning us to accept a police state. You will thank them when they put you in the death camps and sterilize your children in the name of population control.
Probably correlates nicely with the number of US citizens who don't bother to vote.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
And did they find the least useful group of Americans out there with which to test this so called theory? I'd love to give up more of my personal freedoms so that the government can come in and tell me how to live my bloody life.
Gods, people, take back control of your lives and for frak sake, don't let the government railroad this kind of BS past you!
Nothing fails like prayer.
Well, I wanted to do a new post, but in a shining moment of ingenuity couldn't find the 'post new comment' link.
Regardless, one of the issues here (aside from the egregious abuse of civil liberties and privacy) is the fact that taxpayer money is being used to mine this extraordinary amount of data, store it, maintain it, and keep it up to date. That is, we're spending money to the government to spy on us using a program we didn't even know about.
One of the "hilarious" arguments the goverment is giving is that they're not collecting names or addresses, just phone numbers. If only there were some way to lookup name and address phone a phone number. Besides, how do we know they're not recording more than this? All we have is their word.
Here's the part that really gets me. Citizens are apparently OK with this because what's a little lack of privacy for the sake of national security. Have we heard yet at all how this database is going to help combat terrorism? Spying on everyone might help I suppose, but what's the plan? I wish I worked for an organization where I could get paid do the work first and only justify it later if the boss takes some heat.
First, 502 people is not a statistically significant sample of US population.
Also, how did they "randomly" select these people? If they randomly chose people from their subscriber base, (for example), then the sample would be inherantly biased: IIRC, this is a very "conservative" newspaper.
Verizon & T-Mobile have come out swinging stating that they do not cooperate with the NSA program. Just don't call a landline. Of course, maybe the NSA just scoops that data out of the air.
The people that were more concerned about privacy might not be that likely to answer questions from strangers on the phone.
-- dR.fuZZo
This is by design. From the beginning of public training (education) we're not taught anything but conformity, compliance and propaganda. It is extremely rare when anything is new, original or inspired any more. Asking children why we're in Iraq yeilds short answers like "freedom" and "democracy." Adults speak the same way. Most people would see that as a sign of brainwashing.
The public at large is half-asleep. We're annoyed by higher gas prices... it's waking some of us up, but still most are content simply by complaining and comiserating as an outlet... takes too much effort to actually DO anything. There will come a tipping point and I have to wonder if "they" are smart enough to stop before it reaches that point or if the backlash from the public will be a total surprise?
Freedom? What freedom.
And neither does Senator Hagel. Both have criticized every action by this Administration almost from day one.
Somehow, I don't think 502 randomly selected adults polled by phone accurately represents the entire fucking country.
Ok, subject is play on a TV show but seriously, get me out of here......except I don't know where to go.
Sealand my only choice? What is the most libertarian friendly country (as in laws are more libertarian, not tolerant of lib. ideas) in the world?
Granted the poll only surveyed 502 people (link somewhere in all these comments), but still.
:wq
That, kind sir, is one of the best posts I have ever seen on /.
Thanks for the perspective. Sometimes, all of us forget.
The masses almost always value security over freedom until they have so little of either a revolution is born.
Now you're starting to sound like the founding fathers. Untenable aristocracy always has this fear, always afraid of that revolution, always chipping away at the freedom of the unwashed masses in order to abate it, yet always painfully aware that it will ultimately be their undoing.
US citizens privacy rights are being ripped out from under them and 63% could care less. A womans breast is seen on television and 80% are shocked and outraged!
Before you start laughing and saying "well of course," take a gander at this map. You'll notice that Alabama votes to the left of a significant percent of the country. If you consider the Washington Post a bastion of neoconservative thought, you haven't encountered the really rabid Bush authoritarians.
:-)
I'm not sure where you live but, ahem... would you mind sending me the real estate section?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
In the future, every time you pick up your phone, you're going to hear a little synthetic female voice say "This call may be recorded for quality purposes."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Please, let me up, I've had enough.
I thought I lived in a place where we "let freedom ring" that was the "land of the free". I thought this meant people VALUED their freedom, and that the gallons of blood spilt to attain and defend that freedom were valued.
This is not a left wing vs. right wing arguement, this is a BASIC AMERICAN VALUE. And if basic Americans do not hold this value, then what the hell are we trying to do domestically, internationally, or anywhere or any-how else?
If no one in this country is able to see beyond their 401k balance and the dash of their latest and greatest car then we're sheep waiting for the slaughter. What happened to caring about the common good ("We the people" and "promote the general welfare")? What happened to "live free or die" or "give me liberty or give me death"? What happened to "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (That's the 4th amendment, sheeple).
This is a black day in America. We have finally found that we don't care about our founding values. Be wary of the future given such a present.
...as those who refuse to read.
The courts looked at and ruled on this issue. So, barring a trial that overturned said ruling the current law of the land is "Pen-based registers don't require search warrants". So anyone screaming "They broke the law!" is currently wrong.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Read the questions aloud and imagine yourself being rapidly said to you over the phone (particularly the 3+ sentence questions). Now imagine your a little nervous because you've been asked your official opinion on a heated topic when all you thought you had to deal with right now was dinner. Some people could have easily misunderstood the questions, but answered anyway.
Quite.
Look at the wording of the main question highlighted in the results:
It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
This positions the question and conditions the answer. It leaves out any information about what the NSA organ-grinders could conceivably be doing with a stream of data without any conversion to an audible signal. Candidate call patterns are then fed to mining tools, where the un-heard, un-recorded conversations are un-analysed and deconstructed. No actual *wiretapping* of blameless, patriotic Americans occurs until a critical mass of de-contextualized nouns is aggregated and the system pops to the UI. It doesn't take much of a technical imagination to make the process, tools and outcomes (thousands of bogus leads) seem at once more sinister and more laughable.
The lead-in questions also forcefully position the conversation between poller and pollee on the subject of federal anti-terror efforts, rather than a referendum on the value of our noble abstractions.
illegitimii non ingravare
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It was a random phone poll. The subscriber base is irrelevent.
Has anyone thought to ask if the USPS is storing or providing similiar To/From/Type information for items it handles?
oh please.. trusting the GOP bootlickers at the Washington Post for accurate info on citizens' attitudes towards Bush crimes is a bit like reading Der Stuermer for accurate info on Jewish public opinion.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
I read about these polls all the time and, yet, in 25 years, I've never been asked for my opinion or known someone who was. Where do they get these people from, congressional families or the same thin air Neilson uses?
The question is too abstract for most Americans. Instead of "do you care if the NSA has access to the numbers you call?" they should do some digging and ask "why did you call 555-6789 six times last week?". Somehow I feel this would generate a completely different emotional response.
I'd suggest, just do the snooping on those who don't mind and everyone's happy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No further comments.
After years of the government providing "safety nets" in the form of massive social welfare programs, after years of socialists telling people "Government is the answer," you wonder why this result. After years of the smartest and best making law after law to protect give special protection to each minority group they can pander to, is it any wonder? The lawmakers tell what you can and can not say at work, the lawmakers talk about crimes of hate, the lawmakers make you give them money so they can give old people drugs, social security, etc.
Is it any wonder we fear terrorism. After years of our press telling us we can't understand anything, and hiding truth in euphamisms, is it any wonder we fear it. After years of making criminals into victims, and terrorists into criminals, is there any wonder why we fear we aren't being told the truth?
It's odd to me the same group of people worried about call lists in the NSA database are the same ones who create this massive nanny state.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
"In my country, p.e., the Police needs a court order to wiretap a phone."
This isn't a wiretap.
"And the right for communications privacy is stated in the Constitution."
No, it's not actually. You just think it is because you've listened to people as ignorant of the facts as yourself, and never bothered to look.
"They can't start a wiretapping spree just because they feel like it"
This isn't wiretapping.
The masses almost always value security over freedom until they have so little of either a revolution is born.
This is probably the best phrase I've ever seen. I hadn't thought about this until now, I was just wondering how (since societies apparently eventually seem to self-regulate and converge to some point) it is possible that so many freedoms are continuously chipped away from the people. Now I realise freedom is not a graph that converges somewhere, but one that lowers enough to pass the tolerance threshold, where a revolution brings it back way up, only to get it chipped at again in time.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
We're talking about a country where people watch 30-minute commercials to sell them crap AND THEY LIKE IT.
As someone said, the people have the government they deserve.
YOU'RE AN IDIOT!
"Agency personnel reportedly analyze those records to identify suspicious calling patterns but do not listen in on or record individual telephone conversations."
...okay it's a word.
First, is reportedly a word? Hold on.. (*google:// define:reportedly*)
So we're talking about analyzing logs. Anyone here know what constitutes a standard phone log? I couldn't find any examples with a quick online search. Definitely it has the initiator and receiver and the duration and start and end times. Would it also contain number tones during the call? Maybe they can track banking habits or phone based credit card transactions?
I don't have any problems personally because I don't place calls that could be construed as suspicious but then again I don't currently have any friends or family overseas, specifically in any monitored countries. I'm sure there are US citizens who do though and this type of Big Brother activity is unacceptable.
OTOH I don't recall phone logs being mentioned in the Constitution. The telephone system is a public utility managed by private companies, aka common carrier which means it falls under FCC regulation, etc. etc. ATT can't be held liable for contents of transmission so has no incentive to protect said contents and AFAIK there is no policy they've given that says absolutely that your calls are your private info... though courts have made rulings on this.
Most likely this will never be challenged in court since the Gov'mnt would be insane to use this info in a court case.
I'm not sure how I feel about it from a legal POV... but I'd rather discuss it's legal merits than simply post a knee-jerk "WTF-OMG PRIVACY VIOLATION" response.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Here
an ill wind that blows no good
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You've got it backwards. The need is to prove that it's NOT an essential liberty.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Only a paranoid viewpoint . . . ?
It seems the survey was done by TNS Intersearch Corp. which does give some hits on a Google search.
However, TNS Intersearch Corp. must be privately held, as a search at
www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar
gives "No Records" filed with the SEC.
But then, a NSA front would not have much for public traceable records, would it?!
Just because we are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get us . . .
(Please excuse the double negative.)
In 2004, we sure didn't describe it as "spying on Americans." Instead, it was called one of the "missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives."
"NBC News aired an "exclusive" story in 2004 that dramatically recounted how al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the San Diego terrorists who would later hijack American Airlines flight 77 and fly it into the Pentagon, received more than a dozen calls from an al Qaeda "switchboard" inside Yemen where al-Mihdhar's brother-in-law lived. The house received calls from Osama Bin Laden and relayed them to operatives around the world. Senior correspondent Lisa Myers told the shocking story of how, "The NSA had the actual phone number in the United States that the switchboard was calling, but didn't deploy that equipment, fearing it would be accused of domestic spying." Back then, the NBC script didn't describe it as "spying on Americans." Instead, it was called one of the "missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives.""
can you please quote me the definition of "unreasonable"? if well over half of the population believes something to be "reasonable" doesn't it by definition become so?
I am no one important, but...
Me to Kevin Beacon in 4.
1. I frequent a bar called McCafferys Irish Pub. Bartender is Joe McCaffery.
2. Joe is cousin of James McCaffery, star of the old series Viper, and currently involved in Rescue Me, playing Dennis Learys dead brother. Also voiced Max Payne.
3. James was in a bunch of movies... with someone who was in at least 1 movie with...
4. Kevin Bacon.
Me to President Bush in 3.
1. My girlfriend works for the Governor of NY (she needs a job).
2. Governor of NY takes it in the ass from...
3. President Bush.
The President of the United States going through me to get in contact with Osama Bin Laden in less than 10 phone calls (give or take a few)
1. The president calls the Governor of NY.
2. Governor calls his staff who talk about oppressing citizens.
3. They inturn call my girlfriend (she needed the money I swear).
4. Who calls me.
5. I call the my friend who works in a law firm.
6. Law firm represents 2 suspected terrorist, actually charged with money Laundering for Terrorist to by RPGs. Lawyer calls client.
7. Client is a suspected terrorists. Terrorists are... well terrorists.
8. Figure there is a go between from the US to Bin Laden.
9. Terrorist go between calls his man Bin Laden.
10. I call my Congressmen to turn myself in and report to Camp X-Ray.
Add those all up and... I guess that is around 10 calls that need to be made to place your "average" citizen between the President of the United States and Osama Bin Laden.
Why do you expect any amount of "privacy" outside the confines of your own property?
If you are using the PSTN for telephone calls, what do you think the "P" in
PSTN stands for? -P- is for Public... Public Switched Telephone Network
Asked 502 people ? And draw conclusions about what the American people think about NSA's activity ? What is that, 1.6e-4 percent ? And half of them support the NSA's actions ?
This isn't even worth to say anything else about it.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
The whole point of having a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy is precisely to deal with this problem. The people are supposed to (and generally do) elect representatives who will do a better job of governing than they would themselves, and when a tyrant or fool slips through the cracks the system of checks and balances in the government itself is supposed to keep them from doing to much damage... even if the populace in general agrees with the tyrant or fool.
You were modded down not for saying that the populace agrees with a foolish tyrant, but for saying that it's not the responsibility of the government to do something about it.
That would be the "Lyme Disease - hey, at least it's not AIDS!" argument.
Just because the current political climate in the United States "isn't as bad as ______[insert country]" doesn't make it ok.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
In public schools at least, students are taught to be obedient and to respect all authority. A respect for authority is considered necessary for the "greater good". Any teaching of liberty or freedom is limited by this factor, so it's somewhat worthless.
The next step in the fight against terrorism:
Congress: Why bother voting? Obviously only terrorists are interested in a change of regieme so we'll just decide who your next president will be for you. After all, only about 66% of eligible adults are registered to vote, and out of those, only 54% of registered voters and bother to vote, which means that only about one third of citizens of voting age even care about our electon process. Clearly the majority of citizens want us to tell them what is good for them, regardless of the Constitution's limiting our power on paper. After all, the Constitution is a "living document" and rules are made to be broken. Therefore, we are immediately declaring Duhbya to be our dictator and we will be extending our Representative and Senatorial terms to lifetime, and the next generation of congressmen shall be appointed by us. It was a nice experiement while it lasted, but because you citizens have squandered your first, second, and fourth amendment rights away in exchange for a little temporary safety, we have decided on your behalf that this is the best course of action for all concerned.
Kind regards,
Your tyrants in Washington.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Was this before everyone found out that the NSA has compiled the "biggest data mining" operationg of anyone using a telephone in the US, excluding Qwest customers?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
What a way to abstract the real impact of what this is saying? It really says that 120 million people are concerned about this issue and I would say that is considerable. I wouldn't say that is a small group considering that is the population of some countries. Percentages can be used as FUD and I would say this means little compared to the real number. Is privacy something that is decided democratically? How far does democracy go when it comes to principals and values? So, I am not really sure what this person is implying. Is he saying that privacy should be decided at the voting booth? Why not be proactive like the war on terror and remove the voting booth if we can vote it away? We will just have people listen to your pillow and dining table talk. Can we vote away democracy by saying over 50% of Americans believe democracy doesn't work and totalitarianism is a better fit? This is called tyranny of the majority. Democratic societies need to protect against this darker side of democracy. If these are two faces of the same coin, which is it?
That entire screed was about a controversial system in one country, but not even that--just one CITY. So, instead of saying "that's reality in parts of Western Europe" just be honest and say "they're doing something sketchy in central London" -- and before getting so persnickety about how many eons the U.S. is supposedly ahead on these things, Washington, DC has all of these things right now, so rather than being ahead of the game, it's close to deuce, babe.
a) I'm guessing the practical negative implications of this have not yet begun to materialise. Whenever I hear anyone offer the rationale that "only wrongdoers have anything to worry about," I remind the speaker that it's the government that holds the definition of wrongdoing, (in a legal sense) and who can thus change it. Hence, you might be going about your business, doing something which previously wasn't considered wrong at all, and you'll suddenly get a visit from a government worker wanting you to answer some questions. Hold on...You're not doing anything wrong, right? Well, you see sir, there's been this new legislation passed recently...
;-)
b) People obviously must not have much faith in the pre-existing legal framework...either that, or they're entirely willing to ignore it, which is perhaps even more alarming. The point though is that...hasn't anyone stopped to consider that maybe the reason why wiretapping has been completely illegal up to this point is *because* it's so dangerous? Although it hasn't happened recently, there was a time when laws existed for valid reasons.
Either way though...this is an indication that things are nicely on track for the expected naked coup de tat/subsequent revolution in 2008. Although it may seem unbelievable, as I said above, the negative ramifications of everything Bush has been doing still haven't entirely registered with a good portion of the population yet...they're still not hurting enough. Eventually that will change, however...and when it does, there's going to be complete chaos.
I agree, if a majority of people agree that it's reasonable then the laws can be changed or the constitution amended.
So, as soon as it's put to a national vote, we can decide what to do. Until then, it's not legal.
We do not ignore the constitution because of the results of a random poll.
Google for 'PETA FBI terrorist' and the first hit is Washington Post article FBI Papers Show Terror Inquiries Into PETA; Other Groups Tracked from last December. While Bin Laden remains at large, the FBI is hot on the trail of animal rights activists. Personally, I'm guessing they just wanted an excuse to legally stalk Pam Anderson, who is well known vegitarian and animal right activist. She is also famous for exersizing her right to bare arms. Not eating meat and worrying about small animals is clearly un-American; if God didn't want us to eat pigs, he wouldn't have invented Iowa (which has more pigs than people).
Think global, act loco
Without oversight, how can you qualify what the NSA is doing with this information? You can't. This question is slanted as it infers the NSA is doing nothing listen to calls.
I would be interested in seeing what the survey results would be if it said the NSA would listen to calls without court approval.
However, if I end each phone conversation with my friends with a short tirade of what an asshat George W. Bush is, then I can hang up knowing that only those at the highest level of government are hearing my views.
Heck of a job Michael V. Hayden!
Say hello to my little sig.
The same is true of your phone calls. You don't own your calling records. The phone company does. So, unless your agreement with your phone company specifically prohibits them from doing this, it's perfectly legal. If you want true privacy, talk in person or build your own phone network.
You can argue about whether or not this is morally right, but legally, it's a no brainer.
http://www.k5n.us
...though well above astrology
x .asp?PID=359
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/inde
Of course, if you made it through college (I know you're out there), it puts it between the virgin birth and the resurrection.
super
As for weighing in on our most recent incursion into stepping around the 4th Amendment, I reckon you'd find that there is a bunker somewhere in Virginia with a couple of hundred petabytes of available storage and expanding, where all of those phone calls are being stored, but not data mined (yet). The second a couple of red flags go up though, and boom, recorded phone calls are yanked by their corresponding numbers and listened to. They probably still won't go through that whole hassle of getting a warrant/supoena after the fact though (too much paper work you understand). The main issue is if say, years later, someone with less altruistic ideals makes a few requests to gain political leverage.
aren't idiots.
Not to mention the fact that the sample size was only 500. For those of you who know statistical surveys, that creates a greater margin of error. Typically surveys go for +- 3 percentage points with a 95% confidence interval, but you need over 1000 calls for that.
Do not mark in this space. For official office use only.
Mod this fucking bullshit down. What exactly does this add to the discussion? Oh, right, you want to make someone else look like a fool. Who's the one who looks like a fool, the one who thinks about an argument and then writes it down, or the one who just screams "MORON!!!!OMG!!!!" without an explanation of why, or a counterargument?
i am a soviet space shuttle
...who wouldn't have a problem with this if *all* such records were in the public domain? I mean, it's not that the NSA can see who I called, but that I can't see who they called.
/. humor on that one). The problem is that there's a growing perception (and where there's smoke, there's fire) that 'normal' Americans are the ones in the glass houses and the political and/or economic elite are comfortably tucked away on the hilltop.
I personally prefer a level playing field, whatever that field is. I could live in a glass house, as long as everyone else lived in one too (can't wait for the
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
What's your Erdos' number? Is it a multiple of the square root of -1? See, there isn't six degrees of mathematical separation between the entire world and Paul Erdos. If you don't even publish mathematical/scientific research papers, you obviously won't have a number. If you deal entirely in string theory, you might have a very high Erdos' number. If you deal in analysis, maybe it's a bit lower. If you're a prominent computer scientist who does deal in CS theory, maybe it's even a reasonable number. If you're a young graph theorist, you've probably got a number under 5. If you're a really OLD Hungarian discrete mathematician, you might have a number of 1.
How many of those with Erdos' numbers under 3 have multiple papers under 3? How many have 10 or more? Sure, if you have 10 or more papers under 3 then you're probably into discrete math. Wait a second - the math actually works! What do you want to make a bet I could write a Perl script that could scan a database to determine with a high percent of accuracy who was a discrete mathematician? What would you want to bet I could find with 99.9% probability 1000 discrete mathematicans?
The NSA doesn't care if you get one call from a terrorist. Heck, they probably don't care if you get 100 calls from a one terrorist. However, if you repeatedly get numerous, long calls from multiple terrorists over an extended period of time, there's a good chance you are a terrorist or at least intimately related to one.
I don't particularly like the precedent we are setting here, but on the other hand, if I had to choose between invading Iraq or this particular issue, I'd take this in a heart beat. This is really fighting terrorism! They are not ease dropping on calls. Heck, this is about as non-invasive as you can get. There is a war on terror going on. We may not be fighting it properly, but Al Qaeda still exists, and Bin Laden is still on the loose. What do you want the US Gov't to do? How should they combat terrorism?
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
I do not support secret wire tapping but would feel a little better if I could snoop into what all government agencies and officials were doing. If there actions were completely in the open then maybe they would behave a little better.
As long as I'm not accused of anything, then I don't care. I'm actually English, but I doubt this only effects americans, so I'll go ahead and post my opinion.
I don't do anything wrong, so why should I care, I don't mind if some guy in the NSA reads about Uncle Bob's new dog in an e-mail I recieve, frankly.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
If you haven't watched this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-826005992 3762628848 then it maybe time. My issue is that we are working with people who don't seem to care that the path we are on is dark and getting darker.
The sign should have read:
"Mission Lost" instead of "Mission Accomplished"
Q: What have we lost? What has the goverment gained? How do we get it back?
Several things are clear, keep us happy, fat and dumb. And as for the poll, there should be posted here to see what the real reaction would be from our community to this issue.
So the major problem with your theory is this - the government is going to find that the secret leaders really guiding our country are, in fact, 16-year old girls. Who else would have so many phone conversations that would last so long?
I would say that the most likley use is simply tracing back from someone they know to be commiting criminal acts, and seeing who all talks to them - one offs probably are not going to be looked at as much as the people who frequently communicate with them. So it would start with a given individual and then trat them as a "leader" of a socail network and see who comes up. Trying to pre-determine leaders from phone patterns just will not work (especailly because there are so many other forms of communication that can be used today).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Opinion polls have no bearing on the discussion of illegal wiretapping. If the NSA as directed to violate the law by the President, and the NSA violated the law... it *shouldn't* matter if people thought it was OK. The law is the law, right? Opinion, either correctly or falsely interpreted, shouldn't trump law.
The discussion should be about what happened, was it legal, who is responsible, what damage was done and how we can prevent it from happening again.
the Bush for God campaign.
So how does that explain the fact that they value convenience over security in their choice of Windows as an OS?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I would really like to believe Howard Zinn that the country will have a grassroots, peaceful revolt against those who would have us under their thumbs, but unfortunately I have to agree with your pessimistic view: The masses almost always value security over freedom until they have so little of either a revolution is born. I'd take it a step further: The masses almost always value convenience over freedom until they run out of potato chips and beer and revolt. But by then they've already had their guns taken away, so they don't stand much of a chance.
What makes someone "Unamerican" is not a dissenting viewpoint, but an unwillingness to fight to uphold the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
I don't give two craps how our freedoms compare to other countries, I just know that I am less free today than I was yesterday, and was less free yesterday than the day before that.
Hey, we've got more freedom than a citizen of China! Yippee!
Happy goldfish bowl to you.
Will you feel the same way when Hillary is President? Or is it just Democrats who have their panties in a knot?
Ahh, you forget, you can get the fork out. Revoke your citizenship. Really if you need help there are plenty of people who will help you Get Out! The majority thinks your a female dog in heat and are stinking up the place (actually they think you will get them killed). Goto that utopia in the nation that is in charge of the UN human rights council.
Actually nobody cares what you think as long as your not calling the shots. Again feel free to leave at any time. Don't you suffer here 1 bit. Hit the road jack and don't you come back no more no more no more no more.
Elections are great, the majority chooses the leader for better or worse, we have them every year for just about every office in this country. What a concept, YOU DECIDE the LEADERS and WHETHER OR NOT TO STAY so GET OUT NOW IF YOU DONT LIKE IT.
You just said its OK for the government to consider ALL CITIZENS as potential terrorists AT ALL TIMES.
No, he said it's OK to consider you a possible terrorist if you are, in fact, calling terrorists - especially if you call them often.
Part of the problem with this debate is the same argument Google Mail faced when presenting ads. They have an automated scanner that would look throuhg e-mail and feed ads based on the results.
Now here's the question - if only automated systems are looking at messages, are they really being "looked" at? I myself am perfectly OK with call records from the dawn of time being preserved - in fact most telcos keep that data anyway. Does that upset you? They have to because they need to access records for historical trending data that helps predict network load and other things.
So then, if it's OK for a telco to keep records it's not much of a stretch to say it's OK for someone to keep an aggrigate of all records across multiple telcos - as long as controls are in place so people need a damn good reason to access those records. But when they have that reason I see nothing wrong with the ability to find data more quickly they would be able to get via a slower means anyway. It's simply an optimization of access.
SO the question that really needs to be asked is not how to shut down this program, but to demand that we know exactly what the controls around access are since that's the line that crosses over into loss of privacy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What investigation is going on? Collecting huge piles of phone calls is not an investigation. If there was a spiderwebbing out from certain callers/phone numbers then you might concider it an investigation since it has a starting point - saying give me everything is not an investigation. I actually have to say that I admire Bush - he got out that sentence about we are not data-mining without laughing in the middle. Nope, no way I could have done that one.
We are collecting everything to perform and investigation, but we are not data-mining. If you are not data mining... why do you need the bulk information on hand? On the other hand, if you are just using the data to expand out from terrorist numbers - who's a terrorist today? Drugdealers, music pirates, off shore gamblers. The govt has stated that each of these groups is financially supporting terrorism.
Do we want to play 6 degrees of seperation?
Let's play aggregate numbers instead.
Assumptions:
- I call/contact approximately 200 people a month between personal, business, and bills.
- Everyone likewise calls/contacts approximately the same number.
- 30% cominality - 30% of each layer is calling the same people - leaving 70% distinct.
This gives the following results:- 200 (me) * 1 = 200 people directly contacted.
- 200 (me) * 140 (tier 1) = 28000 tier 2 contacts.
- 200 (me) * 140 (tier 1) * 140 (tier 2) = 3,920,000 Tier 3 contacts.
- 200 (me) * 140 (tier 1) * 140 (tier 2) * 140 (tier 3)= 548,800,000 Tier 4 - I just pased double the population of the United States
- 200 (me) * 140 (tier 1) * 140 (tier 2) * 140 (tier 3) * 140 (tier 4) = 76,832,000,000 Tier 5 - I am at 6 times the world population.
Don't like the 200 people premis - drop it to 100 people & you still get 2,401,000,000 Tier 5 contacts (70^4*100) (1/5 world population)Now, yes there are problems, the initial overlap is probably higher than 30%, but it approaches 0 at tier 5 so it should ballance out. The core of the statement is evident - beyond 3 hops, there's a high statistical probablility that any given individual in the US is indirectly communicating with any other given individual. What use is that? If that's the process they are going to use, I say we present the Pirate/Global Warming argument at the next big summit.
I know that it only takes 2 hops for me to be linked to a Pakistani contact, because I talk to college friends who talk to other college friends who are from Pakistan. Since that's where the call data from this program ends (at the border)- we'll end it there as well.
Now if the NSA wants to come knock on my door, by gods they should do it because I am a miserable, mysanthropic, cretin (not illegal last I checked) not because I use the phone to order Pizza.
Am I not supposed to have the right to choose what information someone may or may not have / see / collect / distribute about my activities?
I don't ever recall giving away that right!
Oh, and, ya, 502 Americans constiutes an average sampling of the opinions of this nations people... right...
The analysis of the poll, stating that simply "A majority of Americans initially support" the program is a little misleading.
Any nations out there that still treat their citizens like... well, citizens?
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." - Alexander Tyler
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
The supreme court said in smith vs maryland in 1978 (and this was not a conservative court)
[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .
[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.
Bruce Schneier did just that. Sorry that I have no references available at the moment, but he did it with numbers. You can find it, starting by searching against his name.
Basically, his argument came down to numbers...
There are LOTS and LOTS of legitimate telephone calls
There are presumably only a few terrorist telephone calls.
With any reasonable rates of false positives and false negatives, the NSA will be overwhelmed with the false positives, and STILL may miss the critical conversations that would have saved the day.
He said it much better than I.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Washington Post: So. . . do you think this is an acceptable way to fight terrorism, or the best way to fight terrorism?
Sig cannot be found.
I see a lot of people posing the question, "Do Americans even care?"
I think those who know anything about history do care.
As far as the majority of the public (espceially those who seem to be far more interested in things like who won their favorite reality TV show, which celebrity is screwing who etc) I predict (unfortunately) that they will not
care or really pay it much mind until it either affects them or someone they care about directly.
IMO these databases can useful if not abused, but in reality every weapon we give to LE and LEOs gets abuse by them on daily basis and they never can be trusted.
Welcome to the NeoCons vision of their Brave, New Amerika.
...your goverment spies you! :)
...deserve neither. The majority of Americans were not bothered by the butchering of Natives, the interment of Japanese citizens during WWII, slavery either... at the time. All government sanctioned actions that turned out to be morally wrong or flat out illegal. I hope we have learned our lessons from the past -- not every majority opinion is correct, or constitutional. One thing I learned way back in the elementary school seemed like a simple lesson, but is still quite profound: A democracy is based on majority rules with minority rights. This internal spying program is illegal regardless of what the majority opinion is. And for what? Security from terrorism? The terrorists' primary weapon is fear, which causes us to react in way that we shoot ourselves in the foot with BS like the Patriot Act and domestic spying. It's not worth it.
I wonder what the results would have been if the interviewers had revealed that al Qaeda long ago gave up using telecommunications. They use human messengers. They switched, according to news reports based on CIA sources, after their number four guy was caught in Pakistan after using a cell phone. So who, exactly, is the Bush Administration trying to catch with this program?
This is asking the wrong question. I know the rest of the slashdot crowd are big fans of privacy but I don't really care if my phone calls are monitored or who I call placed in a secure governmented database so long as this information is not used for law enforcement purposes. If congress wanted to give the NSA power to do massive pattern analysis on US phone calls I would be all for it if they banned any information collected from being turned over to law enforcement or used for prosecutions (we can stop terrorist attacks even if we can't prosecute the terrorists...though I might even support an exception to prosecute terrorism but I worry about a slippery slope with that).
However, I am absolutely furious with the Bush administration for conducting illegal surveilance in secret. I believe that Bush is probably not using this program for illicit political gain but his blatant disregard for the law creates a precedent that other presidents could use to intimidate political opponents like Hoover used to do and generally engage in lawless behavior. I think Bush ought to be impeached or at least censored for his lawless acts and then the congress ought to write provisions for large scale monitoring with appropriate safegaurds.
So asking if people are okay with the NSA spying on them is just the wrong question. Many people may feel like me that Bush's behavior is totally unacceptable but ultimatly it isn't problematic if the NSA searches phone records with appropriate safegaurds.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
You were modded down not for saying that the populace agrees with a foolish tyrant, but for saying that it's not the responsibility of the government to do something about it.
I think it is much simpler than that. The leftists that read site are in denial of the fact that mainstream America is willing to give President Bush the tools he needs to fight terror.
an ill wind that blows no good
In other news, 63% of Americans will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Not sure if thsi has been mentioned yet, but from my understanding the NSA signed contracts with all the baby bells to acquire the information. Does this not make it a commercial venture of sorts - selling of costumer information by telephone companies which is prohibited (I could be wrong caught it while listening to NPR). What scares me more about this is that there seems to be so much more I dont know. Like the academic saying goes: "When you get your B.S. you think you know everything. Graduate with your master you understand you don't know that much. Finish your PhD and realize you don't know Sh!t." Every from looking at governement reserach contracts my company bids on I can tell we are headed down a scary road (a ton of them deal with human tracking and monitoring!)
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Utimately, Islamic terrorists have the same weakness that the USSR had. They really don't have a clue as to how to run a government. If not propped up by oil revenues, they will eventually tear themselves to pieces. Their citizens will get tired of waiting in bread lines while their democratic neighbors wear blue jeans and carry ipods.
Terrorists have to have money to do anything. Hard to work a regular job and be a terrorist. It doesn't give you time for training, planning, or flying around the world meeting with other terrorists. Most of that money comes from men we've made rich with oil revenues.
We don't need to give up our liberties in order to beat terrorism. We just need to give up our oil and find something better that doesn't prop up people who mistreat their citizens.
I'm not saying it will be easy, like it might have been if we'd started thirty years ago, but we're going to have to wean ourselves off oil regardless, so why not get started now?
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
At least you spelled "deity" correctly. I've seen "diety" about as frequently as "priviledge" around here.
Who is running our government right now? The poor underclass? Or is it the Yale-semi-educated elite who are in power? Are you suggesting we relinquish our right to vote and hand over dicatorial power to our l33t president and his staff?
I'm probably as much of a misanthrope as you are, but at least I know democracy works better than a fascist state or monarchy. Get your head out of your ass.
Oh, and though I'm sure plenty of people took issue with your remark about people worshipping deities, I took more offense at your attack on Alabama. Idiots are everywhere, and even some tenured Chicago professors are idiots.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
This sort of thing ALWAYS happens in the US in time of war. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. And the Copperheads complained vehemently. There was a great deal of censorship and monitoring of communications sanctioned by Roosevelt during WWII. Americans will tolerate a loss of privacy in exchange for victory. After each war, things went back to normal.
Personally I've got no problem with the NSA doing traffic analysis. If someone's making calls to Waziristan, Yemen, Iran, Syria, and the Bulk Fertilizer Sales Company; they might be a farmer with international customers. But they might be something else, and I'd rather see the Feds act prudently than 'fail to connect the dots' again.
[Insert pithy quote here]
action entirely!
In some kind of academic, edited for history books kind of way you are right, but you are casting the problem in conventional terms.
This administration has reasserted authority using the basic arguement, "because I'm the President and I say so." In practice then, there is *no* check or balance to this new authority, *no* legal constraint. That pretty much flies in the face of what all Americans were taught in school.
There are basically two argument paths:
1. Unitary Executive is innovative. Let's do it!
2. Unitary Executive is bad because it's.... (fill in your reason)
What saddens me is the hostility of most of the comments. The posters make angry statements then appear to do nothing. No, "Hey let's make a group to address the issue." Or, "Maybe you should contact x,y,or z in the gov't and speak up". Turn the fury into action within the constraints of law people.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Privacy is an illusion without security. Security comes 1st, then you can think about privacy.
Propaganda. You poll 500 morons, Then jump to the MYTH that all the usa is in agreement.
The idiots that answer the phones (poll-ees) are not qualified to answer the god damn question. If you asked those same 500 idiots for their credit card number, or ssn, you'd probably get a few hits!
This shit ends now!!!
PNAC and bush have way gone over the line.
Washington Post is sucking up to the facists. --Boycott their ass.
Drop your telco and join Qwest! --Boycott their ass.
And for you last few fools that actually don't care. You better care, it's all about pattern recognition, and they can link just about everyone to something that can get you dragged away in handcuffs.
Executive, Senate, House, Judicial, CIA, NSA, Military and your Vote Technology is owned. WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP!
The CNN Online poll tells different story. It all depends who you ask: http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/24900.co ntent.html
You suppport rampant data mining, and you're apparently not that bright, therefore, rampant data mining can't be good.
You've missed the point. The problem is not whether this form of logging of phone calls is an acceptable tradeoff of privacy for security.
The problem is that the NSA *DOES NOT GET TO MAKE THIS DECISION!* We can't allow secret branches of the government, on their own, to decide what is and is not ok to do, because with that power it is inevitable that they begin to decide that things are ok that we definitely do not want them doing.
If the NSA wants some new power to conduct a new form of survielance, they need to get warrants through the judicial branch or new legislation allowing them to do it through the legislative branch and if they can't (or "don't want to") get either, then they simply should not be allowed to do it.
The biggest problem we have now is that we have the fox minding the chicken coop - the very people in the gorvernment who should be protecting our civil liberties (the justice department) are controlled by the very same people who are taking, without due process, our civil liberties.
paintball
...that the Americans in this poll are particularly interested in preserving - the right to bear arms. They seem to forget about little things like the free exercise of religion, speech, the right to a free press, the right of assembly, the right to be free of unreasonable search and siezures - particularly without warrants - and the right to a public and speedy trial.
It's interesting to me that those who fight for the right to bear arms because they don't trust the government to not interfere with that are more than OK with the government deciding what is reasonable with the search & siezure rule because "they have nothing to hide".
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
Um, I sure wasn't called about this one... This is a completely *&^@ $!?% poll. Bush needs to be taken out back and flogged er something. I'm really starting to think he's the Anti-Christ. He's ruining the environment, causing racial tension, stirring up another war in the Middle East and out right breaking the law with all this unsanctioned monitoring. Where are the governmental checks and balances here? Impeach him already. He's either on a power trip or has a few screws loose!
Best line in the movie. Hell, best line in the entire saga. I was surprised to see Lucas come up with something genuinely profound and relevant.
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
"Any man who is willing to sacrifice a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and will lose both." Many people I speak with deny this quote applies to the activities of the U.S. government during the War on * (currently Terrorism) because law abiding citizens are not effected. The claim is, "Only those who break the law will be concerned about this, do you break the law?" No, I do not break the law, but I do study history. Typically change comes about slowly. Honestly I trust the current administration to use these powers as they advertise, to combat terrorism. Pretty "soon" (10-50 yrs.) citizens will consider these monitoring activities normal. The controversy will be about other bits of liberty that citizens must give up to make their nation more secure. People in power have a tendency to increase their power for various reasons. Unless the U.S. is truly blessed by God we will eventually get a truly evil or truly incompetent (or both) leader who will use the power others have built up improperly. (e.g. A religious nut who will institute thought crime, a hawk who will attempt to take over the world, a despot who will abolish our Federation, whatever else you can think of.) They will have the tools to crush opposition, given to them by generations of politicians with noble causes. Monitoring phone calls/transcripts is just one of those tools and I personally don't think the government should have it in their toolbox. Rogue_LeaderX Note: I'm made many statements here without providing concrete examples. I highly recommend studying China's dynastic cycles and/or European political history since the fall of Rome (especially after Louis the XIV in France.) Another good resource is Winston Churchill's volumes on WWII. Please don't just skim Wikipedia's entries. Wikipedia's overviews due show the changes, but lack any description of how they came about which, in my opinion, is more relevant to our current political debate.
You suppport rampant data mining, and you're apparently not that bright, therefore, rampant data mining can't be good.
*Sigh* I said that the annoying Slashtrolls were almost enough to make me support the NSA program just out of spite. I thought it was clearly evident that this was NOT an actual argument in favor of the program. Most people responding understood this. A few did not. Welcome to the club of those that didn't get it.
The rest of your post I largely agree with, however. The problem of the fox guarding the coop is exactly what's going on. The only caveat is that I acknowledge a need for operational secrecy in some cases.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
From the movie "Judgement At Nuremberg", which can be seen on AMC from time to time.
"Ernst Janning: There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all, there was fear. Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves.
Only when you understand that - can you understand what Hitler meant to us. Because he said to us: 'Lift your heads! Be proud to be German! There are devils among us. Communists, Liberals, Jews, Gypsies! Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed.'
It was the old, old story of the sacrifical lamb. What about those of us who knew better? We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country!
What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler himself will be discarded... sooner or later. The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows. We will go forward. Forward is the great password. And history tells how well we succeeded, your honor."
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Get a fucking clue people. Terrorism isn't a threat to your daily lives. If you actually think it is, then you've been emotionally manipulated by people who want your money and/or vote
Tell that to my uncle who was killed on 9/11. I for one AM worried, because it can happen. I would hope the government is taking every step it can to prevent future terrorism. Just because you don't see it affecting YOU, does not give you the right to belittle people whom it HAS affected.
Why are Americans now allowing the government to pass legislation allowing the same things that got mccarthy labeled a communist back in the 60's? If I'm off target here, someone please educate me. Really.
Didn't George Bush once say "terrorists won't stop at anything to harm our country... and neither will we"? (At least, I think he did. If he didn't, ah well.)
Sure, it was a cock up on his part/the part of the guys who write his speeches, but that seems to be becoming more and more truthful...
These are the same people who voted for GWB last time. The same ones who think that "Creationism" should actually be taught to all kids in school.
Face it, this country is mostly filled with a level if ignorance and stupidity that has been unknown to the world in centuries--perhaps since the dark ages.
Well, actually I'd guess that they have always been there--the media, long distance communications and democracy have just given them a louder voice.
Isn't it obvious? They no longer see your mom and 10 million other Americans as citizens, but as potential terrorists. Hell, I almost wish (almost!) that there were 10 million Americans in league with Al Qaeda. Then they could've skipped the whole ugly 9/11 business, started a political party, and run a presidential candidate of their own.
Think about it. At least those wahoos would be up front and honest about being a totalitarian theocracy with no regard for civil liberties.
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
This reminds me, last week I had to go to some state government offices in Trenton, New Jersey. In order to park you have to show ID to the state trooper at the gate. He looked at it, "Where ya goin?" "Oh, I'm going to the department of revenue." He looked at me funny, "Don't know where that is, but I guess you do." After I parked my car I started laughing histerically. Its not like they wrote down my name or something which they do when signing into the buildings, they just look at your ID. For the full minute the Trooper was staring at my ID, exactly what was he trying to ascertain? Potential thought process: "hmmm, blue, connecticut license, i need something to drink, organ donor huh, but the portapotty hasn't been cleaned out in weeks, maybe i can get reassigned to highway patrol next week, yup definitely an ID, wonder if i'd get yelled at for having a radio out here, what a crappy car, I'll hold him here a bit longer just to make sure he's uncomfortable, bad boys bad boys whatchya gonna"---"have a nice day sir."
I am not an engineer and this may not exactly get my point across, but there are many /. readers who are smarter than myself, and I would like to know what they think about this.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive_the ory
The Boston Globe story points out quite nicely is the utter disregard for the Take Care clause, "[The President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..."
So the current administration is doing what most innovators do, taking the parts that bolster their story and leaving the rest.
Is it good? Bad? (shrugs shoulders)
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Comments:
1) It's the elected politicians job to protect the interests of Blow Joe, even if Blow Joe is an ignorant idiot.
2) Poll numbers are changing by the wind, by the hour.
3) The Constitution was not drafted based on polls - rightly so.
They did use electronic communication, Bin Laden used a satellite phone and there is to this day a host of websites that use coded messages. Everytime a website is closed, 10 more spring up in it's place. There was a show on PBS that went in depth on how they communicate. There was this former Saudi citizen who was in Great Britain and set the whole thing up. The reporter was asking him if he feared getting caught. He said they couldn't because we don't play by the same rules as they do. He said on TV that he has taken precautions just in case. He was asked if he had instructions for an attack that would kill thousands, what would he do. He replied like I have always done, post it. He was asked what he thought of Great Britain he said they will be destroyed and there are no innocents. I don't know, if I had been the reporter, I probably would have shot him right then. No trial. After the London bombings all they did was deport him.
Most Americans these days are shallow, ignorant, and think very one-dimensionally (if at all). They operate in their own little psychic bubble, and are only tenuously connected to anything outside their own narrow world. Unless the issue at hand is something that IMMEDIATELY affects them in a NEGATIVE and TANGIBLE way, they couldn't care less. They do not care about principles or theories. They do not consider unintended consequences or possible secondary and tertiary effects. They cannot extrapolate and understand how something MIGHT be so abused as to affect them in the future. If what is being done does not, at this moment, take money out of their pockets or food off their table; if it does not immediately affect the quality of their lives; if it does not present an imminent and tangible threat to their children, homes, or jobs; then it is nothing of concern to them.
See, tyranny gains a foothold in small, incremental, almost inperceptible ways. It depends on the disinterest and distraction of the multitudes to slowly, bit by bit, eat away at freedom. Even when some act or shift in policy may cause a momentary reaction of concern amongst the multitudes of sheep, it will be sufficiently well-couched in fearmongering, doublespeak, and appeals to patriotism to quickly allay those thoughts and allow a quick retreat back into the bubble of self-deception. By the time things get so bad that even the average dolt understands what is happening, it is already far too late.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
This just in:
People willing to participate in a phone poll do not care about their privacy.
Film at 11.
We have seen two Al'Qaeda attacks on American soil and both targetted the World Trade Center. THe first was in 1993 and the second was in 2001. Eight years passed between the attacks.
Even in Yemen, we see two years between attacks, in Indonesia, we see three years between major attacks, and only in places like Iraq and Afghanistan do we see an ability to turn around and launch major attacks quickly. But both these countries are still torn apart by war, so it is far easier for the terrorists to obtain materials and operate without governments finding them.
So here is the point-- no terrorist attack has occurred on US soil since 9/11/2001 means that we have to wait until at least 2010 until we can even begin to suggest that your thesis might even be true.
Furthermore, we are not winning the "war on terror." At the outset, Afghanistan and Sudan were the largest training grounds for Al'Qaeda. Today Iraq has become another. Rather than promoting stability and prosperity, our government has sown the seeds of uncertainty and other mass afflictions on which terrorism feeds.
When we invaded Afghanistan I warned of the parallel to the invasion of Serbia following the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand-- that this could become a global conflict and if so that we would ultimately lose when faced with the legitimate autonomy aspirations of people from other countries. While this current conflict will go on much longer than WWI, my fears are slowly being realized. Our forces are tied up in two quagmires by countries that fear that they will be next and so work to undermine stability in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the military officials see this as a chess game, where moving troops from Saudi Arabia to Iraq will alleviate some of bin Ladin's propaganda. Naturally, it has had the opposite effect.
Our great nation born of Liberty is, I fear, at a great crossroads. We may lose that Liberty which has been a guiding light for our republic to date. Yet which is a greater threat to our way of life? Atrophy of our Constitutional Rights or a few terrorists who kill fewer Americans in any given month than the automobile?
If terrorists are such a great threat that our Constitution must go, I say that we have lost the one thing worth fighting for...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
But that's not what they're doing, no matter how many times they conflate unmonitored domestic spying with anti-terrorism activities.
How many of you have made a call in the last five years you wouldn't want the NSA to know about - and misinterpret? Maybe you call your best friend in jail regularly, and you don't want it to look like you have a "pattern" of contacts with suspicious people? Maybe your uncle once got busted for pot, but you still like to chat with him about baseball scores? Perhaps your number is one digit off from that of an Islamic charity, so you get a lot of mistaken calls from Muslims? Or perhaps you are Muslim?
We're moving dangerously close to suspicions of guilt by association. When we start talking about patterns of behavior instead of actual criminal behavior, we're in big trouble.
I have nothing to hide. I don't call, or get called by, anyone the government would find suspicious, as far as I know. But that doesn't matter. Just because I'm not the Muslim guy with friends in jail, whose uncle used to grow pot, doesn't mean I want to violate his civil rights.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -Ben Franklin
No, you're a towel.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Encrypted voice communications which the government can't crack are illegal. Do not enable encryption unless you wish to be a guest at one of our facilities.
Thank you, and have a beautiful day.
Lies about crimes
At least with elections, the governments ability to impact our freedom is limited (so long as we recognize the need and vote the bums out) but with private corporations working behind the scenes, there is no such accountability and every day private influence over the public sphere grows.
didn't we already go through this 22 years ago?
...with APPLAUSE
I guess you geeks can get the reference.
The incredible thing to me is the HUGE outrage just a few weeks ago over private investigators selling phone records.
8 0246
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/04/1
I am just waiting for someone to correlate the quotes of the congresspeople expressing the "incredible invasion of privacy" and "no possible justifaction" over the first case with the "absolutely necessary" in the NSA case. It is amazing.
Every news report I have heard on this subject seriously misrepresents it. They always describe it in terms of "let's say you have a terrorist and you want to find out who they are working with..." They conveniently omit that this is not targeted at anyone who is suspected of anything, but is a drag net of the whole population and really gives no additional safety over the targeted tapping. I tried to discuss this with some non-tech people but I guess it is beyond their comprehension. I guess the lack of science education funding is paying off for the government at last.
I can't wait for Bush & co. to use this to find out who is calling news agencies, congresspeople, etc., to make an enemies list. They can even correlate it with news reports, etc. Go Big Brother!
I just hope we remember to celebrate QWest for standing up to these bastards. I already wrote them a letter thanking them. I also hope the class-action lawsuits are HUGE!
A critical hole in this poll is the assertion that the investigation is of terrorism. This NSA program is in fact investigating EVERYONE with terrorism as an after thought. The poll really should say 67% of Americans prefer to be deceived, since that is what putting the question in those terms does. I have a feeling that people would be way less apt to say yes if we asked if the government should be able to investigate anyone at any time for no reason and with no oversight or control over their actions.
I blame the south.
No, the admin recently changed it back to 'child porn'. It was 'terrorism' for a while, but some of the other users (president, congress) complained that it was too hard of a password to remember, so he recently changed it back to good old-fashioned 'child porn'. Why do you even need the root password to the Constitution; last time I checked, it was running Sendmail, which is just as good.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
The people in the US military are hardly volunteers. They're forced via leverage into combat through the realities of class difference.
You're born poor. You get a substandard education because all of the educational dollars and community infrastructure are re-routed to wealthy districts since that's where both the lobbyists and the lawmakers are from since they have the resources to affect policy and ability and access to means to vote while the poor can't even afford to take a day off of work to do so.
Because of this substandard education, you have few prospects in an economy in which labor is moving offshore to line the pockets of the very wealthy through the exploitation of cheap labor. To make things worse, there is NO WORK WHATSOEVER because there is no working economy in your part of town, and you can't afford to commute out of it to the other side of town where the rich people do have a working economy in order to land a job (nevermind the fact that they wouldn't hire you anyway--wrong side of the tracks and all).
But it's a problem to have no prospects, since you live in the inner city and there is no social safety net. There is nowhere for you to grow your own food or improvise shelter, but there is also no social infrastructure to feed you and clothe you, much less provide you and/or your children with basic medical care. You . will . die . prematurely, and so will your children.
BUT... The same Uncle Sam who won't guarantee you BASIC healthcare or fund the security force and investment necessary to help your community to feed itself or jumpstart its economy... comes along and says that if you are willing to carry a gun, he will feed both you *and* your children and provide you medical care and a retirement. Otherwise, you and they will suffer and die young. He promises you that it's safe, you won't die, the numbers are in your favor, our military is ultra-strong and ultra-well-equipped, it's like playing a video game, there's absolutely no risk, plus you'll get to travel and work with computers and get a better education and on-the-job-training and you'll finally have respect instead of being seen as a worthless piece of poor trash, and more to the point your . children . will . eat . and . be . healthy.
What choice do you have? After asking your recruiter again and being promised that it's utterly risk-free, and looking around your dive on the south side and out the window at your graffiti-covered neighborhood with boarded up windows everywhere and drug dealers on every corner, and thinking once more about how you never were able to finish high school because the school was so dangerous you were afraid to go and they didn't actually have any *textbooks* for lack of funding anyway, and you'll never amount to anything and your family has a history of heart disease and cancer and you want to be there for your children... you sign on the dotted line.
And then they send you to Iraq and you die.
And Uncle Sam and his gronies even wealthier thanks to you, a poor person, having been forced into labor at gunpoint to force Iraqis into US service at gunpoint.
And some shmuck posts to Slashdot about how you were happy to do it because you were brave and volunteer-minded.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
"...it appears that the public values security over privacy."
Well, it would seem that the part about giving away their privacy is all wrapped up.
Now, if only we could get that increasing security bit to actually work...
He is your sled? Is his nickname "Rosebud"?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
BTW when will we know we've won the "War On Terror"? Or is it like the "War On Drugs": on the one hand a mere slogan and on the other an irrevocable license justifying whatever measures the Executive branch of government wishes to take?
The MSNBC poll shows 85% against.
-- MarkusQ
I'm sure bothered by it.
In other news the new slogan of the Bush party goes something like:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Please remain within the range of your telescreen.
There goes karma point down the flush!
I don't remember the statistics portion of this but... Someone should point out possible inherent biases in the polls conducted as well as the confidence interval. This post should be modded up for all to read. I don't want to let the master scheming Bush administration slip one by me.
On a different note, have you noticed that in the end of a CNN segment about this NSA spying story, more often than not the reporter finishes with something like "The Bush administration believes that the American people will side with the President on this issue." It's interesting that it's the last thing that's said because anyone with psychology training will tell you that the first and last parts of any story are the most vivid and are most likely to be remembered. Furthermore, people in general like to side with the mainstream on issues and by saying that most people will agree with George W. Bush then it becomes a powerful method of persuading people to side with George W. Bush! Let's keep our eyes peeled.
Home of the sheep and land of the baaaaa!
Think Deeply.
Get some perspective. Do you have any clue how many people have died defending the liberties you're willing to give away because you lost an uncle?
And what about money? In my family alone, I've lost three people to cancer (and more are in remission), including my 28-year-old aunt. So I understand your loss. But I'm not demanding or defending government expendatures of insane amounts of money to cure cancer even though about 200 times more Americans die of cancer every year than die in terrorist attacks. Feel free to add heart disease and a load of other things more deadly than terrorism to that list.
And it would almost - almost - be justifiable and understandable for you to take that point of view, if the methods the government was using to fight terrorism were effective security methods that could actually prevent terrorism. They're not, though, and you're just proving the GP's point: You're being emotionally manipulated.
Don't be angry at me. Don't be angry at the GP. At this point, don't even be angry at the terrorists - they're dead.
Be angry at the people who are using your grief for your uncle and fear for your living loved ones to convince you that they need your freedom and money to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to you and the rest of your loved ones.
While the sentiment of the quote is good and all, it's also most likly made up. http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp
What I don't know I just fake...
It's "Sieg Heil"... *sigh*
No, it's "Swing Hiel" ala "Swing Kids"
FalconShould there be a Law?
Life as a slave is not
That is one of my favorite quotes about patriotism of all time, especially this part:
"May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were once our countrymen."
The final act of disillusion to say "you are not one of us if you will not fight for freedom."
This quote should be above the entrance to every school and government building as a constant reminder that freedom requires diligence.. and a vengeful populace to keep the government in check.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
For one thing, the U.S. is one of the least socialist of the industrialized nations on the planet. The fact that it's also one of the most f***ed up provides some food for thought.
You also seem to not understand what a Socialist system is. --Very simply, it's a system where the means of production are owned by the workers. (Rather than a rich asshole.) What on earth could possibly be wrong with that concept?
I've been part of several co-op ventures; in housing and food production. Guess what? They work amazingly well. --A whole bunch of people collectively owning a mortgage so that instead of paying rent to some wealthy mobster, we buy the building together. With a paid-off mortgage, all the individual building payments dropped by two thirds, (the remainder being for building maintenance and upkeep). Amazing! --Rather than servitude in perpetuity, we become owners and we get to keep our money so that it can be spent on other things rather than funneling it into the pockets of an already rich asshole.
My neighbors were hard-working, smart and well-educated people, we are happy and prosperous. I fail to see the problem with socialism. --Unless. . , (horrors), the so-called 'problem' is a just piece of made-up propaganda sold to dumb voters so that the rich assholes can continue to rape their slaves. Did you ever consider that you've been a victim of media lies sold to you by the very people who want to keep you in bondage?
We're far more socialist up here in Canada, (where, ahem, we have higher literacy rates than in the U.S.), and many more of us seem to recognize that Bush is a dangerous ass. Perhaps those two things are related somehow. . . That literacy might = cognitive ability?
Couldn't be!
Because somehow you managed to see that Socialism is responsible for Americans approving of Bush, the least socialist man on the planet.
All that axe-grinding has clearly ruined your eyes with iron dust.
-FL
Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics.
--Mark Twain
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/12/10481/1427
I certainly am bothered.
What others feel is not relevant. Why's that? I don't let others decide whether the governement can come into my home. Only I make that decision. To have my neighbor say they don't care if the government enters my home is pure stupidity. Stop thinking that just because the majority likes or dislikes something that no other point of view is valid.
During the polling about who won which presidential debate you could find, at least after the initial reaction, that half the polls indicated Kerry and the other half Bush. But days later when you observed those polls you would note that the majority felt Kerry. But Kerry didn't win the Presidential race, so the polls didn't matter.
What mattered was that people didn't want to have someone like Kerry go in and screw up what the coalition and the American troops had accomplished. For me it would have been a tradgedy to pull out the troops under Kerry after those lives were lost, without a chance to accomplish our goals. Notice I said "chance".
This poll is irrelevant. My neighbor doesn't want my privacy stripped away but knows that their own feelings about their own privacy can be voiced differently. If the poll had been reorganized to assess how we felt about our neighbor's privacy rights few would say that they have the right to make that decision.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
But the government already has these sorts of information barriers! The government isn't allowed to merely go trolling through tax returns to find out who is making money they shouldn't be (they can probably subpeona the returns once they already have probable cause but this is a different matter) and they really don't. Drug dealers can list on their income tax form income from other sources and pay tax on it without worrying this is going to tip the government off to them.
I believe there are other barriers of this form as well but the point is you are just factually wrong. Also the supreme court would prevent the use of phone call monitoring (not just meta-info) in court if the surveilance violated a reasonable expectation of privacy so their is a pretty hard limit on how far the government can use this information and there is a fruit of the posinous tree principle which would prevent them from using information collected because this sort of surveilance tipped them off as well.
Besides, if you think it is hopeless to believe the government will never abide by such a restriction why would you think they could ever abide by laws which prevent them from looking at the data in the first place? I mean sure there is a good argument to be made that they won't but in that case the situation is just hopeless so my solution is just as good as one that totally bans the government from looking at phone calls, they will both be overturned or ignored.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
THINK:
If the Washington Post, (or Times, or whatever the heck paper it is), was a REAL paper truly concerned with actual news journalism they would have written extensively about. . .
1. The Diebold voting scandal.
2. The Downing Street Memos.
3. The fact that Saddam and the guy in an American prison are not the same person.
4. The fact that the Bin Laden tapes are fakes.
5. Stephen Colbert's brilliant lamb-basting of Bush and, um, the PRESS.
--Among other items. (Like the mountains and mountains of bullshit surrounding 9-11.)
The fact that NONE of this was dealt with means that the paper is a sham. Period.
So don't get worked up about their made-up polls.
-FL
There are lots of reasons to be suspicious of the Government and like any good mystery just follow the money trail to get to the bottom of it.
have you noticed the recent coast-to-coast gangs that have been caught?
Have you noticed the increase in mafia reporting?
These are advantages of the police state.
Did you notice how the republicans had good info at the last election?
Have noticed all the work that EFF is doing?
Have heard about massive increase in "corporate" theft (ask the EU what they know).
Have you noticed that a little bit of info is leaking at a time about the extent of the leak. That happens when you are an insider and want an investigation, but are not getting cooperation from those that should be paying attention.
These people ought to know a little more history. We have had big democracies "go bad" before. People always think that it only happens elsehwere--until it's too late. Terms like "leader" and "national security" send chills down people's spines when translated into other languages, but Americans are still so naive about it.
Besides your argument would work against *any* privacy or procedural defense that protects drug dealers or child porn downloaders. The public knows quite well that requiring search warrants is letting lots of drug dealers and child porn viewers get away with it yet they tolerate this.
It is obvious to the public that if they let the phone companies turn over all their records to the police without a court order the police would better be able to arrest drug dealers and child pornographers. If your argument is valid how can these protections still exist? These protections are matters of law not constitutional interpratation (the supreme court has abjured any 4th ammendment protection for phone call meta-info) and could be voted down at any time yet they have not been (they have been ignored by Bush but this is a different matter and if any evidence from them was used in a prosecution it would probably be thrown out).
If all you mean is that this information would be subject to subpeona/search warrant then I agree this will probably happen. However, this makes the situation no worse than it is now. This information is already stored in phone company databases (at least the meta-info) and is already subject to subpeona/search warrant. I don't have a problem with information being used in a prosecution once probable cause has already been established and the equivalent of a search warrant is issued what is problematic is large scale fishing expeditions for crime and I think the US public at large is sucpiscious enough of this to support such a restriction. Pretty much everyone does something illegal and simple self-interest will keep such a bar in place if nothing else.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
It's not spying! Your conversations are NOT being recorded, as the media is implying. This is just a database of phone numbers and times, without names or addresses. It is used for data mining, not monitoring. Your phone company has much more information than this. Less than a month ago we all gave the IRS much more personal information, but not one privacy advocate complained.
I can understand if you have a problem with the data mining, and the process to correlate this information to find patterns. But it is not spying and people should stop lying that it is.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
It seems that American's are, indeed, no longer anything like their forefathers that they speak so highly of.
I would hope not. Our forefathers owned slaves and wore tights.
Some of them owned slaves and some were against slavery, such as Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson lived a contradition, though he owned slaves he was against slavery. Another Thomas, Thomas Paine was deadset against slavery as well. Though I don't recall who right now others were abolutionists as well. As far as "wearing tights", today many men wear tights. When I danced years ago in college I as well as the other men who danced wore them as well. There're being worn more in sports also.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Like you just did?
I would be inclined to support land-line encryption of voice lines.
;-)
The technology already exists, but is not really standarized. VoIP offers different forms of it, but land-line encyrption would require specialized hardware on both ends. The oft-seen "mouth pieces" are not really effective.
Add to that, PKI or high-level encryption, and this will thwart the uncontrolled eavesdropping.
It's a matter of setting the standards and getting the phone maker industry to support it. Of course, the NSA will want back doors, so the encryption mechanisms should be modular and the BIOS/Flash code should be open source.
I've got a better chance of being hit by lightning that being killed by the (boogeyman) Terrorists.
When you compare the 3,000+ people that died on 9/11 with the 45,000 or so people that die every single year from highway accidents, it doesn't seem very significant. So I agree with your belief that historical terrorist attacks have not been very scary when placed into context. I would even verbalize what you imply - the actions we take in response to the attack exacerbate the problem, not make it better.
However - with the prospect for future attacks including nuclear weapons (either irradiated traditional bombs or nuclear bombs), all bets are off. Imagine 3,000,000 people and an entire city disappearing.
In that context, in my book it grants pretty significant leeway in terms of what constitutes the "appropriate measures" you speak of.
I'm a big tall mofo.
"So the fact that both NSA programs were routinely reviewed by both the Senate and House intelligence committees made up of members from both parties doesn't count right?"
These programs are NOT overseen by regular committees, and the sight of Alberto Gonzalez lying to the Congress some months ago -- on television -- on this very matter should tell you all you need to know about what "review" of these spying programs are permitted.
There are a couple of members of the intelligence committees that are privy to some of the nonsense that Bush is doing -- BUT.
They are sworn to secrecy, and to discuss the matters they know of to anyone would be a federal offense, punishable by loss of office, a fine, and a prison sentence in real federal prison. The "oversight" is garbage, for the people overseeing the NSA cannot tell anyone about what they know. Sort of opening the crate with the crowbar nailed inside the crate. They may be of the opinion that the operations are illegal and the President needs to be impeached -- BUT.
THEY CAN'T TELL ANYONE.
The "oversight" is manipulated to be impotent.
I somehow think that "oversight" will return as a Republican issue as soon as both the new Democratic president is sworn in. Oversight of his sex life, foreign policy, bank loans his staff's interns were involved in, real estate deals from twenty years ago, his military career or lack thereof, on and on and on and on and on on every cable channel for four solid years, and then redoubling in volume and nastiness when the Democrat is reelected in 2012. I don't think "national security" will stop them. Hypocrites and slime.
Nostradamus would have profited from having the guys who make the game as advisors for his prophecies. There is a timeline there that foretells the great United States of America becoming a totalitarian state, ruled by corporations and the street monsters. I for one, hail our NSA masters... NOT!:P
What? A beutiful butterfly you say? And how exactly are you going to turn into a beutiful butterfly then?
A recent poll found that 37% of Americans are paranoid.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
Lets look at a few things: Do you use a credit card? Do you use a discount card? Do you go on the internet? Ever get unsolicited mail? Magazines subscriptions? We are tracked in so many ways that this one is pretty unobtrusive and meaningless. On the other hand, what are the odds the NSA are going want to look into your boring lives? We really don't have that kind of time. I would much rather have them listen to my phones calls (which isn't what we are doing) then cram those damn pre-approved credit card offers in my mail box every day. Not to mention the endless coupon pamphlets. Now that's a crime.
"I have neither the wit, nor words, nor worth to stir mens blood, I speak only right on". Billy Shakespeare
When this authority is to be handed over to a Democratic administration, watch the same people scream bloody murder, because the commie terrorist sympathizing liberals will be spying on Americans.
Same goes for all the unprecedented powers that the Bush administration has asserted for the Executive. It seems to have all been done in a way that ignores the fact that all the authority will sooner or later be handed over to an opposition party.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
A majority incapable of finding Iraq on a map.
A majority believing in Creationist bullshit.
A majority unable to identify their Constitutional Rights.
A majority not participating in voting.
I fail to be surprised that the general American public is too effing stupid to know when the Administration has driven the train right off the tracks.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Please turn yourself into the local Law Enforcement agency at your earliest convienence. You will be charged with 'sedition', for giving 'aid and comfort to the enemy.'
Kinda scary when free speech turns into that, isn't it?
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
it appears that the public values security over privacy.
Then they'll deserve, and get, neither. It's just a damn shame that 63% will drag the rest of us with them into their Orwelian nightmare. Fools.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Thomas Jefferson believed it was a farmer's responsibility to grow hemp, aka "pot" or marijuana. Hemp is one of the most industrially significant plants there are. When he bailed out of his plane over the Pacific, former president George Bush's life may very well have been saved because of hemp. Many parachute cords were made from hemp. It was only in 1937 with the Marijuana Tax Act that hemp was made illegal, and that because it threatened many wealthy people. But during the Second World War, the federal government pushed to have farmers grow hemp, making and releasing the movie Hemp For Victory. Oil from hemp could be used for fuel and to make plastic. When he designed his diesel engine Diesel designed it to run on most any vegetable oil, of which hemp is a good source. Henry Ford, on his Iron Mountain estate designed and built a car with and powered by hemp. This threatened Rochefeller's and Rothschild's oil wealth and DuPont's plastics manufacturing. Because an efficient method of processing hemp fibers into paper, more paper could be made from an acre of hemp than from an acre of forest, this threatened William Randolf Hearst's business of cutting down forests to make paper.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"The public" also elected Mr. Hitler in 1933.
Sorry to disagree, because the results are upsetting to me, too. But statistics is based on the idea that small samples are representanative of the overall population. The other posters have legitimate points - no cell lines, regional limitations other sampling issues. However, just calling people who answer the phone and answer a survey idiots is not a legitimate point
But you bush haters out there need to start pushing your candidate now. Have you guys even come up with a short list of contenders yet? We pretty much know Cheney isn't gonna run so it's "nearly" a clean slate. Especially given the current adminitration's low approval numbers...
My advice is to stop bitching about how bad it is, and start searching for a candidate that I won't feel uncomfortable voting for. Like it or not, I never felt uncomfortable with Bush (although lately he's starting to wear me thin). On the flip side, I couldn't STAND gore or kerry. They were fake, full of shit, and had no character. Atleast bush believes that what he's doing is for the greater good of our nation. Whether it be true or not, he's alteast acting on his belief structure and not some bullshit poll. Point to me one issue where either of the last 2 looseing candidates could say the same.
So let this be a warning, if you continue to stand around and bitch nothings gonna change. Instead focus your efforts inward and get a guy that I'd vote for. Otherwise the ruleing party will remain so... that you can take to the bank.
-Duff
Maybe the reason members of Congress are so much more outraged is the fact the they have so much more to hide than all of us law abiding citizens. The whole hill is thinking, "Oh, $#!}, what if Abramoff or Delay are on the wiretap list--I don't want to go to prison!"
Something has to be done to restore the rule of law in this country. That the administration can stop the investigation by simply refusing the grant security clearances to anyone assigned to the investigation is unfathomable.
Just ask immigrants from countries that rountinely do these things to their citizens whether it's a great idea for us to follow.
Oh wait, we're too busy calling them all illegals and terrorists.
63% say tap others
;)
:(
66% say tap themselves is ok
NO WAY, and certainly not in US land of NIMBY
Must have been some hella biased/confusing questions or something
Liberty is meant to inhibit the government's ability to outright restrict freedom, but it is inevitable that governments progressively chip away at citizen's rights over time. One of the founders (I forget which one off hand, I think Benjamin Franklin) was asked -- and I'm paraphrasing -- "Do we have freedom now?" and replied "Yes, for as long as we can keep it."
Thomas Jefferson said how there should the USA should have a revolution every 20 years or some such. Paraphrasing here but Franklin did say "Anyone who gives up essential liberty for safety will neither get nor deserve either."
FalconShould there be a Law?
It really doesn't matter how large a percent of Americans mind if their information gets tapped. Our constitution gives me the right to privacy for my person, papers, and belongings, and this comes under that category. It's already been demostrated that the majority isn't allowed to give away the constitutional rights of a minority.
Our lord leader the shrub, on the other hand, is trying to demonstrate that a powerful enough minority can do whatever the damn well please to the majority, and other members of that minority are trying very hard to make sure he gets away with it.
I agree with the tagging system. Stupid sheep.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
There are loads of routes from me to bin laden in 6 steps.
;-)
The obvious one is:
I know my boss.
He knows a rich american. (alternatively, another rich american)
He knows an american senator. (alternatively, a governer etc.)
He knows president Bush. (alternatively, his dad)
He knows (and was partners with) the bin laden family. c.f. Carlisle group
They know Osama bin laden.
If I can knock out a link between me and Bush it could be down to 5 links!
Alternatively, to get to Bush:
I have lots of cute friends
who have met Pete Burns (the singer from "Dead or Alive")
who was on "Big Brother" with George Galloway MP
who met with Saddam Hussein
who met with Donald Rumsfeld
who knows president Bush!
I wonder if Bush is in linkedin.com
While I do not support the NSA phone call tracking system, I can't say that I blame them for "asking" telcos for the information. The database can be very helpful in fighting terrorism. I'm only against the program because it could be abused very easily.
But what about the frelling telcos that gave up the information with out requiring a warrant? Shouldn't we be more pissed off at them? After all, they were not forced to open up their records - the did it voluntarily.
The threat of terrorism on US soil is almost nothing.
A breathtakingly stupid statement. Further discussion is pointless, but I have one additional observation...
He's like the abusive drunk boyfriend who stops by after hanging out with his business buddies to ass-rape us, and he doesn't even give a reach-around.
Better that that immature pervert Clinton who only sought the office in order to solicit blowjobs from interns.
an ill wind that blows no good
>When you don't teach people about the importance of civil liberties, it's no wonder they don't defend them. Bring back civics classes!
The voters who are supposed to supervise the US government don't know how it works, how it was designed, or why.
Government schools might not be the best place to teach it, but imagine a miniseries about the Federalist Papers. Or about Alexis de Tocqueville's _Democracy in America_, a +6 Insightful boook about how democracy and freedom shaped every aspect of American life. He understood so deeply that he foresaw events 130 years from when he wrote.
Sorry but that means nothings. I've seen at least 4 other surveys that say the opposite, and even those don't carry much weight in my opinion.
And a telephone survey? We really still do those?
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
WTF?
I, for one, do NOT welcome our new[ly enfranchized] overreaching-spook-type-Orwellian-wanna-be-Overlo
-Anonymous[?] ex-patriot in residence.
Thomas Jefferson loved his slaves--or, at least one of them.
Yeap, Sally
FalconShould there be a Law?
I agree. A recent telephone survey indicates his statement only holds true for about 63% of them.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
>Terrorism doesn't constitute enough of a threat to justify this sort of action.
If you believe this sort of action can ever be justified in a free society (and that it would work), then consider what happens when you add mass casualty terrorism to one of the following scenarios:
o Pakistani Islamofascists get Army jobs or overthrow Musharraf and take over one or more of Pakistan's nuclear weapons
o Chechen Islamofascists stumble over or buy a Soviet-era misplaced bomb
o Iran gives one to Hezbollah
o Nutcase elements in Gush Emunim gets some of their people in as guards at a depot for Israel's arsenal.
I guess there's too much FUD out there, that people can't see the similarity between these two examples:
People are against trespassers - hence laws that allow people to shoot first, ask later.
Are the same that allow:
Government to tresspass any time, any where, for any reason? Yes any reason since NSA wiretaps do not have to be accountable to anyone.
It doesn't add up. I think there are republican shills who feel if they don't know it's going on, it's alright. laughable.
The thing about this is that it looks like they're just gathering background data for pattern analysis. If they'd *asked*, I probably would have allowed my calls to be logged to collect information on normal call patterns, as long as that's all they were doing.
What I don't understand is why this administration seems to be so bent on doing things furtively. They've got the FISA court that's likely to give them whatever they want already, and they *still* prefer to do it the underhanded way. It's like he's going out of his way to destroy what little credibility he has.
I want to know who in the heck called me to ask me my opinion about should my country be allowed to SPY on me?!? I guess my point here (and I am sure the point of nearly every American on Slashdot that is reading this) is that these statistics are entirely without a single basis of truth.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Autobiography of Mark Twain
I can almost see how they did get this report though. Most Americans hate polls like a fire hydrant hates dogs. The few people willing to take this type of poll probably does not accurately measure any portion of the United States' opinion. This is all just my opinion, but I am fairly certain I am not alone on this one. Sounds like this "random" poll may have been conducted withen the White House.
Just like GW Bush is yours.
Telecommunications Act and the Patriot Act which have been passed since 1979 and say you need a warrant for the type of information the government is collecting.
Then again we aren't even sure what the NSA is doing. Why do you need such a huge database if you aren't going to do searches for patterns or do data-mining? If the call records of individuals are easily available with a warrant within 24 hours what is the point of collecting records on millions of Americans?
Also the polls don't really mean anything. Do some research and you'll see the same type of response with Nixon. It wasn't until the consensus was reached that what he did was illegal that things turned around drastically.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
The precise wording of the question issued by Rassmussen (emphasis mine):
?
1. The NSA program in question apparently gathered call statstics on every call made via the involved carriers for the time period in question. Every call. "Between terrorism suspects" is one thing. "Between every American citizen" is another.
2. The records involved were for all the telephone calls. Not just the ones made between terror suspects, and not just ones that were intercontinental.
I want to make this clear: if the information we're hearing about this program is correct, and you used one of the carriers involved during the time period in question, the NSA now has a record of every time you called out for pizza. Unless you're ordering from Osama Bin Laden's Italian Eatery in Turkmenistan, I don't see how this makes sense.
Stephen McArthur in his Orwell's Grave blog notes that the NYT article written yesterday (that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility sent a fax on Wednesday stating they could no longer look into the warrantless eavesdropping program of the NSA because the NSA wouldn't give them the security clearance) gives evidence that "for the first time in its history, security clearances have been denied to OPR personnel by the National Security Agency, itself," and that "The Bush administration can take credit for the first-ever refusal of this kind."
Authority questions you. Return the favor. -- d474
I thought it might be interesting to look at some phone usage statistics. I went to the FCC's website and looked at the most recent report that I could find:
/ FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports
Unfortunately, the most recent stats that I can find are for 2003. Anyway, as far as I can tell from the table on page 10-4, there are over a trillion phone calls placed every year, and I do not believe that includes cell phones. This would average out to about 2.7 billions calls placed a day, which comes down to about 2 million calls placed per minute. This is probably a conservative estimate, since it appears not to take cell phones into account.
We know that these calls are placed into a database, and supposedly used to monitor potential terrorist communications. I assume the idea would be to have the system flag calls that are related to potential terrorists, or individuals who are suspected of terrorist ties. In theory, this could be used to find a correlation between different individuals who are working together, but may be trying to hide their connection to one another.
Let's assume that the system is ridiculously accurate, and that it properly classifies 99.999% of the calls accurately. This would mean that 0.0001% of the calls are classified incorrectly, i.e. they are false positives, or normal benign citizens engaging in typical phone calls. So, 0.0001% of 2 million means that they could be averaging around 200 false positives per minute. Over the course of a year, this could average out to almost 2 million false positives. Keep in mind that I am ignoring the cases where the system misses terrorists all together.
I assume that alarms generated by the system will involve further investigation from intelligence personnel. Assuming that it takes an agent an average of 8 hours to thoroughly investigate a suspect, this would mean that they would need a staff of:
(200*60)calls/hour * (8)investigator-hours/call * (1)investigator/investigator-hours = 96,000 investigators/hour
So, they would need 96,000 people at any given hour ready to investigate the false alarms kicked out by the system. Clearly, the cost of this system is going to be very prohibitive. In addition, all of the estimates are VERY conservative. In all likelihood, there are more calls placed, and the system is probably nowhere near as efficient as 99.999%.
Conclusion: The odds of this system accurately predicting possible connections between terrorists is very low. At best, it may be used with other sources to establish some sort of correlation. Most likely, it will be used as retroactive evidence of a successful system. In other words, let's say 4 seemingly independent individuals engage in 4 correlated terrorist attacks. After the attack has occured, the NSA could look through their database, and establish a connection between those 4 individuals. Then they could announce a press conference and say, "See... the system works. We know the connection between these 4 terrorists." However, it won't matter, because it will be too late. Plus, millions and millions of dollars will have been spent for a system that produces unreliable alarms that tie up valuable man-hours. In addition, I'm not certain that any statistical models have been tested to ensure the viability of a system of this magnitude. In other words, they are probably using an un-tested system, in which the false alarm could lead to significant troubles for a multitude of otherwise innocent people.
-D
FISA was passed in 1978 but the rest of the laws were after 1979.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Please note the difference between "Britain" and "Western Europe."
>powers that were not created by the Congress, and that cannot be constrained by the Congress.
Then let them pay for it out of their own pockets.
The Founders deliberately gave budget power to Congress and expected them to use it aggressively.
The only two options were "Creepy" and "More Secure". What if you didn't feel that it was creepy, but didn't feel more secure either. What if you were apathetic about it? Well, if you really didn't care, you probably wouldn't have clicked on either option.
CNN's polls are about as scientific as Slashdot's.
My other first post is car post.
I commend you.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
baaah bah bahhhh bahhhh ehn bahhh baaaaa baaa bhaaahh bahhhh bahhhhhh *bleat* bahhhhh bahhh bahh baaaaah.
When did we become the United Pasturlands of Sheep?
The Best...Essay...Ever...on privacy rights comes from the former privacy commissioner of Canada's 2003 overview of privacy in Canada. He shows why privacy is a fundamental human right, and he warns Canada not to give away rights now eroded or gone in the U.S., especially if its at the U.S. government's request. The sad part about the proverbial frog in the stovetop bath is that everyone thinks that if you know about the frog in the pot, you can't possibly be the frog in the pot.
So, pretend he's writing about some other country- Acirema. Boy, I feel sorry for the Aciremans. Quoting (but read the whole overview- sharp, short, relevant):
" The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. Most of us are only willing to have a few things known about us by a stranger, more by an acquaintance, and the most by a very close friend or a romantic partner. The right not to be known against our will - indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves - is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.
" One of the clearest lessons of history is that the greatest threats to liberty come not when times are tranquil and all is well, but in times of turmoil, when fidelity to values and principle seems an extravagance we can ill afford. History also teaches us that whenever we have given in to that kind of thinking, we have lived to regret it.
At the time, the loss of freedom might seem small, trivial even, when placed in the balance of the security we seek. And yet these incremental threats are the ones we must be most vigilant in resisting. The 18th Century political philosopher Edmund Burke understood this danger when he wrote, "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall eloquently made the same point much more recently when he said: "History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure."
...And we must guard against the eagerness of law enforcement bodies and other agencies of the state to use the response to September 11 as a Trojan horse for acquiring new invasive powers or abolishing established safeguards simply because it suits them to do so.
Perhaps it will be necessary to accept some new intrusive measures to enhance security. But these choices must be made calmly, carefully and case by case. The burden of proof must always be on those who suggest that some new intrusion or limitation on privacy is needed in the name of security.
[Balance of privacy and security defined]... Now we face having that successful balance changed, by having Canada transformed into a society where the state is much more intrusive and where individual rights and freedoms are correspondingly reduced. And we face having this transformation occur without the analysis, debate or even understanding that it deserves.
...If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.
But there also will be tangible, specific harm. [..Examples given...]
If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent
Hmmm, no comment on the tights. :)
But I think one could argue that by proxy we are owning slaves. All those people in China, Indonesia, wherever working for less than a dollar a day so that we can have our Nike shoes, cheap electronics, you name it. Yeah we don't have shacks in our backyards where the slaves live, we've just outsourced them overseas.
Im.
We are not weighing security against privacy here.
This is not a security vs. privacy question because progams like this don't improve security.
All this poll proves is that there are many people living in the US who may have American phone numbers, addresses, and passports, but who have no idea what it means to be American.
I can't say that I blame them for "asking" telcos for the information.
I blame them for asking for it and I blame the telcos for giving it without warrants. I'd also blame any judge who gave a warrant for such a wide net of records instead for specific records of specific people. I fear government much more than I do terrorists.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Pointing out the obvious: All this story tells you is that the majority of Americans are stupid :)
Lycra wasn't invented until the 1960s. Were tights made of some other material before then?
Hemp.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The bunch of you make me sick. How dare you post your thoughts on this topic and do nothing.
Of the 753 posts that say something to the effect of "this is right we can't do this, it's going to lead to the downfall of our country" how many of you are going to do something about it?
You're a bunch of phonies. Mod this in to oblivion if you like, it's the only actions you will ever take.
or maybe they do now?
Come see the violence inherent in the mod system!
Um, chill dude, you got unfairly down modded, not suppressed. The mod system here is voluntary and modifiable. For instance, I browse at -1 with flamebait, overrated, and troll marked as +1. Your post was not suppressed as far as I'm concerned. If other people want to use slashdot's voluntary content rating system differently, that's their right.
More importanly, freedom of speach doesn't give you the right to force others to listen to or repeat your speach. I'm assuming you are not a part owner of slashdot? Then you have no inherent right to publish anything here.
Lastly, complaining about having your posts downmodded is tacky and unbecoming of a civilized poster. Everyone gets reasonable posts downmodded for inane reasons. Sometime a loon gets mod points, hopefully meta moderation will ensure that that loon won't get mod points again. But the world will never run out of loons.
The proper way to complain about bad mods is to post complaints anonymously, or use a puppet account. Just be sure to refer to yourself in the third person when doing so, so other people won't know it's you complaining.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Having reread my sources, I'm forced to admit that the underlying premise of my last post was wrong - I was citing the wrong poll. My apologies, please mod that post down into the dirt, and I'll see if I can't find something more useful (not to mention true) later.
I was confused, because my Senator defended this data trolling by stating that it was anonymous. They said the same thing on the news. I'm afraid people will believe things that Senators and Reporters tell them. There are people who will say "But it's anonymous" seriously.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Some things you might want to consider... They (NSA) are NOT recording your phone calls using this new database. That is illegal without a warrent. The only thing they ARE recording is your call details. Your phone number, phone number of the person you call, date and time of call, and duration, and possibly the provider you used to place that call. Nothing else is recorded
But, it's been known for years that NSA has been recording calls "en Masse" through many of their earlier programs. This is the Content keyword search system that's been deployed for years. It was started in the late 50's called Shamrock project, but was discontinued once exposed. About the only thing they used to record is the phone number of the originator of the call, and the content. They feed that to computers to sniff out keywords. This vacuum cleaner approach to getting voice content just gets everything. Totally legal becuase no one individual is targeted.
Ok, and now comes along their big baby... the database. This ties it all together for them (NSA). Lets take a possible scenerio.
First you pick a START - END date, enter a phone number. Number is looked up in database, and call calls it made during that date is displayed, but no content details. A flurry of calls is noticed "Chatter" which might indicate something is coming down. They go to special authority to get court order. Then, they use the new database to extract the date, time, phone number, duration.. this is then indexed into the content database (recorded after the fact), and actual content can be gotten.
Obviously the goons who wrote the wiretapping laws didn't account for the fact that technology for this already exists.
Don't think for a minute just because you have a disposable pre-pay csll phone, that this is going to protect you. If they (authorities) ever stumble upon the disposable phone, their database can collect up gobs if relations and associations from that phone. True, these numbers are no longer used, but because they exist in the database, they can see other associations made (after the fact) and track them down.
So - in actuality, for the past 15 years, everyone's conversation is recorded. Of course this data is not very useful because of the huge volume and difficulty to just glean ONE conversation out of the billions recorded.
Not anymore... The NSA's new super snooper can now get these conversations AFTER THE FACT.
and ONLY when proper court permissions are obtained.
THIS is the scary part - they CAN get what you said to grandma a few years ago if you show up on their radar. The moral of this story - DONT SHOW UP ON THEIR RADAR...
Whatever happened to the dream of everyone having perfect access to all information; "information wants to be free" they exclaimed, and yet, when that information is of value to themselves, they want to preserve it.
There's a big difference between generic nonpersonal info and person info. The former can be and is applied generally not to a specific person. Personal info relates directly to a specific person. I write code for software and I can release the code so everyone can read, that's my right. It's also my right guard my own info, like my ssn, pay, and home morgage, and to prevent or try to prevent someone else from using that info in a way that's damages or potentially damages my finances. Also though there isn't one specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there is the right to privacy and anonymity. At least some of the tracts written during the Amercan Revolutionary War were written anoynmously and the Funding Fathers knew how important privacy and being anonymous can be. I don't recall the year but in the early 1800's the USSC ruled that privacy is a right, as related to the First Amendment's right to free speach and freedom to assemble. Additional Supreme Court rulings including one in the 1960's have upheld this right.
As regards any right (freedom) to harm another, the right of someone who's going to cause harm ends where the rights of the other begins, ie I have the right to punch someone but that right ends where their nose begins unless in selfdefense.
FalconShould there be a Law?
http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=502&row=0
...linked to all the other information held by CP [ChoicePoint]" from medical to voting records.
... that didn't exist. And ChoicePoint just got hit with the largest fine in Federal Trade Commission history for letting identity thieves purchase 145,000 c
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Greg Palast
May 12, 2006
THE SPIES WHO SHAG US
THE TIMES AND USA TODAY HAVE MISSED THE BIGGER STORY -- AGAIN
I know your shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that George Bush is listening in on all your phone calls. Without a warrant. That's nothing. And it's not news.
This is: the snooping into your phone bill is just the snout of the pig of a strange, lucrative link-up between the Administration's Homeland Security spy network and private companies operating beyond the reach of the laws meant to protect us from our government. You can call it the privatization of the FBI -- though it is better described as the creation of a private KGB.
The leader in the field of what is called "data mining," is a company, formed , called, "ChoicePoint, Inc," which has sucked up over a billion dollars in national security contracts.
Worried about Dick Cheney listening in Sunday on your call to Mom? That ain't nothing. You should be more concerned that they are linking this info to your medical records, your bill purchases and your entire personal profile including, not incidentally, your voting registration. Five years ago, I discovered that ChoicePoint had already gathered 16 billion data files on Americans -- and I know they've expanded their ops at an explosive rate.
They are paid to keep an eye on you -- because the FBI can't. For the government to collect this stuff is against the law unless you're suspected of a crime. (The law in question is the Constitution.) But ChoicePoint can collect it for "commercial" purchases -- and under the Bush Administration's suspect reading of the Patriot Act -- our domestic spying apparatchiks can then BUY the info from ChoicePoint.
Who ARE these guys selling George Bush a piece of you?
ChoicePoint's board has more Republicans than a Palm Beach country club. It was funded, and its board stocked, by such Republican sugar daddies as billionaires Bernie Marcus and Ken Langone -- even after Langone was charged by the Securities Exchange Commission with abuse of inside information.
I first ran across these guys in 2000 in Florida when our Guardian/BBC team discovered the list of 94,000 "felons" that Katherine Harris had ordered removed from Florida's voter rolls before the election. Virtually every voter purged was innocent of any crime except, in most cases, Voting While Black. Who came up with this electoral hit list that gave Bush the White House? ChoicePoint, Inc.
And worse, they KNEW the racially-tainted list of felons was bogus. And when we caught them, they lied about it. While they've since apologized to the NAACP, ChoicePoint's ethnic cleansing of voter rolls has been amply rewarded by the man the company elected.
And now ChoicePoint and George Bush want your blood. Forget your phone bill. ChoicePoint, a sickened executive of the company told us in confidence, "hope[s] to build a database of DNA samples from every person in the United States
And ChoicePoint lied about that too. The company publicly denied they gave DNA to the Feds -- but then told our investigator, pretending to seek work, that ChoicePoint was "the number one" provider of DNA info to the FBI.
"And that scares the hell out of me," said the executive (who has since left the company), because ChoicePoint gets it WRONG so often. We are not contracting out our Homeland Security to James Bond here. It's more like Austin Powers, Inc. Besides the 97% error rate in finding Florida "felons," Illinois State Police fired the company after discovering ChoicePoint had produced test "results" on rape case evidence
There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Given that we can't prove that there are no deities, is it not logical to believe that there might (I doubly stress the "might" here) exist one or more deities? If there is such a deity, it may be best to worship them, lest they become wrathful (and no-one wants that).
Ah, but you're going to believe in a diety which one are you going to believe in? Might it not be more logical to not believe in one than to believe in the wrong one?
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's not against the lawc ourt=us&vol=442&invol=735
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
Plus, it's been going on since Clinton. And it's been reported before. Oh wait...Bush is in the Whitehouse. What was ok is now not ok.
Wow, sorry. Mixing up Jefferson and Frankiln, I really DO need a civics course.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
The "small government" conservatives at the National Review seem to be fully in support of the government spying on people judging by their blog posts.
All quotes are made up by someone or another.
If you are wondering what is happening to America these days, you can get a lot of pointers from "Why We Fight"
"Why We Fight" is a documentary film directed by Eugene Jarecki that won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival.
The film describes the rise and maintenance of the United States military-industrial complex while concentrating on wars led by the
United States of the last fifty years and in particular on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
Please have a look at it, it is really wel done, none of the Michael Moore style sensationalism, but more disturbing for its simple presentation.
Trailer from sonyclassics
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/
Bittorrent links to the complete movie:
http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3367179
http://www.torrentspy.com/download.asp?id=347228
Hey you with the mod points! Dont be to harsh, this one comes from the heart.
ABCNews has their usual online voting poll about the issue, and it's currently 2.5 to 1 saying "No, it's not acceptable no matter what the government says", versus the minority saying yes if it's needed to fight terrorism.
I'm not sure where to begin, other than to ask, did you skip your daily dose of amphetamines?
./ comment thread and being modded as insightful. Anyways, don't forget to take your amphetamines and keep on ./'n! :D
./ crowd.
<sarcasm>You seem to know a lot about the NSA's program, were you a former NSA agent? </sarcasm> Where's your evidence that the NSA is illegaly spying on Americans? It might be fun to jump to such conclusions, but you're making serious accusations which usually requires evidence that's indusptable not disputable.
There was a crime commited here, but it wasn't illegaly spying on Americans. Leaking of classified information is a serious crime and I know if I was the illegal leaker I'd want to be an Anonymous Coward too!
Your claims are absolutely ridiculous and barely worthy of an intelligent response, but I take pity on those who are so easily influenced by the media. It's not surprising to find liberal talking points in a
Now mod me down for dissenting with the rest of the
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-privac y05.html
That article points out a much bigger threat to the public's privacy than what the NSA is doing. Yet there's no outcry about it.
The NSA, OTOH, is mining data and looking for patterns with the ultiumate goal of using that information to prevent violence. It's only a matter of time before someone or some terrorist org gets a hold of a suitcase nuke, if they don't already have it.
I think what the NSA is doing is a positive step. If they ever used the data in the wrong way it would cause huge problems, and I'm confident it would be addressed.
When 9/11 occured, everyone wanted to know how the government could possibly miss the obvious and not prevent it. Now they are trying to tune in for the sake of safety. I think it's a positive step. I'm sure they know everyone is watching closely and the first mis-step in using that data will cause huge problems.
Like others, especially Bush supporters, I hear the following
"Unless you have something to hide, why should you be worried?"
Ok. Say a majority of Americans agreed that the NSA recording our calls, making transcripts, keeping phone records, etc. is acceptable for security. Let's see how this might draw out in the next 20 years.
Year 2010
The Government has passed legislation to require PC manufactures to install a chip on the motherboard that allows keylogging, and the data can be collected via an 802.11 adapter that transmits the information to WiFi towers througout neighborhoods, or by gathering the encrypted data directly over the internet. Americans respond, "If you have nothing to hide, why worry?"
Year 2015
The news reports that the Empire State Building was leveled with explosives planted at it's foundations by a terrorist cell. Later this year, the Goverment ratifies several amendments to the Constitution which dramatically relaxes privacy rights for Americans, and increases the broadness in which the Fed's can enact "State Secret". The Freedom of Information Act was also repealed, due to national security concerns of the Senate and administration. The Government now chooses to install camera's into every home w/ audio feeds, which the new law allows. American's respond "If you have nothing to hide, why worry?"
Year 2017
With the increasing number of people being arrested for suspected terrorist or treasonist activity and not being allowed a public trial or attorney, Bill Smith began speaking out vehemently against the governments actions. Four months later, Mr. Smith was arrested by the Government on undisclosed charges, and transported to a secret location. After 3 months of no disclosure as to Mr. Smith's arrest and confinement, family of the Smith's filed suit against the Government for information. The suit was swiftly shot down by the government as it enacted "state secret" saying that due to National Security, it would not grant the court or the defendants attorney's the security clearance to investigate. The Dept. of Justice dismissed all charges against the Government. No other further comments by the Government have been made.
Year 2030
The Smith family receive a letter from the Government stating that Bill Smith died in prison of natural causes. Due to National Security, the body would not be released to the family, nor would the details of the Governments charges against it. Another lawsuit is launched by the Smith family, which is quickly shot down in the same manner as their last lawsuit for their previous suit.
Folks, this could happen. The slippery slope is real, especially when it comes to Government power. I leave you with a previously mentioned quote by Ben Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Moors weren't the only ones thrown out of Spain. Queen Isabela demanded all non believers, Christians, convert or leave "Spain". On top of that the Spain of now isn't and wasn't the Spain of then. Back then the Iberian Peninsula was peopled by many different tribes just as the Americas were. SUCCESSORS OF ROME: THE PERIPHERY OF FRANCIA And some still dream of independence, such as some in Castile. Then there are the Basque, the oldest known people living in Iberia, subjugated by invaders.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If this poll is true (we all know about the army planting false stories in
Iraqi newspapers), it doesn't mean the population isn't wrong. Just because
many people believe something is true does not make it so (just ask Copernicus).
And now, to hammer the point home, I'll invoke Godwin's law.
Just because many Germans didn't care what happened to the Jews in WWII
didn't make the Nazi's actions just.
BTW Canada has introduced limited sharia law this past year. It is "voluntraily" at the moment (ie if you are a woman and live in a muslim area in canada, you are screwed) . So no, everyone will not resist Sharia.
this articlemakes it look like the sharia in Canada thing got shot down. And you greatly exadjerated the scope in which sharia would have been used in the first place (there was never anything regional about it, you would only comply if you yourself were a muslum, and it was only for family disputes).
Now as for the South Park thing, that was Comedy Central's decision, and I think they are a bunch of cowards, but they own the station... What is to stop you from getting a public access show, and making a skit about mohammad getting T-bagged by jesus?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
I'll take my chances with the crooks and terrorists rather than submitting to ubiquitous surveillance. It would be more than a little ironic to have fought the cold war for 50 years only to wind up with Stasi style pervasive surveillance. For all their neo "conservative" rhetoric people who present this sort of argument have a remarkably collectivist view that the security of the collective is more important than the individual. Perhaps that's because many neo-cons started out as Trotskyists?
h tml
"The Trotskyist pedigree of neoconservatism is no secret; the original neocon, Irving Kristol, acknowledges it with relish: "I regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a single bitter memory." Nor is there any doubt about the influence - one might almost say hegemony - of "former Communists" on the post-war conservative movement. Just read the words of one neocon, Seymour Martin Lipset:
From the anti-Stalinists who became conservatives - including James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, and Irving Kristol - the Right gained a political education and, in some cases, an injection of passion. The ex-radicals brought with them the knowledge that ideological movements must have journals and magazines to articulate their perspectives. In 1955, for example, William F. Buckley, Jr., launched National Review at the urging of Willi Schlamm, a former German Communist. In its early years, National Review was largely written and edited by the Buckley family and a handful of former Communists, Trotskyists, and socialists, such as Burnham and Chambers. It played a major role in creating the Goldwaterite and Reaganite New Right and in stimulating an anti-Soviet foreign policy.
Worthy of note is that while ex-Stalinists tended to denounce their Communist roots vehemently, neoconservatives like Kristol and Schwartz remain at least wistfully fond of Trotsky. It's also worth noting that the neoconservative preoccupation with exporting social democracy abroad through war and mercantilism reflects the original split between Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky argued that there could not be "socialism in one country" but rather that the revolution had to be truly international. And so the neoconservatives push for "human rights" and social democratic governments to be imposed on Serbia, for example, by force of arms."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy23.
Did the communists win the cold war after all under guise of "conservatism?"
How "conservative" are they really as state centralists who have little regard for individual freedom and privacy?
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
There are more slaves in America today than during the civil war. Slavery may still be practice under the Constitution if the person has been convicted of a felony (rightly or wrongly). Slave labor is used today in most states and is highly profitable. We've come a long way, eh?
I'm willing to bet that if a Democratic president had instituted these policies, you'd be screaming your head off about how the liberal pinko conspiracy is snuffing out our Constitutional freedoms in the name of governmental control.
You hit it right on the head. Many people will accept something, maybe even applaud it, their own party does but will use demaguery and say how bad it is if the "other" party proposes the same thing.
And also like you I fear government more than I do terrorists. Government even creates terrorists. bin Laden was supported by the CIA and Reagan and Bush Sr admins during the 1980s and early 1990s. During the same tyme they supported Saddam and Iraq. While SH was using chemical weapon against both the Iranians and "his own people", where was the outrage? There wasn't any. Bush Sr told congress when it was debating on whether to put economic and agricultural sanctions on Iraq because of it's use of chemical weapons against Kurds and other Iraqis that such sanctrions would harm trade.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So that NSA agents listening in would know that they have nothing to hide
63% of Americans deserve to be Mexicans.
Our right to bear arms has been eroded. Did you know you can not own machine guns made after 1986? crazy isnt isnt it. you can buy guns before 1986 but not after. I just love what bush and gang have done for the constitution. Great job bushy! Love the NSA taping my and your phone lines. Thanks AT&T!! for working w/ them. but if its one thing i can count on its the falling dollar , the currency becomming worthless due to a lack of a gold standard and the eventualy implosion of the dollar. so dont worry, given time the national debt and spending will destroy the dollar and everything will go into the shitter. me... hell.. im getting solar power and wind for my home. Going to convert a car to biofuels and stocking Guns and ammo legally. I'm already stocking gardening books and such to the info they contain. Call me crazy but if and when the shit hits at least ill be somewhat prepared.
From TFA:
A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.
Wow, 502 people. What a large sample. How much you want to bet they're all from Washington.........
This is irrelevant and proves nothing about what Americans feel.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
I agree, although I am not an American I do believe that giving up freedom for security is a very slippery slope.
Everyone should go read 1984. The NSA is turning into the Ministry of Privacy.
"9. Terrorist go between calls his man Bin Laden."
Unless his cave has a repeater, I doubt Bin Laden is reaching anyone by cell phone in there.
.........doesn't surprise me, most American's seem to be too ignorant to understand what freedom really means and what it requires to maintain it. So they happily give away their civil liberties to a group of thugs who openly violate numerous federal laws. This is why real democracy and real freedom rarely exist in this world.
It's obvious you need those civics classes as much as anyone else. The actual quote is: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
There seems to be disagreements as to exactly what Benjamin Frankiln said. This website says:
To be clear, since it has been a while since I have written on this matter, security and liberty are both highly desirable goals for which we strive. They are, unfortunately, conflicting. Ben Franklin's dictum, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" is oft misquoted as an absolute ("They who would give up liberty for security, deserve neither liberty or security"); Franklin was, alas, not that simpleminded.
This one says basically what you've got but is more compleat:
As Benjamin Franklin once wrote, those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. Where our security and liberty is concerned, we must remain constantly vigilant and uncompromisingly devoted. - Representative Ron Paul, July 13, 1998 [WorldNetDaily]
And this one says:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Although worded differently they all mean basically the same thing, if you give up essential liberty for temporary safety you will neither get nor deserve either.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Now Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" is one book I would require to be read in hs. People need to see the America Alexis saw.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Quote by Samuel Clemons I believe. Otherwise known as mark twain.
The 502 people polled in this poll may have been more scared than average Americans are right now. Look at the details of the polling data. First, the people called were asked:
THEN they were asked:
And exactly the same number of people said that this was "acceptable" as chose the first option in the first question. In other words, the pollsters framed the NSA question around the government's sequence of rhetoric by leading with an "or would you rather be killed by terrorists?" question.
Responses to poll questions change enormously among the middle 30% based on how you ask the question. I think it might be prudent to wait for a more careful poll.
Actually I'm from Greece, so it's more like 4000 years for us. But yeah, 200 years for you.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
When you don't teach people about the importance of civil liberties, it's no wonder they don't defend them. Bring back civics classes!
It isn't that people don't know or care about their civil liberties, it's that they were asked a misleading poll question before most of them had had time to read anything about the subject they were being questioned on. And before you assume that it was an honest mistake, consider that the pollster is a known partisan hack with a history of biased polling.
This poll is nothing short of a brazen public opinion trojan trying to exploit the old "all your friends are doing it" security hole. We're supposed to hear about it and say "Well shucks, if most Americans are in favor of bending over for the soap, why should I be different? After all, they're from the government, and they're here to help us!"
If you've been regularly applying security patches from trusted sources you should be immune to this exploit in any case.
-- MarkusQ
You also seem to not understand what a Socialist system is. --Very simply, it's a system where the means of production are owned by the workers.
I guess the US is pretty socialist then, with all the small businesses it has. Gee, that's also completely compatible with capitalism.
Regarding your utopia, the Israeli Kibutz has largely been a failure, and on a grander scale so was the USSR.
Keep on dreaming.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
To people that say they have nothing to hide ask them,"What is your social security number?" "How much do you make each year?" "What is your deepest darkest fantasy?" The point is, we all have something to hide. Anyone that says they don't is a liar and a food.
If you're not doing anything wrong, why are you being watched? In prison, there is no privacy. So why then, are we who are on the outside without privacy as well? Perhaps the prison walls extend much further than we realized?
Think of this: Someone that doesn't like you works for the government. They can catch your most embarrassing, most private moments of your life and blackmail you with them.
I suppose the US isn't a secular nation by your standards either...
The fact is, Iraq was far more secular than it is today. And how has attacking Iraq (regardless of it's degree of regigiousity) made you more free to express your feelings about mohammad?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
If preventing a nuclear attack is such an important goal, then why is Bush cutting funds to secure loose Russian nuclear material? That budget is a sliver of the Iraq war cost.
There is, as of now, not much chance of a nuclear weapon being used by terrorists. A state is not likely to give such a weapon to a stateless group - because they lose control of the weapon. This is why it never made sense that Saddam might give NBC weapons to an Islamist terrorist group: because they didn't like Saddam, either, and dictators don't like to lose control.
This administration is not acting as if they felt that preventing terrorist attacks on US cities was their primary concern. We don't have to imagine what would happen if a city disappeared - New Orleans was our test case. (Here's a preview - local governments confiscating firearms.)
Funny how even though they were actually capturing voice conversations and full email contents under Clinton, it was totally fine. In fact, the NY Times lauded it as a necessary measure during this day and age. But now that Bush is simply watching the numbers we dial and receive phone calls from it's an impeachable offense. Check THIS out: http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm It's a transcript of a 60 minutes segment on Project Echelon from 2000 - which was obviously before Bush took office in January of 2001. Somehow I imagine that people are going to draw the amazing conclusion that Bush is responsible for Echelon as well as Carnivore during the 90's even though he wasn't President...
So with Clinton it's ok... with Bush it's impeachment and all the while people are allowed to show blatant disregard for the law leaking our national secrets with no fear of imprisonment. Apparently it's our wonderful members of Congress who are above the law (yes I'm talking to you Jay Rockefeller) - not the President. In fact I'd be impressed for someone to prove to me that the powers given to the Executive branch don't allow for the President to approve warrantless wiretaps as a matter of national security. And remember - this is not the first time that the President of our country has chosen to impede on individual privacy for the sake of national security. Ask the Japanese Americans thrown into concentration camps during WWII under Roosevelt. Clinton, Carter, Roosevelt, even Washington and others have taken these kinds of steps.
Don't get your panties all in wad... I've read 1984 too. And believe me, I'm not interested in a police state either. I understand the whole "frog boiling in water" premise in that over time things can be eroded to the point that they are totally gone. But let's not take the slightest movement in that direction as doom and gloom. The President is responsible for protecting the security of this country. Not you. He is the one who we will point to if and when terrorists attack us again. From what I've heard of these programs in the NSA, I think they are the best balance we can hope for between finding terrorists in his country *before* they commit another attack and our individual rights as citizens. It's been almost five years since 9/11. I don't think that the terrorists just gave up. I think they would love to continue to terrorize us and our way of life. And I think these NSA programs and whatever else Bush has been doing have obviously led to these discussions over privacy vs security instead of discussions about the latest terrorist attack and when the next one will come.
For those of you who are so scared about the government listening to whatever you're saying on the phone, I suggest the following: http://www.gizmoproject.com/ coupled with http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/zfone/index.html
If you really really have a problem with the government doing anything to impede on your privacy you can always move somewhere else. Unlike other countries, you are free to leave this one at any time.
That's all I read of your post before hitting reply.
You are a fucking moron, plain and simple. Don't talk about things you have absolutely zero knowledge about.
No one goes into the military to make money, I don't care how poor you think some of us are.
Um, yeah, all first world nations have small businesses. --But many of those countries also maintain high levels of literacy and effective social welfare programs. The U.S. hits the bottom of the list pretty quickly by almost any measurement of socialist thinking, so what is your point exactly? That small businesses are the reason Americans are too stupid not to vote for Bush? Your logic evades me.
Regarding your utopia, the Israeli Kibutz has largely been a failure, and on a grander scale so was the USSR.
Um, the USSR was hardly an example of the workers owning anything, let alone the means of production. It was an example of fascists dictating everything. That's not how my co-op apartment building was run. We held these things called 'elections'. As for Israel. . . I haven't studied the Kibutz, but if they couldn't manage to get them working, they should perhaps have come to some of our meetings to take notes. Co-operating with people in a democratic manner is hardly rocket science. (In any case, I strongly suspect that the Kibutz was something designed to achieve ulterior goals which had little to do with productive, happy community. --A sure way to screw something up.)
Anyway, what I'm mainly pointing out is that the U.S. is by no means an example of socialist thinking, (which you seem to think it is), and I am saying that its woes are therefore not related to socialist philosophy. I am saying you are wrong because your primary argument is not reflected in reality.
-FL
I would hesitate to draw this conclusion. Do people really feel any more secure? Is this the reason they are giving for not caring about the program? I think people are just ambivalent about gov't. I also think that most people don't fully grasp the issue, since the American school system does a poor job of educating students on the fundementals of why our Consitution has certain provisions in it. For example you have to memorize the first 10 Amendments (The Bill of Rights), but you won't really need to understand why all that stuff about how trials by jury, protection against unneed search and seizure, gun rights, etc., were put in there in as a response to direct problems the forefathers had with British rule. Our Consitution is seen as a cultural choice, part of our increasingly diverse tradition, rather than a document with significant philosophical and ethical value. As a result people don't grasp the problem when it is violated.
Additionally out culture has become much more comfortable with voyuerism due to so many reality TV shows and widespread social networking on the internet. We don't understand there is a difference between this type of voyuerism (which is a self made choice) and gov't spy programs, which for the most part are something you can't opt out of and which are totally unmonitored. They are often a first step on the road to dictatorship.
People in the US haven't had experience with the direct negative results of an overbearing and controlling gov't in recent memory. Right now the biggest pain people are feeling is gasoline prices. This coupled with our generally poor education has lead us to a situation where a self important gov't feels free to ignore founding principals which are the direct moral authority for the power they are wielding in our name. I fear will will pay a huge price for this (even more than we are currently paying) in the not too distant future.
Peace, or Not?
YOU hate us because of our freedom...
And actually Bin Laden doesn't even hate us because of our freedom but because many Muslim's are sick of our troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (now quietly gone) and our support of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territory. Yeah those are some hard facts to face up to, but if we really want to stop terrorism that's the reality. Now I'm not saying Bin Laden is right to kill innocent people for his beliefs, no one should physically harm another for their beliefs, but understanding where the anger ACTUALLY comes from is the first step to figuring out how to deal with terrorists. George Bush's fantasies about terrorism or Iraq's role (NOT) in terrorism are 100% unhelpful.
Ironically in your hatred of our freedom you aren't even really like Bin Laden but Bush's cartoon stereotype of Bin Laden.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
And to add to the parent, an example of how the defenition of "terrorist" is being widened -- just yesterday we were discussing the war in iraq, with the defending armies and resistance fighters referred to as terrorists :-/
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Credit where credit is due. I just made a couple of small embellishments.
Wow! THAT was a nonsense reply. Don't want to do any thinking?
which secular country are you talking about. Turkey? oh you meant iraq take a look at what saddam added to the flag in the 90s. It has some writing on it. Some thing about allah. Might secular of him.
I stuck your name in google while I was bored...
your comment:
you do know that iraq is the most secular of all the arab countries and they have had all of that for a very long time right? you can already go get shitfaced in a bar there.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...