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."

47 of 1,322 comments (clear)

  1. security over privacy by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Insightful
    it appears that the public values security over privacy

    Then they'll have neither.

    1. Re:security over privacy by boldtbanan · · Score: 5, Insightful
      But Liberty is supposed to be secure by design
      Not true at all and the nation's founders knew it. 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."

      The masses almost always value security over freedom until they have so little of either a revolution is born.

    2. Re:security over privacy by dputzter82 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I hate polls like this and the responses they bring. I, like 111 Million other americans (according to their numbers) hate this idea.

      Now that's a lot of pissed off people.

    3. Re:security over privacy by renderhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it all sounds very bad until you realize that "the public values security over privacy" is a false statement, or at least very misleading.

      The truth is that the public values a certain amount of security over a certain amount of security. Everyone has their threshhold, and it's different from person to person.

      For example, I'd object greatly to having surveillance cameras mounted in my home if the conditions were "the cameras are a permanent fixture so the government can better protect our nation from terrorists". On the other hand, I wouldn't object at all to the same cameras if the conditions were "they are a temporary fixture so that we can track down and arrest a serial killer who was recently spotted entering your house." Heck, I'd help them install the things!

      In that case, the security issue (my life was in immediate danger from a murderer) outweighed the privacy issue (I might get caught picking my nose on camera).

      In the case of the phone record issue, the 63% cited have weighed the loss of privacy in this case (the government knows who you've called, when, and how many times, but not what you said) against the perceived security threat (the chances of averting a terrorist attack are improved by the government having this data).

      Disagree if you want - observe that 37% of those surveyed did. But don't accuse the other 63% of being stupid sheep unless you know what reasoning they applied to their opinion. What are they personally giving up (in more specific terms than just "privacy")? What are they personally gaining?

      --
      I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.

      -RenderHead

    4. Re:security over privacy by badmammajamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is, unforuntately, very true. I get extremely pissed off when I have to explain to a fellow American why this shit is important. When people say they don't care about the NSA monitoring them because they have nothing to hide I just cringe. (And people wonder why history repeats itself. ) Perhaps our education system is in a complete state of failure.

      Bin Laden has kicked our ass in a way that is so much better than mere body counts. He has cost us hundreds of billions in dollars and, more importantly, managed to shift our entire belief structure. As far as I'm concerned, the terrorists have won. I'm sure this turned out better than Bin Laden ever imagined.

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    5. Re:security over privacy by Buran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if they don't value their security sufficiently, their privacy will be moot because they will be dead. So this 63% are not stupid, as the liberal left constantly alleges, but happy for the powers that be to use one of the few tools they have to give us some small protection from suicidal, religiously deranged nihilists.

      So let me get this straight. You think the government should be able to just basically ignore laws requiring warrants and oversight and just do whatever it wants without any assurance to the people (and "we're protecting your privacy" sound bites don't count)? You think that the hundreds of years of laws that exist to protect the people from government abuses aren't there for a reason? If you really think governments don't abuse their people to get richer and more powerful at their expense, open your eyes and look around. IT HAPPENS.

      Serving the people by keeping them safe is a function of the government. Violating their rights and not being accountable to those same people is not. The government must carry out its protection function while at the same time obeying the laws and making itself accountable and carry out the function of not abusing the people.

      Why do you hate America?

    6. Re:security over privacy by Spaceman40 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bravo. I wonder when people like the GP will understand that the Constitution's only a piece of paper. It's just like money; only worth something because people think it's worth something.

      Take a group with no respect for the principles behind it (and no checks and balances on their power), and it's worthless. The founders wanted to make sure it was really difficult to get around the checks on power for each branch of government, but these checks have been slowly eroding for over 200 years now.

      What's to stop a law being passed that restricts free speech? The president's veto power, the bicameral legislature, and the courts. If none of these are used, the bill of rights is useless.

      It's a piece of paper - why can't people understand that it doesn't magically bind anyone to anything?

      --
      I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    7. Re:security over privacy by KlomDark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh bullshit. Come on. You've got to be kidding.

      I've got a better chance of being hit by lightning that being killed by the (boogeyman) Terrorists. This whole 'terrorists are going to get you' nonsense has gone way too far. Yes, it's a risk, but no reason to go belly up to the threat. Be a man about it. You WILL die someday. It probably (nearly definitely) won't be terrorists. Are you giving up all your privacy and other rights to avoid it?

      Yes, you will die. Think beyond yourself. Your children will live on for a while after you are gone, and your grandchildren after that. Think fourth dimensionally - what kind of a world are you building for them? You want them to be slaves with no freedom of thought, unable to speak their mind because they are being monitored 100% of the day? Just so the fucking boogieman terrorists can't get you?

      Terrorists are a lame red herring. There's always been terrorists, there always will be unhappy people in this world. Take appropriate measures against the risk, but don't become OCD about it and go into a sheep spasm.

    8. Re:security over privacy by Spaceman40 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "their privacy will be moot because they will be dead."

      Have you taken a look at death statistics? Deaths by terrorism in 2005 (around the world) number somewhere between 10,000 to 15,000 (reports vary). Deaths by car accident? 42,636, in the US alone. Don't talk about terrorism as if it's the biggest threat to life in the world today. We'd have better luck sending the NSA against cancer, for example, or using the money to purchase portable defibrillators.

      So use some other argument for this - "They're attacking our country, we must defend ourselves," perhaps. Just don't use FUD.

      (by the way: I know a bunch of smart people on the right. In fact, they generally have very compelling arguments for smaller government. This sort of thing, though, is not smaller government - why is it conservative?)

      --
      I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
  2. Yay! For the USA! by jawtheshark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    1. Re:Yay! For the USA! by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Insightful
      what is the point of privacy [...] if you are dead.

      Well, I think that Franklin implied something in that statement: you have to be willing to die to protect your freedoms. Don't forget he signed the declaration of independence and that was essentially the same as signing his own death warrant. After all, it made him essentially a traitor to the power-in-place at that moment.
      His quote has to be seen in that context. These days nobody seems to want to die for freedom anymore and hence the freedom is taken away piecemeal...

      Look, I'm not even American, but I do think I understand the historical context. I think that Benjamin Franklin was indeed a wise man and I am only a pinko-commie-euro-bastard.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    2. Re:Yay! For the USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, I'll fill you in on a bit of history.

      There once was a country. They were known as Germany. The people of Germany wanted a stronger Germany and a stronger government. So they voted for a new group known as the Nazi party, which gradually eroded their civil liberties in almost the same manner as the current Bush administration. Eventually the Nazi party had enough control of Germany to establish Hitler as Germany's dictator and go on a rampage through Europe, killing lots of innocent people, especially jews.

      Even if you don't mind the government (which can send you away without a trial) having access to any of your opinions on it, (whoops, we accidently thought all our biggest denouncers were terrorists and sent them to GTMO, oh well, we'll just keep it confidential) there's an even bigger concern.

      People in congress talk on phones too. So do the supreme court judges. And with an administration that has a history of leaking intelligence information for political gain, I wonder how long it'll be before they threaten to "accidently leak" gathered phone calls from politicians who refuse to go along with them. Everybody has skeletons in their closets, politicians even more so, and now the White House is able to know exactly what they are and how to take advantage of them.

    3. Re:Yay! For the USA! by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Benjamin Franklin must be spinning in his grave...

      This morning on NPR, they interviewed a guy from the CATO institute (not exacty a bastion of left-wing liberalism) who said that while the NSA program, on initial review, appeared to meet the letter of the law, it certainly wasn't implemented in the "spirit" of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

      I completely agree with this thought. It may or may not be a legal program, but whatever the legality, it is wrong on so many levels.

    4. Re:Yay! For the USA! by JDevers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many times more people die from car wrecks, preventable heart attacks, etc than die from terrorism. 20,000 people in the US alone die every year from influenza and influenza related pneumonia(1), that is about seven times as many as died in the worst terrorist attack this country has ever suffered. (2) Don't misunderstand, I think radical Islam is a developing problem, but I don't think rooting out terrorists will really stop the problem. The way to stop the problem is to basically do the opposite of what we've done in the Middle East, not spy on every citizen in this country building a giant database of phone calls, emails, and snail mail packages. While the average person doesn't care about this now because they think the "terrists is gonna get me" if the same sort of monitoring was proposed in the mid-90s they would be pretty upset. This database is being built using the MOMENTUM of terrorism, not FOR terrorism. While they might actually catch a terrorist using this database, that doesn't make it worth it. If police came to everyone's house every day and searched them for weapons or plans, there would be virtually no violence in this country, there also would be no freedom, no independence, no innovation, and eventually no money. There is a fine line between protecting one's rights and preventing violence, that line shifts depending on the immediate threat. Terrorism doesn't constitute enough of a threat to justify this sort of action. What America really needs is a good "McCarthyism red scare" like event to take place for us to take back our government, my only fear of that is with a big enough database it might be fairly easy to link ANYONE to a terrorist organization...especially when THEY get to define what is a terrorist.

      1. http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rbUOIN2Yy8sJ:w ww.nfid.org/library/influenza/acknowledgements/inf luenza.pdf+influenza+deaths+2001+united+states&hl= en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3
      2.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_at tacks

    5. Re:Yay! For the USA! by jawtheshark · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So fighting in Iraq is fighting for the freedom of Americans? Huh? Can you elaborate? I frankly see no connection.

      I also want to point out that mandatory conscription has been abolished in many European countries, so the people that enroll into the military also enroll whilst knowing that they can and will die for their country.

      Also, (at the risk of invoking Godwins law), do you really think all Europeans sat still when they were invaded by Nazi Germany? I don't think so .

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    6. Re:Yay! For the USA! by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You're making it sound like everyone who opposes the wiretapping is in this monolithic block of people that all have the exact same extreme opinion. That's not really accurate, and I don't know why you'd pick that up from occasional Ben Franklin references, since there is at least some variety of opinion even in the relatively-polarized slashdot forums.

      You want a rational argument: The information the NSA is getting is illegal. There is a very specific legal process for obtaining wiretaps, and they aren't using it. If they want to be able to do this, they should use the existing legal procedures, or the law should be changed to accomodate the new ones. If they can't obtain this ability through legitimate legislation, why should they be able to do it? Of course there is some degree of tradeoff between privacy and security, but large-scale wiretaps have not turned the tide in the war on terror, and they are illegal.

      You seem to be convinced they're okay because stupid people are opposing them, which seems strange to me since there are plenty of stupid people in any large group, which includes both sides of most political debates, and often stupid arguments get the most airtime (and/or their proponents are the most vocal). For examples of stupid arguments in favor of the wiretapping, how about the government officials who keep insisting that their actions are not illegal? I don't know if you can call it "stupid" when it's just a blatant and easily checked falsehood, but come on. This is the best they can do?

      There are checks and balances built into our system for a reason. The executive branch should not be able to disregard that in the name of security, because it is illegal, and any legitimate trade-off between privacy and security should be made in full view of the public and according to a democratic process. Why are we so insistent on spreading democracy to the rest of the world if we're so willing to bypass it ourselves when it's expedient?

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

  3. Of course. by Sj0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Of course. by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now, really. Would you be comfortable saying that exact same thing to any of the tens of thousands of direct parents/children/siblings of people actually killed by these "non-special" people in New York, Bali, Madrid, or London? Face to face?

      Yes. I would.

      The more you fear this enemy, the more power they have. If you decide that it's worth fearing terrorists because you lost a loved one in a terrorist attack, then you're pissing on their graves.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  4. Re:It's not an OK/Not OK question... by GroinWeasel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "It's might be OK for the NSA to use who you call to establish close ties to a terrorist."

    You just said its OK for the government to consider ALL CITIZENS as potential terrorists AT ALL TIMES.

    Are you SURE thats "might be OK"?

    You just threw presumprion of innocence out the window, without even realising what you did, didn't you?

  5. This is really getting old by porkThreeWays · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:This is really getting old by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no, only about 10% of what Bush has done has kept us from further attack, and the other 90% is about turning the U.S. into a police state. And the bungled war on Iraq was a huge side-track to continued efforts to exterminate those who attacked us, we have woefully few of our armed forces pursuing the masterminds of the 9/11 attack. Bush caling the Iraq war part of the "war on terror" either means he's a liar and/or a complete shit head.

    2. Re:This is really getting old by HairyCanary · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What is especially sad to me is that we have allowed the terrorists to win. What they did directly caused a statistically insignificant amount of damage to this country.

      What we did to ourselves in response, however, is far more impressive.

  6. 6 degrees of Bin laden? by ghostlibrary · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:6 degrees of Bin laden? by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Substitute "Communist" for terrorist, and you'll quickly see that we've been through this B.S. before.

      Good night, and good luck.

    2. Re:6 degrees of Bin laden? by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it's a little more sophisticated than that.

      If you have a list of how has called who, when, and for how long, you can diagram out connections between people and see who are the most influential. Have a look at this image.

      My guess is that they are looking for people who have influence, who are at the center of social hubs. These people are leader-like; they are charismatic and people want to listen to them. They have a lot of connections. They aren't consciouly trying to build an organization or influence people; they are just popular and social.

      If you want to put the kabash on any fomenting organization, or group of people that are causing your problems, just 'take out' the few charismatic leaders. If you look at the image above, if you put 'Ron' and 'Patti' under house arrest, you would pretty much kill any communication between the red and green groups.

      It's a way of keeping information from tavelling between people, so then people must rely on official news sources.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  7. What about regular crime? by stinerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:What about regular crime? by typical · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As we all know "terrorism" is the root password to the Constitution.

      As can be seen by the Reichstag fire, it works nicely to bypass the governmental safeguards of other countries too.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  8. Correction by digitaldc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  9. IRS anyone? by Lester67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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....

    1. Re:IRS anyone? by protohiro1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That information is something I send to the IRS. I know what it says, and it doesn't include my private phone calls. Just my income. And any spending I choose to deduct. A little harder to use that info for evil. Also, in order for tax collection to work, they must have that info. But, to protect our privacy there are many things they cannot do with that data. Just like the NSA isn't allowed to do what they are doing. Because when we give the government powers we create laws to check those powers. This administration has claimed that they don't have to obey those laws. And that is the problem. The government asserts the right to break any law they see fit. This is a problem, don't you think?

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
  10. Re:It's not an OK/Not OK question... by Jimmy+King · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, it's not ok at all for the government to double check all my phone calls just in case I was doing something wrong even though I've given them no reason to believe I have been. Why don't I let them check my house every night to make sure I don't have any stolen goods from my neighbor's house in there, too, and perhaps an escort to make sure I really am going to my office every morning and not the local top secret terrorist hideout. I haven't given them any reason to think that I'm doing those things, but they're at least as likely as me calling terrorists from my house to plan an attack.

  11. Re:It's not an OK/Not OK question... by tassii · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What you are missing here is the basic concept of our government. The Executive Branch (President) enforces the laws, the Legistative Branch (Congress) makes the laws and the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) intreprets the laws.

    Equal, but Separate. Checks and Balances. Remember those terms from grade school? What you have here is an Executive Branch that has set itself above all the others. We call that a Dictatorship.

    Is it beyond redemption? Absolutely not. All that is needed is for Congress to get a spine and conduct some oversight like they are supposed to. Which, unfortunately, will never happen as long as the Party Line is more important than the Nation. I hate to say "I told you so", but the moment the GOP made public their "Contract For America", I could see that the GOP would no longer be able to vote their conscience, but will be required to vote according to some hidden GOP agenda.

    In other words, they would no longer be Our Representatives , as was intended.

    --
    "I drank what?" - Socrates
  12. It's about perspective, you fuckwit. by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's about perspective, you fuckwit. by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh my fucking god. Our ideology? You actually literally believe that they bomb us because they "hate our freedom"? Lay off the crackpipe. No one flies fucking airplanes into buildings because they "hate freedom."

      Yes, I seem to remember getting a mail from the government telling me I need to get RIFD in my arm next time I renew my license.

      If you were paying any attention at all, you'd realize I was making a point using a hypothetical scneario. Point is, we *can* gain increases in security if we sacrifice every last one of our freedoms (and yes, I do include the FREEDOM to associate people e.g. by calling them without being ruthlessly tracked), but that doesn't mean we should. The loss of 2,500 lives mandates at best a very small loss of freedom.

      Abandon Israel? You are definitely off your rocker now. They're the only thing keeping the Middle East from going completely insane.

      Oh yes, I forgot Israel has such a wonderful STABILIZING influence! I think you've got some rat poison in that crack of yours.

      Once Iran gets nukes, you can forget safety, regardless of whether or not we're driving cars on foreign or domestic oil-products.

      Iran getting nukes is indeed scary. Too bad we don't have enough resources to spare to take them on while simultaneously keeping Iraq from plunging into civil war. Maybe we should of thought of that before, you know, we declared war on a country that did not attack us (9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi), does not openly support al-Qaeda, and had no WMDs (don't fucking tell me "everyone thought/knew Iraq had them!" because that's bullshit. The only "evidence" we had was classified, and then turned out to be blatantly false) Iran has a *huge* standing army...

      'm pretty sure everyone in America agreed that something should be done

      Yup, and something WAS done. Flight 93, despite having already given control of the plane to the terrorists, forced them to abort their mission. Any future hijackers will not even get this far (even disregarding the increased security)--they might stab a flight attendant or two before everyone on the plane kicks their fucking asses. On top of this, we made some much-needed changes in the intelligence community (improving inter-agency communication.) That's it; that's all that's needed. If you really want to end terrorism, you must take drastic action like banning all aliens and immigrants from Middle or taking away the things that connect us to them (oil and Israel.) What the hell is this phone monitoring going to do? It's going to show Arabs phoning other Arabs. Likely, every single muslim in this country is only 3-6 'steps' away from al-Qaeda, just like the Kevin Bacon game. If you want to deport all the foriegn muslims then just freaking DO it; don't pretend that monitoring the calling habits of the rest of us is going to make a damn bit of difference.

      Furthermore, just about all what you mention there are ISOLATED incidents. You don't have 2500 people dying of cancer in the same building at the same time.

      Yes, because 2,500 people dying at once is so much worse than millions dying over the course of one year! Really, your logic is so rational it's almost breathtaking.

      Not a member of the debate team, are you?

      At least I can say I'm not a member of the sensationalist spin machine.

      Most of what you mention is not nearly as preventable. Cancer studies have been going on for years and years and years, same with a lot of the other diseases you mention. We haven't made a lot of progress in a lot of those, just measures to prolong life a bit.

      That's just plain ignorant. We've made HUGE strides against many types of cancer, and we've got a slew of new heart disease medicines as well. And I'll wager we haven't spent well over one trillion dollars on research, either (including Afghanistan and Iraq, this figure is acturate.) Who knows what kind of d

  13. What would the Founders say? by surfingmarmot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Yes, it was by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no such thing as a random telephone poll.

    Here's a statistic for you, 100% of people polled by telephone said they were "willing to participate in telephone polls"!

    This is especially relevant here, since those that value their privacy are less likely to participate in telephone polls.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  15. Re:In other news... by lbrandy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .....and another survey found out that the majority of Europeans don't understand why Americans view them as elitist pricks with a smug sense of superiority

    What I've always found curious in these discussions where Europeans start babbling on about the ignorance-filled American dystopia. America, despite the NSA wiretapping and call database, is still eons ahead of most of Europe in terms of government intrusion. The UK, for instance, does incredible stuff that would get people crucified here.

    In my industry, we work with people from many countries... and I can see with absolute certainty that if you do not want the government snooping in your life, America is generally a far better place to be than Europe. Omnipresent video surveillance, automatic liscense plate recognition, and a central database of liscense plates, their locations, and the times. That's reality in parts of western Europe. They don't even lie and say it's for terrorism... it's for dealing with normal criminal activity. They are actively trying to acquire face detection/recognition software to start tracking individuals throughout the community, as well.

    I have no problem with Europeons mocking America for not living up to their stated values. However, let's not get self-righteous... kettles and pots will reign supreme.

  16. Re:Yes, it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a further problem that was seen during the election. Telephone polling is usually limited to landlines, but many young people use a mobile exclusively. So the demographics are screwed even before you start.

  17. Wrong Question by thecitruskid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. Is it any wonder? by edbarbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  19. Best phrase ever. by Poromenos1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  20. Lyme Disease - hey, at least it's not AIDS by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  21. Re:MOD PARENT UP! by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

    To make this like a meeting and have an action item to leave with, this translates into

    1) Openly speak out. Yes, Bush should be impeached. Removed from office? Dunno, but impeachment is the first step to figure this stuff out.

    2) Join the NRA and learn how to protect yourself and your family _AND_ buy at least 20-30,000 rounds of ammo.

    Americans have become such lazy pussies over the years, I guess because they don't think too much, and times have been good for a while, but that is changing, and we need to change in turn.

    We need to be outraged about the BS this government is doing nowadays. No, its not OK to tap my phone. Worried about terrorism, protect our borders thank you. You have the personnel and equipment, now go do your job. With the millions of people walking into our country every year, and the tons of "illegal" goods coming by boat, airplane, tunnels, car, and tractor trailer, its trivial to do a substitute on the cargo for "terrorist" goods and services.

    We run this country, not the government. The government works for us, remember?

    The "Psyops" the government has waged against people in the US and abroad has worked very well on the weak minded people. These manipulations of the government by citing the "War on terror" and the "Save the children" campaigns are clever, and have worked for a while on stupid people, but those days are over.

    Also every time this wiretap nonsense gets mentioned, remember that al Queda (according to the 9/11/01 report) got away with the attacks because _they did NOT use any electronic form of communication_.

    Tapping phones and all of the other illegal shit the government is doing is only a form of terrorism against the people of this country. None of these current efforts will affect the "bad guys".

  22. Re:Yes, it was by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You've hit on what I think is the real issue: oversight.

    Where is the oversight? It would be one thing if the administration was doing this with congressional and judicial oversight. That would afford us at least a minimal protection of our civil liberties. However, the Bush Administration is determined to increase the power of the Presidency under the cover of post 9/11 security. They effectively wish to suspend the Constitution for the duration of the War on Terror, i.e., forever.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  23. The people in the US military are conscripts. by aussersterne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  24. Re:Yes, it was by natoochtoniket · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There is no such thing as a random telephone poll.

    Here's a statistic for you, 100% of people polled by telephone said they were "willing to participate in telephone polls"!

    Here's another statistic for you: 100% of those people were also "willing to have the call recorded"!

    So, the only people who were asked if the approved of the NSA recording phone calls were the people who were both willing to have the phone call recorded, and willing to participate in a telephone poll. The people who objected to having the phone call recorded were not asked the third question.

    This isn't funny. It is just an abuse of statistics.

  25. Re:Yes, it was by AoT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the bigger story here is that there's been yet another leak of classified information without proper authorization. If these leakers who are sharing classified information with non-credentialed sources for their own personal reasons or political gain (there is a clear mechanism in place if they truly believed that a program was violating American law and leaking to a reporter is not it) continue to do this with such regularity, then they may as well just shut down the CIA and NSA and military intelligence agencies and just throw in the towel.

    The people leaking this stuff need to be given medals. What we are seeing now is the intelligence communities response to the Bush administration's attempted takeover of the civilian agencies by the military. (see: nomination of a general to lead the CIA)

    I have to say, I am not a fan of all these secret police agencies operating in the US; I think we need to abolish all of them and reconstitute them with real oversight. But, I am overjoyed at the responsibility that these leakers are taking for informing Americans about these horrible programs.

    Remember, all, or most, of these people have taken oaths to uphold the constitution; and, it's good to see some people take their oeth seriously.