Slashdot Mirror
Innocent Or Not, the NSA Is Watching You
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Wired: "Under construction by contractors with top-secret clearances, the blandly named Utah Data Center is being built for the National Security Agency. A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world's communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails — parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital 'pocket litter.' It is, in some measure, the realization of the 'total information awareness' program created during the first term of the Bush administration — an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans' privacy."
No question about it.
Of-course this 'article' is also a piece of propaganda designed for intimidation.
In the former USSR the people just assumed that KGB had nearly infinite powers, this way people lived in fear and were easily turned into 'seksots' - secret collaborator or secret agent.
It was done consciously this way, to ensure everybody is constantly assuming that everybody else is a 'seksot' and to make sure people don't trust each other and behave according to what is expected from them. Of-course there were real atrocities committed, and that helped plenty to create the atmosphere of fear.
I don't have reasons to doubt that NSA is working on projects like this, of-course I assume that the totality of the information that is released is bullshit, but there is something there that is real. Of-course they want every word that anybody ever recorded and transmitted to anybody - this is power of-course.
The only correct solution to this is to stop government from doing this any further and to take apart what they have done already, for this everybody who is in power right now must be removed from it (including the SCOTUS, it's crap) and new people must be put there who must be forced to obey the Constitution.
You must understand that once you allow the government to go beyond any of the authorised powers (Article 1, Section 8), you will have nothing protecting you at all from crap like this, but also from much worse.
NDAA with indefinite detentions, extra-judicial killings, destruction of all rights, property rights, business rights, complete control of what you do.
Income taxes are nothing compared to all the other stuff they do, at least for income taxes they amended the Constitution.
When did they amend the Constitution to build this NSA data centre to spy on all people, completely destroying presumption of innocence, abolishing the idea of the illegality of search without warrant, murdering people based on what POTUS wants?
Is the 2nd amendment going to be the last line of defence from total tyranny? I don't know, it may be not enough.
You can't handle the truth.
Unfortunately they rarely do use it for such mundane things as catching murderers and child molesters. Sure - they'll catch a few to show how benign such a system is. But then they'll start using it on ordinary citizens who might for example want to make some political changes that they don't like. Or they'll sell the information to private companies who use it to gain an advantage over their competitors. The possibilities are endless.
Yeah, an example of that is the recent (by recent, sometime in the last couple years) conviction of a defense lawyer for "structuring." http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7056927
For anyone unfamiliar with the term, it's the depositing of money into an account in such a way as to avoid triggering mandatory transaction reporting for banks. It's intended as a tack-on charge for money laundering when another crime has been committed. In this case, the lawyer did nothing wrong other than "structure" his deposits. The money was earned legally and all taxes had been paid on it. He even got to keep the money after being convicted, because it was earned legally and taxes had been paid on it. He committed no crime, but because his deposits were designed to not trigger mandatory reporting requirements from the bank, he now has a criminal record.