Well since there are 7,000,000 muslims in the USA, of course ">millions of Americans" should be monitored. These people follow a belief that explicitly calls for the destruction of non-Muslim societies and the establishment of a world-wide caliphate, and are responsible for many terrorist attacks, so it would be daft not to monitor them. Most other Americans are not a threat to society so monitoring them is not justified.
And all Catholics are members of a religion that forbids sex before marriage and the use of contraception. So obviously Catholics never have sex before marriage and never use birth control. Am I doing it right?
But of course, you are a long term thinking genius with extraordinary insight. And not just you, but several hundred other random individuals who are also posting on this web site. Yes, we all are superior, more able to take a broad view of things, and hence develop a better, more rational strategy and philosophy.
Sounds to me like someone is pining for an oligarchy. You (and lots of others posting this kind of nonsense) are smugly arrogant and confident that you know best. Isn't that what everyone was whining about with the NSA 24 hours ago, and praising that kid who took it on himself to leak secrets because he knew best?
I think there are a bunch of people here who wouldn't mind in the least if the government continued to act in exactly the same kind of allegedly disgraceful fashion so long as the government was doing things they liked. Then you'd respond to any complaints by saying that the rabble rousers just weren't intellectual enough to understand what you were doing, and that it's for their own good so they just have to put up with it.
Do you not see the hypocrisy and sheer arrogance of this?
You make a good point. Who's to say my ideas are any better than the status quo? Besides me of course! But things have to be some way. There is nothing wrong with advocating they way you think things should be or not be. The dangerous part is when we start shutting out discussion and the exchange of ideas; or advocating that those who disagree be silenced or worse.
Unfortunately, we already live under an oligarchy. It's just masquerading as a representative democracy. I have thought a lot about this and I think it comes down to honesty and transparency. We can talk about the way things are or ought to be and we can disagree. We all have our own version of the truth and vision of a better world. As long as people are honest and willing to hear other points of view we can maybe get somewhere. But this government, this oligarchy, is not transparent or honest. That's really the issue for me; that they do things in secret and try to manipulate opinion rather than being open and honest about what they are doing and why.
Did Snowden violate the law, yes, he violated the agreements he made when he obtained his security clearance. This the US violate the laws by implementing this kind of program, probably. Was public disclosure the right way to go about it, absolutely not.
There are mechanisms in place for whistle blowers when it comes to classified information. Is it affective, well, I do not have an answer for that. Did Snowden follow channels first before going public, we don't know that yet either.
So you don't know whether Snowden followed internal channels, or whether those channels would have been at all fruitful. But you know that he absolutely did not go about this in the right manner. Got it.
Whether we like it or not, there are process and procedures in place, and the Gov will do what the Gov does (if you think any other country does not do similar crap, you are probably deluding yourself). Follow the appropriate path, if no fruitful resolution comes from that, then public release is a possibility, but expect consequences.
Do you expect that if he had gone up his chain of command, whatever that was, that he would have been heard out and this program would have been made public? I do not. I expect it would have been kept quiet, and he would have been fired. He'd be a target at that point, having made known his opinions. No, the only way to make this program public knowledge was to leak it to the press, just as he did.
... why have not those in the position to, not prosecuted Obama for violating the US constitution and Bill of rights?
All the evidence of Obama intent and his execution of his intentis in his own words and actions of signing, and there is plenty of this on youtube and executive orders.
AFAIK one cannot be charged with violating the Constitution. A person or organization can bring a lawsuit and have a law declared unconstitutional. But a person cannot be charged with such.
I question the justification for most "top secret" government information. The track record of declassified information ever having been material that justified the classified status is pretty poor.
You should look up the case United States v. Reynolds. It is the case that established the state secret doctrine that allows the government to keep information out of court cases on national security grounds. It turns out that in this seminal case, the government used the threat of damage to national security to hide negligence. So yeah, I question whether a lot of classified material really needs to be classified, and whether it's being done for honest reasons.
Sorry if you don't like it - perhaps Americans should elect better politicians and not succumb to fear mongering manipulation tactics next time
The thing is, it is well known how to get the masses to do what you want them to do. I don't want to get all Godwin up in here, but Hermann Goering told us about it decades ago. As he said, it works in any country. So members of the government know that if they tell people they are being attacked and are in danger, the people will let them do what is necessary to keep them safe. Do we really expect people to disbelieve what they see on the news and hear from government spokes people, who after all are supposed to have so much more knowledge and expertise in these things? It's not reasonable. Most people will defer to authority; that's the point of authority.
But really, it's straight up manipulation. The same people who tell us what a dangerous world it is, tell us what must be done to protect the "Homeland". We know the threat of terrorism is being used for political purposes, because Tom Ridge told us as much when he left office. If you think things are different now because the Blue team is in charge you don't know how this game is played.
Everyone is in on scaring the fuck out of the American people. Politicians love it because it gets them more power and money. Big business loves it because they get fat government contracts. The media love it because it gets ratings and clicks. So hardly anyone is going to come out and tell people threat is completely overblown and that interested parties are perpetuating it for their own gain. As George Carlin said, they've got us by the balls. So I don't think it's completely fair to blame the American people for their ignorance when they are being kept that way on purpose.
Thanks for your reply and support. I have learned over the last little while to follow the advice you give. One of my close friends recently said he thought it was funny that most people who know me would have no idea what my politics are or what I really think about what is happening in the world. I seem so normal! I have learned to keep my mouth shut to most people because they have a fundamentally different perspective, and I can't prove to them that the world is not as they think it is. It's frustrating at times, but it has led me to a new view of the truth. They have theirs and I have mine, and that kinda just has to be okay.
Yet with so much surveillance over people, control becomes possible.
How so? Seriously. You still have a choice of what you do or don't do. The only imposition on that choice is your feelings about what a hypothetical other might think when observing you. That isn't "slavery". That is vanity.
Use your imagination. Do you really not see how knowing a lot about a person gives you control over them? What if they have a mistress and you know about it? What if they hold fringe political views and you know about it? What if they are gay and live in a very conservative town, and you know about it? What if they are in the NSA and are preparing to blow the whistle on illegal activities, and you know about it?
They really don't teach critical thinking is school anymore, do they?
Read the subject title. Memorize it. Meditate upon it. Realize that even if people are watching you, they are probably bored stiff because you aren't actually that interesting. Move on with your life.
What if you decide that you wan to try to change the political or economic status quo? Might you become more interesting then?
The ultimate goal of any police state is merely to justify more spending and expand the business of government. Power and control are merely the stepping stones to riches, not a goal in itself. Many people have trouble accepting this, because they focus on the injustice and assume that injustice is the goal. Or they focus on the power and control and assume that power and control are the goals. Or they focus on the failures and assume that the "intentions" are correct but the "implementation" is wrong.
On the contrary, intentions are the smokescreen, power is the stepping stone, injustice is the "collaterage damage", and money is the goal.
At a certain level, yes. But that is not the top level. Do you think a Rockefeller wants more money? Once you have multi-billions, it's not about the money anymore; you couldn't go broke if you tried. Once you're in the upper echelon it is very much about power and control. Haven't you ever wanted to remake the world as you see fit? There are some who operate at that level.
...no matter how private you might deem them, why should joining Facebook matter?
I'm not on Facebook because the company seems to love jerking people around. Their contempt for their users is clear. That and honestly I don't have the time. From what I have seen of Facebook, the stupidity level seems pretty high and I have better things to do. If I had wanted to keep up with all my high-school classmates I would have done so already.
There are things that could be done with that information that I trust they do not intend, but nevertheless may allow to get out.
See, there's your problem right there. We have little way of knowing what is being done with that information, or what information is really being collected. I know this story is about metadata. How do we know what else is being done secretly? I see no reason to trust anyone's intentions in these matters.
We, the voters have a choice. Either start supporting ONLY politicians who fight back against this suppression of our Constitutional rights, or our Republic is doomed. Today is the 64th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's 1984. Support candidates who fight that suppression. Rand Paul is looking really good for 2016.
Meh, Rand Paul is kind of an idiot. You're better off voting Green party.
As someone who frequently gets accused of having the tinfoil hat on a little snug, this is pretty much the worst case scenario.
"We're going to monitor everything, and maybe we'll get lucky" -- and how long before the technology progresses to the point that they can come back and say "hey, we see from phone records you called this alleged drug dealer 5 years ago, so we'll be charging you".
If this isn't about as Orwellian as you can get, I don't know what would be. Give up all your freedoms so we can make sure you keep your freedom is a joke -- Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace.
America is quickly ceasing to be free. And I'm pretty sure this doesn't pass Constitutional muster -- everything nowadays is driven by "we have an opinion which says this is ok, so we're going to do it".
Dude, my tinfoil hat is strapped on tight. This revelation does not surprise me in the least. I have assumed it has been going on since 9/11 at least, if not before. Perhaps not in the same way, but the ECHELON and Carnivore systems have been in use for decades.
The fun part for me is that often when I voice such opinions people say I'm being paranoid, or that I can't prove it so it's not happening (If we operated only on what we could prove, we wouldn't have much). Well now it's out, and everyone can kiss my ass. The government is spying on you. All the time. Why? I can't say. Various reasons I'd guess. I have my theories, and terrorism is at the bottom of the list. But the fact is the NSA (and who knows who else; CIA and NRO anybody?) is sucking up all the data they can get without much impediment.
This program was secret until it was leaked. Are we really so naive as to think that worse things aren't being done that haven't been leaked? Maybe so, but I haven't been surprised at any of the government or business overreach in the last 15 years. So who's the one with the faulty paradigm? Sorry for the rant, I'm a little cranky today.
Real threats to our National Security will know better than to use open communications or phones as well. They tighten the grip on the populace and all the rogue elements just dance around the edges and in the shadows anyway.
Indeed. Does the NSA understand this? I would think so, which makes me wonder what the real agenda is.
I don't even understand why any of this is necessary to debate. Isn't the CIA and NSA forbidden from spying on American citizens? How are we even overlooking this, you know, pretty fucking primary element and just jumping on to other defenses?
Because PATRIOT Act.
Amusingly, I recently had someone tell me to my face that the CIA is forbidden from operating inside the US and therefore does not. What can one do with that level of naiveté?
My first question would be WHY do these have to be SECRET? If there's a legitimate need for the government to access them then why not be open about it?
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
It's secret because it's blatantly unconstitutional. Also because if people don't know it's happening they won't take steps against it. Also because if people knew the real extent of these types of activities, they'd be up in arms.
That is only because no one can ever go against this great administration. Liberals love big government and dictators, just admit it fool? Or will you blame the Tea Party next? Why not, vile liberals and fake conservatives will be our down fall. Keep on kissin it.
If you still think in terms of "liberals" and "conservatives" you really don't understand what's going on here.
Slashdot Mirror
Well since there are 7,000,000 muslims in the USA, of course ">millions of Americans" should be monitored. These people follow a belief that explicitly calls for the destruction of non-Muslim societies and the establishment of a world-wide caliphate, and are responsible for many terrorist attacks, so it would be daft not to monitor them. Most other Americans are not a threat to society so monitoring them is not justified.
And all Catholics are members of a religion that forbids sex before marriage and the use of contraception. So obviously Catholics never have sex before marriage and never use birth control. Am I doing it right?
If that was true, my sexlife would be a lot kinkier and there would be a lot more of it.
If you had more money, it would be.
But of course, you are a long term thinking genius with extraordinary insight. And not just you, but several hundred other random individuals who are also posting on this web site. Yes, we all are superior, more able to take a broad view of things, and hence develop a better, more rational strategy and philosophy.
Sounds to me like someone is pining for an oligarchy. You (and lots of others posting this kind of nonsense) are smugly arrogant and confident that you know best. Isn't that what everyone was whining about with the NSA 24 hours ago, and praising that kid who took it on himself to leak secrets because he knew best?
I think there are a bunch of people here who wouldn't mind in the least if the government continued to act in exactly the same kind of allegedly disgraceful fashion so long as the government was doing things they liked. Then you'd respond to any complaints by saying that the rabble rousers just weren't intellectual enough to understand what you were doing, and that it's for their own good so they just have to put up with it.
Do you not see the hypocrisy and sheer arrogance of this?
You make a good point. Who's to say my ideas are any better than the status quo? Besides me of course! But things have to be some way. There is nothing wrong with advocating they way you think things should be or not be. The dangerous part is when we start shutting out discussion and the exchange of ideas; or advocating that those who disagree be silenced or worse.
Unfortunately, we already live under an oligarchy. It's just masquerading as a representative democracy. I have thought a lot about this and I think it comes down to honesty and transparency. We can talk about the way things are or ought to be and we can disagree. We all have our own version of the truth and vision of a better world. As long as people are honest and willing to hear other points of view we can maybe get somewhere. But this government, this oligarchy, is not transparent or honest. That's really the issue for me; that they do things in secret and try to manipulate opinion rather than being open and honest about what they are doing and why.
Infuriating, isn't it?
How the hell do you know what some guy in North Korea can do?
Did Snowden violate the law, yes, he violated the agreements he made when he obtained his security clearance. This the US violate the laws by implementing this kind of program, probably. Was public disclosure the right way to go about it, absolutely not.
There are mechanisms in place for whistle blowers when it comes to classified information. Is it affective, well, I do not have an answer for that. Did Snowden follow channels first before going public, we don't know that yet either.
So you don't know whether Snowden followed internal channels, or whether those channels would have been at all fruitful. But you know that he absolutely did not go about this in the right manner. Got it.
Whether we like it or not, there are process and procedures in place, and the Gov will do what the Gov does (if you think any other country does not do similar crap, you are probably deluding yourself). Follow the appropriate path, if no fruitful resolution comes from that, then public release is a possibility, but expect consequences.
Do you expect that if he had gone up his chain of command, whatever that was, that he would have been heard out and this program would have been made public? I do not. I expect it would have been kept quiet, and he would have been fired. He'd be a target at that point, having made known his opinions. No, the only way to make this program public knowledge was to leak it to the press, just as he did.
... why have not those in the position to, not prosecuted Obama for violating the US constitution and Bill of rights? All the evidence of Obama intent and his execution of his intentis in his own words and actions of signing, and there is plenty of this on youtube and executive orders.
AFAIK one cannot be charged with violating the Constitution. A person or organization can bring a lawsuit and have a law declared unconstitutional. But a person cannot be charged with such.
Similarly the existence of almost all US weapons systems, and their basic construction and approximate capabilities, are public knowledge.
There is really no way to know if that's true.
I question the justification for most "top secret" government information. The track record of declassified information ever having been material that justified the classified status is pretty poor.
You should look up the case United States v. Reynolds. It is the case that established the state secret doctrine that allows the government to keep information out of court cases on national security grounds. It turns out that in this seminal case, the government used the threat of damage to national security to hide negligence. So yeah, I question whether a lot of classified material really needs to be classified, and whether it's being done for honest reasons.
Sorry if you don't like it - perhaps Americans should elect better politicians and not succumb to fear mongering manipulation tactics next time
The thing is, it is well known how to get the masses to do what you want them to do. I don't want to get all Godwin up in here, but Hermann Goering told us about it decades ago. As he said, it works in any country. So members of the government know that if they tell people they are being attacked and are in danger, the people will let them do what is necessary to keep them safe. Do we really expect people to disbelieve what they see on the news and hear from government spokes people, who after all are supposed to have so much more knowledge and expertise in these things? It's not reasonable. Most people will defer to authority; that's the point of authority.
But really, it's straight up manipulation. The same people who tell us what a dangerous world it is, tell us what must be done to protect the "Homeland". We know the threat of terrorism is being used for political purposes, because Tom Ridge told us as much when he left office. If you think things are different now because the Blue team is in charge you don't know how this game is played.
Everyone is in on scaring the fuck out of the American people. Politicians love it because it gets them more power and money. Big business loves it because they get fat government contracts. The media love it because it gets ratings and clicks. So hardly anyone is going to come out and tell people threat is completely overblown and that interested parties are perpetuating it for their own gain. As George Carlin said, they've got us by the balls. So I don't think it's completely fair to blame the American people for their ignorance when they are being kept that way on purpose.
I never thought I'd see the day when an American is seeking political protection in China.
Thanks for your reply and support. I have learned over the last little while to follow the advice you give. One of my close friends recently said he thought it was funny that most people who know me would have no idea what my politics are or what I really think about what is happening in the world. I seem so normal! I have learned to keep my mouth shut to most people because they have a fundamentally different perspective, and I can't prove to them that the world is not as they think it is. It's frustrating at times, but it has led me to a new view of the truth. They have theirs and I have mine, and that kinda just has to be okay.
Yet with so much surveillance over people, control becomes possible.
How so? Seriously. You still have a choice of what you do or don't do. The only imposition on that choice is your feelings about what a hypothetical other might think when observing you. That isn't "slavery". That is vanity.
Use your imagination. Do you really not see how knowing a lot about a person gives you control over them? What if they have a mistress and you know about it? What if they hold fringe political views and you know about it? What if they are gay and live in a very conservative town, and you know about it? What if they are in the NSA and are preparing to blow the whistle on illegal activities, and you know about it?
They really don't teach critical thinking is school anymore, do they?
Read the subject title. Memorize it. Meditate upon it. Realize that even if people are watching you, they are probably bored stiff because you aren't actually that interesting. Move on with your life.
What if you decide that you wan to try to change the political or economic status quo? Might you become more interesting then?
The ultimate goal of any police state is merely to justify more spending and expand the business of government. Power and control are merely the stepping stones to riches, not a goal in itself. Many people have trouble accepting this, because they focus on the injustice and assume that injustice is the goal. Or they focus on the power and control and assume that power and control are the goals. Or they focus on the failures and assume that the "intentions" are correct but the "implementation" is wrong.
On the contrary, intentions are the smokescreen, power is the stepping stone, injustice is the "collaterage damage", and money is the goal.
At a certain level, yes. But that is not the top level. Do you think a Rockefeller wants more money? Once you have multi-billions, it's not about the money anymore; you couldn't go broke if you tried. Once you're in the upper echelon it is very much about power and control. Haven't you ever wanted to remake the world as you see fit? There are some who operate at that level.
...no matter how private you might deem them, why should joining Facebook matter?
I'm not on Facebook because the company seems to love jerking people around. Their contempt for their users is clear. That and honestly I don't have the time. From what I have seen of Facebook, the stupidity level seems pretty high and I have better things to do. If I had wanted to keep up with all my high-school classmates I would have done so already.
There are things that could be done with that information that I trust they do not intend, but nevertheless may allow to get out.
See, there's your problem right there. We have little way of knowing what is being done with that information, or what information is really being collected. I know this story is about metadata. How do we know what else is being done secretly? I see no reason to trust anyone's intentions in these matters.
We, the voters have a choice. Either start supporting ONLY politicians who fight back against this suppression of our Constitutional rights, or our Republic is doomed. Today is the 64th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's 1984. Support candidates who fight that suppression. Rand Paul is looking really good for 2016.
Meh, Rand Paul is kind of an idiot. You're better off voting Green party.
As someone who frequently gets accused of having the tinfoil hat on a little snug, this is pretty much the worst case scenario.
"We're going to monitor everything, and maybe we'll get lucky" -- and how long before the technology progresses to the point that they can come back and say "hey, we see from phone records you called this alleged drug dealer 5 years ago, so we'll be charging you".
If this isn't about as Orwellian as you can get, I don't know what would be. Give up all your freedoms so we can make sure you keep your freedom is a joke -- Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace.
America is quickly ceasing to be free. And I'm pretty sure this doesn't pass Constitutional muster -- everything nowadays is driven by "we have an opinion which says this is ok, so we're going to do it".
Dude, my tinfoil hat is strapped on tight. This revelation does not surprise me in the least. I have assumed it has been going on since 9/11 at least, if not before. Perhaps not in the same way, but the ECHELON and Carnivore systems have been in use for decades.
The fun part for me is that often when I voice such opinions people say I'm being paranoid, or that I can't prove it so it's not happening (If we operated only on what we could prove, we wouldn't have much). Well now it's out, and everyone can kiss my ass. The government is spying on you. All the time. Why? I can't say. Various reasons I'd guess. I have my theories, and terrorism is at the bottom of the list. But the fact is the NSA (and who knows who else; CIA and NRO anybody?) is sucking up all the data they can get without much impediment.
This program was secret until it was leaked. Are we really so naive as to think that worse things aren't being done that haven't been leaked? Maybe so, but I haven't been surprised at any of the government or business overreach in the last 15 years. So who's the one with the faulty paradigm? Sorry for the rant, I'm a little cranky today.
Real threats to our National Security will know better than to use open communications or phones as well. They tighten the grip on the populace and all the rogue elements just dance around the edges and in the shadows anyway.
Indeed. Does the NSA understand this? I would think so, which makes me wonder what the real agenda is.
That's a mighty fine non-sequitur you've got there.
I don't even understand why any of this is necessary to debate. Isn't the CIA and NSA forbidden from spying on American citizens? How are we even overlooking this, you know, pretty fucking primary element and just jumping on to other defenses?
Because PATRIOT Act.
Amusingly, I recently had someone tell me to my face that the CIA is forbidden from operating inside the US and therefore does not. What can one do with that level of naiveté?
These types of powers are for use against political dissenters, as the social and economic condition of the US continues to deteriorate.
My first question would be WHY do these have to be SECRET? If there's a legitimate need for the government to access them then why not be open about it?
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
It's secret because it's blatantly unconstitutional. Also because if people don't know it's happening they won't take steps against it. Also because if people knew the real extent of these types of activities, they'd be up in arms.
That is only because no one can ever go against this great administration. Liberals love big government and dictators, just admit it fool? Or will you blame the Tea Party next? Why not, vile liberals and fake conservatives will be our down fall. Keep on kissin it.
If you still think in terms of "liberals" and "conservatives" you really don't understand what's going on here.