The laws aren't secret, but some of the court decisions have been, and even some of those are being declassified. The courts use ordinary judges that rotate in from other courts, the courts aren't secret, but the warrants are. The oversight comes from Congress, the courts, and the executive branch.
Frankly I doubt you would trust them if you sat in the court and watched every proceeding. You would most likely be wondering where they hid what was really going on.
I expect that it was the People's Chamber, or "Volkskammer*," that granted the Stasi it's authority to spy.
In the UK it would be up to the democratically elected Parliament to pass legislation authorizing GCHQ's work.
* To an English speaking ear that is oddly similar to Volks hammer or people's hammer. Oddly appropriate in reference to the Stasi which combined both surveillance and repression. I think I would also stay away from any "People's Courts."
Even if - and let's say your a stellar maths grad - you're given the most comfortable desk, access to the best machines and the company of a small subset of brilliant minds, your work won't go to improving human scholarship if you work for a secret service.
Perhaps you could inquire regarding the fate of Polish mathematicians and their work after Germany occupied their country?
The NKVD wasn't castrated, it was decapitated. Like all other such political animals it can and did regrow a new head, or at least had one grafted on. I doubt many people that were on the bad side of the KGB would consider them "castrated." The real change was going from Stalin to a new set of leaders that eased up in various ways on the repression. One example would be the end of wholesale deportations of entire peoples or nations to other parts of the Soviet Union.
If it did, the coma affected their mind. The US and Western Europe have all scaled back their militaries, and their political systems are unchanged. Eastern Europe has greatly liberalized in the last 20 years. Even China has continued its liberalization even if the current Chinese leadership is having some second thoughts. If it was a 20 year coma even the concerns about terrorism would be familiar. Europe had terrorism problems into the 80s, and the US had suffered the Beirut bombing that killed 299.
Remembering of course that "the public" includes: China, Russia, Iran, al Qaida, and any other country, group, or even corporation that would want to exploit it against you. What could possibly go wrong?
DEA and NSA may share data at times, but they aren't the same agency with the same database. I wouldn't be at all surprised if different agencies in the government have different statutory authority in terms of the allowed data retention.
As far as I have heard, "parallel construction" is one way - out of the NSA, not in. Since it seems to be incidental it isn't clear that it is an extensive issue, although it is grounds for concern.
If people want DEA's handling changed, they will have to complain. I wouldn't hold my breath. People don't seem to care much if it isn't NSA. I don't recall you, for example, making many negative remarks about the IRS and yet they are the ones that have demonstrated and admitted to engaging in political oppression that may have tipped an election. If it isn't stopped it could very well lead to a de facto one party state. And won't that be fun?
That is why it is so important to stamp out signs of genuine oppression and actual thuggish behavior immediately when they are identified, and have good oversight over the rest. That is why I find the indifference on Slashdot to the admitted political oppression engaged in by the IRS to be so appalling. People here moan, scream, and wail about oppression this and that when it involves the intelligence agencies. But when it involves the IRS, which unlike the NSA really does have considerable formal power to make the lives of individual Americans hell, which genuinely does have dossiers on almost everyone in America and various other people from around the world, expects you to send them a report at least annually, engages in its own internet surveillance, and now will be charged with overseeing American health insurance and apparently records, hardly anybody seems to care. That goes for the various Canadians, Europeans, and others that speak with an "American voice" of outrage about the intelligence agencies and many other policy questions, as well as the actual Americans that claim they are for "freedom" no matter now many dead bodies are created. It's like talking to someone that claims he greatly loves his family and would protect them to the death, goes ballistic if someone looks cross eyed at his sister, but upon seeing his brother and mother being gang raped simply utters "meh" and walks away. I can think of a number of explanations for that, but few of them are flattering. At the very least it looks like distorted thinking regarding computer-centric issues.
As to the intelligence agencies proper, yes, I think that much of that data, such as the phone metadata, should be purged periodically if it is going to be kept at all. My recollection from some story was that they were supposed to keep it for no more than 5-7 years. If it is going to be kept at all I would like to see it in a separate organization either within or outside of NSA that would be responsible for ensuring proper privacy protections were applied, including proper purging, as well as reporting on its use. I would also like to see more and better congressional oversight, possibly involving the GAO. I'm sure that other nations could put similar arrangements in place.
Intelligence agencies are a potential danger to a democracy, but also a critical part of defending them. They must be watched and governed adequately so that they don't pose an undue risk, but not so tightly that they become ineffective and leave the nation at risk. History generally isn't kind to nations caught unaware. Sometimes they even cease to be. We haven't reached the end of history yet, so they will be needed for many years to come.
And you're worried about Iran putting pressure on OPEC? Deal with your lack of domestic energy security. You had 40 years to wake up, but instead you sold everything off to mostly foreign concerns. Spying on OPEC is just doing dirty work for these businesses to ensure they profitably receive their fuels.
Iran is a member of OPEC. Iran also threatens Europe both with missiles and with the ability to significantly reduce Europe's energy supplies. If you read my post you should have picked up on that. Limiting the ability of Iran to interrupt Europe's energy supplies limits the number of Europeans that will freeze to death in winter. Or was the question of profit your main concern?
There were no dupes, and all TFS's had perfect spelling and grammar.
Dude, that wasn't pseudo-Slashdot, that was Lake Woebegone.
""Well, that's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."".... and of course, none of the stories are dupes, have afflicted grammar, or words misspelled. See you next week.
Iran could make European countries suffer by cutting off energy supplies and can target any adversary with its missiles, a senior Iranian military official said on Sunday.
The Gestapo, KGB, and Stasi were mainly agencies of internal political repression, although the KGB also spied outside the country as well. Since the targets of surveillance were apparently outside the UK, it isn't really the same. That doesn't mean you can't find it disagreeable.
Is America a democracy? It only has one more party than the Soviet Union did.
Yes America is a democracy.* And no, the US does not have just one more party than the Soviet Union. The US actually has dozens of active political parties. Only a few of them attract enough support nationally to run a serious campaign for the two national level offices (president and vice-president). Within states, counties, and cities, parties besides the Republicans and Democrats are much more likely to obtain office. US Senator Bernie Sanders is a socialist (no, really - "... the only self-proclaimed socialist in Congress...). The Reform party started by Ross Perot had a candidate that won the election for governor in the 1990s. Another recent amusing example of a third party win from the "I'm not dead department" - (icing on the cake - he is a software engineer):
And the candidates are those nominated by the powers that be.
I think you misunderstand. Anyone that meets the requirements can run for pretty much any office they care to in the US. Nominations are mechanisms used by political parties to determine who the party will put forward as a candidate for a major election such as president. If you are a serious candidate with real support, that isn't going to be much of a problem. The much bigger problem is getting the support needed to be a serious candidate. Nominations generally take place at the national conventions of the parties after they have gone through the many primary elections and caucuses in the states. If you've won most of the primaries or caucuses, you will probably be the candidate.
And what does it matter, when the vote-counting process is highly suspect?
Counting the votes is a local function, the federal government doesn't play a part. If there is a problem it is a local problem. Voting procedures are subject to scrutiny by election judges.
No, progressive is used in the same way in the US, for pretty much the same political spectrum. The missing piece of the puzzle for you is that fascism was once understood as a progressive movement until political and practical considerations forced a demarcation.
You may find these items interesting even if much of the discussion is framed in an American context.
People like you are why the fucknuts get elected who go out of their way to pass crap like the Patriot Act, and to invade other countries for no reason.
Afghanistan was invaded for refusing to dismantle al Qaida and turn over the demanded leaders after al Qaida attacked the US on 9/11. NATO stood behind the US in its self-defense. It is the only time the self-defense provision of the NATO treaty has ever been used in war.
Iraq was invaded because Saddam had his government act as if it had WMD to fool the Iranians because he thought there was no way that the US and UN would act forcefully to his apparent defiance. He was mistaken.
Nobody went out of their way to pass the Patriot Act, it was a response to the genuine internal security threat posed by al Qaida. And just to be clear, it was passed by Congress. That is the same Congress that prior to that had busied itself with milk price supports, farm policy, taxes, labor law, government budgets, and every other issue it works on.
Obama has done more to destroy democracy in 5 years, than all the other presidents combined.
Lol Trust me Bush did more damage in one year than the whole of the current presidents will ever do.
President Bush had little effect on democracy in the US, and President Obama not much more (it was mainly his supporters in the IRS that engaged in political oppression). As to the rest of your post, it's like reading a left wing satire.
The Bush Administration used 9/11 to gain the level of power and control that allowed them to pass the Patriot Act and create the DHS with all its Draconian aspects, and now the Obama Administration is either unable or unwilling to change it.
It was Congress that passed the Patriot Act, not the Bush administration. The Department of Homeland Security is almost entirely a regrouping of existing government agencies under a new headquarters and member of the President's cabinet. The only major new component is the TSA, and that function was being done before split between the government and private industry, so even that isn't particularly new. President Obama would have little reason to change any of that.
The Patriot Act may have aspects to it that are disagreeable, but it hardly qualifies as draconian.
The terrorists aren't getting what they want. Al Qaida's ultimate long term goal is to create a world of Muslim countries ruled by Sharia. Bin Laden's first demand to the United States in his letter to America was that the US convert to Islam. The US obviously isn't doing that. Europe, on the other hand, is heading for trouble within 100 years unless existing trends change.
Over 40% of the USA citizens are around or below poverty rates and this number is still growing each year.
You should understand what that means, which isn't necessarily what you think it does.
As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker. -- Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?
If food an games aren't sufficient to keep your populace at bay, you'll use fear.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look very carefully I answered a post about a US thing. Why don't you protest that post?
If we can't see what they do I have no trust in them.
If you can see what they do then so can the people they are trying to spy on. That is self-defeating.
If they are capable of what we "know", they are capable of attempting to silence critics.
"Capable of" and "intend to" are completely different questions, as well as matters of legal interest.
The laws aren't secret, but some of the court decisions have been, and even some of those are being declassified. The courts use ordinary judges that rotate in from other courts, the courts aren't secret, but the warrants are. The oversight comes from Congress, the courts, and the executive branch.
Frankly I doubt you would trust them if you sat in the court and watched every proceeding. You would most likely be wondering where they hid what was really going on.
I expect that it was the People's Chamber, or "Volkskammer*," that granted the Stasi it's authority to spy.
In the UK it would be up to the democratically elected Parliament to pass legislation authorizing GCHQ's work.
* To an English speaking ear that is oddly similar to Volks hammer or people's hammer. Oddly appropriate in reference to the Stasi which combined both surveillance and repression. I think I would also stay away from any "People's Courts."
Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I am quite content to both commemorate and celebrate the victory of the allied powers over:
Imperial Japan
Nazi Germany
Fascist Italy
I am quite happy to welcome the friendship of, and cheer for, democratic Japan, Germany, and Italy.
The world would be a very dark place indeed had the former regimes not been defeated.
Now their peoples and nations are shining examples to the world - long may they live and prosper.
When the next iPhone will be curved?
I'd prefer it if the next iPhone were be cured, but that is too much to hope for.
Even if - and let's say your a stellar maths grad - you're given the most comfortable desk, access to the best machines and the company of a small subset of brilliant minds, your work won't go to improving human scholarship if you work for a secret service.
Perhaps you could inquire regarding the fate of Polish mathematicians and their work after Germany occupied their country?
The NKVD wasn't castrated, it was decapitated. Like all other such political animals it can and did regrow a new head, or at least had one grafted on. I doubt many people that were on the bad side of the KGB would consider them "castrated." The real change was going from Stalin to a new set of leaders that eased up in various ways on the repression. One example would be the end of wholesale deportations of entire peoples or nations to other parts of the Soviet Union.
If it did, the coma affected their mind. The US and Western Europe have all scaled back their militaries, and their political systems are unchanged. Eastern Europe has greatly liberalized in the last 20 years. Even China has continued its liberalization even if the current Chinese leadership is having some second thoughts. If it was a 20 year coma even the concerns about terrorism would be familiar. Europe had terrorism problems into the 80s, and the US had suffered the Beirut bombing that killed 299.
Remembering of course that "the public" includes: China, Russia, Iran, al Qaida, and any other country, group, or even corporation that would want to exploit it against you. What could possibly go wrong?
DEA and NSA may share data at times, but they aren't the same agency with the same database. I wouldn't be at all surprised if different agencies in the government have different statutory authority in terms of the allowed data retention.
As far as I have heard, "parallel construction" is one way - out of the NSA, not in. Since it seems to be incidental it isn't clear that it is an extensive issue, although it is grounds for concern.
If people want DEA's handling changed, they will have to complain. I wouldn't hold my breath. People don't seem to care much if it isn't NSA. I don't recall you, for example, making many negative remarks about the IRS and yet they are the ones that have demonstrated and admitted to engaging in political oppression that may have tipped an election. If it isn't stopped it could very well lead to a de facto one party state. And won't that be fun?
Do as I say, not as I do .... If I or any /. reader were to do the same, a pretty harsh sentence would await us.
Governments have many powers that individual citizens don't. I would expect that most people on Slashdot would have recognized this by now.
Does it make you sad that you can't imprison people, or tax them?
You know what? I agree with you.
That is why it is so important to stamp out signs of genuine oppression and actual thuggish behavior immediately when they are identified, and have good oversight over the rest. That is why I find the indifference on Slashdot to the admitted political oppression engaged in by the IRS to be so appalling. People here moan, scream, and wail about oppression this and that when it involves the intelligence agencies. But when it involves the IRS, which unlike the NSA really does have considerable formal power to make the lives of individual Americans hell, which genuinely does have dossiers on almost everyone in America and various other people from around the world, expects you to send them a report at least annually, engages in its own internet surveillance, and now will be charged with overseeing American health insurance and apparently records, hardly anybody seems to care. That goes for the various Canadians, Europeans, and others that speak with an "American voice" of outrage about the intelligence agencies and many other policy questions, as well as the actual Americans that claim they are for "freedom" no matter now many dead bodies are created. It's like talking to someone that claims he greatly loves his family and would protect them to the death, goes ballistic if someone looks cross eyed at his sister, but upon seeing his brother and mother being gang raped simply utters "meh" and walks away. I can think of a number of explanations for that, but few of them are flattering. At the very least it looks like distorted thinking regarding computer-centric issues.
As to the intelligence agencies proper, yes, I think that much of that data, such as the phone metadata, should be purged periodically if it is going to be kept at all. My recollection from some story was that they were supposed to keep it for no more than 5-7 years. If it is going to be kept at all I would like to see it in a separate organization either within or outside of NSA that would be responsible for ensuring proper privacy protections were applied, including proper purging, as well as reporting on its use. I would also like to see more and better congressional oversight, possibly involving the GAO. I'm sure that other nations could put similar arrangements in place.
Intelligence agencies are a potential danger to a democracy, but also a critical part of defending them. They must be watched and governed adequately so that they don't pose an undue risk, but not so tightly that they become ineffective and leave the nation at risk. History generally isn't kind to nations caught unaware. Sometimes they even cease to be. We haven't reached the end of history yet, so they will be needed for many years to come.
And you're worried about Iran putting pressure on OPEC? Deal with your lack of domestic energy security. You had 40 years to wake up, but instead you sold everything off to mostly foreign concerns. Spying on OPEC is just doing dirty work for these businesses to ensure they profitably receive their fuels.
Iran is a member of OPEC. Iran also threatens Europe both with missiles and with the ability to significantly reduce Europe's energy supplies. If you read my post you should have picked up on that. Limiting the ability of Iran to interrupt Europe's energy supplies limits the number of Europeans that will freeze to death in winter. Or was the question of profit your main concern?
There were no dupes, and all TFS's had perfect spelling and grammar.
Dude, that wasn't pseudo-Slashdot, that was Lake Woebegone.
""Well, that's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."" .... and of course, none of the stories are dupes, have afflicted grammar, or words misspelled. See you next week.
hey, GCHQ employees .... Why don't you do something productive?
They were apparently spying outside the country. Isn't that what most people here agree they're supposed to do?
I can see why it might be a matter of concern.
Iran says it has capability to force Europe to 'spend the winter in cold' - Published: 02.28.10
Iran could make European countries suffer by cutting off energy supplies and can target any adversary with its missiles, a senior Iranian military official said on Sunday.
The Gestapo, KGB, and Stasi were mainly agencies of internal political repression, although the KGB also spied outside the country as well. Since the targets of surveillance were apparently outside the UK, it isn't really the same. That doesn't mean you can't find it disagreeable.
Is America a democracy? It only has one more party than the Soviet Union did.
Yes America is a democracy.* And no, the US does not have just one more party than the Soviet Union. The US actually has dozens of active political parties. Only a few of them attract enough support nationally to run a serious campaign for the two national level offices (president and vice-president). Within states, counties, and cities, parties besides the Republicans and Democrats are much more likely to obtain office. US Senator Bernie Sanders is a socialist (no, really - "... the only self-proclaimed socialist in Congress ...). The Reform party started by Ross Perot had a candidate that won the election for governor in the 1990s. Another recent amusing example of a third party win from the "I'm not dead department" - (icing on the cake - he is a software engineer):
Philadelphians Elect First Whig Since 19th Century
And just because: BECOME A WHIG RIGHT NOW! And 6 other vintage parties we should bring back
And the candidates are those nominated by the powers that be.
I think you misunderstand. Anyone that meets the requirements can run for pretty much any office they care to in the US. Nominations are mechanisms used by political parties to determine who the party will put forward as a candidate for a major election such as president. If you are a serious candidate with real support, that isn't going to be much of a problem. The much bigger problem is getting the support needed to be a serious candidate. Nominations generally take place at the national conventions of the parties after they have gone through the many primary elections and caucuses in the states. If you've won most of the primaries or caucuses, you will probably be the candidate.
And what does it matter, when the vote-counting process is highly suspect?
Counting the votes is a local function, the federal government doesn't play a part. If there is a problem it is a local problem. Voting procedures are subject to scrutiny by election judges.
* Democratic republic for the pendants.
No, progressive is used in the same way in the US, for pretty much the same political spectrum. The missing piece of the puzzle for you is that fascism was once understood as a progressive movement until political and practical considerations forced a demarcation.
You may find these items interesting even if much of the discussion is framed in an American context.
What Is a Progressive
A Nicer Form of Tyranny
Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt
Seriously though, America is fascist, for the traditional European definition of fascism
America has never equaled or even been close to equaling the fascists of Europe despite the ambitions of progressives.
People like you are why the fucknuts get elected who go out of their way to pass crap like the Patriot Act, and to invade other countries for no reason.
Afghanistan was invaded for refusing to dismantle al Qaida and turn over the demanded leaders after al Qaida attacked the US on 9/11. NATO stood behind the US in its self-defense. It is the only time the self-defense provision of the NATO treaty has ever been used in war.
Iraq was invaded because Saddam had his government act as if it had WMD to fool the Iranians because he thought there was no way that the US and UN would act forcefully to his apparent defiance. He was mistaken.
Nobody went out of their way to pass the Patriot Act, it was a response to the genuine internal security threat posed by al Qaida. And just to be clear, it was passed by Congress. That is the same Congress that prior to that had busied itself with milk price supports, farm policy, taxes, labor law, government budgets, and every other issue it works on.
Obama has done more to destroy democracy in 5 years, than all the other presidents combined.
Lol Trust me Bush did more damage in one year than the whole of the current presidents will ever do.
President Bush had little effect on democracy in the US, and President Obama not much more (it was mainly his supporters in the IRS that engaged in political oppression). As to the rest of your post, it's like reading a left wing satire.
The Bush Administration used 9/11 to gain the level of power and control that allowed them to pass the Patriot Act and create the DHS with all its Draconian aspects, and now the Obama Administration is either unable or unwilling to change it.
It was Congress that passed the Patriot Act, not the Bush administration. The Department of Homeland Security is almost entirely a regrouping of existing government agencies under a new headquarters and member of the President's cabinet. The only major new component is the TSA, and that function was being done before split between the government and private industry, so even that isn't particularly new. President Obama would have little reason to change any of that.
The Patriot Act may have aspects to it that are disagreeable, but it hardly qualifies as draconian.
The terrorists aren't getting what they want. Al Qaida's ultimate long term goal is to create a world of Muslim countries ruled by Sharia. Bin Laden's first demand to the United States in his letter to America was that the US convert to Islam. The US obviously isn't doing that. Europe, on the other hand, is heading for trouble within 100 years unless existing trends change.
Over 40% of the USA citizens are around or below poverty rates and this number is still growing each year.
You should understand what that means, which isn't necessarily what you think it does.
As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker. -- Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?
If food an games aren't sufficient to keep your populace at bay, you'll use fear.
So, what does "at bay" mean in a democracy?