For those who claim to be for freedom...

[Woodruff]

Good post I found on Reddit:

In technical security, most folks felt the NSA stuff was pretty well confirmed back in in 2006 when a 20-year AT&T engineer came forward with proof of NSA spying of all internet traffic in a San Francisco telecommunications hub. He had the engineering drawings and everything. Here is a bit of it:


The EFF is an electronic civic rights group similar to the ACLU. They put out a timeline of all verified public info about NSA domestic spying programs:
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline

One of the best talks on the issue is by Jacob Appelbaum at last years CCC conference. He had previously spoken on behalf of Wikileaks just after the collateral murder video was released in 2010. He is also known for developing TOR, an internet anonymization tool:


What is the worst is that the US can hardly pay for schools and emergency services because of the sequester, but they have no problems spending an obscene amount building massive data centers capable of performing full spectral surveillance on their own people. That shit ain't cheap.

Also, an article from 2008: http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2008245641_eavesdrop10.html

[Woodruff]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-10-2013/good-news--you-re-not-paranoid---nsa-oversight

[Night Strike]

Furthermore, is this program still going? Obama declared the War on Terror over a couple weeks ago, so obviously the spying is no longer needed for counter-terrorism.

What? I must admit, I had not heard him make this statement.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/23/obama-global-war-on-terror-is-over

[Woodruff]

Furthermore, is this program still going? Obama declared the War on Terror over a couple weeks ago, so obviously the spying is no longer needed for counter-terrorism.

What? I must admit, I had not heard him make this statement.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/23/obama-global-war-on-terror-is-over

Interesting. I like to see the change in rhetoric, because I do actually think that's important. And I'm glad to hear they may be looking at closing GITMO finally.

That said, this bit bothers me:

so the U.S. must focus instead on al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula -- "the most active" in plotting against the U.S. -- homegrown violent extremism and unrest in the Arab world that leads to attacks like the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic post.

So we're going to focus on the terrorists we created, so that we can create some more of them. That's a good plan.

This also:

"Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," he said. "So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."

I do so wish he had simply ended this part of the statement with "in the manner that the Constitution outlines".

And this:

"It is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe," he said in a speech at the end of April. "It is expensive, it is inefficient, it hurts us in terms of our international standing, it lessens cooperation with our allies on counterterrorism efforts, it is a recruitment tool for extremists."

Yeah, because our actions in Iraq haven't been a recruitment tool for extremists. As well, much of the "War on Terror Within Our Shores" is not necessary to keep America safe and, most importantly, IS NOT KEEPING US SAFE ANYWAY.

[Gillipig]

"Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," he said. "So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."

I do so wish he had simply ended this part of the statement with "in the manner that the Constitution outlines".

Would it really matter if he had? Just because a politician promises something doesn't mean he will keep the promise. Here in Sweden it's gone so far that you don't want a politician to promise something because you then know that there's no way they're actually going to do it.

[Woodruff]

"Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," he said. "So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."

I do so wish he had simply ended this part of the statement with "in the manner that the Constitution outlines".

Would it really matter if he had? Just because a politician promises something doesn't mean he will keep the promise.

Even if it is only lip service, that still shows that the politicians FEEL THE NEED to pay the lip service. When they stop feeling like that's even necessary...well, the problem is far worse, in my opinion.

[Gillipig]

"Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," he said. "So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."

I do so wish he had simply ended this part of the statement with "in the manner that the Constitution outlines".

Would it really matter if he had? Just because a politician promises something doesn't mean he will keep the promise.

Even if it is only lip service, that still shows that the politicians FEEL THE NEED to pay the lip service. When they stop feeling like that's even necessary...well, the problem is far worse, in my opinion.

I'm more concerned with that they've stopped feeling the need to keep their promises.

[Woodruff]

"Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," he said. "So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."

I do so wish he had simply ended this part of the statement with "in the manner that the Constitution outlines".

Would it really matter if he had? Just because a politician promises something doesn't mean he will keep the promise.

Even if it is only lip service, that still shows that the politicians FEEL THE NEED to pay the lip service. When they stop feeling like that's even necessary...well, the problem is far worse, in my opinion.

I'm more concerned with that they've stopped feeling the need to keep their promises.

Sadly, that's not exactly new.

[Woodruff]

Excellent article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323844804578531131808392240.html

Some people aren't alarmed, noting they've got nothing to hide. But they're wrong to think it's normal for the government to monitor law-abiding citizens. "There's a reason why our toilets are not in our living rooms," Mr. Glazer said. "You're not doing anything wrong when you go to the bathroom, but it's still something you want to keep private."

[PLAYER57832]

Why is it that everyone is so worried about the government possibly obtaining this data from these companies... but not terrified with the idea that these companies and many we don't even know about already have far, far more than this at their fingertips with essentially no restraint?

Not saying I like this action, but I think folks are worrying about the tip they see on the horizon and not the iceberg beneath -- the one that is about to crash into them below.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why is it that everyone is so worried about the government possibly obtaining this data from these companies... but not terrified with the idea that these companies and many we don't even know about already have far, far more than this at their fingertips with essentially no restraint?

Because of consent and awareness.

Restraint would be potential loss of customers.

Those three factors weren't functioning well with the government's means of providing security.

[stahrgazer]

How many people really think Al Franken deserves to know more about what our government is doing than we the people deserve to know?

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/06/1 ... e-records/

Something around 5 million.

The United States Census Bureau estimates that the population of Minnesota was 5,379,139 on July 1, 2012,

That's the number of folk he represents, even though not everyone voted for him.

My concern with this began with the passing of the Patriot Act back in Bush's time. Our Executive and Legislative branches of government - not just federal, but all the way down to local levels - have proven over and over again to make knee-jerk reactions that do not always fix a problem.

Globally monitoring cellphone numbers and internet data just in case they find some they want to pursue more thoroughly and if they do, they have the information they need right there, without requiring an actual warrant to prove the need, is a feels-good-to-have-done-something-about-terrorism move just like the TSA requiring old ladies to strip down so they can check under their Depends before they can get on a plane; and just like "make more guns illegal to stop gun violence."

It has the potential to criminalize more folk who were otherwise totally innocent, and definitely infringes on our Constitutional rights, but the question is, do the ends justify the means?

I'd say no. Okay, recently we're told that two potential terrorists were found out ahead of time by use of these programs. Let's assume each of those potential terrorists called 25 folk. That's what, 52 numbers. Out of billions of pieces of data - and at least one of those potential terrorists wasn't "found" through these programs, we were given the dude's name first, by British Intelligence.

The expense of collecting those billions of pieces of data about all the innocent citizens, and the very small percentage of data that was actually used to find two potential terrorists... no, it does not make sense to collect all that data on everyday folk so that way less than a fraction of a fraction of one percent is available and may be useful.

But back to NS's original question. Technically speaking, our representatives are "sworn in" to protect the Constitution and their constituents (the folks they represent/who voted them in) and that does give them a right to a little more information than the average joe citizen who doesn't even have to learn and say a Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag in school anymore; just like it makes sense that the PotUS has nuclear missile launch codes and joe citizen does not.

Why is it that everyone is so worried about the government possibly obtaining this data from these companies... but not terrified with the idea that these companies and many we don't even know about already have far, far more than this at their fingertips with essentially no restraint?

Not saying I like this action, but I think folks are worrying about the tip they see on the horizon and not the iceberg beneath -- the one that is about to crash into them below.

When you signed up with those companies to use their services, you signed/agreed to their use of this data within their "Privacy rights notice" restraints. We have no information that these companies are violating their "terms of service" agreements you signed up for (some have in the past, and the law dealt with them.)

When you voted in your representatives/your government, you expected them to abide by the US version of "privacy rights" as outlined in the Constitution. Our government is violating those privacy rights. The only way to get "the law to deal with them" is to make alot of noise and worry about these violations.

[PLAYER57832]

Why is it that everyone is so worried about the government possibly obtaining this data from these companies... but not terrified with the idea that these companies and many we don't even know about already have far, far more than this at their fingertips with essentially no restraint?

Because of consent and awareness.

I see, so you can quote, line for line, all of those "submit and agree" licenses... and you have fully and completely tracked where each of these companies send your data and the form it takes?

If you claim "yes"..then you are flat out lying.

Restraint would be potential loss of customers.

Only true if we were the real fundamental consumer. In some cases, we are nominally, but in many more case the real profit or potential profit comes with selling our information or simply making it available to marketers of all kinds... without the many restraints of truth and responsibility associated with print media.

When 1% of the population holds over 99% of the wealth, how much power do you REALLY think the rest of us truly hold?

To contrast, I actually do get to vote as much as Warren Buffet and Bush, each.

Those three factors weren't functioning well with the government's means of providing security.

We voted Bush out. Obama will be leaving. I don't see Google changing ANY of its practices, despite its motto of "do no harm".

[thegreekdog]

We voted Bush out. Obama will be leaving. I don't see Google changing ANY of its practices, despite its motto of "do no harm".

Player, I honestly agree with you to an extent. Well, I guess not really. Bush wasn't voted out. He couldn't run again. Same with President Obama. But you are faced with two differing decisions.

With respect to politicians, you can choose someone who will respect your privacy rights or someone who will not. When deciding whether to vote for President Obama in 2008 or President Obama in 2012, we were told he would not violate our privacy rights, but he did. So the question is, from a political perspective, do you have a viable alternative (ignoring the Green Party, Libertarian Party, or Socialist Party)? My answer is no. If we assume that Hillary Clinton will represent the Blue Team and Chris Christie will represent the Red Team next time around, do either of those folks strike you as people who will do away with the Patriot Act, its predecessors, and its successors? If the answer is no, then you have no real choice. You are forced to obey and be subject to the laws and regulations of the United States, so if you care about privacy, you're pretty well fucked.

With respect to Google, you could just not use Google. That seems pretty easy. You are not forced to use Google or the Internet, for that matter, so you could easily avoid Google's privacy violations. Plus, Google can't imprison or kill you. The government can.

It's all well and good to believe you have a choice in your elected officials, but you really don't when the choice is between Blue Team Leader and Red Team Leader, where both teams are in agreement as to the ability to violate your privacy.

[Woodruff]

Why is it that everyone is so worried about the government possibly obtaining this data from these companies... but not terrified with the idea that these companies and many we don't even know about already have far, far more than this at their fingertips with essentially no restraint?

In the case of the companies, WE are essentially giving them the data. Nobody is required to use the Internet for personal use. As well, a company essentially wants that information so they can sell you products, whereas the uses the government may find are generally less...worthy. And finally, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. While I am not happy that companies are essentially required to hold onto that data for just general reasons and that they can sell it off, those are significant differences, in my mind.

Not saying I like this action, but I think folks are worrying about the tip they see on the horizon and not the iceberg beneath -- the one that is about to crash into them below.

I think the governmental problems are much more significant than the corporate ones.

[Woodruff]

Why is it that everyone is so worried about the government possibly obtaining this data from these companies... but not terrified with the idea that these companies and many we don't even know about already have far, far more than this at their fingertips with essentially no restraint?

Because of consent and awareness.

I see, so you can quote, line for line, all of those "submit and agree" licenses... and you have fully and completely tracked where each of these companies send your data and the form it takes?

That's not necessary. What is necessary is that I am aware they can do so and that I agreed, at that time, that they could. I CAN try to track all of the information, and some people probably do, but if I am aware of it then I can agree (or not agree) to it. You don't really have that opportunity with the government when their actions are hidden from view "for national security reasons".

Those three factors weren't functioning well with the government's means of providing security.

We voted Bush out. Obama will be leaving. I don't see Google changing ANY of its practices, despite its motto of "do no harm".

Poor example. Google is actually at least giving the appearance of fighting this too.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why is it that everyone is so worried about the government possibly obtaining this data from these companies... but not terrified with the idea that these companies and many we don't even know about already have far, far more than this at their fingertips with essentially no restraint?

Because of consent and awareness.

I see, so you can quote, line for line, all of those "submit and agree" licenses... and you have fully and completely tracked where each of these companies send your data and the form it takes?

If you claim "yes"..then you are flat out lying.

Restraint would be potential loss of customers.

Only true if we were the real fundamental consumer. In some cases, we are nominally, but in many more case the real profit or potential profit comes with selling our information or simply making it available to marketers of all kinds... without the many restraints of truth and responsibility associated with print media.

When 1% of the population holds over 99% of the wealth, how much power do you REALLY think the rest of us truly hold?

To contrast, I actually do get to vote as much as Warren Buffet and Bush, each.

Those three factors weren't functioning well with the government's means of providing security.

We voted Bush out. Obama will be leaving. I don't see Google changing ANY of its practices, despite its motto of "do no harm".

If you can't distinguish between the differences of those three concepts compared between government and corporations, then that's... *le sigh.

Think of a spectrum for each one. Where would you place the government and those corporations?


1. Consensual exchange
2. Transparency/Awareness of Owner/Managerial activities
3. Potential for loss of customers

The government fits around 0-2 for all three. Those corporations are well above 5, perhaps even 8-9.

[patches70]

Think of a spectrum for each one. Where would you place the government and those corporations?


1. Consensual exchange
2. Transparency/Awareness of Owner/Managerial activities
3. Potential for loss of customers

The government fits around 0-2 for all three. Those corporations are well above 5, perhaps even 8-9.

haha! If someone were tossed in prison, would that count as a "loss of a customer" for the government?

Hey, I got a question for ya BBS, using the above 1,2 and 3, use The Federal Reserve and tell me where that corporation fits within those spectrum?

[john9blue]

Why is it that everyone is so worried about the government possibly obtaining this data from these companies... but not terrified with the idea that these companies and many we don't even know about already have far, far more than this at their fingertips with essentially no restraint?

Not saying I like this action, but I think folks are worrying about the tip they see on the horizon and not the iceberg beneath -- the one that is about to crash into them below.

so what is the worst that these companies could do with this information?

answers involving the government will not be accepted, since you apparently aren't that worried about the government.

[BigBallinStalin]

Think of a spectrum for each one. Where would you place the government and those corporations?


1. Consensual exchange
2. Transparency/Awareness of Owner/Managerial activities
3. Potential for loss of customers

The government fits around 0-2 for all three. Those corporations are well above 5, perhaps even 8-9.

haha! If someone were tossed in prison, would that count as a "loss of a customer" for the government?

Hey, I got a question for ya BBS, using the above 1,2 and 3, use The Federal Reserve and tell me where that corporation fits within those spectrum?

They're about on par with the CIA.

[warmonger1981]

The tracking of peoples personal habits creates the possibility to criminalize people for past offenses of any type. It aslo creates the possibility to create algorithms that can be used to manipulate humanity through numerous levers. Haelth and finance are the ones that come to mind.

[stahrgazer]

When deciding whether to vote for President Obama in 2008 or President Obama in 2012, we were told he would not violate our privacy rights, but he did.

No, we weren't.

What he said prior to winning was
1) he didn't support some portions of the Patriot Act (yeah, his reasoning was our privacy/constitutional rights etc. but in the main his statement was against some of the act, not all of it.
2) he wanted more public awareness about what the government is doing

1a) What he said after winning was, he realized that some of those portions were needed, but oversight needed to be beefed up - and he did beef up some oversight.

2a) There's been some "leaks of information" during this administration that give the public a bit more awareness about what the government is doing.

Also, each time he's changed his mind, at least he fessed up about it.
Losing his initial fights to close Guantanamo, he said he changed his mind.
Realizing the benefit of some of those portions of the Patriot Act he hadn't supported, he said he changed his mind on it but again promised more caution/oversight (and again, even his worst critics agree he put more legal entanglements in place than were before, as a precaution against abuse of the information.)

In one of his recent speeches, he spelled it out, really, and this is the question the citizens need to answer: Which is more important, our citizens' personal privacy, or the role the federal government has to "protect the commonwealth from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Personally, I believe we're getting far to close to a fascist type government, one where the government can and will spy on and execute folks within the population if they don't sound right to the current regime.

I can't blame Obama for not wanting to get rid of the power that Bush gained the Presidency. I do, however, blame the Legislative branch in Bush's time and now, for first granting those powers, and now, leaving those powers intact.

Just like, I damned the Legislative branch for enabling a "war on terror" without an official declaration of war, and just as I damned a prior Legislative branch for enabling a "war on drugs" without an official declaration of war. They enabled it by expanding the Presidents' rights to make law through "Executive orders."

Our legislators have been selling us down the river for a while, and this is just another example of it.

But it's wrong to say Obama's to blame. As a Legislator he did his job and argued against giving a President and our government these types of powers. As a President it's only human nature that he go ahead and use the powers the legislators gave his predecessors.

[Woodruff]

But it's wrong to say Obama's to blame. As a Legislator he did his job and argued against giving a President and our government these types of powers. As a President it's only human nature that he go ahead and use the powers the legislators gave his predecessors.

That is terrible logic, and abounds with hypocricy (on his part, not on yours so much).

[stahrgazer]

But it's wrong to say Obama's to blame. As a Legislator he did his job and argued against giving a President and our government these types of powers. As a President it's only human nature that he go ahead and use the powers the legislators gave his predecessors.

That is terrible logic, and abounds with hypocricy (on his part, not on yours so much).

Nah, just the nature of the political beast, that a party won't want to give up power once they gain it, plus, you miss the point that at least he put in more safeguards which is his way of taking a middle road - and possibly necessary: since he couldn't win on "close Guantanamo for something more aligned with civilian judicial system." What I mean is, there are things in the Patriot Act that he wanted to undo and couldn't, like Guantanamo, and there may be other things that would leave us with zero rudders rather than a least-desired rudder.

The fault still lies with the Legislative branch who awarded powers to the President that the president wasn't supposed to be awarded. Basically they dumped THEIR job on the Presidents.

There are other signs of job-dumping. In addition to essentially letting a President host an undeclared, non-budgeted war or 2 or 3; in addition to letting a President mandate "law" thru executive order, Congress has, since before Clinton, tried to pass their budgeting job off to the presidents (a pres may propose a budget, but it's the Legislative branch that's supposed to iron it out.)

Now, if the Legislative branch came up with laws on how we should operate things against "terrorists" rather than executive order/Patriot act, maybe Obama wouldn't veto it.

But, like they frequently do, they passed a "sounds like we doing something," law that passed the buck; they did it because at THAT time, Republican majorities were awarding a Republican President all those "yummy powers."

So, the OP has a point that many didn't squawk too much then. I'm simply pointing out that I did squawk, not that it did me any good; and pointing out that in lieu of "no way to address these issues," I can understand why Obama didn't undo the only "act" the Legislature passed that enables the US to do SOMETHING, so I can't blame "him" as much as I'll continue to blame the Legislature.

[patrickaa317]

But it's wrong to say Obama's to blame. As a Legislator he did his job and argued against giving a President and our government these types of powers. As a President it's only human nature that he go ahead and use the powers the legislators gave his predecessors.

Well it's good to know that you never blamed Bush for his part in this.