Nothing to hide from the NSA?....Are you sure?!?!?

[Contumacious]

NSA admits employees spied on husbands, boyfriends, and girlfriends

.

 

[Contumacious]

NSA admits employees spied on husbands, boyfriends, and girlfriends

.

Power corrupts , absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So, you don't have to be a jihadist to be concerned about the NSA.

.

 

[Montecresto]

NSA admits employees spied on husbands, boyfriends, and girlfriends

.

Power corrupts , absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So, you don't have to be a jihadist to be concerned about the NSA.

.

Just read senator Church's 1975 warning/prediction on the NSA from the Church committee.

 

[tinydancer]

Unreal. Just unreal that this is happening in the here and now.

We warned of it over and over and over but how many times did we hear "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"?

 

[pinqy]

Unreal. Just unreal that this is happening in the here and now.

We warned of it over and over and over but how many times did we hear "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"?

12 instances in 10 years, all which resulted in disciplinary action, is something to worry about?

 

[Politico]

No I have absolutely nothing to hide that they know about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Among the cases cited in the NSA letter to Grassley is one of an employee who spied from about 1998 to 2003 nine telephone numbers of female foreign nationals without a "valid foreign intelligence purpose," and listened to collected phone conversations while assigned to foreign locations. The employee also collected the communications of a U.S. person on two occasions.

And none of those surveilled had any information that might have been gathered by the government used against them in the context of a criminal prosecution. Nor could the government proceed with a criminal prosecution even if it wanted to, as the evidence gathered was done so outside of the scope of surveillance that is authorized.

Moreover, there is no expectation of privacy with regard to personal information willingly turned over to a private third party, such as wireless phone company or ISP.

The OP’s hysterics and hyperbole are clearly unwarranted, as is the case with those who agree with him. No one is in danger of being prosecuted and imprisoned, no one’s civil liberties are being jeopardized.

The OP is either ignorant of the law or a demagogue.

 

[Contumacious]

NSA admits employees spied on husbands, boyfriends, and girlfriends

.

Power corrupts , absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So, you don't have to be a jihadist to be concerned about the NSA.

.

Just read senator Church's 1975 warning/prediction on the NSA from the Church committee.

A prophetic warning indeed


Senator Frank Church – who chaired the famous “Church Committee” into the unlawful FBI Cointel program, and who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – said in 1975:

“Th[e National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.“

.

 

[TNHarley]

idc if I have anything to hide or not
it is not their right
part of being an American! was anyways..

 

[Contumacious]

Unreal. Just unreal that this is happening in the here and now.

We warned of it over and over and over but how many times did we hear "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"?

That 's because the narcotized actually believe the bullshit that the NSA is only trying to spy on AlQaeda jihadists.

.

 

[pinqy]

Power corrupts , absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So, you don't have to be a jihadist to be concerned about the NSA.

.

Just read senator Church's 1975 warning/prediction on the NSA from the Church committee.

A prophetic warning indeed


Senator Frank Church – who chaired the famous “Church Committee” into the unlawful FBI Cointel program, and who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – said in 1975:

“Th[e National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.“

.

And those concerns were answered with reforms and oversight, such as the FISA.

Unreal. Just unreal that this is happening in the here and now.

We warned of it over and over and over but how many times did we hear "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"?

That 's because the narcotized actually believe the bullshit that the NSA is only trying to spy on AlQaeda jihadists.

.

Straw man. And false dichotomy. No one ever claimed NSA only spied on Al Quaeda, which would be a stupid claim anyway. And that they spy on more than Al Qaeda doesn't mean they spy on Americans.

All the claims brought up have shown only court approved collection, accidental violations, or individuals abusing power.

 

[Montecresto]

Unreal. Just unreal that this is happening in the here and now.

We warned of it over and over and over but how many times did we hear "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"?

That's never been true and it's never been a good excuse. Why does anybody lock the bathroom door?

 

[Montecresto]

Among the cases cited in the NSA letter to Grassley is one of an employee who spied from about 1998 to 2003 nine telephone numbers of female foreign nationals without a "valid foreign intelligence purpose," and listened to collected phone conversations while assigned to foreign locations. The employee also collected the communications of a U.S. person on two occasions.

And none of those surveilled had any information that might have been gathered by the government used against them in the context of a criminal prosecution. Nor could the government proceed with a criminal prosecution even if it wanted to, as the evidence gathered was done so outside of the scope of surveillance that is authorized.

Moreover, there is no expectation of privacy with regard to personal information willingly turned over to a private third party, such as wireless phone company or ISP.

The OP’s hysterics and hyperbole are clearly unwarranted, as is the case with those who agree with him. No one is in danger of being prosecuted and imprisoned, no one’s civil liberties are being jeopardized.

The OP is either ignorant of the law or a demagogue.

Have you bothered to read what senator Church said about the NSA in 1975?

 

[Montecresto]

Power corrupts , absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So, you don't have to be a jihadist to be concerned about the NSA.

.

Just read senator Church's 1975 warning/prediction on the NSA from the Church committee.

A prophetic warning indeed


Senator Frank Church – who chaired the famous “Church Committee” into the unlawful FBI Cointel program, and who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – said in 1975:

“Th[e National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.“

.

Yeah, I've posted that multiple times on various threads where the topic came up. But it seems unremarkable.

 

[Montecresto]

Just read senator Church's 1975 warning/prediction on the NSA from the Church committee.

A prophetic warning indeed


Senator Frank Church – who chaired the famous “Church Committee” into the unlawful FBI Cointel program, and who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – said in 1975:

“Th[e National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.“

.

And those concerns were answered with reforms and oversight, such as the FISA.

Unreal. Just unreal that this is happening in the here and now.

We warned of it over and over and over but how many times did we hear "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"?

That 's because the narcotized actually believe the bullshit that the NSA is only trying to spy on AlQaeda jihadists.

.

Straw man. And false dichotomy. No one ever claimed NSA only spied on Al Quaeda, which would be a stupid claim anyway. And that they spy on more than Al Qaeda doesn't mean they spy on Americans.

All the claims brought up have shown only court approved collection, accidental violations, or individuals abusing power.

What do you have to say about the Brazilian presidents comments on the subject at the UN last week?

 

[Montecresto]

Among the cases cited in the NSA letter to Grassley is one of an employee who spied from about 1998 to 2003 nine telephone numbers of female foreign nationals without a "valid foreign intelligence purpose," and listened to collected phone conversations while assigned to foreign locations. The employee also collected the communications of a U.S. person on two occasions.

And none of those surveilled had any information that might have been gathered by the government used against them in the context of a criminal prosecution. Nor could the government proceed with a criminal prosecution even if it wanted to, as the evidence gathered was done so outside of the scope of surveillance that is authorized.

Moreover, there is no expectation of privacy with regard to personal information willingly turned over to a private third party, such as wireless phone company or ISP.

The OP’s hysterics and hyperbole are clearly unwarranted, as is the case with those who agree with him. No one is in danger of being prosecuted and imprisoned, no one’s civil liberties are being jeopardized.

The OP is either ignorant of the law or a demagogue.

That third party that I give that information doesn't have my permission to sell it or give it to somebody else. And they aren't themselves able to harm me with it in the same way that the government could. The Amash amendment would have placed some restrictions on the NSA, but the GOP shut that down.

 

[pinqy]

What do you have to say about the Brazilian presidents comments on the subject at the UN last week?

That the job of a spy agency is to spy. Where's the problem? The U.S. has no treaty against spying on Brazil. And any claim of "indiscriminate spying" is ludicrous...nobody has that much time, money, or people to be indiscriminate.

 

[Plasmaball]

Unreal. Just unreal that this is happening in the here and now.

We warned of it over and over and over but how many times did we hear "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"?

yeah...im sure you where one of them..

 

[hjmick]

Unreal. Just unreal that this is happening in the here and now.

We warned of it over and over and over but how many times did we hear "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"?

12 instances in 10 years, all which resulted in disciplinary action, is something to worry about?

So you're not worried about it because it's on 12 confirmed cases in 10 years? What's your threshold? What number will make you uncomfortable and cause you concern?


As far as I'm concerned, once is too many.

 

[pinqy]

Unreal. Just unreal that this is happening in the here and now.

We warned of it over and over and over but how many times did we hear "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"?

12 instances in 10 years, all which resulted in disciplinary action, is something to worry about?

So you're not worried about it because it's on 12 confirmed cases in 10 years? What's your threshold? What number will make you uncomfortable and cause you concern?


As far as I'm concerned, once is too many.

Of course one is too many, but you can't 100% prevent people from breaking rules or the law. The question is how much is tolerated/allowed, and according to the article, it looks like there is no institutional tolerance and few people even try it.

I guarantee that in a large police department, there are far more than one ore two instances a year of cops taking bribes, or other a buses. Should those departments be closed?