Treason or Whistle Blower?

[flacaltenn]

Fair enough. So far I think that due process has been satisfied in this case.

What specific crime is the government investigating when it conducts blanket surveillance of our private communications?

Collecting call data is not surveillance. That said, even if this information was considered private one needs a normal set of data to be able to do pattern analysis and in that case the specific crime would be terrorism.

Of course call data mining is surveillance. You can come up with lists of contacts, associations, whereabouts and habits. You can tell where they bank and where their family members are.

You ARE very keen in understanding that to train a system like that -- you need BOTH normal and threatening pattern recognition.. HOWEVER, an variable tweak here, a filter there, and you've just DOUBLED the number of suspicious patterns found. The level of FALSE ALARMS is inherently tied to where you draw the line between "normal" and "threat".. You KNOW where that line is? Wanna chance it??

 

[asterism]

What specific crime is the government investigating when it conducts blanket surveillance of our private communications?

Collecting call data is not surveillance. That said, even if this information was considered private one needs a normal set of data to be able to do pattern analysis and in that case the specific crime would be terrorism.

What one needs to achieve a specific goal is irrelevant. The question is what is government allowed to collect, for what purposes, and whether they can do it secretly without the knowledge of those being spied on. Do you really want a 'Big Brother is Watching' kind of society?

No, but I also never expected any level of privacy in what numbers I broadcast from my cell phone. That data is not private.

 

[asterism]

What specific crime is the government investigating when it conducts blanket surveillance of our private communications?

Collecting call data is not surveillance. That said, even if this information was considered private one needs a normal set of data to be able to do pattern analysis and in that case the specific crime would be terrorism.

Of course call data mining is surveillance. You can come up with lists of contacts, associations, whereabouts and habits. You can tell where they bank and where their family members are.

You ARE very keen in understanding that to train a system like that -- you need BOTH normal and threatening pattern recognition.. HOWEVER, an variable tweak here, a filter there, and you've just DOUBLED the number of suspicious patterns found. The level of FALSE ALARMS is inherently tied to where you draw the line between "normal" and "threat".. You KNOW where that line is? Wanna chance it??

My grocery store knows more about me than the government does (unless the grocery is sharing this data directly with the government). My bank already sells my financial transaction data.

Don't get me started on the value of magazine subscriptions.

 

[OKTexas]

A whistle blower doesn't go to foreign soil to provide classified documents to foreign news organizations. There are plenty of US journalist who he could have provided the information to that probably would have been more effective in disseminating the story and would have given the boy more credibility.

 

[dblack]

Collecting call data is not surveillance. That said, even if this information was considered private one needs a normal set of data to be able to do pattern analysis and in that case the specific crime would be terrorism.

What one needs to achieve a specific goal is irrelevant. The question is what is government allowed to collect, for what purposes, and whether they can do it secretly without the knowledge of those being spied on. Do you really want a 'Big Brother is Watching' kind of society?

No, but I also never expected any level of privacy in what numbers I broadcast from my cell phone. That data is not private.

Then where is the harm in pointing this out to people? If government isn't invading privacy in collecting this data, why are they doing so in secret?

I think the answer to that is that most people don't share your expectation. Most people assume that their phone conversations are private. That is why the government doesn't want people to know that their calls are being monitored.

The thing is, I agree with your assumption. I read the Patriot Act and realized that it authorized just this kind of secret, broad surveillance. That's (one reason) why I opposed it. But I don't think most people, maybe not even most of the representatives who voted for it, realized that. If they did, they'd have been just as upset as they are now that they are finding out.

 

[asterism]

What one needs to achieve a specific goal is irrelevant. The question is what is government allowed to collect, for what purposes, and whether they can do it secretly without the knowledge of those being spied on. Do you really want a 'Big Brother is Watching' kind of society?

No, but I also never expected any level of privacy in what numbers I broadcast from my cell phone. That data is not private.

Then where is the harm in pointing this out to people? If government isn't invading privacy in collecting this data, why are they doing so in secret?

Because he has done much more than that, including leaking the actual documentation involved.

I think the answer to that is that most people don't share your expectation. Most people assume that their phone conversations are private. That is why the government doesn't want people to know that their calls are being monitored.

Existence of government monitoring of phone calls is common knowledge. Do some googling for yourself.

The thing is, I agree with your assumption. I read the Patriot Act and realized that it authorized just this kind of secret, broad surveillance. That's (one reason) why I opposed it. But I don't think most people, maybe not even most of the representatives who voted for it, realized that. If they did, they'd have been just as upset as they are now that they are finding out.

This isn't Patriot Act stuff, this goes back much further.

Google William Binney.

 

[flacaltenn]

Collecting call data is not surveillance. That said, even if this information was considered private one needs a normal set of data to be able to do pattern analysis and in that case the specific crime would be terrorism.

Of course call data mining is surveillance. You can come up with lists of contacts, associations, whereabouts and habits. You can tell where they bank and where their family members are.

You ARE very keen in understanding that to train a system like that -- you need BOTH normal and threatening pattern recognition.. HOWEVER, an variable tweak here, a filter there, and you've just DOUBLED the number of suspicious patterns found. The level of FALSE ALARMS is inherently tied to where you draw the line between "normal" and "threat".. You KNOW where that line is? Wanna chance it??

My grocery store knows more about me than the government does (unless the grocery is sharing this data directly with the government). My bank already sells my financial transaction data.

Don't get me started on the value of magazine subscriptions.

Your grocery store is trying to sell you more cupcakes. I'm not too concerned except for the alchohol / tobacco / fattening stuff..

Can you imagine what BLOOMBERG or MICHELE OBAMA could do with that??

Your GOVT is trying to tell if you are threat.. And considering they have drones and assassins, the outcome is more severe than cupcakes. I proposed that terrorists could bring us to our knees by starting to randomly call Americans. Wanna chance it?
You got the time to have your computer, phone, bank accounts removed for a 60 day search?

And my bank better NOT be sharing my financial transactions outside of it's network of companies. I READ the stupid disclosure..

 

[flacaltenn]

A whistle blower doesn't go to foreign soil to provide classified documents to foreign news organizations. There are plenty of US journalist who he could have provided the information to that probably would have been more effective in disseminating the story and would have given the boy more credibility.

And he would be DEAD or in a rendition room in Turkmenistan 48 hours ago..

 

[Noomi]

Both him and Bradley Manning should be given a medal, in my opinion. It's a sad day in America when the truth is considered treason.

^this is exactly my opinion.

 

[Contumacious]

A whistle blower doesn't go to foreign soil to provide classified documents to foreign news organizations. There are plenty of US journalist who he could have provided the information to that probably would have been more effective in disseminating the story and would have given the boy more credibility.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?

And where the fuck were those "journalists" during the Holocaust at Mount Carmel?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[asterism]

Of course call data mining is surveillance. You can come up with lists of contacts, associations, whereabouts and habits. You can tell where they bank and where their family members are.

You ARE very keen in understanding that to train a system like that -- you need BOTH normal and threatening pattern recognition.. HOWEVER, an variable tweak here, a filter there, and you've just DOUBLED the number of suspicious patterns found. The level of FALSE ALARMS is inherently tied to where you draw the line between "normal" and "threat".. You KNOW where that line is? Wanna chance it??

My grocery store knows more about me than the government does (unless the grocery is sharing this data directly with the government). My bank already sells my financial transaction data.

Don't get me started on the value of magazine subscriptions.

Your grocery store is trying to sell you more cupcakes. I'm not too concerned except for the alchohol / tobacco / fattening stuff..

Can you imagine what BLOOMBERG or MICHELE OBAMA could do with that??

Your GOVT is trying to tell if you are threat.. And considering they have drones and assassins, the outcome is more severe than cupcakes. I proposed that terrorists could bring us to our knees by starting to randomly call Americans. Wanna chance it?
You got the time to have your computer, phone, bank accounts removed for a 60 day search?

We can what-if until the cows come home. Unless you can show that something like that has actually happened, don't try to sell the idea to me. Call data collection has been going on in various forms for as long as there have been phone calls.

And my bank better NOT be sharing my financial transactions outside of it's network of companies. I READ the stupid disclosure..

Who do you think invests in all these companies that use data? Banks. That makes those companies part of the bank's "network of companies."

 

[asterism]

A whistle blower doesn't go to foreign soil to provide classified documents to foreign news organizations. There are plenty of US journalist who he could have provided the information to that probably would have been more effective in disseminating the story and would have given the boy more credibility.

And he would be DEAD or in a rendition room in Turkmenistan 48 hours ago..

Not if he had called some former operators.

 

[Katzndogz]

The state secrets given to China:

"Pssst, hey China the United States government has put Americans under the kind of surveillance that would make you blush. obama has attacked the people in ways that hasn't been seen since the stasi. America has secret courts and a secret police. The IRS now has more power than the KGB."

Those are some dangerous state secrets.

He announced US hacking of China's networks. That might be something they suspected, but someone with access to NSA systems confirming it is a huge benefit to them.

China has been aware of our hacking their systems as long as we have been aware of them hacking our systems. That would be major not news.

The big news was telling Americans that the US government considers us all enemies and is treating us accordingly. The woman who testified at the IRS hearing that the government was treating her like an enemy may not be too surprised now. She IS an enemy.

 

[dblack]

Existence of government monitoring of phone calls is common knowledge. Do some googling for yourself.

I'm aware of that. But the knowledge that the Patriot Act allows this kind of broad, warrantless monitoring is NOT common knowledge. Otherwise Snowden's exposé would be a non-issue. Everyone would be saying, 'oh, yeah, we knew that already'.

This isn't Patriot Act stuff, this goes back much further.

Google William Binney.

Interesting. Thanks for the pointer. But again, not common knowledge. Snowden is raising awareness of something that Americans would not approve of if they knew about it. And again, I ask - if this is ok, why is it being done in secret?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution provides authority for the Executive and Legislative Branches to pass laws and for the Judicial Branch to rule on their Constitutionality. The National Security Act of 1947 has been duly passed and has passed all Judicial challenges.

Covert actions are legal.

To pass laws in accordance with the Constitution, not any law that they please. That the judiciary says they're constitutional doesn't make it so. Something can be constitutional to them one minute and not the next, and the language of the Constitution itself never changes. That a branch of the federal government has no problem increasing the power of the federal government should not come as a shock to anybody.

Actually, that the Judiciary says they are constitutional is the definition of "make it so." The dynamic can change to allow laws to evolve, change, or be deemed unfit.

But according to the Constitution, the National Security Act of 1947 stands.

No, according to the Courts it stands. Not the same thing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Pop23]

Heres an idea.

If we are going to allow the government access to our private phone records, violating innocent peoples privacy, why not also profile?

Oh, that is so not PC. And we MUST be politically correct when dealing with terrorists, BUT it's OK to violate the potential victims privacy.

Wow, just wow.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is no Right to Privacy Guaranteed in the Constitution; privacy is implied in the Bill of Rights.

We all "profile"; we make judgments about others by their appearance, their use of language, even the way they wear their hair, the clothes and jewelry, and of course by the color of their skin, the 'god' they worship or deny, the car they may drive or where they reside and if they cut their lawn.

Cops profile and so do salespeople; we give up much of our 'private' information easily to Yahoo and Goggle and when we apply for a credit card. We trust strangers even when we know, or should know, they seek the information to sell us stuff for their benefit, not ours. The cop who profiles isn't interested in profit, and maybe his/her first instinct is of benefit to him/herself in terms of promotions or other accolades, but the bottom line is cops exist to protect us.

Of course I'm using "cop" in a very general manner, "cop" may also include members of the military or the NSA. They're people too (to misquote Romney) and their job is to Serve and Protect, not too exploit. For that reason they are rightly held to a higher standard and why their wrongdoing will always make the press (like man bites dog).

Which brings me to ask, what motivated Snowden? Altruism? Portland, aka Oddball, once said altruism is always about self interest. Of course he's a cynical curmudgeon at his best days but does anyone believe Snowden is simply a regular guy whose actions were intended to protect them? I don't, nor do I expect privacy in a world where everywhere efforts are made to learn as much about each of us as possible, and then sell that info to others.

I don't see that our elected officials or the NSA has any nefarious motive. Have they overreached? I don't know and we don't have the facts to so determine. What I do know is that those out of power want it returned and those in power want to remain. So instead of seeking solutions and means of keeping us safe, the power elite will do everything to keep their jobs without consideration to the best interests of our nation.

 

[flacaltenn]

A whistle blower doesn't go to foreign soil to provide classified documents to foreign news organizations. There are plenty of US journalist who he could have provided the information to that probably would have been more effective in disseminating the story and would have given the boy more credibility.

And he would be DEAD or in a rendition room in Turkmenistan 48 hours ago..

Not if he had called some former operators.

He doesn't KNOW any operators. He's an IT guy.. The Rambo stuff happens waaaay down the hall.. You watch too much Burn Notice.. Where EVERYONE in Miami South Beach is a spook field agent. (and some good-looking ones there are).

He really did NOT HAVE an option to stay in the US. Even going to Congress would have ended up with him held "indefinately" and without process. No Congressman is gonna harbor someone like that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

BULLSHIT. Who defines the law? Only a JUDGE. And his or her opinion can be overturned by higher courts. Even the SCOTUS seems unsure of a law's Constitutionality given the number of 5-4 decisions.

A U.S. Citizen cannot judge a law as good or bad - they may offer an opinion but in many of those cases the reasoning is solely subjective.

Wow, just wow.

{Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.}

Judges do not make laws - when they do - as with RvW - they violate the law of the land.

While you Communists seek a regime that is ruled by the moods of men, the fact is that the dictatorship you promote is not the current reality.