If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   It's okay that the NSA spies on us since there is a Democrat in the office. We know we can always trust them to do the right thing   (dailykos.com) divider line 15
    More: Unlikely, Democrat Party, NSA, due process clause, collective action, Louis Brandeis, public inquiry, Freudian slip, spy  
•       •       •

1801 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jul 2013 at 9:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-14 09:26:21 AM
6 votes:
Projection. Because the average Republican had no problem with what Bush was doing regarding spying, they now don't think the average Democrat has a problem with what Obama is doing.
2013-07-14 09:35:04 AM
3 votes:

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Daily Kos is still a thing?


FOX news is still a thing? Newsmax is still a thing?


/At least KOS is factually accurate, as opposed to just making shiat up.
2013-07-14 09:33:56 AM
3 votes:
I trust a Democrat more than I trust a Republican, but since I don't trust either of them all that much, it's not saying anything.
2013-07-14 07:39:09 AM
3 votes:
Did  Subbyand I read the same article?
2013-07-14 09:33:53 AM
2 votes:
Don't worry, eventually, there will be a Republican president again, and all the Republicans will go back to loving the NSA, especially if they spy on OWS and Negroes.
2013-07-14 09:31:02 AM
2 votes:
the NSA has been spying on us since the NSA came into existence. if you think otherwise, you're deluded.
2013-07-14 07:45:02 AM
2 votes:
I disagree.  It is not okay that the NSA spies on us because there is a Democrat in office.  We cannot trust them to do the right thing.  I think it is only okay if the NSA spies on us when there is a Republican in office.  We know we can always trust them to do the right thing.
2013-07-15 09:47:52 AM
1 votes:

born_yesterday: LarryDan43: Projection. Because the average Republican had no problem with what Bush was doing regarding spying, they now don't think the average Democrat has a problem with what Obama is doing.

This.  I haven't heard a single person say that this spying is acceptable regardless of the administration.

I can't hear the voices in Subby's head, so they don't count.


Its not what Democrats are saying about domestic spying that is noteworthy. Its what they're not saying.
2013-07-14 03:15:12 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-07-14 12:05:29 PM
1 votes:

StoPPeRmobile: It's hard to toss aside all the crap you were told as a child. Commies are evil. They put up walls. They spy on their populace.


They did put up walls to keep people from *LEAVING*, and they did spy on their populace.

They machine-gunned people who tried to leave.

People built friggin' hot air balloons from scratch in order to leave the Warsaw Pact nations.  They risked being shot, or blown up by land mines, or being found and imprisoned for nothing more than wanting to be elsewhere.

Individuals living under those regimes may or may not have been evil themselves, but a whole system that had such a callous indifference to life that they would kill people who just wanted to *LEAVE* is, pretty much by definition, evil.
2013-07-14 11:40:40 AM
1 votes:

Corvus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: StoPPeRmobile: Automobiles have killed close to that, I call BS.

On the "killed by guns" figure? It's pretty close to the actual figure when you count the total number of deaths where a firearm is involved. Now a lot of people like to distinguish between suicide, homicide, accident, etc and there are grounds for doing that but in terms of death by firearm regardless of motive, the 300K figure is pretty spot on.

Not sure why suicides don't count. Many of those suicides would have probably not happened if it wasn't so easy for the victim to kill them selves by using a gun. They are the number 1 cause of suicides for a reason. Because they are easy and quick for people to use.




Yep, no one offed themselves before the semiautomatic hangun was invented.

Besides, they can just ram their car ito something and their family gets the insurance. Problem solved!
2013-07-14 11:36:26 AM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: the NSA has been spying on us since the NSA came into existence. if you think otherwise, you're deluded.


Actually, that's not necessarily true.  Here's why:  Prior to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it's true that yes, the NSA did target some Americans, but they were limited technologically:  No one had cell phones or computers, and opening the mail was not something the NSA did (they are a signals intelligence organization).

Basically, they *COULD* listen to your phone calls, *IF* they went through some major exchange.  They just didn't have the resources to suck up all phone calls.  If you used a CB or a ham radio, there is a chance you might have been listened to (hell, I did that as part of my training as a Morse interceptor), but in all likelyhood there wouldn't have been any record of it because it just wouldn't have been of interest, and remember that storage technology back then was in it's relative infancy.

Then, revelations about certain groups and individuals being targeted for monitoring during the 1960s led to hearings in Congress, and eventually to FISA.   FISA is one of the few really, really unalloyed good things Congress has ever done:  It limited the legal ability of the NSA to monitor "United States Persons".  And it was taken seriously:  In the 1980's, when I was actually monitoring communications as a ditty bopper in the Army, and whose work product when straight to the NSA, it was impressed upon us in no uncertain terms that monitoring "United States Persons" was very bad ju-ju, and that we could potentially go to jail for it if there wasn't a valid warrant from the FISA court.

That all changed after 9/11.  For the worse.

The law is essentially unchanged, but technology made it much, much harder to know if particular communications were from "United States Persons".  Back in the old days, you pretty much knew:  Every phone other than payphones had a person responsible for paying the bill at a location, and the phone company knew who they were, and unless you had an unlisted number, it was a matter of public record anyway.

By the time 9/11 rolls around, you've got anonymous pre-paid cellphones, and anonymous e-mail accounts.   Now, you can't necessarily tell if a particular phone number is associated with a "United States Person".  You can't tell whether phl­e­gm­ball­[nospam-﹫-backwards]pu­tikc­a­h­*c­om belongs to Joe Snuffy, or Hous bin Pharteen.

Back during the original "Warrantless Wiretapping" kerfluffle, I was able to surmise that they had changed the assumption about anonymous communications originating or ending in the United States, with at least one end of the communication outside the US.

I actually don't have a problem with that.  You can make a "border exception" analogy for those sorts of communications, and if they apply for the FISA warrant once it becomes known a "United States Person" is involved, then the law works as it should.

The problem is that it has gone farther.  They are actually collecting the metadata for *ALL* communications, including those of "United States Persons", and storing it.  While they *CLAIM* that they can only access the data when they get a FISA warrant, we really have no way to independently verify if that is indeed true or not, because you need a top secret security clearance in order to have access to that knowledge, and anyone who has that clearance and reports on violations of that policy will be charged criminally for disclosing classified information, and they *WILL* be prosecuted, as Edward Snowden would be if they could get their hands on him.

Why should we care about the metadata?  Because it's enough to build up such an accurate profile of you that it's farking *SCARY*.  Even when you aren't actively talking on your cellphone, it's periodically reporting your location, and that metadata is being stored.  They know where you were, who you talked to, for how long, and where the other person was.  The only thing they *DON'T* know is *WHAT* you talked about, but that can often be inferred by just looking at the data.

If you carry a cellphone with you habitually, and I have access to just the metadata without actually listening to your calls, I'll know where you work, what and who you like to do when you're not at work, along with all your relatives, friends, business associates, etc.  I can tell when you paid your bills.  I can tell when you get in trouble with the law.  In some instances, I could tell when you take a dump*.

It's literally having a tracking device on you all your waking moments, reporting your location to the government.  It doesn't matter if it's a phone you pre-paid with cash for, either.  If it's on, it's reporting your location, and unless you're homeless, the address where you live is going to be obvious within the first couple days of you owning that phone.

This is one of the reasons why I won't own a cell phone, or carry one except in very limited circumstances.  I use radios instead.   I get better coverage than any cell phone company can possibly provide, and until I transmit, there is no way to know my location, and even when I *DO* transmit, you need very specialized equipment within range in more than one location at the time I transmit:  It's not stored like the metadata for cell phones are.

I find it hilariously ironic that while older technology like radio is more vulnerable to casual eavesdropping, it's much more difficult for the government to monitor on a systematic basis.


*Sound far fetched?  If you carry your cellphone with you to, say an outdoor concert or a county fair or the like, the location reported by the cellphone is likely accurate enough for me to tell when you went over to the area where the porta-potties are, and to differentiate that from you walking around the fair or your normal location at the concert, event, etc.
2013-07-14 10:53:21 AM
1 votes:

firefly212: AtlanticCoast63: Honestly not trolling, but saw this:

Since that day(Sept 11, 2001- AC63), over 300,000 Americans have died from guns.

Now, we have lost - according to the Department of Defense - a bit over 6000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines since that day in the GWOT.  This guy is actually saying that here in the states, FIFTY TIMES that have been killed by guns?  Citation needed, please.

/ONE unnecessary death by guns is too many

It is pretty basic math, we get about 32k gun deaths a year, and 9/11/01 was more than ten years ago.

/the statistic is a bit... unfair though, I mean if two homicidal guys both have guns and a drug deal goes bad and one shoots the other, it's not necessarily fair to say he died because of the gun.


One guy shoots up a school with a gun, and we don't change anything.

One guy fails to blow up a plane via shoe bomb and we all take off our shoes at the airport.

'Mercia. Home of the scared.
2013-07-14 10:06:43 AM
1 votes:

AtlanticCoast63: Honestly not trolling, but saw this:

Since that day(Sept 11, 2001- AC63), over 300,000 Americans have died from guns.

Now, we have lost - according to the Department of Defense - a bit over 6000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines since that day in the GWOT.  This guy is actually saying that here in the states, FIFTY TIMES that have been killed by guns?  Citation needed, please.

/ONE unnecessary death by guns is too many

api.ning.com
The 30K / year for a decade gun deaths number is correct.  This includes about 11K homicides, and 19K suicides annually.  Car crashes are higher, but only marginally, at 34K per year in the US.
2013-07-14 08:02:52 AM
1 votes:

ginandbacon: Did Subbyand I read the same article?


Skip ahead to this bit, I guess:

"A vibrant and capable national government does not require an erosion of our liberty and privacy rights as we commonly understand the terms. Our liberty right does not mean we are free from taxation. To the contrary, a vibrant government is essential to maintaining those rights. Is restricting gun rights a restriction on our liberty? I think so. But on balance, I think it is the correct policy and consistent with the Constitution."

The writer is farking high if he thinks we've had a vibrant and capable national government at any time in the post-Vietnam era, or even earlier. Churchill was right about us doing the right thing only after we've farked things up nine ways from Sunday - a farking-up process that is far from over, thanks to the two-party monopoly.
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report