This is rather disturbing...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071111/D8SRJ1DO0.html

What the f*ck is that about? This shows the dumming down of our government.

This shows the dumbing down of our government.

Well, I know that this shows the potential for great abuse, but I'm not so sure it shows the dumbing down of our government. Maybe even quite the opposite.

~String

I'm not sure how serious we should take it. I have an uncle who is former NSA and he says the idea that they could collect all this stuff and sift through it is just ludicrous. Former CIA director and now Defense Sec. Robert Gates has pretty much said the same thing. In his book, From the Shadows, he complains about how the US just collects intelligence for intelligence sake, and that most of it can't even be analyzed. And he was talking about the mid 90s when he wrote that.

Filters are amazing.

- N

Interesting. Most people in the USA live in humongous cities teeming with people, and most are never far from the prying eyes of those teeming millions of people, ......and yet they're scared for the lack of ....privacy???

Baron Max

I don't care what they do. I have nothing to hide. Nothing to fear.

I don't care what they do. I have nothing to hide. Nothing to fear.

I don't either, but its a slippery slope I have no intention of getting on.

But if even one aspect of a terror attack was averted because Feds were listening in on a suspected terrorist's call, it would all be worth it, no?

I'm not going to surrender my children's personal freedom because I'm afraid.

But we're not interested in you or your kids. We're interested in preventing another 911.

How will taking away my personal freedoms stop another 9/11??

We're not interested in taking any of your freedoms. We're interested in monitoring suspected terror-related calls. Not yours. Not your kids. We have absolutely no interest in what you say on the phone or computer unless it is terror-related.

but you would need to monitor their calls to be sure that it wasnt terror related wouldnt you?

No.

There's an MTV movie called Joe's Apartment. Since watching that I've realized we're never truly alone and privacy is a myth.

We're not interested in taking any of your freedoms. We're interested in monitoring suspected terror-related calls. Not yours. Not your kids. We have absolutely no interest in what you say on the phone or computer unless it is terror-related.

Most laws usually have secondary intentions, and that's the reason why our personal freedoms and privacy have been protected in the past.

I'll spare you the oft-mentioned Benjamin Franklin quote.

- N

I'm not sure how serious we should take it. I have an uncle who is former NSA and he says the idea that they could collect all this stuff and sift through it is just ludicrous. Probably true, even with filters.

Which would mean they have other purposes than scanning for randomly encountered terrorist conspiracy.

I've willing to put money that they've already filtered out and monitored - including recording - the telephone conversations and emails of US citizens who have nothing to do with any terrorism whatsoever. Would anyone be surprised if the filtering somehow produced more monitoring of certain political persons and organizations ?

These things are put in place because people intend to use them to their fullest potential. Regardless of "intent" in the laws, they will be taken at their letter, and maybe a bit more.
I don't care what they do. I have nothing to hide. Nothing to fear. Then you won't mind of Hillary's administration monitors your church's emails and phones, to see if there's something that can be construed as political opposition to Democrats (or other terrorism support, such as anti-abortion violence) and used to revoke your church's tax exemption ?

The scenarios you've outlined seem somewhat dubious, given that the NSA is a military organization with little or no communication with sitting presidents and their operatives. It's true the CIA did appease presidents in the past (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon) by monitoring opponents, but the Church committee slammed that door shut. I can't imagine anyone want to tread on that turf again...

No.

so how would you know if i was a terrorist unless you had been listening in on my phone calls?

I've willing to put money that they've already filtered out and monitored - including recording - the telephone conversations and emails of US citizens who have nothing to do with any terrorism whatsoever. Would anyone be surprised if the filtering somehow produced more monitoring of certain political persons and organizations ?

We did it in the 60's, so I don't see why the powers that be wouldn't do it now, when things are even more easier due to the massive amount of technological integrations in our digital world and that we're supposedly under more threat now than we were then.

These things are put in place because people intend to use them to their fullest potential. Regardless of "intent" in the laws, they will be taken at their letter, and maybe a bit more.

Yup.

- N

The scenarios you've outlined seem somewhat dubious, given that the NSA is a military organization with little or no communication with sitting presidents and their operatives. It's true the CIA did appease presidents in the past (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon) by monitoring opponents, but the Church committee slammed that door shut. I can't imagine anyone want to tread on that turf again... ? The connection between the NSA and the current President, and the use of warrantless NSA (at least) wiretapping within the US, has been normal since W signed the authorization in the early years of his first term.

Why would W&Co pass on the opportunity?

This is rather disturbing...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071111/D8SRJ1DO0.html

Shit, What's next, Arrests of Suspected terrorists based on circumstancial evidence? Oh, thats right, that already happened.

Immunity from prosecution implies a law has been/will be broken.

If the government is not asking telecoms to break the law, there is no reason to grant such a broad stroke of immunity.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/07/yahoo_china_dissident_case/

One also has to wonder if it is needed. If there have been no additional attacks carried out in the USA since 9/11, and these methods were not in use to prevent the cases that were discovered prior to there being carried out, is there any legitimate reason to apply the across the board immunity that is being requested?

The government can and does get legitimate warrents to monitor this exact type of information. Its a process with redress of issues should boundries be exceeded. Blanket immunity dissolves this grievance process. Its all about checks and balances.

If I actually trusted government I wouldn't worry about it one bit...
Or if I could just make believe that they have never lied repeatedly, over and over again...or somehow just forget that this is what they do...then maybe...just maybe it wouldn't bother me.

However, I have not forgotten, and I will not make believe they haven't lied repeadedly.
That it's no secret that there is no seperation between Big Business and Government anymore...so yeah...it doesn't sit too well with me.

Government IS Big Business.

I don't care what they do. I have nothing to hide. Nothing to fear.

You to understand the founders of the country met in secret, had secret plans and worked carefully to make sure that governments in the future would respect privacy. Totalitarian states don't like privacy. Do you believe in the basic principles of this country? Are you a patriot?

You to understand the founders of the country met in secret, had secret plans and worked carefully to make sure that governments in the future would respect privacy. Totalitarian states don't like privacy. Do you believe in the basic principles of this country? Are you a patriot?

:bravo::worship: very good point

? The connection between the NSA and the current President, and the use of warrantless NSA (at least) wiretapping within the US, has been normal since W signed the authorization in the early years of his first term.

So because W signs off on a program put forward by former NSA director Michael Hayden, there's a "connection" between him and the NSA? Um, no. The NSA constantly puts findings before the president, just as the CIA does. That's the way the system works. You can criticize the president for agreeing to said program, but I think you're attempting to personalize this, as if Bush is the one dreamning all this up and attempting to institute it. And you're wrong on that account...