Civil Liberties Vs. Power and Advancing Tech.

Given recent events involving the president, it seems a more philosophical issue arises - relevant to the world's political landscape.

As technology empowers the invidual, the individual becomes more and more of a potential threat to a nation's or global stability. When the US constitution was written for instance, there were no designer viruses or suitcase nukes. There real, present dangers that governments must squelch to preserve themselves.

To preserve ITself, for instance, apparently the US government has been using a system called ECHELON for years to analyze practically every phone call or email in the world for keywords. Apparently it's gone on for at least a decade or few. Civil liberties in the manner of the current complaints I've noticed have been dead for some time, it just hasn't been "in your face"... as it apparently is now allowed to be given the Patriot Act. I'm no lawyer, I'm just presuming about that last bit.

So is it okay as long as we don't have to face it? If it stops, what are the repurcussions? Is it worth the risk NOT to have it? How many world endangering events have been thwarted via this technology? Why wasn't 9/11 stopped, given the power it represents?

Please, what do YOU think? I ask that you seriously give consideration to what it might be like if YOU were REALLY, ACTUALLY charged with preserving a government and had the resources to make ECHELON a reality... would you? Would it be treasonous not to?

I don't know if there are any right answers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is a foolish mistake to attempt to assign to government the role of a benevolent, omnipotent god as our master and protector. Projects like Echelon are nothing more than gigantic, Rube-Golberg, wasted assets. An unchecked Big Brother born of public paranoia is certain to burden, err, and oppress, but is incapable of reliably protecting from such over-the-top threats as chem/bio/nuclear terrorism. The world is full of threats that no government can eliminate, yet the most dangerous leaders will always appeal to these fears in order to consolidate power. It's our job as citizens to reject this deception whenever it re-appears, just as we have been warned to do for so long:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There must be judicail or other oversight of phone taps and other invasions of privacy.

When a phone tap or other privacy invasion does not result in evidence of a crime, the data should be destroyed instead of being filed. The other data to be filed should be a note saying that clandestine surveilance did not undcover evidence of a crime.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Both of you...

It's apparently been going on for years and years, and this president may have been the first one to actually do it "legally", though that law may be in violation of the constitution, or he may not have followed the law - it remains to be seen. Regardless, I agree that the role of government as "benevolent", etc. is a foolish path, but it seems that realistic concerns are at direct odds with the freedoms we're supposed to have. As mentioned in the OP, the advance of technology amplifies the danger of the individual or small group, so this consideration becomes more imperative with each passing year.

The fact is, your phone doesn't have to be "tapped" specifically for the government to be collecting the data and analyzing it. All calls are "tapped", period. What now? What if they weren't? Is ECHELON saving our lives, or slowly enslaving us? Technology will likely only make it easier for ECHELON to perform its function... in the same vein, it makes ECHELON's function more important to some degree.

It would seem to me that laws regulating the usage of ECHELON and similar systems could help to resolve these issues.

 

Wes, I know what you are saying with regards to the technology of today probably making the individual more of a threat than in the past. Personally, though, I think we need to step back from the idea that terrorism is such a huge threat. Continue as we have been, back off on a few of the more intrusive provisions of the patriot act, and I think that the chances of dying at the hands of a terrorist will remain much lower than dying at the wheel of a car. I wonder if people need to feel threatened?

 

How many "innocent" US citizens have been harmed in any way by any of the recent (or decades-old?) surviellance techniques and methods? Have you or anyone you know been harmed in any way? And if not, isn't this little more than the little boy crying "Wolf!"?

As I understand the laws, none of the "intelligence" thus gathered can be used in any court of law. So even if the intelligence discovered a terrorist threatening to blow up the entire city of New York, the authorities couldn't use that info in a court action. Yet many of you seem to think that that terrorist should be left alone and the threat ignored just to protect your own private rights? You'd allow the city of New York to be blown to smithereens just to protect YOUR rights? I find that terribly selfish and egotistical.

Baron Max

 

Well, haven't we stomped on the rights of individuals with regard to auto accidents, too? I mean, we're required to wear seat belts, which is a direct "threat" to our individual rights. Auto manuf are required to build cars with a gazillion airbags and safety devices, which is a direct "threat" to the manufacturer's "individual" rights. We've instituted 475-gazillion traffic laws which "threaten" our individual rights. ....

And we accept those rules/laws without so much as a blink, and cry foul with the government collected a bit of telephone data about threatening phone calls??

What harm has been caused, to anyone, during the decades of intercepting phone and email messages?

Baron Max

 

Just a bit of correction, Wes, it's not just the U.S. government. ECHELON is a cooperative effort between the U.S., England and Australia and has been in operation for over 30 years. Naturally, it has undergone many stages of evolution during that time.

And contrary to what many believe, it does not have the capability to intercept anything that isn't - at one point or another - transmitted over radio waves. It is a huge "electronic ear" with listening posts (antennas) located all across the world and all the data collected is forwarded to the NSA in Washington, DC for analysis. It has no access to conservations or other signals that travel exclusively on landlines. It can, however, intercept anything sent by microwave communications, including satellite links (which is what it monitors most) and cellphones and any other type of radio communications.

As to it's encroachment into civil liberties, I believe it was Baron who posed the question: have you or anyone you know of - or even heard of - ever suffered any consequences as a result of the system's existence? I strongly doubt it. They have no interest in what you said to your grandmother the last time you talked with her on the phone or in the email you sent overseas to a friend that had photos of your fishing trip attached.

Yes, if you sent an email to someone that contained the word "bomb" - as in "...then the quarterback threw a 40-yard bomb that was caught by..." it might well be caught and looked at. And then quickly discarded.

 

As I understand it, bin Laden used cell phones alot in his communications. So did many of the terrorists who suceeded in their attacks. What I want to know is, if this program ECHELON has been operating for 30 years or so, exactly what benefit has this multibillion dollar program provided in the last 30 years? Just what events have been thwarted by this program?

Bush's credibility has fallen to absolute ZERO in my opinion. We have been lied to so much by him and his people that I want proof these things have a justifiable need.

 

youre missing the point here, because when it comes to terrorist suspects, especially foreign nationals, the data collected is never used in a US court. these people are not defined as criminals, they are defined as enemy combatants, or some other such designation that allows them to be detained indefinitely outside of the continental United States in US possessions like the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. in those situations a completely different set of rules apply. youre saying that because the government cant prosecute a US citizen using information gathered through this system, we shouldnt worry about it. you would be right if it werent for the fact that this administration has an obsession with altering definitions in order to acheive desired results. i could see them gathering information on a US citizen and then changing the definition of citizen in order to deny them aspects of due process. thats why they dont hold potential terrorist suspects as prisoners of war, so that they cant be given prisoner of war status and can be treated outside of the jurisdiction of the protections provided by the geneva conventions. its dangerous, undoubtedly to allow unchecked government surveillance of private citizens with no official accusation or statement of probable cause. apparently a lot of the senate agrees with that as well since some of those key provisions in the bullshit patriot act werent renewed.

 

That would, of course, be secret info of the NSA, CIA and the Pentagon. I doubt that you'll ever see such evidence.

And just exactly who are you that our govenment should get approval from before it can act?

Baron Max

 

I think he might be a citizen.

 

And you don't call that ...crying "Wolf!"? Geez, if you worry about things that "could" or "might" happen, you must be worried sick all the damned time. I'm surprised, in fact, that you're able to even type with all that worry and concern bothering you so much.

Baron Max

 

And his approval is needed before the government can act???? Hmm?

Baron Max

 

He and his other citizen friends gave the government approval when they voted. That approval was based on promises made.

It's now up to him and other citizen friends to decide if promises were broken and continued approval should be given in the next election.

Yes, the government does require approval from him (or her). However the political system is such that there is a delay between approval and act.

 

What promises were made that had anything to do with this issue? If you or he knows of such, perhaps you could elaborate.

Yeah, that part I agree with. But posting on the sciforums is NOT a way to discover whether a crime has been committed or not ....don't you agree?

And so we're right back to where we started: Did the administration break a law or not? And at the present time, it would appear that they did NOT ...even if it might appear to be a bit sneaky.

No, it still doesn't ...unless he/she is of the voting majority. If they're in the minority voters, and the majority voters don't care about that "approval bullshit", then......? See how the system works? Ain't it great?

Baron Max

 

so youre saying that im crying wolf because i am worried that something negative could happen, yet the position you are supporting (the government spying on people in order to prevent a theoretical terrorist attack) is somehow not crying wolf? i mean how are you rationalizing that? im not allowed to have a fear that our government might in the future misuse their power, but the government is allowed to spy because they are worried that people in the country might misuse chemicals or munitions? i think you pulled the rug out from under yourself there Baron. the whole fucking situation is predicated on things that could possibly happen not things that are definitely happening, thats the whole concept of taking pre-emptive or preventative measures, which the US governments spying program would most definitely qualify as. get a grip.

 

Baron, I am the power that this government is based on. I am the foundation and building block for this democracy that we call america the great. You're a clueless moron. Do you really think anyone can read the shit you write and not be concerned about you?

And, you keep avoiding my question? Are you getting paid by the busheviks to spread your disinformation?

 

Where do you see anything where I said that I supported it? I'm only interested in the law, and any law that's been broken, and the appropriate legal steps taken.

No, you can fear anything that you wish. But you should be aware that there are people like me who will laugh at you and call you "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf". And you tell me to "get a grip"?? ...LOL!

What else do you worry about during your extensive worry sessions?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

really then why are you interested in who is crying wolf. im pretty sure that spying on people without a warrant or taking personal information without permission or statement or probable cause violates the 4th amendment of the contitution "unlawful search and seizure" clause whether its admissable in court or not has no bearing on the situation. what im saying is that this administration has changed the designation of its "enemies" in order to subvert laws that restrict them from dealing with those people as they wish. its been happening for 4 years, its a reasonable and logical extension to think that they might try to push into doing this to US citizens, so i dont think its exactly crying wolf. however i do think that attacking iraq based on fabricated evidence of non-existent WMD's is crying wolf, yet you seem to think that something like that doesnt fit your description. im just pointing out that that is kind of selective and contradictory.

im not really worried about any of it too much, i think the government will keep doing what theyre doing and people will keep making noise about it when it seems that theyve gone too far and thats ok, because public opinion is a nice check on the government. i just think its funny that you cant seem to notice when you dont make any sense.