Which Frightens You Most? NSA Spying or the Apologies for NSA Spying?

[Junkdrawer]

[Chemisse]

1. I love the way Boehner was able to do both.

The news showed him blaming Obama for this horrible program, then the newscaster revealed he had voted to keep it numerous times.

What a piece of shit he is.

[kentuck]

2. Both are equally disturbing.

The people that approve of this spying should be the last ones to say whether it is right or wrong. Naturally, they do not want to be blamed for such a serious offense.

[Niceguy1]

3. the people who are willing

To apologize for almost anything OUR guy does scare me just as much of not more.

[orpupilofnature57]

4. Apologizing replacing accountability .

[Javaman]

19. +1 nt

[n2doc]

23. +1 also n/t

[burnodo]

5. Obama apologized for the IRS

not so much on actual crimes

[reformist2]

6. Neither - everyone knew this was going on, and the apologists are just coping with reality.

It's the ones who think we can have our cell phones and our privacy too that concern me - not for their idealism, but for their naivete.

[Buzz Clik]

9. +1

[Buzz Clik]

7. NSA Spying: Frightening, or the most frightening?

None of the above. Sorry, but it doesn't come close to being frightening.

[Bonobo]

8. The apologies are the far greater danger.

Democrats were the ones, the ones who opposed this kind of thing.

I had thought that stance was taken based on principal and NOT in blind opposition to Bush.

But the behavior of the apologists puts the lie to that. Clearly the principal was never at issue, it was merely that they were opposing Bush and the Republicans for partisan reasons.

And now, who is there to stand against this kind of government power grab? The Libertarians?

I am so disgusted by the defense of it, that I can barely express it.

[Junkdrawer]

13. Thanks. I'll add this....

For a while now I've been saying we live in a Pseudo-Democracy. And what was most distressing about THAT was that, sooner or later, the costume would become so threadbare that it would be discarded and we'd proceed to out-and-out full on military-in-the-streets fascist totalitarianism.

We are inches from that.

[Bragi]

22. America has crossed that line already

Think of what happened in Boston after the bombing. Few people (even few DUers s) had a problem with a city wide police lockdown and warrantless house by house searches. Most applauded the cops. Americans are now so fearful that their civil liberties mean nothing to most. The fearmongers and jihadists have won.

[Junkdrawer]

27. Striptease peek-a-boo....

Saw it live and in person during the G20 in Pittsburgh a few years back.

[veganlush]

17. it's not the same as it was under bush. more safeguards are in place. Lose the strawman.

It's metadata, it's not content. names are not associated unless necessary because of a suspicious connection. Congress is well briefed and must sign-off every 90 days. A court reviews it regularly. Warrants must be obtained if wiretapping is called for. All this fake outrage is what frightens me. So all you outraged folks thought that Obama ended all Intel gathering for day one? These are old programs that he inherited, the difference between now and under bush is that Obama added in court oversight and congressional oversight, making it better than the way he found it, as promised. What frightens me is seeing the fools from our side come out and help the repugnants with their season of scandal out of ignorance and laziness.

[Aerows]

21. Your attitude

is exactly what allows this to continue.

I've got a rock for you. It will protect you from tigers. I'm letting it go cheap.

That's what all of this reminds me of - the argument that because there are no tigers, obviously this keeps us safe.

You know what a suspicious connection is? You get a phone call, even a wrong number call from someone under surveillance. You don't think you can exploit a person by knowing who they regularly call? You are insanely naive.

[veganlush]

25. so should there be zero call logging, or more?

should the amount of surveillance be zero, or not?

[Aerows]

29. There needs to be WARRANTS

signed off by judges that state probably cause. That's how much there should be, period, as our Constitution's 4th Amendment states.

That's what used to happen, and that's what needs to happen again. I value my privacy - if you don't, that's your business, but I value mine. I also value free speech, and all of this relentless monitoring of the public can end up impacting that, too.

[veganlush]

34. so you haven't been paying attention

i thought as much. Obama added warrants back in where actual wiretapping is called for. A court must authorize any further action beyond logging, which doesn't associate names, and doesn't include call content. This seven year old program gets regular reviews by the court, warrants where called for, and full briefing of the congress. Reviews and sign-off occur every 90 days.

[Aerows]

36. You haven't been paying attention.

And it's pointless to continue this conversation, because as I stated - you don't WANT to understand.

I get that. I hated this under Bush, and I hate it just as much under Obama. This is not partisan. This is just flat un-Constitutional spying on the American public.

[veganlush]

37. warrants are required now where they weren't under bush.

what type and how much surveillance do you favor, if any?

[Aerows]

40. No, they are not

required. That's what the uproar is about. Verizon is required to turn over the records of anyone and everyone. What part of probable cause is eluding you?

Warrants, signed off by a judge showing probable cause to get people's phone metadata or any other type of data. If you don't think that type of information can be exploited, again, you are naive, or are intentionally missing the point.

[markiv]

10. the latter, most definately

i lose all trust and respect of anyone who defends this, no matter who they are

[markiv]

11. the profiles that could be built, from people's internet use, could

provide a lot of coercion, here and there, to get enough people to do things they dont want to do, to make larger things have just enough support...

[Junkdrawer]

18. My boy was investigating the moral code of Bob Jones University....

Jesus would have been expelled.

What's the point? Original Sin. Hypocrisy U. Control though guilt.

[markiv]

12. the forced conversion to GPS cell phones about 10 years ago....

I had an extra new motorola star tac for a backup, but couldnt activate it when the one i was using died, becasue they wouldnt allow activation of a non GPS cell phone

supposedly 'for your own safety' it tracks you like a duck

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. People in constant freak-out mode scare me

They're always the one's carrying the ropes at the lynching.

[HipChick]

15. Neither...of the spying was that good, how come they didn't catch the Boston Bombers

before they were able to do damage

[Aerows]

24. Because I really don't think

catching "terrorists" is what any of this is about. It's about getting the public under the thumb of the "authorities". Anyone that doesn't realize this is way too naive. It's also way way too easy for someone to exploit this information for personal gain, and that probably has already happened.

The apologists for this give me two reactions. 1. They are naive or too ignorant to think that this keeps us "safe" and is a good thing. 2. They are in the employ of agencies that are doing this.

That's the only two categories of people that would think any of this is a good thing.

[HipChick]

28. Are folks that naive that they really don't think Western govt's have been doing what China has been

doing for years?

[Aerows]

32. Some don't want to understand

And you can probably guess why that is.

[veganlush]

16. people who are ignoring the facts,

and getting bent out of shape over nothing. It's metadata, it's not content. names are not associated unless necessary because of a suspicious connection. Congress is well briefed and must sign-off every 90 days. A court reviews it regularly. Warrants must be obtained if wiretapping is called for. All this fake outrage is what frightens me. So all you outraged folks thought that Obama ended all Intel gathering for day one? These are old programs that he inherited, the difference between now and under bush is that Obama added in court oversight and congressional oversight, making it better than the way he found it, as promised. What frightens me is seeing the fools from our side come out and help the repugnants with their season of scandal out of ignorance and laziness.

[marions ghost]

20. Apologists need to read this

We do not have enough legal protections for this kind of surveillance currently. The technology has outstripped our system of laws, and checks & balances. We need new legal protections. Urgently.
------------

Here is a good essay from the Washington University School of Law in 2012. This one talks about the "chill" on discussion of political and social issues--ie. the way that societies censor themselves when there is too much surveillance.

I read this whole essay in a short time--it is so well written and clear. I urge everyone to click on the link to the PDF and read this now, and send it to others. It will give you an overview of the issues in a very readable format:

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/symposium/papers2012/richards.pdf

"The Dangers of Surveillance" by Neil Richards

Excerpt:

"Existing attempts to define the dangers of surveillance are often unconvincing, and they have generally failed to speak in terms that are likely to influence the law. In this essay, I try to explain the harms of government surveillance. Drawing on law, history, literature, and the work of scholars in the emerging interdisciplinary field of “surveillance studies,” I offer an account of what those harms are and why they matter. I will move beyond the vagueness of current theories of surveillance to articulate a more coherent understanding and a more workable approach.

At the level of theory, I will explain when surveillance is particularly dangerous, and when it is not. Surveillance is harmful because it can chill the exercise of our civil liberties, and because it gives the watcher power over the watched. In terms of civil liberties, consider surveillance of people when they are thinking, reading, and communicating with others in order to make up their minds about their political and social beliefs. Such intellectual surveillance is particularly dangerous because it can cause people not to experiment with new, controversial, or deviant ideas. To protect our intellectual freedom to think without state oversight or interference, we need what I have elsewhere called “intellectual privacy.”

[Aerows]

26. Some people don't WANT

to understand why this is a bad thing, which is frightening in and of itself.

[veganlush]

31. no, it's just that you are failing

to make the case you're trying to make

[Aerows]

33. Honey I made the case

in my last reply to you. You don't WANT to understand. I'll leave everyone to determine for themselves why that is, but I'm sure many of them can guess.

[veganlush]

35. wow, that's some weak shit there

i don't blame you for folding now...

[Aerows]

38. LOL

It's pointless to argue with someone that has no intentions of actually discussing it, but instead wants to be an apologist. I've got better things to do with my time than argue with someone that does not WANT to understand.

[veganlush]

39. you keep saying that, instead of discussing it.

so by WANTING to understand, you mean agreeing with you, right? how much and what type of surveillance do you favor, if any?

[Aerows]

41. Warrants

They are not required. Gathering any kind of data - wholesale - on the American public to track who and when they are calling people is unconstitutional. It threatens free speech, can be exploited and abused in a horrific manner, and goes against the 4th amendment.

[veganlush]

44. warrants are required. where are you getting your nonesense

and why do you refuse to answer my question about how much and what type of surveillance you are in favor of, with warrants? are you saying that the initial logging, which is to pin-point suspicious call connections should require separate warrants?

[veganlush]

42. read your replies

"Honey I made the case

in my last reply to you". Which was: "you don't WANT to understand...." so that's your case? that's the case you made to me for why having warrants now, where we didn't before is an outrage?

[Aerows]

43. Look

You asked what I think is acceptable. Having warrants. They aren't required now. They should be. Period.

That's my outrage. That's the outrage of everyone that is upset about this, and with good reason. I've explained why, several times.

[veganlush]

45. warrants are required now where they weren't under bush.

More legal protections, court oversight and congressional review where added by this administration, which is exactly what he said he would do. he never said that we were going to drop all intel gathering.

[Aerows]

47. A warrant for everybody?

Oh please. Justify all you want, but a warrant for every fucking body who is using Verizon is not probable cause. And it never will be. And you can bet if Verizon is forced to do this, so is AT&T and every other phone company.

If you are happy with that situation, and it makes you feel "safe", well I'm glad you are willing to forego the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. I'm not and never will be.

[veganlush]

30. you have to define terms in this discussion.

what constitutes surveillance? Is any observing of people at large by any method considered surveillance by you or the author?

[blm]

46. It frightens me that so many didn't know it's been happening since 2002.

And that it was being done illegally for 4 years.

And that Congress gave Bush legal cover for it in 2006.

And that the program was institutionalized 3 years before Obama took office.

And that people are saying they are surprised.

That level of ignorance here at DU after the last 12 years of postings on the issue is frightening.