Don't entertain this garbage.

[woo me with science]

The corporate-authoritarian propaganda in the MSM and right here on DU now is inviting you to "debate" your fundamental Constitutional rights. You are being asked to have very respectful and serious discussions about the pros and cons of the government's having the right to spy on every single one of us, and amass and store our private information and communication activities in databases that can be accessed at any time in the future. The rationalizations are varied but invariably outrageous: Corporations do it, so what's the difference? Doesn't the new world of terrorism demand new methods? Don't you realize some bad, bad Republicans are against this?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How does authoritarianism happen? Bit by bit, step by step. And the outrageous propaganda we are seeing now is designed to shift our thinking.....to invite us to debate, in utter seriousness and with great respect for the opposing arguments, our Constitutional rights, as though they should be debatable at all. We do not entertain "serious" and "rational" debates about the pros and cons of killing and eating small children. We likewise should not respond to these oh-so-serious bids to debate whether we really need our fundamental Constitutional rights and protections.

I recommend that when we see utter garbage like this, we simply respond with the text of the Fourth Amendment, and probably the First, too, since that is equally under assault.

As Americans, we should be discussing how to stop this government abuse of power, not whether it might, possibly, be a good idea to stop it. We allow propagandists to frame and shift the debate, and we move steadily into an authoritarian new way of thinking in which what used to be our given, understood, fundamental Constitutional rights as American citizens become merely points of opinion, like whether the government should paint its flagpoles silver or grey.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. You know, some folks are that ignorant

Of their rights...some are propaganda masters.

I'm not sure we can tell the difference any longer.

[L0oniX]

220. Known terrorists with US phone books starts calling random or not so random numbers ...what happens?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Very, very, well said.

[KittyWampus]

3. Pathetic. You use the word "spy" but fail utterly to define exactly what has happened and what is

objectionable.

Frankly a good amount of DU'ers seem to be not quite as well-informed as they pretend to be, extremely quick to jump on any bandwagon if it agrees with their preconceived bias & extremely prone to ratfucking.

[JI7]

4. many have an agenda

just like the wingnuts i'm seeing on other sites spewing the same shit against Obama i see on here.

[KittyWampus]

6. Why is the Left so prone to ratfucking?

[woo me with science]

9. ...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Skittles]

11. LOL

you really think repeating it will make them understand? SCHEDULING WOO ME FOR ASS KICKING!!!

[KittyWampus]

13. And yet the OP is basically meaningless. It's telling how some love throwing the word "spy" around

[Skittles]

24. your reaction is WAY more telling

[backscatter712]

43. *PLONK*

[GoneOffShore]

249. You're missing the point -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022970768#post43

Here's the first bit of something posted on Reddit the other day:

I live in a country generally assumed to be a dictatorship. One of the Arab spring countries. I have lived through curfews and have seen the outcomes of the sort of surveillance now being revealed in the US. People here talking about curfews aren't realizing what that actually FEELS like. It isn't about having to go inside, and the practicality of that. It's about creating the feeling that everyone, everything is watching. A few points:

1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.

And did you watch "Lives of Others"?

We are turning into East Germany under the STASI.

[GoneFishin]

173. Very telling response. Hmm.

[DirkGently]

255. No one loves claiming "ratfucking" more than

practitioners of the same.

Projection, basically.

[mercymechap]

34. So the hell with any chance

of catching any terrorist groups that may be communicating and plotting against us because we don't want our phone conversations (which mine happen to be utterly boring) being maintained in case our phone number happens to crop up in some terrorist's list of accessed numbers?

Times have changed. We used to be able to board planes without having to be scanned for possible bomb materials in our possession, we are being "photographed" in the street, in stores, on highways, etc., because of the many crimes being committed and the possibility of catching the criminals by accessing such records.

The way i understand the use of this data is not to listen to every conversation, but rather to have it in the case some apprehended terrorist's phone happens to have accessed your number. Seems pretty damn smart to me.

[backscatter712]

45. *PLONK*

[mercymechap]

63. Yeah, that's fine with me -

and I welcome you to my list of "inane alarmists". Refuse to deal with facts, instead feed your paranoia.

[Skittles]

148. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOUR PHONE CONVERSATIONS ARE BORING!!!!!

CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, BACKSCATTER???

[Cheviteau]

197. BS

I'd be just as outraged as you if I thought our phone conversations were being recorded. They're not. But go ahead and fan the flames of ignorance.

[TommyCelt]

208. Hmmm...

I'd be just as outraged as you if I thought our phone conversations were being recorded. They're not.

What assures your knowledge this isn't happening? Because members of our government say so? You're far more trusting than I am.

[mercymechap]

304. And what prompts you think that

they are recording your conversations? Paranoia?

[TommyCelt]

327. Because they can...

Because historically those who have the power to do such things exploit it, rather than ignore it.

As I noted in another response to you, I believe our basic disagreement here is trust. Will you acknowledge that the government (no matter if it's flying a red or blue banner) has the technical (not legal) ability to peruse the content of this data being collected?

[Skittles]

247. you know that was satire, right?

in reference to other DUers who have said such nonsense - that's why it was in over-the-top caps

[Skidmore]

264. Wow, that's mature.

[SammyWinstonJack]

49. ...

[Ms. Toad]

59. Until it happense to be used against you

and you can't fight it because you didn't even know the information was being gathered, or that the people you were calling, or receiving calls from might (or might not) have been engaged in terrorism. Or were repeatedly "butt dialed" by - just had three of those calls the other day. Or might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

No one in Gitmo like that. Or the innocent people held for years on death row - or the really "lucky ones who were executed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and perhaps take a plea bargain because they were innocent - and of course being innocent they had nothing to hide - and no jury would ever convict them. Except it did. And those weren't even the result of systematically gathered evidence.

So no, not smart. It is a false security if it is gained at the cost of our freedoms.

[mercymechap]

69. Boy, I thought the only paranoid people

were those that watched Glenn Beck.

If you were butt dialed by a terrorist, I'm sure the phone conversation won't provide your voice talking with the terrorist about bombs, meeting places, groups being targeted etc., things that would have to be there to incriminate you.

If you are so paranoid as to think that a butt dial would land you in prison, there really is no hope for you, might as well built yourself a bunker and go underground - cause the big bad boogie government surely has your name on a list of people to get and they are coming for you pretty soon!

Now imagine, terrorist groups talking freely over the telephones, plotting right here in the US to attack the mall where you and your family will be shopping, or the metro that your husband/wife will be riding to go to work or the school where your children are attending, and nobody knowing about it because you were so concerned about your butt dial being mistaken for terrorist participation.

Geeez!

[Ms. Toad]

85. Yes - fixate on the details

and miss the big point.

I received three calls from someone I don't know which were obviously butt dials. Same person. Each lasted several minutes. I could hear muffled talking in the background, and odd sounds. Obviously no one intended to call me.

The data for those calls would connect me to whoever called. It was not an isolated call - which would look like an accident. There were three calls. The calls were longer than a typical wrong number. If that person is identified as a person of interest - those three calls might make me, as well.

I am not specifically concerned about a butt dial being mistaken for terrorist participation - I am concerned about innocent patterns (like repeated butt dialing) trapping innocent people in a criminal or terrorist investigation they cannot extricate themselves from either because they can't prove a negative - or don't have the money to prove a negative.

And yes, our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and our freedom of association is that important. If we forfeit that for the illusion of safety we will be neither safe nor free.

[mercymechap]

94. The chances of the FBI/CIA

being able to locate terrorist groups is way far more plausible with the data being collected than the scenario you mention, being trapped in a situation where you appear to be guilty when you are truly innocent. Sure, no one can deny that such situations do happen, and they are unfortunate, but they are not as common as the fact that we know there are many terrorist groups living right here in the US who wish to do Americans harm, and who are plotting on a daily basis on how to do it.

Our freedom has been diminished by the mere fact of the time we are now living in. Gone are the days when we didn't have to worry about people carrying bombs into planes, plotting to do mass killings at schools, or at marathons, or driving trucks with bombs, exploding them in front of government buildings. If one such attack can be curtailed, it is worth giving up that bit of freedom.

This gathering of information has been going on for years, and to date, it has not affected me one bit. Maybe I'm not like right-wing conservatives who see the government as the Big Bad wolf trying to eat them. Your right to be free and not be scanned at an airport does not supersede my right to make sure that no one boards the flight with a bomb on their person.

[Ms. Toad]

110. I'm sure you felt the government was just as benevolent

and trustworthy when Bush was in office, and you will be quite comfortable if Jeb Bush (or Glenn Beck, or whatever tea party nut job) is elected and continues it in 2016.

I really don't understand the amnesia around this place.

[truedelphi]

295. We didn't agree about the ACA, but we certainly agree about

PRISM. I found you a worthy contender of debate when we weren't agreeing, and am relieved we are on the same side on this issue.

For me, part of my paranoia is that our entire government seems to be owned by corporations. The only way we will return to more democratic roots is if we can organize. But as long as PRISM exists, I know it is to be used by the Corporations to help them beat back the organizers on the Pipeline issue, on the Monsanto issue, and dozens of other issues as well.

[truedelphi]

298. We didn't agree about the ACA but we seem to be in agreement over

PRISM. I found you a worthy contender of debate when we weren't agreeing, and am relieved we are on the same side on this issue.

For me, part of my paranoia is that our entire government seems to be owned by corporations. The only way we will return to more democratic roots is if we can organize. But as long as PRISM exists, I know it is to be used by the Corporations to help them beat back the organizers on the Pipeline issue, on the Monsanto issue, and dozens of other issues as well.

[mercymechap]

305. If Jeb Bush or even Glenn Beck (Horrors) were to

get elected in 2016, just because some are making a fuss over it today, doesn't mean that they couldn't decide to start it. And they would have the support of most Republicans. Based on the information that has been given, I don't see anything wrong with it. They have to get a court order in order to be able to look at the content of phone conversations, and other data, such as names, etc., just like they do in criminal cases. I don't see the big whoop t doo over it.

[Ms. Toad]

308. You are very naive.

I've lived through this before (COINTELPRO), and I also know how much they can tell from just data the court ordered (assuming that is all they actually gathered). And I know how unreliable our justice system is when there is appellate review and both sides are represented by zealous advocates - and in this case only one side is represented and there is no appellate review.

I am not happy about being spied on by my government. And, I don't for a minute believe that you (or any of the others treating this as insignificant) won't be pulling a Sean Hannity the next time an R is in the office.

My position is consistent - it is offensive and unconstitutional, regardless of who is in office.

[mercymechap]

309. I'm not naive, I'm just not as

paranoid about the government as some of you are.

You use a computer and are on a Political Forum, if you think that your comments and the personal information you provided to get on the forum, not to mention the IP on your computer aren't being stored somewhere, you are the one that is naive. And even if you used a fake name and fake e-mail, it can all be traced back to you.

Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, they all store their data. You buy stuff from Amazon.com, they know which kinds of books you like and will offer books similar to what you've bought. I'm sure other companies do the same.

And, you are not really being spied on by the government. All they have are phone numbers and the phone numbers that your phone number has called and has received calls from. They can only access the contents with a warrant and they have to have justifiable reason to do that. Yes, there's been cases were people have been abused - as long as we have humans involved there will always be such incidents, but they are the exception, not the rule.

And, with all the terrorist inter-action going on in our own country, I just can't understand why people value the privacy of their phone number (which in most cases has been given out to numerous people) over the possibility that such information could prevent another 9/11.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/01/reality-check-there-are-more-terrorist-groups-active-in-the-us-than-any-other-country-in-the-world-2564108.html

[Ms. Toad]

310. I am completely aware of all of that.

I make my choices about what to reveal. Each of the online entities I interact with has a privacy policy. I read every single one, and make very deliberate decisions about whether the bargain benefits me or not. For as heavily involved as I am online, my choices have been pretty conservative until recently - and they are still more conservative than average. Other people make different choices - some reveal more, some a lot less. That is the whole point - choice.

The government gave us no choice, didn't provide a privacy policy so we could know what they were gathering, who they would be sharing that data with, or how they might use it - AND - they have the power to use it to deprive us of our liberty and our rights, with no possibility of legal review because of the inherent secrecy. Ask my mother's friend who was disappeared in the middle of the night to an internment camp. Ask the people blacklisted as a result of the HUAC. Ask the Nobel Peace Prize winning AFSC who was infiltrated and spied on as part of COINTELPRO (look for the documents the FBI FOIA requests produced) as a violent subversive group. The outrage over that program was part of what turned the corner during the VietNam War - and far too many people are just sitting her, smiling, and saying - "no biggie" I trust Obama.

Any law for which there is no legal remedy for the infringement of our rights (because it is a secret program) and which requires that we trust the person currently in office to kindly not infringe them is a very dangerous law.

[mercymechap]

319. You may think that you are making choices

about what you want to reveal, but you really have no clue as to what companies do with the information that you reveal to them. You are certainly more invested into the privacy policy than most of us, I seriously doubt that the majority of people read every single word and understand most of what they are reading when they join political forums, Facebook, etc. While it is good to have "choices" there are instances where our personal choices are irrelevant if we want the government to protect us from the many factions that want to do harm to us.

What amazes me the most is that this has been going on for years, and now just because someone revealed that the Obama administration was requesting information from Verizon, everyone is up in arms over it. Where was the outrage when Bush was doing it? Apparently the majority didn't feel threatened or surely there would have been letters to Congress asking them to put an immediate stop to it. So, if it has been going on for years and nobody has had an "interesting" story to tell based on their phone number being captured, then I guess it's not worth losing too much sleep over it.

[Ms. Toad]

323. Actually -

since I am an attorney, part of my field is internet law & privacy, and I actually write some of those agreements, I think I have a pretty good idea of what they say. And I also review questions they have about whether what they want to do falls within the limits of the agreement. But for the most part, since screw-ups are very expensive and my job during the day is to protect my client, the short version of most agreements I write is, "You have no privacy, get over it." And you are right that many people don't read them - that is also their choice. What is not OK is for us to be deprived of the ability to make that choice - or of the right for redress in court. When my clients screw up, you can haul them into court. When the ACLU sued on behalf of people whose data we now know was being captured, the Supreme Court said they had no standing to sue because it was pure speculation that their data was being captured, and they hold all of the data and cannot be compelled to produce it or even acknowledge it exists (private companies can be).

There are far fewer people who write their congresspeople about anything than there should be, but I'm also on the governing body of a faith based lobby group - which lobbied against the Patriot Act when it was first introduced - and pretty much continuously since then: http://fcnl.org/search/?q=patriot%20act (and that narrows your choice of who I am to ~200 people - or perhaps 100 . . . as long as I'm not using a misleading title and combining the first paragraph it probably narrows the field to no more than a dozen, and perhaps only one. I haven't actually checked).

But - back to the topic - there are people who care deeply about these issues who do lobby (and have since 9/11), do write their congresspeople, who do develop personal relationships with them to try to restore governmental respect for privacy and civil liberties.

[snappyturtle]

128. Glad you like the new flavor of the day Kool-Aid because it's obvious

you've drunk a lot of it!

Take a very deep breath and slowly let it out. NOW...if you were a terrorist ripe to do damage to our country and you're making plans....why in the hell would you use a traceable phone? amen.

The man behind the curtain has been revealed....it's all scam propaganda. These governmental secret societies had enough info to seriously thwart 911 and they didn't....nor have they stopped anything. DiFi has come out and said they will keep their successes to themselves! LOL We all know that one way to deter bad behavior is to make public examples out of the perpetrators but they won't....because ?????? Think about it!

[mercymechap]

312. So you think that pre-paid phones can't be traced?

why in the hell would you use a traceable phone

Apparently you are the one that has been drinking the KoolAid.

Any cell phone can be traced. They may not be able to get your name if you paid cash, but the calls made can be traced and they can at least know the location from where the calls were placed.

Good luck hiding from the FBI once they know the approximate location of your calls.



Why make an untraceable call? There are always situations that call for anonymity. A call to Child Protective Services has always been one of the top reasons. Here is a way to guarantee no trace back from NORMAL sources. This DOES exclude NSA, FBI, CIA and other departments that have access to Eschelon.

Read more: How to Make a Virtually Untraceable Phone Call | eHow http://www.ehow.com/how_4863492_virtually-untraceable-phone-call.html#ixzz2W9n3H0jV

[progressoid]

175. Well, if it doesn't affect you then it must be fine.

[mercymechap]

306. Oh, but because your panties are all

in a wad over it, I guess we must all agree with you!

[progressoid]

324. The point...

you missed it.

This is for you: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

[Half-Century Man]

213. We have had DHS for over ten years...

And we have had no evidence of it being effective. No, it is effective, just not as it was sold to us.
Adding another layer to the 700+ layers of our bureaucracy is not making it MORE efficient.
Making it oversight resistant is just stupid.

I get that at that time we decided we needed a big bad guard dog; well now its gotten fat, it shits on the carpet, knocks company down, steals from the table, and keeps humping our leg. Knock it into submission or put it down, it is fucking up our house.

[truedelphi]

300. Nice one!

That photo that sat on DU's front page for the last 48 hours, of some big centralized NSA headquarters made me want to puke. We are supposedly in austerity mode - to such an extent that people are dying when the bridges they are driving on collapse underneath them.

But all this nonsense of Spying on this and Spying on that. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this is simply yet another way for the military industrial governmental complex to pad its pockets, while making us feel scared.

[sibelian]

171. That's a chimera.

It has nothing to do with terrorism, they are not taking the data to get terrorists they are taking the data to GET THE DATA.

[delrem]

292. correct.

Having all the data on all personal affairs gives total control.

[HiPointDem]

198. stupid post

[mercymechap]

313. Then debate it,

just saying it is a stupid post makes your post even more stupid.

[HiPointDem]

315. debating it would only elevate it to an importance above its stupidity.

[mercymechap]

317. Which is your way of

saying, I don't really know how to debate it but I want to participate and offer my ignorant 2 cents!

[TommyCelt]

210. I don't have anything to hide...

...but I don't have anything I feel like showing you, either.

As an American citizen, I don't need to justify that position. Anyone in "authority" who wants to look at my personal crap has to justify their position. With a warrant, as prescribed by the Consititution.

[sabrina 1]

302. The question is what do THEY have to hide.

[mercymechap]

314. And that is what they have

to do. Geez, no wonder those that are freaking out over it don't really know how it works.

[TommyCelt]

326. No...not nearly enough oversight to make sure that's what the "have" to do

Bottom line. You trust the fox in the henhouse; I don't.

Good luck.

[woo me with science]

331. They have no right to surveil en masse in the first place.

They have no right to collect and store this information in the first place.

Arguments about oversight to access the information collected are a manipulation to get us to accept the collection as a given in the first place.

They have no right to conduct mass surveillance in the first place.

[GoneOffShore]

250. You obviously have forgotten that slippery slopes get slipperier and steeper

with every incremental loss of freedom.

Would you spy on your neighbors? Would you inform on your family? People in East Germany did because of slippery slopes. It's for the good of the state.

[Summer Hathaway]

72. Do you have any solid info

on anyone who has been arrested because "the people they were calling, or receiving calls from might (or might not) have been engaged in terrorism"?

Know anyone who's been detained because they were 'butt-dialed' by the wrong person?

The ridiculous non-sequitar transition into people on death row having been in the wrong place at the wrong time - seriously? When was the last time someone ended up on death row as a result of the gov't looking at their phone records in a database?

I've been reading on DU for the last 48-hours all kinds of speculation, conspiracy theories, and downright lunacy about the info the gov't is currently gathering and storing, and 'where it will all lead'.

And yet, despite the fact that this data-mining has been going on for years, I've not seen one example of someone charged with so much as a parking ticket as a result of megadata collection.

[Ms. Toad]

99. It is not a non-sequitor

to point out the very real circumstances in which our system of justice has failed, based on data and conclusions drawn from that data which were false. If the system can fail when we put people on death row, or in Gitmo, we should all of a sudden trust it to be perfectly accurate when massive quantities of data are being gathered and crunched to determine patterns (or supposed patterns) of interactions in connection with terrorism?

As for concrete evidence that something bad has happened - well, hmm..., that would kind of require information about what data has been gathered, and how it has been used, facts which have are not available to the public.

If it leads nowhere but to a loss of our freedom to associate with whomever we please without fear of being labeled a terrorist, that loss is too much.

FWIW, My father has an FBI file on him, I likely have one on me - as I have followed pretty closely in his footsteps in the activities which caused the FBI to spy on US citizens, including being on the governing body which was the subject of massive data collection from ~1940 - 1975. Theoetically that organization (32 more links at that site - feel free to browse), which received a Nobel Peace Prize posed such a threat of violence to the US that the FBI invested 30 years infiltrating and spying on it - information we only had access to after the fact as the result of FOIA requests - which cannot be used to produce the currently classified material. So being spied on by the FBI is personal to me.

[Summer Hathaway]

108. Our system of justice

fails all the time - sad, but true - as the result of over-zealous prosecutors (for political reasons or otherwise), lazy defense attorneys, dumb-as-a-post jurors, bored judges, etc.

Which has nothing to do with metadata collection.

It is not enough to say, "Yeah, but this COULD happen." Until it happens, it is pure speculation without any basis in fact or reality.

"If it leads nowhere but to a loss of our freedom to associate with whomever we please without fear of being labeled a terrorist, that loss is too much."

Exactly when did you lose your freedom to associate with whomever you please? Was it yesterday when you read something on DU? Was it when this kind of data-mining went into effect, which was years ago?

[Ms. Toad]

121. You could try reading the post again.

Not to mention the second half of the sentence you quoted. It happened in the early 70s (at least my personal piece of the story). Because I exercised my freedom to associate with others on the governing body of the American Friends Service Committee, and otherwise in opposition to war (generally) and the Vietnam war (specifically), I was spied on and labeled a violent subversive.

In part because of that organization's efforts in response to that spying, the FBI domestic surveillance program was exposed and it was prohibited from continuing a domestic surveillance program until 2002, when it was resurrected by Ashcroft and - not surprisingly - the AFSC was again quickly targeted as a violent subversive organization (spying on the AFSC when it met at the Friends Meeting I belong to was oh-so-effective in preventing 911).

Have a little history lesson: http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file893_29902.pdf I suspect if the current situation doesn't trouble you that you are too young to remember how very familiar this pattern is.

And - while I expected Bush and his ilk to have no respect for the constitution, I expected more from the constitutional scholar we elected president.

[Summer Hathaway]

129. ...

I'm still waiting for the part where metadata gathering comes in.

[Ms. Toad]

134. Because the impact of collecting one kind of data about who you are associating with

is so much different from other data about who you are associating with.

[mercymechap]

321. I can understand why you

would feel distrust, based on your past experience, but surely you also realize that our country has evolved quite a bit from that time.

[Ms. Toad]

325. Really?

In 2005 (although I may be off by a year in either direction), after having been one of the targets of the FBI's COINTELPRO ending in the 70s, there were FBI agents again infiltrating and spying on the local AFSC office.

Targeted assassinations, drone attacks, AbuGraib, Gitmo, Voter ID laws (just to name a few). You really think we've evolved that much?

[TommyCelt]

212. So...

because it's been going on for years, and you've not been privvy to abuse of the information being mined, we're all good, hmm?

I feel better already.

[mercymechap]

316. Exactly!

The database allowed the FBI to find the Boston bomber's friend in Florida. They were able to find him because his phone number was found on Tamerian Tsarnaev's cell phone. The FBI was able to determine that there wasn't a terrorist group. Wouldn't these same people that are complaining been really upset if the Boston bombers had been part of a terrorist group that would have retaliated for the killing of Tamerian, and the FBI hadn't been able to determine that? What's so sacred about a phone number?

[cui bono]

131. You deserve neither liberty nor security. n/t

Last edited Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:40 AM - Edit history (1)

[Warren DeMontague]

141. Sort of the way the PATRIOT Act has been used against "dangerous terrorists", right?

I mean, that's what it was sold to us as.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/patriot-act-used-to-fight-more-drug-dealers-than-terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html

[freedom fighter jh]

156. To have it in case a terrorist's phone happens to have access your number.

Or in case someone in government wants to shut you up for any reason at all.

Suspicious of government, am I? Our system is built on protecting citizens from government.

Your records may be boring. Mine are private, the way going to the bathroom is private: I'm not doing anything in there that I need to be ashamed of, but I'd be embarrassed as hell if anyone could see me doing it. Some folks may have done things that are truly wrong but unrelated. Think of Eliot Spitzer, trying to rein in the banks from their unscrupulous practices, and brought down for seeing prostitutes. When a state's chief executive, charged with enforcing the law, violates the law, yes, that is a problem. But that was not relevant to Spitzer's efforts to protect the people from predatory banking practices. Had he succeeded, many would be better off.

These records are a club that government can use to whack any one of us over the head, especially if we get uppity and try to question them.

[mercymechap]

322. Well, collecting just the numbers of

terrorists and the people they contact would present a bit of a trick, wouldn't it. I doubt that your number will ever even be looked at, but if you feel safer knowing that no one has it, then all I can say is that your paranoia is beyond help.

When it comes to phone conversations, you can hardly compare that to bathroom sessions, especially when the safety of all Americans is involved. If pooping in front of people would keep many innocent people from being killed, you would still opt for your privacy? If it was your own family? Interesting.

[Dorian Gray]

157. Just because

it's "smart" doesn't mean it's not a total violation of our rights.

And just because you don't mind your rights being violated doesn't mean that the rest of our society doesn't mind.

[Bluenorthwest]

176. You mean the way they caught the Boston Bombers? After the fact? After warnings from other

nations, lots of 'red flags' and interviewing the elder one face to face they let them go about their business. So your theory is that folks with that level of competence can be trusted with and can make sense of this data, in spite of the Boston, Ft Hood, Underwear Bomber etc? What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

[truedelphi]

297. And how about this evidence - officials from at least THREE SEPARATE NATIONS

Tried to warn us about the attacks on the World Trade Center, early September 2001. And those warnings were ignored.

I see the whole War on Terror as bogus, but a total money making operation for the One Percent.
By criminalizing 290 million of us, they have a guaranteed expansion of surveillance programs, which we as patriotic citizens must accept, without question as to the rhyme, reason or any auditing of the damn money being spent (Aren't we as a nation broke, and needing to cut 4,1 trillions of dollars from the national budget over ten years? Apparently not!)

And if you ever protest, (or even demand an audit!) then you too can be considered a terrorist, and now they have justifiable cause to grab you and take you away. Remember, right now over 18 states are privatizing their prisons, and agreeing to keep those prisons at 98% capacity!

[reusrename]

218. Yeah, that's the ticket!!

cuz dem terra-ist just luv to chat about their activities on the phone and thru emails and such

That's the ticket!!

[Horse with no Name]

258. See here is the thing

Yes, we are being photographed.

Yet, what happens when WE photograph what THEY don't think we should? I think this is kind of chilling for people who live in a "free" country...don't you? But you see, we have ceded these rights with very little pushback. And nothing like Hitler happens overnight. It is ALWAYS little by little...and the brownshirts are always calling us alarmists.

https://www.google.com/search?q=arrested+while+photographing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

[sabrina 1]

301. I feel like crying.

The excuse they gave, after first denying it all of course, is so lame that I honestly did not think anyone would believe it.

Have you thought about that at all? They spy on MILLIONS of Americans, but they're 'not listening' to your calls, they only want your phone # in case one day if a terrorist has your phone # in his phone book they can find you.

Think about that for a minute. If they find a terrorist's address book with your number in it, they HAVE the phone number!! They've already found you! They don't need to go to any list of millions of numbers to find you. The number is IN the terrorist's book!! Or on his phone records. Now why would they need to collect millions of people's phone numbers when it's right there in the terrorist's address book or his phone??

Sigh! No wonder they tell so many lies and fairy tales, there really are people who believe them.

[JI7]

12. i don't believe some of them are the left

[Control-Z]

20. Exactly! (nt)

[whatchamacallit]

19. Ask your boyfriend

[one_voice]

185. ?

Is s/he in a relationship with someone in DC that has some power? Who's their boyfriend?

[rhett o rick]

35. And why are you, the right so against the Constitution? nm

[ReRe]

145. I'm an old fart...

... could you define your slang "ratfucking"? Respectfully, of course....

[emulatorloo]

190. Google Nixon Charles Colson Ratfucking

Political dirty tricks, sabotage, including infiltrating leftist groups posing as a leftist in order to stir the pot

That's what the Nixon crowd called it. Ratfucking

Straight wiki definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

[ReRe]

253. Thank you dear...

I know who Chuck Colson was but had never heard that term. Guess I haven't read enough Watergate books?

[emulatorloo]

288. Any time, my sweet friend.

[ReRe]

290. ;-)

[FSogol]

158. Yeah. I wanna know why too? n/t

[rhett o rick]

261. The left wants to have the rights guaranteed in the Constitution maintained.

If you arent "the left" then who are you? ANd what do you stand for? The right thinks that security is more important than freedom. How do you feel?

[Fumesucker]

8. Name someone that does not have an agenda n/t

[KittyWampus]

16. Well, the agenda on Democratic Underground would be to NOT respond to ratfucking like Pavlov's dogs

[napoleon_in_rags]

25. Sorry, our guys in DC make it pretty easy.

Bush: Hey, will you guys sweep this crap I took on the floor under the couch!
Obama: Sure, no need to re-litigate history.
Bush: Thanks!
(a while later)
Bush: Oh my God! Obama took a crap on the floor and swept it under the couch!

[summer-hazz]

52. Brilliant

deduction napoleon!!

[laundry_queen]

203. LOL, that's pretty much it. nt

[sibelian]

179. You seem to have this thing that people have been "conditioned"

...into not wanting to be spied on.

Maybe they actually believe what they say.

[2naSalit]

271. Interestingly

it's more like the other way around, many have been conditioned to not be willing to see what's going on... perhaps they are too involved with the latest gadget or game to bother.

This is getting interesting and creepy.

[mercymechap]

27. Amen and amen to that!

[me b zola]

66. The problem with what the NSA has and is doing is not about how much we adore PBO.

Its about policy that is wrong. Period. Regardless of which party holds the executive office.

[cantbeserious]

151. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; ...

When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Thomas Jefferson

My agenda - I'll stand with Jefferson.

[Laelth]

165. The Constitution knows no political party. n/t

-Laelth

[HiPointDem]

196. you have an agenda

[sabrina 1]

15. If someone is tracking my phone calls, they are spying on me. If the government is doing it

it is chilling. If they are using' national security' as their excuse, they are using the same excuse all totalitarian governments have used throughout history.

There is no 'defining' spying. Either someone I don't know is tracking the phone calls I make or they are not. That is all the defining I need. That is all the defining I needed when Bush was caught doing it. They were spying on the American people using telephone companies to do it. It was illegal then, Congress moved like lightening to make the illegal, legal to protect Bush and the telecoms. Why? Because they knew it was illegal spying.

If it's hard for you to understand the very simple concept of government spying on your private activities, then there really isn't much anyone can say to help you understand.

Did you support it when Bush was caught doing the exact same thing btw?

[mn9driver]

30. Is someone tracking your phone calls?

In what way?

[rhett o rick]

38. Havent you been paying attention? Or are you living in a denial bubble? nm

[mn9driver]

62. I've been paying quite close attention. Thanks for asking.

I am a Verizon customer and use the internet extensively. I call overseas quite a bit due to my traveling. Nothing that I have read leads me to believe that my calls are being, um, "tracked". I am asking why the poster believes their calls are being tracked, and who is tracking them. A logical followup question would be, for what purpose do you believe your calls are being tracked?

[WinkyDink]

183. ARE YOU BEING DELIBERATELY OBTUSE????? CAN YOU READ AT ALL????

[NealK]

242. I'm afraid that it's either that (being deliberately obtuse) or

that poster is in total denial. The same way a fundie will continue to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, despite the overwhelming amount of proofs that it's not the case, in order to protect their belief system.

[nadinbrzezinski]

221. Even the President, who would be in a position to know,

Admitted to it in a presser the other day.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

233. I can think of several suggestive yet innocent

statements you could write in those overseas emails that would prove to you
your emails are being "tracked." Unfortunately most are too terrified of the system
to test it. You would be asking for a world of misery.

[sabrina 1]

57. Were you somewhere where you couldn't read or hear the news over the past several days?

[mn9driver]

65. Was there news that your calls are being tracked?

All I've been reading about is data collection.

[sabrina 1]

81. Yes, there was actually, along with millions of other Americans. My data is my data. Unless

there is some probable cause to believe I am doing something illegal. Ordering pizza isn't probable cause enough to justify 'collecting data' according to the 4th Amendment. True, the FFs may not have known anything about ordering pizza, or telephones, but the law applies regardless, it is pretty clear.

Our elected officials take an oath of office, it is short and succinct. It doesn't say they swear to protect us from people ordering pizza, or even from radical extremists. It says they will 'defend and protect the CONSTITUTION of the US. That is all, they will protect it 'from enemies both foreign and domestic'. Not that they will protect US, but they will protect the CONSTITUTION.

Why do you think those oaths reflect the belief that protecting the Constitution is even more important than protecting anything else? I get it, I just wonder if everyone gets it, especially those who took that oath?

[mn9driver]

127. Your pizza orders are being tracked by the government.

Ok.

[sabrina 1]

132. I know, stunning isn't it? Surely you remember the agents actually admitting that this what

were spending hours listening to? They complained about how boring their jobs were, listening to people ordering pizza, planning weddings, talking about their neighbors. Millions of dollars were spent on this. I guess this is why it is called 'meta-data'. Useless information yet important enough to 'store' and 'collect'?? Some contractors made a ton of money doing this though.

I guess this time, rather than bore them to death, they are just 'tracking and storing' it to listen to at some later date or something. Regardless, I don't care if they never listen to it, they have no Constitutional right to collect, store and/or listen to people's 'data' according to the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. But someone is making huge amounts of money on this.

I will try to follow the money as we have so many times before, and I'm sure we'll find the real reason for all this spying. It sure isn't about 'security' is it? If you believe that, you probably believe in the tooth fairy.

[marions ghost]

184. +++

They believe in the Security Fairy...who makes you believe it's all OK...here's a little fairy dust...just go back to sleep

Yep, follow the money.

[sheshe2]

254. Do you actually have a link to that, sabrina!?

Well no wonder our taxes are so high....we have zillions of agents on the ground tacking our pizza orders.

Please link the tooth fairy too, I want to read her take on this. Thank you for your time.

[mn9driver]

205. Ah. Your pizza orders are being listened to by agents.

Got it. I wonder how many agents it takes to listen to 8 billion voice and text transactions every single day? With the sequester, they're probably falling behind.

[cui bono]

133. And what do you think that data is that is being collected?

It's calls, emails, internet activity. So yes, your calls are being tracked since the information about them is stored.

[tex-wyo-dem]

283. mn9driver...hate to break this to you, but...

Phone calls ARE data...digital data. No different than an email or text msg or Internet search or message board post, etc, etc. It's all just digital data that the NSA is storing and running through massive computer algorithms to seach out keywords, etc. Now, voice call data does have to be treated differently in that it has to be decypted and converted to analog data and run through voice recognition software to make it usable/understandable. Voice recognition software is only partially reliable, so often the data has to be reviewed by actual human ears.

My point is that the NSA is saying they are just gathering data....the loophole is that includes voice calls, of everyone, that they have full access to without any specific judicial oversight.

[delrem]

293. comfortably numb.

[Marr]

36. Exactly.

If one of these apologists could cite a single instance of them using the term "metadata" before this story broke, I might be more inclined to actually consider their arguments about how 'collecting metadata' isn't 'spying'.

[sabrina 1]

107. Lol, I know, I noticed how quickly they picked up the rhetoric obviously prepared by

some staff members who surf the internet and thought we'd recognize the 'meta' word and be influenced to think that it was not really important after all. They really should hire more intelligent propagandists. Whenever I see a lot of people resorting to obvious talking points and repeating them over and over again, rather than using their own words, I know it is pointless to argue with them.

[Matariki]

299. +1

and to think they probably get paid for their sloppy work. laughable & sad.

[SammyWinstonJack]

53. ...

[joshcryer]

84. "every government has the right to ... 'intelligence'." - sabrina 1

The utter hypocrisy abounds.

[sabrina 1]

98. Every country does have the right to 'intelligence'. What exactly is your point? As you can see,

I certainly never said otherwise. But every country does NOT have the right to spy on an entire population without any kind of probable cause. Your repeated attempts at 'gotcha moments' have always failed so miserably I don''t understand why you keep trying.

Did Venuzeula wire tap the phones of all of its citizens secretly and when exposed claim it was for 'national security' reasons? Not that I am aware of. But if someone tries to assassinate an elected president, here or anywhere else, they sure do have a right, a duty to find those people. And that is done by the usual and accepted methods of catching any criminal.

The topic here is spying on the American people as Bush did, using the telecoms to do so. Just so you don't veer off once again into the wilderness. And thanks for posting that, if I say so myself, it was not a bad comment, which I stand by entirely.

[joshcryer]

232. That comment stands for itself. I am glad I was proven correct.

I knew that eventually the US surveillance state would come up and that you would denounce it.

[sabrina 1]

234. Of course it does, I already said that. Your 'gotcha' moments, while flattering to me that my words

are so memorable to you, are hilarious. Every country has the right to Intelligence, is that clear enough for you?

Do you know what we are discussing here? You seem confused.

[delrem]

294. good response.

[Skidmore]

160. The issue is with Congress.

I really don't understand why people give Congress a pass and don't expect the body to get to work on correcting the mess they made. At this point, the law needs to be changed and the place that starts is in the legislature.

[LondonReign2]

192. Has the Administration asked for the law to be changed?

No, because they fully support it.

[sabrina 1]

199. No one gets a pass. The President who told us this week that he 'kept Bush's policies'

and yes, Bush should have been impeached or at least an investigation should have taken place the first time this information was leaked, when it still was illegal. Instead, Congress, including this President and many other Democrats at the time, voted for an amendment to the FISA Bill making legal what Bush did.

The only people who get a pass are those who did not vote for the FISA Bill amendment, the usual actual Liberals.

Ron Wyden gets a pass and to some extent, Udall both have been trying to object as much as they could considering how secret all of this has been, to protest the surveillance.

[Summer Hathaway]

46. Exactly.

If the gathering/keeping of personal information equates to 'spying', my doctor, dentist, accountant, bank, etc. are all guilty. And they have way more personal info on their office computers about me than my phone number, who I've called, and for how long. Way more.

"Frankly a good amount of DU'ers seem to be not quite as well-informed as they pretend to be, extremely quick to jump on any bandwagon if it agrees with their preconceived bias & extremely prone to ratfucking."

Again - exactly.

[summer-hazz]

71. Exactly

and seriously..

Wake up folks....This "spying" thing is a distraction once again
from being able to get a damn thing done in DC...imho

WTF!!!

This is not news!!!
but hey... whatever works the nerve ....right?

[cui bono]

135. You forgot the sarcasm tag. n/t

[dgibby]

265. And in each of those instances,

you were required to give your written permission for them to amass your data. You also had to read and sign a privacy statement.

If you can't tell the difference between that and what the government is doing, then you have a serious comprehension problem.

[Summer Hathaway]

266. The gov't is storing

my phone number records in a database, along with millions upon millions of others.

So fuckin' what?

Sorry, but I refuse to be a member of the DU Hair-on-Fire Brigade, who spend their every waking moment looking for something to be outraged about - something that will be forgotten as soon as the next outrage-de-jour comes along.

Given the targeted marketing now possible through the internet, I'm surprised the sackcloth-and-ashes vendors aren't advertizing here. This place is teeming with potential customers.

[dgibby]

272. So fucking this:

When I was in the Navy, the command had the ability to monitor everything we did on our workspace computers, and we knew that. No problem, right?

Well, seems a senior enlisted man (Chief), left his terminal open when he left his desk for a few minutes. Another Chief, a far right religious zealot, used this open terminal to spam the entire command with his take on the old repent and be saved come to Jesus moment.

Needless to say, the CO was NOT amused when he got his invitation to repent, so he had IT check to see who had sent it. Unfortunately, the wrong Chief was charged, the Chief that had sent the message didn't have the intestinal fortitude to admit that he was the sender.

Had it not been for someone who just happened to witness the guilty party at the other person's terminal, the wrong Chief would have had his career ended for something he didn't do. As it was, he was given a letter of reprimand for failing to secure his terminal. The guilty party ended up getting a psych eval and an invitation(that he couldn't refuse) to retire.

After serving in the military for 22 years, I am well acquainted with what the government can do with your info, and while my hair has never been on fire, it has, on occasion, stood on end.

[Summer Hathaway]

275. And what has this incident to do with

the gov't storing phone numbers in a database?

I keep being met with these anecdotal stories on DU in discussions of this topic, the see, this is what can go wrong stories. So far, no one has come forward with a single example of where the current metadata collection, which has been going on for years, has led to anyone being arrested, charged, detained on the basis of their phone records being stored - along with millions and millions of other phone records - in a database.

[dgibby]

278. OMG!

You're waiting for an example? It's a classified op. You are NEVER going to be told about this unless the government wants you to know or a whistleblower steps up to the plate.

I had a security clearance that gave me access to knowledge of stuff I still can't talk about, and I've been retired since '91. My brother was in black ops most of his adult life and the entire family, including his wife and child, thought he was just a National Guardsman and civil servant. He took his secrets to his grave.

I don't know how old you are, but I guarentee you'll never get this info through officlal channels during your lifetime.

[Summer Hathaway]

279. I see.

So I'm just supposed to assume that people are being arrested and charged, based on information gleaned from their phone records, and no one knows about it?

Where are these people? Have they been 'disappeared'? Did their families, friends, employers, coworkers not make inquiries as to what happened to them? Were they also 'disappeared' for getting too nosey?

What you're basically saying is that nefarious stuff is going on, and the proof that it's going on is proven by the fact that there is no proof.

Right.

[dgibby]

281. I don't think you see what you think you see,

and so, you will remain ignorant, willfully or otherwise. Ta Ta.

[Summer Hathaway]

282. What I see

is a lot of paranoid people attempting to justify their paranoia.

[Th1onein]

56. They are maintaining databases with all of our communications and searches in them.

Then, they are pacifying us with "warrants" to pull some of the material from those databases. It's bullshit. It's wrong. It's unconstitutional, whether done by Bush or Obama.

[woo me with science]

201. +1

Exactly.

[Demo_Chris]

93. I would HOPE every American and member here would object to any government...

... action or effort that required justification and spin.

The point is really quite simple, so simple that even a party line Democrat or Republican can understand it: The Government is not only not supposed to cross any of these lines, they are supposed to stay so fucking far from them that the question never even comes up. Spying on Americans is NEVER okay. It doesn't matter if the administration found a judge to sign off, it doesn't matter if congress knew, it does not matter how scared you are. There is never justification for the destruction of the freedoms on which our nation and system of laws are founded.

None.

[woo me with science]

96. [phone]

This is *exactly* the point.

We all need to resist even being drawn into these outrageous, manipulative attempts to *debate* our Constitutional rights.

[Demo_Chris]

100. Exactly. nt

[caseymoz]

191. Funny, my "bias" wasn't "preconceived" . . .

. . . till a week ago. I donated to Obama and gave his campaign money. First election more money than I could afford.

Yeah, that's biased all right.

[HiPointDem]

195. your post is pathetic & you have an agenda

[frylock]

215. you're a conservative. nobody here gives a shit what you think.

[GoneOffShore]

248. Did you see this post from Reddit the other day?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022970768#post43

Here's the first bit -

I live in a country generally assumed to be a dictatorship. One of the Arab spring countries. I have lived through curfews and have seen the outcomes of the sort of surveillance now being revealed in the US. People here talking about curfews aren't realizing what that actually FEELS like. It isn't about having to go inside, and the practicality of that. It's about creating the feeling that everyone, everything is watching. A few points:

1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.

And did you watch "Lives of Others"?

We are turning into East Germany under the STASI.

[bvar22]

5. !

Rec

[LittleBlue]

7. I am shocked at what some DUers are posting

Things that those same DUers would have cried bloody murder under Shrub

[KittyWampus]

14. Funny, I am NOT shocked at how many DU'ers are howling at the ringing of a ratfucking Pavlovian bell

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. So civil rights are a Pavlovian bell?

Gotta give you credit, that's a novel way of that old propaganda technique.



We call it discrediting the argument.

[truedelphi]

296. And our Commander in Chief continually refers to them as

"Traditions." For some reason, he cannot bring himself to say that "in this nation, we have rights." Instead, he talks about "traditions."

My feeling is that maybe he did spend too much time in Indonesia!

[sabrina 1]

18. When Bush was caught spying on the American people using the telecoms to do it, did you

defend him?

[ProSense]

33. Why

"When Bush was caught spying on the American people using the telecoms to do it, did you defend him?"

...on earth would anyone defend that?

ACLU Ad: The President Lied to the American People and Broke the Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973979

[sabrina 1]

42. Why on earth then, would Congress CHANGE the law to make his unlawful behavior legal?

And why would THIS president vote to protect Bush and the telecoms for breaking the law?

Could any one of us get Congress to retroactively change a law so that our illegal behavior became legal? Why do you think Obama wanted to protect Bush and went so far as to vote to change a law in order to do so?

[ProSense]

74. That is not what the law did. n/t

[joshcryer]

90. Obama voted against telecom immunity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/nsa-verizon-surveillance-constitution

Yet he uses that immunity on a daily basis.

[rhett o rick]

40. Some welcome the comfort of the security that fascism will bring. nm

[ProSense]

48. And some welcome hyperbole and propaganda.

Always screaming fascism, but never looking for solutions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981753

[cui bono]

137. Even if that were true, it's a hell of a lot better than being an apologist

for unconstitutional behavior just because it's Obama doing it.

And how do you know what people are doing to change this? You don't.

[sibelian]

172. And some scream louder still that all is well.

Why, I wonder?

[Summer Hathaway]

51. And some live in eternal hope that fascism will rise

just to be able to post I told you so on a message board.

[ProSense]

73. There is a cowardly aspect to it all. n/t

[Summer Hathaway]

79. Not just cowardly

but, in many cases, masochistic.

Ever notice how many here consistently use terms like I bow to my corporate overlords, or, we are mere peons, or, the elitists don't care about us?

Some people seem to truly desire being downtrodden, being beaten down, being victims. They don't just embrace it - they relish the very concept of it.

[sabrina 1]

104. There is a cowardly aspect to being willing to give up rights for a little security. There is a

cowardly aspect to elected officials refusing to honor the oath they took to 'defend and protect the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic' and to actually state that we must 'give up some rights' in order to get '100% security'. That is in direct contradiction of the oath they took. That is caving to the enemies of the Constitution.

Their oath does not say they need to protect US from anything, its emphasis is on the Constitution. I have asked before, why do you think the protection of the Constitution is viewed as more important than the protection of anything else? Why doesn't the oath say 'to defend and protect the American people'? And why do our elected officials so often seem to forget the oaths they took?

[ProSense]

130. Thanks for the straw man. n/t

[sabrina 1]

136. The Constitution is a strawman? Really? For me it is the most important

thing we have and should be protected fiercely. Without it, which is why IT rather 'the people' is what our elected officials swear to protect, we have no democracy. Yet our elected officials are telling us that we need to give up some of those constitutional rights in order to be safe.

Every elected official, every military recruit must take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and yet, some of them seem to just take it without any intention of carrying out their promise.

Compare Obama's speech this week 'we cannot have 100% security without giving up some rights', to Ben Franklin who said the exact opposite. I'm with Franklin, anyone willing or advocating giving up any of our freedoms, even tiny ones, to feel safe, 'deserve neither freedom nor safety'.

How cowardly to even consider caving to fear so easily.

[ProSense]

138. Continue having that discussion with yourself. n/t

[sabrina 1]

142. Okay, since you asked. I notice you have nothing at all to say about the

real reason why people are so angry. It must be a surprise to people who are so engrossed in just politics to find out that the American people in general care more about their Constitution than any political party or politician in the end.

It was the violations of Constitutional rights, mainly by Republicans but then I noticed that members of my party, who I thought could do no wrong, were voting with Republicans on anti-Constitutional legislation, that made me realize that members of my party were doing wrong . At first this made me sad, frustrated, puzzled and disbelieving.

Eventually it made me angry. More so at the party I belong to than the other one because I expected nothing from them. Now I have changed the way I support this party. I will support every primary challenger to a Democrat who voted against our Constitutional rights. As it is the duty of our elected officials to defend and protect the constitution, it is the duty of citizens to do the same. I did not take an oath to defend any politician who is willing to throw away our Constitutional rights.

[LiberalLovinLug]

245. So no denial that you view supporting the Constitution as a Straw Man argument?

Seems much in line with Dubya's view of it being just a "damn piece of paper".

[Le Taz Hot]

103. Don't look now but fascism is already here

and it's being protected and nurtured by a "Democratic" (wink wink) administration.

[Summer Hathaway]

113. Oh, yes

Fascism is here - so is the 'police state' we're all living under - so are all the other things people on this site rail about day after day.

I read it on the internet - it MUST be true!!!

[cui bono]

139. When all the citizens' communications data is stored then we have a police state.

But don't let that stop your being an apologist for someone who is violating the constitution. Who needs that anyway?

[Dorian Gray]

159. That's what is frightening

[sibelian]

170. Spin, plain and simple. "Pavlovian Bell!!!" ?

Meaning what? That we have all been subtly CONDITIONED into sensitivity regarding the necessity for the protection of privacy?

Interesting position.

[Doctor_J]

267. you have posted variations of ratfuck upwards of 75 times over the

last three days. Besides being a Jr high school level pejorative, is there some right wing insult there that grows in meaning after the first fifty repetitions?

[840high]

238. But but It's prez O. Different

rules seem to apply. Sad.

[ProSense]

10. This is

The corporate-authoritarian propaganda in the MSM and right here on DU now is inviting you to "debate" your fundamental Constitutional rights. You are being asked to have very respectful and serious discussions about the pros and cons of the government's having the right to spy on every single one of us, and amass and store our private information and communication activities in databases that can be accessed at any time in the future. The rationalizations are varied but invariably outrageous: Corporations do it, so what's the difference? Doesn't the new world of terrorism demand new methods? Don't you realize some bad, bad Republicans are against this?

...absolute nonsense, and just the kind of disingenuous claims that are driving the misinformation. No one is asking for a debate on "the government's having the right to spy on every single one of us."

The debate is about whether the program does so or not. If it does, it's runs counter to the law. If if doesn't, which is the administration's claim, then it's lawful.

As someone posted earlier: "If these activities were only targeting foreigners, or terrorist, there would be no story here."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2979341

[sabrina 1]

21. So were they targeting actual suspects or everyone who has a Verizon account?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

28. The whistle blowers, and apparently a FISA Court found that they were unconstitutional

It is way past time to have a select committee look into this e.g. THe Church Committee.

Are you in favor of such a committee looking into these programs?

[Ms. Toad]

44. Here's a thought -

read the court order:

Verizon "shall produce . . . on an ongoing daily basis . . . for the duration of this order . . . all call detail records . . . created by Verizon for communications . . . wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

So maybe not every single one of us - but every one of us with Verizon, or PagePlusCellular, or other provider which uses the Verizon service. And everyone who called anyone who is served by those providers. And everyone served by another carrier who received a similar secret order. So yes, pretty much every single one of us.

[pa28]

22. Sometimes a person with no supportable "side" will try to draw you into an argument.

They'll attack the messenger or obscure the issue or scream at you if that fails. Entertaining fallacies means they've already won because the truth must be somewhere in between in argument. Right?

[delrem]

23. However, as Obama knows, there is no debate. That's just rhetoric in a speech.

[markiv]

26. party uber alles

it who's right, not what's right

[Amonester]

29. Who can define in details what "unreasonable searches" really means?

What does "unreasonable" means?

[markiv]

32. for example, logging every single call of every single verizon user?

without any suspicion whatsoever?

[Amonester]

41. and if they 'suspect' two or more violent extremist could be verizon users, but...

don't know exactly who they are, so they would have to search for keywords they could exchange

how could they find them if they were not looking at the whole haystack?

[markiv]

47. 'those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither'

i'm getting soooo sick of 12 years of NINE ELEVEN!!!!!!! NINE ELEVEN!!!!!!

every time the govmt gets caught doing something they shouldnt

just out of curiosity, what do you think posessed people to write the constitution in the first place? because those things never had or never could happen?

[Amonester]

60. telegraphs were not even invented when they wrote it

neither were violent religious extremists (to my knowledge anyway)

[markiv]

64. 'neither were violent religious extremists'

that was meant to be a joke, wasnt iand as far as the telegraph (and other electronic communication), i dont think you have to be a genious to tell that if 'secure in their papers' means it's wrong to open a drawer and read your mail, it's wrong to read a telegram without a warrent

[burnodo]

149. nor machine guns when they wrote the 2nd amendment

lets throw that out too!

[HiPointDem]

200. so what?

[bobduca]

204. Laws should autoupdate!

Why isn't Apple and or Microsoft on top of this?!?! Times change, laws need updates!

[Fumesucker]

207. Guy Fawkes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes

Guy Fawkes (13 April 1570 – 31 January 1606), also known as Guido Fawkes, the name he adopted while fighting for the Spanish in the Low Countries, was a member of a group of provincial English Catholics who planned the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

Fawkes was born and educated in York. His father died when Fawkes was eight years old, after which his mother married a recusant Catholic. Fawkes later converted to Catholicism and left for the continent, where he fought in the Eighty Years' War on the side of Catholic Spain against Protestant Dutch reformers. He travelled to Spain to seek support for a Catholic rebellion in England but was unsuccessful. He later met Thomas Wintour, with whom he returned to England.

Wintour introduced Fawkes to Robert Catesby, who planned to assassinate King James I and restore a Catholic monarch to the throne. The plotters secured the lease to an undercroft beneath the House of Lords, and Fawkes was placed in charge of the gunpowder they stockpiled there. Prompted by the receipt of an anonymous letter, the authorities searched Westminster Palace during the early hours of 5 November, and found Fawkes guarding the explosives. Over the next few days, he was questioned and tortured, and eventually he broke. Immediately before his execution on 31 January, Fawkes jumped from the scaffold where he was to be hanged and broke his neck, thus avoiding the agony of the mutilation that followed.

Fawkes became synonymous with the Gunpowder Plot, the failure of which has been commemorated in England since 5 November 1605. His effigy is traditionally burned on a bonfire, commonly accompanied by a firework display.

[sabrina 1]

55. If they suspect two or more violent extremists are using a telephone, which they surely are I

would presume, you think they need to spy on several million people to try to listen to what they are saying?

If someone commits murder should the police be allowed to search a few million homes in an effort to try to find the murderer? And how on earth would doing that help them to find a murderer?

The 4th Amendment says 'no'. And oddly enough murderers are caught all the time without the police breaking down the doors of millions of people.

And if our intel community is so incompetent that they have to listen in to millions of phone calls, hoping they will be lucky and find the needle in the haystack and that is the only way they can think of doing it, they should all be fired. We are not safe.

Of course all totalitarian governments use 'national security' as an excuse for keeping their populations under surveillance. That is why the FFs wrote the 4th Amendment. To protect us from that kind of government.

Nixon violated the 4th Amendment, although he didn't spy on the entire country. After that we got the FISA bill, not perfect by any means, but at least it required the government to get a warrant BEFORE spying on anyone. Congress changed that law to protect Bush when HE violated the law, retroactively. Why do you think any Democrat voted for such a blatant tactic to save Bush from possible impeachment for this crime?

[JoeyT]

61. Because that's not how probable cause works.

If they suspect someone on a street is a drug dealer but they don't know who, can they go house to house searching for drugs until they find some? Of course not. Can they search everyone entering or leaving the area? Nope.

Probable cause generally means "We think that guy right there is doing this specific behavior, we need to investigate closer." not "We think someone somewhere might be doing something, so we need to investigate absolutely everyone."

[Amonester]

77. But they're not investigating everyone.

They're investigating the suspicious keywords, the locations from inland to outland, and from outland to inland, stuff like that.

[JoeyT]

91. When they have a warrant to retrieve your data from a private company,

that's an investigation. That's the problem. The warrants cover all data from all Verizon customers. I'd be absolutely floored if every other company wasn't served a similar warrant. They're investigating everyone.

[Amonester]

95. They're looking through the 'global' haystack.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101665742

"They" have been doing that since 'secret' telecom satellites were placed in orbit (by Scientists, BTW).

Alright, now that it's clear the entire planet is 'covered' globally, who would be powerful enough to stop it?

[Fire Walk With Me]

75. Do not forget that the FBI were well aware of the Tsarnaevs and had been for years.

Did nothing to stop them. The FBI, NSA, FISA, DHS, DARPA, Patriot Act, nothin'. If I remember correctly, the FBI even posted their pics asking for help identifying them, after the bombing...

[Amonester]

78. Nobody's perfect.

Not even you.

[Fire Walk With Me]

83. What you are obviously ignoring is that all the king's illegal surveillance bullshit

couldn't stop the bad bad men, two kids in fact. This really means we do not need all of this illegal surveillance bullshit, and should not tolerate any more being added to what already illegally exists.

[Amonester]

88. They've gone 'global' now...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101665742

So you want to stop that? How?

[brett_jv]

239. Actually the case of those two guys could also be used to argue the opposite ...

In the sense that, despite all the so-called 'spying', AND the fact that the authorities were 'pointed' at one of them by a foreign intel service, the LAW was such that they were PROTECTED ... they couldn't just lock 'em up with actual, real 'probable cause'. That tells me that our 'Rights' are still very much 'in place'.

Had the bombing NOT happened, because the older brother was sitting in jail right now, entirely based on 'warnings' from Russia and from the government snooping on his internet and cellphone communications (w/o a warrant), then there'd probably be DU members with 'Free T*arnaev!' signatures, and rightly so in that case. But the fact that he WASN'T arrested and held tells us all that our 'rights' are still well in place.

[brett_jv]

240. Not sure that 'spying' is the right word ... nor is 'spying' mentioned in the Constitution, so ...

Personally, I'm going to wait to freak out about this meta-data collection until such time as I find that actual rights of individuals are being violated ... like, people been swept up and arrested.

And I hate to bring it up yet again, but there is a very real and valid question as to whether gathering all our telephone call meta-data (without any attachment to 'who' is making the calls) actually constitutes 'spying on all of us'.

Obviously, 'telephone meta-data without personally identifying info' is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, so there is a legit question as to whether collecting this data is actually 'spying' and whether it's really 'unconstitutional' per the 4th.

AFAIK there's been no legislation passed, and no court cases that decided the matter. There's a possibly valid case to be made that this data does not 'belong to us', but rather, it belongs to the carrier, therefore, our 'rights' are not being violated.

[marions ghost]

330. If you're not already

a lawyer working for Eric Holder, then I suggest you apply for a job with his office. You're just what they're looking for.

Or OTOH--if you believe that the telecom carrier is merely a custodian of our private information, then maybe you could work for The People.

Your legalities are showing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

222. Then we have the Tsarnaev brothers

And a foreign agency pointing to the damn shiny needle, and that did not help...

Next argument.

[BlueCheese]

86. At the very least, it seems the person being searched has to be suspected of a crime.

[Abq_Sarah]

123. It's actually quite simple

An unreasonable search is one that is done with no probable cause and/or no search warrant.

[cui bono]

146. They are constitutionally only allowed a warrant if they can show probable cause.

So you've answered your own question. They can't look at the whole haystack to find the probable cause. They need the probable cause before looking, and look only at that for which they have shown probable cause.

[markiv]

31. Hope and Change....It's..ITS A COOKBOOK!!!!

[MuseRider]

37. Absolutely.

Thank you.

[backscatter712]

39. K&R! I invite all DUers of true American blood, who love the Constitution, to use the *PLONK*.

See this?



The red arrow points to the Ignore Person feature of DU, which is a distant descendent of the killfile of USENET fame.

It's your asshole filter. Put a person on your ignore list, and everything he ever does on DU disappears! He becomes an unperson!

And I encourage you to use it.

Why?

These people are not here to debate.

They're here to disrupt sensible discussion. They're here to spew propaganda. They're here to practice character assassination. Back when DU was first set up, we didn't tolerate this shit. These fuckers got sent on their way with a tombstone engraved with "He disrupted poorly."

We're not in high school forensics club. We don't have to play nice with these two-bit Der Sturmer wannabees. This is a place for progressives and liberal Democrats. Teabaggers, conservatives and authoritarian fascists are not invited.

*PLONK* the fuckers!

Ostracize and shun the fuck out of them.

The jury system is an abject failure in throwing these shitheads out. Take matters into your own hands.

They're not worthy of our respect. Debate is an act of respect, which you give to a person whose opinion you value, even if you disagree.

These authoritarian slimefucks don't deserve the respect of debate. They take our act of respect, and use it to barrage us with an endless stream of insult, character assassination and deception. The people shitting on this board clearly don't respect our opinions. They don't reciprocate the respect we've given them over and over. They're gaming the system to shout us down.

I don't respect the pieces of shit who are here to tell us that we should bend over for the Stasi-like surveillance system the NSA's put together. I don't respect the fuckers who are here to verbally destroy anyone who dares to dissent, or to commit acts of civil disobedience. You want to play the game of Lets Find What Dirt We Can Dig Up On Whistleblowers, fuck you.

Respect is finite, and for these quislings, I'm fresh out.

When you make these sorts of attacks, and spew this disrespectful bullshit, and shit all over our values, it's clear you don't have the interests of your fellow Americans, or progressives in mind. And at that, you are no longer my friend. You are my enemy.

Don't make me post my Ignore list publicly. I'm sorely tempted.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

58. Rec

[BrotherIvan]

82. Rec this post

I'm stunned by all the authoritarian sturm guzzling on these threads and that people take the time and energy to reply to these whacks. Just like Republican bullshit, this kind of BOrG Crap™ needs to be stopped in its tracks because it is infecting debate. You might call it spin and propaganda but these people aren't being paid (perhaps not all of them), they just continue spewing out their Crap, calling people racists and hysterical and being as offensive as possible. Do not engage them for it only feeds their need for attention. Their ratfucking is so apparent it's laughable.

[whatchamacallit]

124. I've never once used the ignore feature, but

this place is so fucked up I think you're right.

[ReRe]

140. Amen! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am convinced that this is the only way to deal with this situation here in DEMOCRATICunderground. It has truly become intolerable. I'm so tired of making nice.

[Egalitarian Thug]

143. I ignore them the old fashioned way, but then I'm just a ratfucker.

Besides, if you put them on ignore you don't get to laugh at the insane shit they spew, and now more than ever, we need to laugh.

[hootinholler]

162. I can't make you do anything

but if you want to PM that ignore list to me I think I would find it interesting.

Great points, but, I will disagree with the jury system's job. It's not to remove policy trolls and disinformation artists, but to smack down the stupid trolls who can't help themselves.

Some of the most authoritarian here are long time DUers. While putting them on ignore may improve your experience, it also allows them to post shit unchallenged. The lack of challenge is then held up as the will of DU and helps move the forums to the right.

[Fix The Stupid]

166. Try it peeps - it really cleans up the DU experience!

I'm working on the "obvious RW Troll/Corp. Propoganda" file...

It's a start...

[sibelian]

180. I almost wish you WOULD post your ignore list.

I suspect yours and mine would look very similar.

[backscatter712]

182. Look for the pictures of Klingons...

[morningfog]

209. The only people I put on ignore are assholes and shills.

There is some over lap.

[ctsnowman]

226. I have resisted doing this

I left HP (the web site) because the trolls just got out of hand after AOL (and we all know what that stands for I came back to DU and am now just as sick of it. I'm going to try your idea. I just can't stand some of the BS anymore. Thanks for the post.

[Horse with no Name]

259. I'd like to see it

If I am not on it! LOL

[Fuddnik]

50. Kick and Rec!

[Autumn]

54. My suggestion is that those people not be responded to.

Why give them a response at all?

[backscatter712]

70. +1! That's what the *PLONK* is for!

They disrespect us with their spam and bullshit, why should we respect them by engaging them?

[Autumn]

169. There is really no

reason to engage them because it just causes a nasty back and forth. *PLONK* works, but for me it's just as easy to not even bother to respond to them at all or I just a say hi, how are you and thats it.

[KoKo]

241. I've just put 10 on Ignore... It was too huge

an infestation. And, I'm not a Troll Seeker...but, this group is so blatant it's not worth wasting time on their ignorance.

[Fire Walk With Me]

67. Massive K&R!

[pnwmom]

68. You're living in the past.

The world we live in today has nuclear weapons that can be carried in a suitcase, biological and chemical weapons that can wipe out cities. And the world we live in today is connected by computer systems and by transportation systems that link everyone, everywhere.

Any President who didn't recognize this fact would be derelict in his duties.

We can't live in isolation the way we did when the Constitution was written, when oceans protected us from our more powerful enemies. Today the President has to balance our need for liberty with our need for just plain being alive. And the choice he and our Congress made is to use our computer systems to monitor phone numbers so that terrorists can be tracked. So that if an attack like the Boston Bombers is made, we can go into the system and see who they might be linked to and possibly prevent further attacks.

When the Boston attack happened Obama was criticized for being at the helm of government and not preventing it. Now people like you are attacking him for trying to prevent similar attacks. He's in a Catch 22 and he always will be. But I think he's doing as well as anyone could in the midst of terrible choices and the weight of the office that he bears.

[Fire Walk With Me]

76. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981711

[TheKentuckian]

117. If it has changed then you cowardly fucks need to put you big folks drawers on

and repeal the fourth in broad daylight instead of skirting around in the shadows.

Neither the idol of the slackjaws or yours nor Congress are within their rights to "strike" and such balance.

We see why we need to look forward now, Obama was to whitewash and institutionalize Bush's criminality and make it legal.

Here you are pushing the Bushshit the occupant and his defenders were popping off with almost the exact same contemptible crap.

[pnwmom]

144. *

[woo me with science]

217. One really could lift posts wholesale from

FR in 2006, change the names, and they would be virtually indistinguishable from the posts we see now here at DU.

The appeal to "Terra"!
The cries for loyalty to the Leader.
The accusations of helping the other team.
The character assassination of dissenters.
And the attempts to normalize authoritarian thought and policy through "discussion."

Corporate authoritarians have purchased both parties now. They merely take turns implementing the agenda and using propaganda to rally the Red or the Blue Team, in turn, to defend the indefensible.

[sibelian]

181. That LOOKS like a counter-argument...

But it isn't one, really, is it?

The subject of your response and the subject of the OP are actually two different things.

"our need for just plain being alive" - that's not really a problem.

[woo me with science]

256. +1

Indeed.

[Egalitarian Thug]

236. So because you "don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" and

choose to live in an irrational state of fear, usurping our rights is just fine. Please read the signature and follow the advice.

[arthritisR_US]

80. I wonder if these debates were reminiscent of

what was being thought of during the rise of the KGB in Russia ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

223. No, because the KGB is the successor to the NKVD

Which was the successor to the Tsarist secret police. The continuity of the security state was incredible.

A better analogy is the rise of the German security state in the 1930s, as much as people hate it, as well as yes, chile and Argentina. The last two are imperfect as examples.

[arthritisR_US]

224. I was thinking of Germany once Hitler got into

power as well but thought the two were redundant, thanks for the clarification. I must admit that my knowledge of Russian history is spotty at best

[Kablooie]

89. Joseph McCarthy would strongly disagree with you.

[ProSense]

92. Which

"Don't you realize some bad, bad Republicans are against this?"

...Republicans: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022980158

This is fun. Using Republicans to promote two claims: that it's bad if they're for it and it's also bad if they're against it.

Straw man village.

[Le Taz Hot]

97. Excellent!

There are few things in life that are so clear, so fundamental, that there are no grey areas. This is one of them.

Good post, Woo.

[southerncrone]

101. Not garbage, flat-out propoganda!

[JDPriestly]

102. It isn't just the Fourth Amendment.

All of the Bill of Rights is placed in jeopardy here.

This program and the others that accompany it like the drones, chill speech and the freedom of assembly and association. Even the freedom of religion and the right to petition the government could be implicated.

The right to a fair trial could be endangered if your attorney's phone records are known to the very authorities who are investigating your case.

This is a major threat to our freedom and the Bill of Rights.

[woo me with science]

105. Excellent, important point. See this OP:

They are attempting to normalize the step-by-step elimination of the Constitution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981711

[JDPriestly]

112. Thanks.

[ProSense]

106. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) - No warrant required for call metadata

The government has been collecting information for decades. The question has always been whether or not those activities violate the Constitution, even when they are in compliance with existing laws.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) - No warrant required for call metadata
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022966764

Meet the Carnivore system
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022972777

[JDPriestly]

111. Read this Atlantic article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973186

Regardless of what naive judges decided in the past, this kind of surveillance presents a serious threat to democracy in our time.

Our government is turning into a dictatorship before our eyes. It isn't just one program or one power. It is a whole system, a schema that is destroying our personal freedom. This will lead to dictatorship unless we turn it around.

[ProSense]

114. Actually,

I read it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973186#post38

"Our government is turning into a dictatorship before our eyes. It isn't just one program or one power. It is a whole system, a schema that is destroying our personal freedom. This will lead to dictatorship unless we turn it around. "

The notion that President Obama's actions constitute a dictatorship or furtherance of one is no more justifiable than the RW claiming he's a Communist or comparing him to Hitler.

[JDPriestly]

116. It's up to the Obama adminstration.

If you read the Atlantic article, you will understand that, while Obama is not a dictator, the stage is being set so that one can easily take over.

The drones, the total information awareness net, corporate domination of our elections, scare campaigns. there are so many elements that, whether intended or not, whether out of fear or out of some sinister strategy (and that is not clear), are destroying the framework of our constitutional rights.

Sorry if you can't see it. And maybe we will catch ourselves before we fall. But we are falling. How gradually I do not know.

[ProSense]

118. Strange

If you read the Atlantic article, you will understand that, while Obama is not a dictator, the stage is being set so that one can easily take over.

The drones, the total information awareness net, corporate domination of our elections, scare campaigns. there are so many elements that, whether intended or not, whether out of fear or out of some sinister strategy (and that is not clear), are destroying the framework of our constitutional rights.

Sorry if you can't see it. And maybe we will catch ourselves before we fall. But we are falling. How gradually I do not know.

...this read like more fear mongering to me.

I mean, there is constant outrage over these programs. The push back comes only when the facts are misrepresented.

[JDPriestly]

119. There is a lot to be afraid of. How could the government

conduct such a program in secret and behind our backs. That is really, really ugly.

I hope that Congress will act to abolish these programs.

[ProSense]

122. See this

There is a lot to be afraid of. How could the government

conduct such a program in secret and behind our backs. That is really, really ugly.

I hope that Congress will act to abolish these programs.

...is what I mean. From other programs decades ago through to Bush's illegal spying on Americans, I simply don't get the shock.

The FISA court has been a secret court for such opinons since the late 1970s.

This is why I find the willful misrepresentation of the program disturbing. It's one thing to disagree with it, to want it to change, but it's another thing entirely to use it to scare people, especially through the characterizations that this is a new and even more nefarious program than Bush's illegal spying. It's no such thing, and such characterizations feed extreme anti-government sentiments.

[JDPriestly]

125. Did you read the court order?

It is far too broad. It is available from a link in the original Greenwald article in the Guardian.

The program is clearly very broad. The subpoena ordered Verizon to collect a very broad range of information. The government should not be concerned about a range of information that broad. Snowden stated that his program was looking at all that information and sifting it and analyzing it. That is way more than was contemplated at the time the FISA legislation was written.

This is a shameful thing. There is no excuse. I trust that Obama, who is a decent person, will turn this around and return us to a country in which we don't have so much power vested in our executive. The court order I saw makes a joke of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, due process (the right to notice and to be heard in a court) and FISA.

[cui bono]

147. The notion of being an apologist for Obama just because he is a D

is no more justifiable than the RW being an apologist for BushCo.

But your notion statement, however, is a false equivalency, since Obama's actions are the actions of a police state where as the claims of him being a communist or akin to Hitler are nonsense and not based on facts.

[DissidentVoice]

246. Well said

I voted for Obama twice, and I am increasingly feeling sorry I did.

Ever since the Reagan years, Democrats have increasingly been trying to position themselves as "GOP-Lite" (no thanks to the verdammt DLC) and want to show "Hey, we're tough on crime! We're tough on terrorism! We're not 'socialists!' Honest!"

This is the fruit reaped by that wrongheaded attitude, along with "welfare reform," Bill Clinton rolling over and playing dead in 1994 on health care, and President Obama caving to Max Baucus on the public option.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

188. He isn't a communist. He is functioning as a totalitarian. Learn the difference.

[ucrdem]

186. Let me guess, it's the 2nd amendment too?

You do realize you're beginning to sound like this great defender of the Bill O' Rights, don't you?

[G_j]

109. anyone who trusts private contractors

to respect our constitutional rights, is foolish or worse.

And you are right about the "debate" theme. It's a trick used all the time, especially in the media, and unfortunately it seems to work.

[nashville_brook]

270. so true.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

115. If the government could spy on all of us, we'd not only have 0 unemployment, we'd need more spies.

[Number23]

120. It's finally happened. You have finally succumbed to your paranoia

News flash: You may think DU is the Alpha and Omega of the universe but no one else does.

I recommend that when we see utter garbage like this, we simply respond with the text of the Fourth Amendment, and probably the First, too, since that is equally under assault.

Wow.

[still_one]

126. We should be discussing whatever we want to discuss /nt

[ReRe]

150. All I can say is they must be too young....

K&R

.... when did schools stop teaching Civics? Looks to me like if they have to say the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of every school day, and have to play and sing the National Anthem before sports or PTA meetings, etc., they should be taught about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What "Civic Duty" means. The replies are alarming. It's like I woke up in Freeperland. Thanks for a great OP on what should be elementary for the members of this Democratic website.

[greiner3]

152. I see;

One poster is absent and one poster is putting their $10 in response to this topic.

Tag team anyone?

[marmar]

153. k/r

[mia]

155. K & R!

[savebigbird]

161. I don't like the data collection.

I just don't. Call me paranoid all you want, but I think it's best to try to stop something before it spins out of control.

[Historic NY]

167. Then you'd better give up all those cell phone devices...

internet, debit & credit cards even your grocery card....data is being collected dailiy on every aspect of your life.. Data mining is big business.

[Logical]

168. LOL, companies having vs. the NSA having it! Classic! n-t

[savebigbird]

252. Trust me-I would if I could.

I only have what I am required to have for work. I refuse all discount cards as well.

[99Forever]

163. Good idea Woo.

The 4th is now saved to my easy access file. I intent to make frequent use of it.

Thanks.

[Laelth]

164. k&r for the Constitution. n/t

-Laelth

[BrainDrain]

174. OH for Fucks sake...........

To all you people who are supportive of unlimited government spying, "'cause we all know that it's for our own good" or whatever other bullshit line you might wanna trot out about it ain't all that bad etc etc etc. First hint: YES IT IS!

WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!

This is no wild assed right-wing screaming paraniod delusion.

This is supposedly OUR preznit doin this. Not Shrub, not Trickey Dick.

Think about it for a minute. Let it sink in. Then see how you feel about it.

[kentuck]

177. Thanks for putting it into perspective.

Some people have a difficult time seeing the forest because of the trees.

[WillyT]

178. Most Excellent Points !!! - K & R !!!

[ucrdem]

187. You mean this garbage?

I agree with you there.

[DirkGently]

189. It's amazing how willing people are to be co-opted into a bad idea.

We all thought it was obvious when Bush's secret surveillance was revealed to have broken the law, that you can't do it that way -- we can't have the entire process of review also be a secret.

But now here we are. Another President; another secret program found to have been violating the Constitution, and we can barely speak through the dustorm of appeals to loyalty and ad hominem attacks against those bringing the issues to light.

We can have an open democratic society, or we can have uber-secret, unaccountable police action we are assured "is vital to national security.

We can't have both. The amazing thing is how many people think it's a hard choice, or that the secret police state is the better idea.

Because how could that go wrong?

[stupidicus]

193. that sums it up nicely -- the usual suspects want compliance/support

in their endless quest to deny imperfections or worse.

I'm sure their reasons are many and varied, like hero worship, avoiding that "duped" feeling, but they likely all have the same common denominator denial always does -- ego preservation.

[HiPointDem]

194. kr

[toby jo]

202. Can the naivety.

I want a cell phone I want a smart phone I want computer access I want to call around the world I want to be free of attacks I want to be plugged in all the time to everyone in the world wherever they are I want it all.

Don't tell me there are bad people in the world and make me face reality. I want it all. Life is beautiful. Fuck you go away you fascist pig, you.

I don't want to have to pay.

Goddam crybabies. Spoiled brats. Grow up. Really how would you handle the complex, huge, fast-moving world of today were you charged with the security of your neighbors and family? Tell them 'everything is beautiful' ? Hope for the best? Cite your amendments. Go ahead. That 2nd one is working out well. Back in the day....

And for the record, the govt is into some seriously evil shit - I lobbied against them ages ago and we were simply told 'we're not going to deal with that. Hearings were put off.' This data collection is not it. This is child's play. Get your fucking shit together.

[agent46]

206. Yes. Turn it into a debate

As if, in a free country like ours, everyone has the right to their own opinion about established facts and laws. They did it with creationism and science. They did it with climate change. They did it with being gay as a lifestyle choice. It works.

Now they want to turn this into another debate. I'm with the OP. I'm not indulging this attempt to diminish the issue of constitutional 4th and 1st amendment rights to a shouting match on Sunday morning television.

[libodem]

211. .

[Puzzledtraveller]

214. kick

[Angelonthesidelines]

216. The Bill of Rights was written before

Assault rifles were invented
Nuclear destruction was not possible
before Electronic communications, before SciFi existed

Just like Second zealots defend the rights of unstable losers easy access to an AR15, Fourth zealots defend the rights of Muhamed Zazzi to private terror attack plans.

I'm not saying just accept it.

I am saying we volunteer to EVERY NSA intrusion by using phones, email, social media, et al.

What is so wrong with going off the grid? Many many people live entire lives without anything electronic blinking or beeping.

If there is a better way to stop this abuse of power, I cannot think of one.

[L0oniX]

219. Known terrorist with US phone book starts calling random or not so random numbers ...what happens?

[backscatter712]

225. If he was known, the feds can go get a fucking warrant, solely to watch what he was doing.

They don't have to do the mass-dragnet of everything every American does over the Internet and on the phone.

[L0oniX]

228. From an over seas disposable phone?

My point is that a terrorist could take advantage.

[backscatter712]

229. Again. They can go get a warrant. It's not that hard. n/t

[msanthrope]

263. Doesn't require a warrant. nt

[Schema Thing]

285. Actually they do need a dragnet if they want to observe what said terrorist

said and did in the past. They have to collect and store "the past".


Which does seem like it would be useful information.

[ctsnowman]

227. K & R

[MissDeeds]

230. Yup

Bush accomplished a massive power grab by scaring the crap out of people (remember the color coded threat levels?) and convincing them that the only way they could be safe was to relinquish basic, time honored rights and freedoms - for the 'common good'. Right. Unfortunately, this administration has chosen to continue that practice, not by outright scaring people into submission, but by quietly continuing Bush era methods. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

If we permit our fear of "the terrorists" to erode the very principles that have made us a great democracy, the terrorists have won.

K&R

[cheapdate]

231. Willful ignorance of actual US jurisprudence is not something I'd recommend. n/t

[TakeALeftTurn]

235. Yep

Well said

[840high]

237. k/rx100

[temmer]

243. KICK

[AndyA]

244. Yeah, I had a long time DUer respond, "It's legal, so what's your point?"

The ignorance is incredible. Guess allowing President Obama to do whatever he wants to do is more important than our rights.

Figures the right to privacy is secondary to the right to bear arms. Pathetic.

[yodermon]

251. "unreasonable" can mean whatever the fuck the people, congress, courts, or executive interpret it

to mean. Right now it happens to mean "um, search everything, kthx, don't get mad bro"

[blkmusclmachine]

257. We're all Germans now.

[nineteen50]

260. The whole purpose

of meta-data mining is to allow the power elites to define others intentions in order to label them terrorists. Occupy.

[forestpath]

262. K&R Some would gladly trade the 4th amendment for a smooth talking president of

whatever party.

[Doctor_J]

268. The other brilliant ploy was having a republican enact it and then a

Dem ramp it up. That brought millions more sheep on board.

[woo me with science]

287. +10000

The corporatists who own both parties are very slick at what they do.

[b.durruti]

269. Exactly!

Like the quote in my sig says.

[woo me with science]

276. EXCELLENT sigline!!!!!!

[boilerbabe]

273. damn i am glad i am not the only one who is totaly creeped out by these fucking partisan apologists.

[snot]

274. K&R'd!

[Uncle Joe]

277. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, woo me with science.

[jsr]

280. Amen to that

[TheKentuckian]

284. Damn, I wish I could rec this again!

[Aerows]

286. I rec'd it for you n/t

[Catherina]

289. I took my rec away so I could rec it again. Your OP can't be rec'd enough. n/t

[limpyhobbler]

291. rec #340.

The security-surveillance-military-industrial complex has gotten to big for its britches.

[KoKo]

303. K&R

[Tx4obama]

307. The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that phone records are not protected by the 4th amendment

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. The pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company's central offices. In the Majority opinion, Justice Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen registry constitutes a violation of the "legitimate expectation of privacy" since the numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

Background
In Katz v. United States (1967), the United States Supreme Court established its "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. It overturned Olmstead v. United States and held that wiretaps were unconstitutional searches, because there was a reasonable expectation that the communication would be private. The government was then required to get a warrant to execute a wiretap.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

The Smith decision left pen registers completely outside constitutional protection. If there was to be any privacy protection, it would have to be enacted by Congress as statutory privacy law.

-snip-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

[woo me with science]

311. No.

Phone records are only a small part of this issue
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3006038
Posted by Fearless

We're talking about geo-location from cell towers. While at some points you are in the "public sphere" and can legally be monitored by anyone without warrant (so long as it isn't stalking), there is no way to differentiate whether or not you have entered a private location (be it business, home, or private residence). Therefore it is ILLEGAL to data mine for the geo-location data for cell users as the US government HAS done.

Without a warrant, you (person, company, or government) are not constitutionally allowed to obtain this information on anyone. The courts have dealt with this issue in the past A LOT in dealing with the definition of "expectation of privacy". The only place where this is allowed is by the company that you are dealing with. For instance, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to your geo-location information from the cell company themselves, because you agree to their services.

The Obama Administration would contend currently that under the precedent for expectation of privacy that they are then allowed to take your data because of the lessening of the expectation of privacy precedent regarding emails after they've reached their destination. That is, they hope to argue (although invoking state secrets means at least for the time being they won't have to) that your data enters the public sphere when it is aggregated by the telecom. That is however false. Otherwise it would also be required to be publicly available, as would your SSN, any product you buy on a club card at a grocery store, all online purchases by accounts made on Amazon, EBay, PayPal, etc. Additionally all searches on search engines by your computer, all tv shows watched from many cable providers, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, AIM, Skype, etc. If they argue that they have entered the public domain then they are also arguing that ALL people are legally ALLOWED to view that data because it is no longer covered by the protections of the expectation of privacy.

The courts have left this area extremely gray and for good reason. Government agencies want the leeway to use your information but at the same time keep up the idea that you still have privacy. You can't have both.

It comes down to the fact that the Administration is intrinsically WRONG in their belief that what is being done is legal. Because if it is legal, then you have no expectation of privacy in ANY of this aforementioned information, including your SSN for instance. Either the information is in the public domain and they and everyone can see it legally or it isn't and no one can. That is the law and that is the precedent as it relates to the Fourth Amendment.

Here is a BASIC description if it for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

[Tx4obama]

318. From your Wiki link...

-snip-

In general, one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things held out to the public. A well-known example is that there are no privacy rights in garbage left for collection in a public place.[2] Other examples include: pen registers that record the numbers dialed from particular telephones; ...

-snip-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy#Overview

Same as in the excerpt below...

The Fourth Amendment only protects you against searches that violate your reasonable expectation of privacy. A reasonable expectation of privacy exists if 1) you actually expect privacy, and 2) your expectation is one that society as a whole would think is legitimate.

This rule comes from a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1967, Katz v. United States, holding that when a person enters a telephone booth, shuts the door, and makes a call, the government can not record what that person says on the phone without a warrant. Even though the recording device was stuck to the outside of the phone booth glass and did not physically invade Katz’s private space, the Supreme Court decided that when Katz shut the phone booth’s door, he justifiably expected that no one would hear his conversation, and that it was this expectation — rather than the inside of the phone booth itself — that was protected from government intrusion by the Fourth Amendment. This idea is generally phrased as "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."

A big question in determining whether your expectation of privacy is "reasonable" and protected by the Fourth Amendment arises when you have "knowingly exposed" something to another person or to the public at large. Although Katz did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the sound of his conversation, would he have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his appearance or actions while inside the glass phone booth? Probably not.

Thus, some Supreme Court cases have held that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information you have "knowingly exposed" to a third party — for example, bank records or records of telephone numbers you have dialed — even if you intended for that third party to keep the information secret. In other words, by engaging in transactions with your bank or communicating phone numbers to your phone company for the purpose of connecting a call, you’ve "assumed the risk" that they will share that information with the government.

-snip-

Full page here: https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy

[woo me with science]

320. And you deliberately ignore the substance of the post,

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2013, 12:45 AM - Edit history (2)

which is that there is much, much more here than telephone numbers. The government cannot claim that all of this information has entered the public sphere when it is not made publicly available.

That is, they hope to argue (although invoking state secrets means at least for the time being they won't have to) that your data enters the public sphere when it is aggregated by the telecom. That is however false. Otherwise it would also be required to be publicly available, as would your SSN, any product you buy on a club card at a grocery store, all online purchases by accounts made on Amazon, EBay, PayPal, etc. Additionally all searches on search engines by your computer, all tv shows watched from many cable providers, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, AIM, Skype, etc. If they argue that they have entered the public domain then they are also arguing that ALL people are legally ALLOWED to view that data because it is no longer covered by the protections of the expectation of privacy.

Either something is in the public sphere, or it isn't. The government cannot have it both ways.

And even though the technical "legality" in this case is clearly a sham and a joke, it should also be noted that technical "legality" is a historically bankrupt argument when discussing encroaching tyranny, anyway. It is the modus operandi of authoritarian regimes to "legalize" whatever they want to do. Sometimes they shamelessly create new laws. Sometimes they twist and distort the interpretation of old laws. It is clear here that both the letter *and* the spirit of the Fourth Amendment are being raped. These pathetic, incessant arguments by the plutonomy's propaganda machine that yet another major assault on our Constitution is perfectly "legal" are nothing short of despicable and horrifying.

[Catherina]

328. A timely KICK! n/t

[woo me with science]

329. Thanks for kicking it.

What times we live in.

[Catherina]

332. A timely KICK! Don't entertain the garbage! n/t