- This topic has 220 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 13, 2013 at 3:53 PM #762770June 13, 2013 at 4:08 PM #762771
no_such_reality
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]According to surveys, the majority of Americans are OK with the metadata sweeps to identify patterns of behavior and possible terrorist activity.
We could use the same technology to watch and follow potential mass shooters.[/quote]
No they’re not. When the poll really clarifies what happens the support vaporizes. The poll question was worded like “Is it okay if the NSA potentially breaches a persons privacy when pursuing terrorist activities”
That they support. Most probably think that the NSA is on a hot trail and maybe violating a few individuals that are identified somehow. Not the NSA is blanket collecting everything…
And if you ask them point blank “Are you okay with the NSA collecting all your data in the pursuit of terrorism”, I suspect you’ll get answer in the teens.
The one thing that has been consistent is the more information the people have, the less they agree with it.
June 13, 2013 at 4:39 PM #762773spdrun
ParticipantFrankly, it doesn’t MATTER whether the majority of Americans are OK with it. The majority of Americans were once OK with slavery and institutionalized racial discrimination as well.
June 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM #762774FlyerInHi
GuestNSR, good point.
If you put it in the context of terrorism, the American people could endure infringements upon privacy.
When you give the president some legal powers he can use them for many purposes because the law does not distinguish between terrorist and non-terrorists because a terrorist is not one until he commits a crime. Everyone is a potential terrorist.
I don’t see people who supported the patriot acts and who are now bitching about the metadata dragnets doing anything to change the law.
As SK said, those who were screaming against the original
Patriot Act expected such things to happen. We, as a country, decided to go down this path. Kinda hard to undo what’s done already.Unless we change the laws to force the dismantling of those infonets, we just have to learn to live with them
June 14, 2013 at 9:23 AM #762789ParticipantJune 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM #762803GuestI’m waiting for the day we have a national ID database with DNA as the identifier.
I hate to say it, but Scalia was right.
June 14, 2013 at 3:33 PM #762806CA renter
ParticipantJune 14, 2013 at 3:45 PM #762808Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantJune 17, 2013 at 4:04 PM #762904ParticipantWow, right out of 1984
Obama: NSA secret data gathering “transparent”
[quote]WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama defended top secret National Security Agency spying programs as legal in a lengthy interview Monday, and called them transparent — even though they are authorized in secret.
“It is transparent,” Obama told PBS’s Charlie Rose in an interview to be broadcast Monday. “That’s why we set up the FISA court,” he added, referring to the secret court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes two recently disclosed programs: one that gathers U.S. phone records and another that is designed to track the use of U.S.-based Internet servers by foreigners with possible links to terrorism.
The location of FISA courts is secret. The sessions are closed. The orders that result from hearings in which only government lawyers are present are classified.[/quote]
June 17, 2013 at 4:23 PM #762909Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Wow, right out of 1984
Obama: NSA secret data gathering “transparent”
[quote]WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obayma defended top secret National Security Agency spying programs as legal in a lengthy interview Monday, and called them transparent — even though they are authorized in secret.
“It is transparent,” Obama told PBS’s Charlie Rose in an interview to be broadcast Monday. “That’s why we set up the FISA court,” he added, referring to the secret court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes two recently disclosed programs: one that gathers U.S. phone records and another that is designed to track the use of U.S.-based Internet servers by foreigners with possible links to terrorism.
The location of FISA courts is secret. The sessions are closed. The orders that result from hearings in which only government lawyers are present are classified.[/quote][/quote]
NSR: This shit would be funny as hell, if it weren’t so fucking terrifying.
Gotta love the balls on Obama, though. This dude has mastered the art of outright lying into the camera. His feigned outrage over the IRS kerfuffle was priceless. As was his assertion that he found out about it whilst reading the newspaper. Shoulda known that was BS right there. Who friggin reads the papers anymore, anyway?
Brave New World, baby. This shit is as much Aldous Huxley as it is George Orwell.
June 18, 2013 at 8:18 AM #762942ParticipantYea, I have no delusions that Romney would be any different. Okay, I do. I don’t think he’d be anywhere nearly as convincing with the lies and more people would be screaming.
I’m completely confident that the program would still be running. And doubt he’d have any intention of dismantling it until the cookie jar is slammed shut and almost takes hand off.
Unfortunately, I suspect Snowden is blowing smoke like the guy with wikileaks. While I’m sure our government is doing plenty of questionable things, IMHO, the American peole won’t care as long as it’s directed outward, at China, Russia, middle east.
About the only thing that will phase them is an expose that the level directed internally is even larger and that the military programs to use AI bots to shape social media and public opinion are actually full blown active programs.
I suspect they are.
June 18, 2013 at 6:01 PM #762983GuestI just watched Obama on Charlie Rose. He was very good answering all the questions.
On the spooky stuff, It’s not Obama, it’s the institution of the presidency.
Want more freedom? Ask your comgresman to roll back the laws that give those broad powers to the president.
June 19, 2013 at 8:33 AM #763015ParticipantBudget Bill could limit public’s access to Government Documents
[quote]SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown is poised to sign legislation that could reduce the public’s access to basic government records that have long been used to scrutinize the actions of elected officials.
The proposal, a late insert into the state budget that lawmakers passed last week, would allow local officials to opt out of parts of the California law that gives citizens access to government documents.
Under that law, officials now must respond to a request for records from a member of the public within 10 days and are required to make the documents available electronically. The change, which Brown requested as a cost-cutting measure, would allow the officials to skip both requirements with a voice vote.
The same vote would permit them to reject requests without explanation and would no longer require them to help citizens identify existing information.
Brown and other defenders of the legislation predict that it would have little effect — that most local governments would choose to abide by the old rules. But the California Newspaper Publishers Assn. called the measure a stealth attack on government transparency and a blow to the public’s right to information.
…
[/quote]June 19, 2013 at 9:53 AM #763020SD Realtor
Participantdamn republicans….
June 19, 2013 at 9:59 AM #763022Participant[quote=SD Realtor]damn republicans….[/quote]
SDR: There are still Republicans in California?
Where?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.