House votes to continue NSA spying on citizens

In a 205-217 vote, lawmakers rejected an effort to restrict the National Security Agency's (NSA) ability to collect electronic information.

The NSA's chief had lobbied strongly against the proposed measure.

The vote saw an unusual coalition of conservatives and liberal Democrats join forces against the programme.

Obama spoke out to kill the amendment. Meantime you here about royal baby and other pap.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23445231

Who voted how: http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/24/a-l...op-nsa-spying/

Skipping the vote was as bad as voting against it! 12 of those.

I think this is good news actually. The story has not gotten much traction lately due to garbage like the royal baby. If libertarian and liberal organizations banded together to push for this again and brought it back to the spotlight, there is a good chance it can get passed. It's rare for a bill of this nature to pass the first time around.

The amendment didn’t stop the NSA collecting any data, they just had to show cause before it could be asked for and targeted individuals.

So it was not exactly crippling the war on terror.

Those voting against or skipping the vote don’t give a damn about the laws or rights of individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

The amendment didn’t stop the NSA collecting any data, they just had to show cause before it could be asked for and targeted individuals.

So it was not exactly crippling the war on terror.

Those voting against or skipping the vote don’t give a damn about the laws or rights of individuals.

---

It just means they fell in line this time. As I said FIsherking ,these type of laws don't usually pass on the first try. There has been no big push from the public towards this bill, and yet it still almost passed. If a coalition can be made fast and lobby hard, it can be done. Calling the nays a bunch of names and calling it a dead bill/amendment only serves to hurt us.

I provided a link to the vote for a reason. You can at least see how your rep voted. Pressuring them to change their minds, or just reinforce their positions is your right.

I have seen some people spin this as a party issue blaming Republicans.

Obama wanted it to fail and said so. You can see that the party leadership of both parties was on the side to defeat the amendment. People making it partisan just are not looking.

The Parties are not your friends, no matter which side you have chosen.

Mine, a Democrat voted No, just like the Administration and the party asked him to.

Gutless Weasel! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Kilmer

At least he’s not a lawyer.

My hometown's (where I am still registered) representative voted Nay.

But I am not surprised, my hometown literally rests under the shadow of Reagan's body. It's a Republican Mecca and it doesn't matter how corrupt or incapable the Republican candidate is, he wins.

It won’t come up again either. Not unless it is a full bill.

The Defense bill passed shortly after the vote on the amendment failed.

This was not a party issue, it was a party line issue, and the party line won over the people. Both parties opposed the amendment and I think anyone who stood up to them should be thanked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

You can at least see how your rep voted. Pressuring them to change their minds, or just reinforce their positions is your right.

---

My rep (Paul Ryan, R) voted against it, no surprise there. I've contacted him many times, I suppose I will again. Not like he listens, however. His district (and mine) is safely gerrymandered, and he's something of an authoritarian.

Congress, eh? Whatcha gonna do?

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls finds that in addition to setting new milestones for futility, Congress is also more hated than it's ever been. A full 83 percent of respondents say they disapprove of the job Congress is doing, the highest number for that question since the poll began tracking the number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Congress, eh? Whatcha gonna do?

---

Repeal the 17th Amendment and prohibit listing a candidate's party identification on the ballot. That's where I'd start. :yes:

So, on the day the vote failed, we get a report of this:

Feds tell Web firms to turn over user account passwords


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...unt-passwords/

Passwords? That seems a bit redundant considering they wanted the SSL Master Keys so they can decrypt all communication to and from websites.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355146

Of course passwords might be more useful in case they already have a suspect.

It's also funny because our minister of the interior said early on that we should just encrypt our communication if we don't like it. Now it turns out the NSA was whining about people encrypting their communication for a while because then they can't access it but they really should.

Encrypted communications are a priority for the NSA, in the US or elsewhere. They made a claim a few weeks back that there was only one instance when they could not decrypt them, and they were whining about that one, but I suspect that was misinformation, and it was broken too.

The have keys for most of that software too.

I'm not sure they have them, wouldn't make much sense to ask for them in that case.

Either way I thought about the issue and just wanted to throw out an idea:

How about the information continues to be collected but it not accessible by secret agencies. Instead, the agencies have to gain information through an ethics commission that consists of experts from all relevant fields, such as technology, law and ethics/philosophy which are elected by the scientific community. We already have similar commissions in medical fields and while they're not perfect, they seem to provide a relatively (considering there will always be humans involved) good way to balance interests and provide a relatively unbiased approach to subjects. And they would be elected by a community that attempts to be objective and does not favor either extreme of the available options.

I'm not saying it's going to or should happen, but what do you think about such an approach?

Their oversight by judges is phony. They look only at the laws with permit them to spy (patriot act and Defense bill, while not considering the Constitution. That is no protection at all.

The idea of a regulatory panel is sound, it is just likely that it will be co-opted.

Anything done in secret is likely to turn out the same and the government wishes to keep it all secret.

Lawmakers Who Upheld NSA Phone Spying Received Double the Defense Industry Cash

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...oney-nsa-vote/

follow the money, remember money is only speech, the only speech that get action, it would seem.

Remarkably unremarkably this story was not picked up by TV news of any viewpoint.

Just a few bloggers picking up on the original Wired story.

Just Party politics as usual and if both do it, it must be ok.

I see the silence as acceptance of the corruption and this is just vote selling.

No one here seems to care either.

I was actually going to say something about the fact that the announcement of the UK getting "opt out porn filters" instead of "opt in" caused a much bigger uproar (at least on this forum) than this story... It's sad but then again I'm not sure what to say about this. I'm not American and I've always had a hard time understanding the politics of your country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

No one here seems to care either.

---

I think we're just too used to corruption. My first thought when I saw your post was "that's not surprising".

Quote:

---

No one here seems to care either.

---

Get off the cross honey, jesus needs it

Unfortunately, you are right, it is not at all surprising.

However, it is corrupt. And it would be a huge scandal if it were clearly one party or the other.

In stead we are faced with a stone wall of silence! I have not found a single example of network coverage.

This is the clearest example we have had in a very long time of those willing to cast votes for the people or those completely co-opted by the Political- Military- Industrial Complex. The Constitution and individual rights vs. the Patriot Act and the Security State. And who is reporting it? Wired Magazine and a few bloggers.

So much for a free press. Just a bunch of party mouthpieces supporting the corrupt establishment.

Silence is acceptance. Silence condones the corruption. Not speaking out is silent agreement.

If you can’t be bothered, then why get upset with Gun Lobbies, Church Lobbies, or any other? Why get upset with race and justice?

Why bother with politics at all?

It's interesting.
Today on CNN I saw an Oregon Senator fielding questions.
More interesting than what he had to say, was the fact he had been active working against the abuses of the NSA for quite some time.
So why has it never surfaced until now?

Ah, "voice in the wilderness" sort. Explains the lack of media attention.
So I guess it is another reason to thank Snowden for pushing the issue public.
You'd think that the media would have been all over this "if only they knew"; which they apparently did.

XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'

Quote:

---

A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The NSA boasts in training materials that the program, called XKeyscore, is its "widest-reaching" system for developing intelligence from the internet.

The latest revelations will add to the intense public and congressional debate around the extent of NSA surveillance programs. They come as senior intelligence officials testify to the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, releasing classified documents in response to the Guardian's earlier stories on bulk collection of phone records and Fisa surveillance court oversight.

The files shed light on one of Snowden's most controversial statements, made in his first video interview published by the Guardian on June 10.

"I, sitting at my desk," said Snowden, could "wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email".

US officials vehemently denied this specific claim. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, said of Snowden's assertion: "He's lying. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."

But training materials for XKeyscore detail how analysts can use it and other systems to mine enormous agency databases by filling in a simple on-screen form giving only a broad justification for the search. The request is not reviewed by a court or any NSA personnel before it is processed.

XKeyscore, the documents boast, is the NSA's "widest reaching" system developing intelligence from computer networks – what the agency calls Digital Network Intelligence (DNI). One presentation claims the program covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet", including the content of emails, websites visited and searches, as well as their metadata.

Analysts can also use XKeyscore and other NSA systems to obtain ongoing "real-time" interception of an individual's internet activity.

Under US law, the NSA is required to obtain an individualized Fisa warrant only if the target of their surveillance is a 'US person', though no such warrant is required for intercepting the communications of Americans with foreign targets. But XKeyscore provides the technological capability, if not the legal authority, to target even US persons for extensive electronic surveillance without a warrant provided that some identifying information, such as their email or IP address, is known to the analyst.

One training slide illustrates the digital activity constantly being collected by XKeyscore and the analyst's ability to query the databases at any time....

---

Contains slides and everything of what the NSA does.

According to the slides the data is stored for no more than 30 days simply because they cannot physically store long term this volume of information. That's not scary at all actually.

I think GCHQ was 3 Months, but yes, there are physical limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That's not the point. The point is that these are secret laws, secret courts, secret protocols, and the oversight committees that oversee them are in the defense industry's pocket. It doesn't matter how benign the rules are when nobody has to follow them.

---

So that basically means that the US government operates like just about any other government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

:wall: Whatever. We can do better than a Congress full of a spineless tools,

---

Indeed...

Quote:

---

a supreme court full of equally spineless tools,

---

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

and a president who can't keep his lies and promises straight.

---

Meh. Maybe he knows something that he can't share with us as far as why this program should keep on going.

Quote:

---

If you're not outraged, you're part of the problem.

---

It would be akin to getting outraged over the fact that the world is not perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Meh. Maybe he knows something that he can't share with us as far as why this program should keep on going.


It would be akin to getting outraged over the fact that the world is not perfect.

---

Outrage is maybe not the answer but indifference isn't either. But the first statement is nonsense if you believe in true democracy.

Now don't get me wrong I don't believe democracy is the holy grail but if one believes in it (and the US believe that they are a democratic nation, no?) how can there be anything the people should not know? How can the people rule the country if they don't know what's going on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

If the Supreme Court wasn't spineless and/or totally corrupt, Money would not equal speech in the most literal and democratically offensive way possible. No love for the supremes.

---

Can you back up this claim with something specific?

Quote:

---

Which would be part of the problem. The President serves a 4-8 year term, so if every incoming president suddenly is faced with the facts of our secretive and perpetually growing national security apparatus, and that truth is enough to compromise said president's values, then I blame the apparatus. Obviously there's crap going on that shouldn't be going on, and we can't know about it because why, again? If its too damned sneaky and evil for the public to know about, then its a bad :daisy:ing idea and should be done away with.

---

A state with no state secrets? Unlikely.

Quote:

---

Not really. We've been spinning the wheels in this country for decades, and complacency is the enemy. Only the most ignorant bastard living under a rock is unaware of how corrupt our government is, and only a self-hating ignorant bastard is okay with it. I hope my generation tears this crap down, but more likely we'll just watch and laugh, like previous generations.

---

You're letting the emotions get the best of you over something that's as old as the civilization itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLastDays

Outrage is maybe not the answer but indifference isn't either. But the first statement is nonsense if you believe in true democracy.

---

True democracy died with the ancient Athens.

Quote:

---

Now don't get me wrong I don't believe democracy is the holy grail but if one believes in it (and the US believe that they are a democratic nation, no?) how can there be anything the people should not know? How can the people rule the country if they don't know what's going on?

---

People aren't entitled to know everything. Joe Blow down the road doesn't need to know specific details about the U.S. nuclear capability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

People aren't entitled to know everything. Joe Blow down the road doesn't need to know specific details about the U.S. nuclear capability.

---

Why? Who said that? Whose decision is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Citizens United v. the FEC. That decision was as wrong as wrong decisions get.

---

Their reasoning is logical enough. What's your beef exactly?

Quote:

---

This is the information age. Stupid axioms about something being as old as civilization itself ignores the fact that we live in an era of change and expanding possibilities. If the American people fail to try for a better option, the alternative is not for things to stay the same, but to get worse in a way that you don't foresee. What started with the Patriot Act and has continued (even thrived) under Obama's administration is the beginnings of a police state that threatens everything. Screw the rhetoric, look at the facts. The infrastructure is there, thanks to tax-payer dollars. We now live in a free society at the mercy of unelected spooks. Fuck that.

---

Bla bla bla big brother bla bla evil feds bla bla I must know everything the CIA knows, does, plans or thinks. You know what, no. NO. There are things you don't need to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLastDays

Why? Who said that? Whose decision is that?

---

The state, thank God. It's common sense really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Their reasoning is logical enough. What's your beef exactly?

Bla bla bla big brother bla bla evil feds bla bla I must know everything the CIA knows, does, plans or thinks. You know what, no. NO. There are things you don't need to know.

The state, thank God. It's common sense really.

---

Alright, so who is "the state"? I thought that's the people... Now I do overreact to make a point, just to make that clear, but the problem is that today we experience an age where we move from a people that knew mostly about the state and therefore cared about it to a small elite that removes more and more from "necessary public knowledge" and thus creates their own secret society. The voter, who is supposed to decide the "future of the land" doesn't know what he needs to know to even make informed decisions.

And if I don't need to know everything the CIA does then why in the world are they allowed to know everything I do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLastDays

Alright, so who is "the state"? I thought that's the people...

---

The state is the people. At least the representative democracy is.

Quote:

---

The voter, who is supposed to decide the "future of the land" doesn't know what he needs to know to even make informed decisions.

---

The average voter is a moron who shouldn't be trusted with a safety scissors, let alone something important.

Quote:

---

And if I don't need to know everything the CIA does then why in the world are they allowed to know everything I do?

---

Because they're the CIA. The state has allowed them to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The average voter is a moron who shouldn't be trusted with a safety scissors, let alone something important.

---

Alright, now we're talking. So why does everyone still believe democracy is the way to go?

Quote:

---

Because they're the CIA. The state has allowed them to do that.

---

Not my state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Are you totally opposed to the idea of reforming the intelligence apparatus, rvg, or do you firmly believe that people should behave like sheep and just listen to their betters?

---

You're presenting me with a false dilemma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

True democracy died with the ancient Athens.

---

No, it died with the Germanic "barbarians". :smug:

But anyway, this is equivocation.

Quote:

---

You're presenting me with a false dilemma.

---

What other options are there than: to reform, or not to reform?

Anyway, it's at least nice to know that they aren't wasting too much on trying to store all this data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The state is the people. At least the representative democracy is.

The average voter is a moron who shouldn't be trusted with a safety scissors, let alone something important.

---

Impressive back-to-back comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'm presenting you with the real dilemma, going on in America, right now.

---

I think he means a false dichtomy, translation: he thinks the two options you said arent the only options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Anyway, it's at least nice to know that they aren't wasting too much on trying to store all this data.

---

I wonder how high a price tag that new taxpayer-funded server farm in Utah has. ~:rolleyes:

The only way the program will be shut down is when it is used to spy on a serving member of Congress for election dirty tricks. And this will happen eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Impressive back-to-back comments.

---

Look at Congress. Those clowns represent America.

General Petraeus.

Was found out by an email trail. Was it really the FBI who found this out or was it an NSA background check?

Was it legit or did someone in NSA have a score to settle with the CIA head?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I wonder how high a price tag that new taxpayer-funded server farm in Utah has.

---

$3 billion, $5 billion, I dunno - but at least some bang for the buck I figure.



Hopefully, this is a long-enough term investment that, assuming most of the data is flushed regularly, and assuming the technology used is sufficiently secret and/or cutting-edge and will be periodically upgraded, there will be no need for such constructions for many decades.

For this specific purpose, at least...

Quote:

---

The only way the program will be shut down is when it is used to spy on a serving member of Congress for election dirty tricks.

---

What if they already do that to all of them? What if that's part of why Congress hasn't been all that upset by the NSA's policies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Exactly. These programs mean that the line between tin-foil-hat-stuff and legitimate concerns is now absurdly blurry. That's a huge problem that threatens to rightly undermine our entire government. We're at a cross-roads, and Congress took the wrong road when they voted down that amendment.

---

So punish them. If the congressman voted "nay", don't vote him next time . If the the popular sentiment is truly so anti-NSA, then none of naysayers should survive the 2014 election cycle. If they do survive then people likely don't care about this issue as much as you do.

Problem is the US has a history of secret dossiers held by the intelligence community that is used to blackmail politicians.

So what will win anti-NSA concerned citizens or politicians who are worried that they might be revealed.

It doesn't even have to be a direct threat. It is just the idea that they will make you the next Petraeus or Weiner.

I'm sure a large chunk of the yes voters have a mistress or some other juicy tit bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What if they already do that to all of them? What if that's part of why Congress hasn't been all that upset by the NSA's policies?

---

If it leaks that a serving member has been scoped, Congress will put an end to it very quickly. You can't rely on them for much of anything, but the threat of losing their seats (be they R or D) is one surefire way to wake them up. But I'm sure Congress hasn't really thought through any of the implications. Rule #1, never vote to give a branch power that you don't want the opposition to have.

The temptation to run a scan on the opposition's presidential candidate or political dissidents will be too much for someone to resist. That is the problem with these programs, the smear campaigns write themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Load of dookey. Most of them aren't going anywhere because of Gerrymandering and lack of public involvement. My representative voted Aye, and both of my Senators are against this program. Unfortunately, I come from a state that doesn't really get a say in anything, so its up to the rest of the country to do the right thing.

---

Perhaps the rest have a different perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Problem is the US has a history of secret dossiers held by the intelligence community that is used to blackmail politicians.
So what will win anti-NSA concerned citizens or politicians who are worried that they might be revealed.
It doesn't even have to be a direct threat. It is just the idea that they will make you the next Petraeus or Weiner.
I'm sure a large chunk of the yes voters have a mistress or some other juicy tit bit.

---

Hearsay, hearsay and more hearsay. Besides, politicians do not elect themselves, even before the general election they have to win the primary. Neither party would nominate a candidate that is a clear political liability even too keep them under control. If a republican knows something, chances are that there's a democrat that knows the same exact thing. There might be others too, but they do not matter.

Right and j edgar hoover was a fictional character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Hearsay my ass.

The FBI tried to take down the civil rights movement. The Red Scare was as much a weapon against the American poor as it was a national defense tool. Nobody "in the know" was afraid of the USSR after the later '60s when the "Missile Gap" was exposed to be not only false, but a backwards view of the strategic environment. The CIA imported crack for profit, and has always been used for illegal financial gain by whoever is in power. The list goes on, and I shudder to think about the stuff that hasn't or never will be revealed. So screw your rosy-tinted glasses, some stuff needs to change.

---

I think you just need to accept the fact that you're in the minority on this one. It's no big deal really: I'm in minority on great many things, you don't see me flipping out over that. By November 2014 nobody will remember/care about NSA, Snowden, Manning, Assange, whatever. Nobody will give a crap. Well maybe not nobody, but not enough for it to matter in any way whatsoever. You can't change the world, dude. Once you accept that and concentrate on things you can change, you'll become a much happier person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I think you just need to accept the fact that you're in the minority on this one. It's no big deal really: I'm in minority on great many things, you don't see me flipping out over that. By November 2014 nobody will remember/care about NSA, Snowden, Manning, Assange, whatever. Nobody will give a crap. Well maybe not nobody, but not enough for it to matter in any way whatsoever. You can't change the world, dude. Once you accept that and concentrate on things you can change, you'll become a much happier person.

---

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oh shut up. There's a big difference between being in the minority on an issue that doesn't matter, and being in the minority on an issue regarding the fundamental nature of freedom.

---

What makes you think that I'm can't be in the minority on an important issue?

Quote:

---

I don't think I am in the minority, I just don't think most people are aware of the crap that has gone on or continues to go on.

---

As you said, this is the digital age. Information finds you even if you don't go out looking for it. Heck, it finds you even if you actively hide from it. Ignorance is no longer a plausible explanation.

Quote:

---

People assume the myths about stuff the CIA has done are just myths, or things from the distant past, but the reality is that our freedoms are abused by these agencies every day. If you think that is okay, that's not just you expressing your opinion on a political matter, that's you expressing a desire to not be free.

---

I believe things that can be proven. I can even believe things that are light of factual proof as long as there's solid logical reasoning behind any particular theory. Most conspiracy theories do not pass the lithmus test.

It's not a matter of reason, it's a matter of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I believe things that can be proven. I can even believe things that are light of factual proof as long as there's solid logical reasoning behind any particular theory. Most conspiracy theories do not pass the lithmus test.

---

Is it really such a kooky theory that things similar to what has happened in the past are happening in the present?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Is it really such a kooky theory that things similar to what has happened in the past are happening in the present?

---

It really is. Just because something can happen doesn't mean that it is happening. A great many things can happen. It's not too much to ask for some evidence, some telltale signs that can prove that it's happening.
Sorta like saying that since aliens may exist, they must exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I did not quote one incident that wasn't proven already. Sure, lots of redactions, but you're cool with that right? Then again, how old are you? Why haven't you done this research on your own already? Why the hell am I explaining this to you?

---

You know what, I'll leave you to your outrage. Go ahead and fume.

RVG must have some stake in the game. I don't blame him, there is an entire complex and the government money flows generously.

Quote:

---

Sorta like saying that since aliens may exist, they must exist.

---

Sorta like saying, the sun rose yesterday so it might rise again - quite a preponderance of evidence for that, actually...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Sorta like saying, the sun rose yesterday so it might rise again - quite a preponderance of evidence for that, actually...

---

You fool, induction does not prove anything.

Neither does deduction, ultimately.

But you seem to have missed the point as well. Compare my example to rvg's example and note the similarities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Damnit man, that's not the point. The point is that there are no safeguards to make sure bad things aren't happening with the billions of dollars we throw at black budgets every freaking year.

---

Of course there are no safeguards, but you can't place a watchdog behind everyone, because you'll also have to place another watchdog behind every watch dog and yet another watchdog behind that one for good measure. At some point you have to believe that not everyone in the government is gonna screw up and piss away all that money. If you have zero trust in the entire structure of the government and if you're actually correct in your lack of trust, than it's too late already. The game's over and we've lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Neither does deduction, ultimately.

But you seem to have missed the point as well. Compare my example to rvg's example and note the similarities.

---

I'm not actually a participant here. I'm just trying to bait people.

Quote:

---

If you have zero trust in the entire structure of the government and if you're actually correct in your lack of trust, than it's too late already. The game's over and we've lost.

---

Well, couldn't there be a space between 'Basically good enough, no need to rock the boat' and 'Game over, man!'?

Quote:

---

You're making my case for me. The premise of Democracy is accountability to the people. We are watching that erode one Patriot Act, NDAA, Drone Strike, or bit of corporate subversion at a time. The whole damned thing needs to be brought before the people, it has gone far enough.

---

Unfortunately for you, at this point the people will plump for the system, or at least not nearly enough are disgruntled to your level for profound changes to occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You're making my case for me. The premise of Democracy is accountability to the people. We are watching that erode one Patriot Act, NDAA, Drone Strike, or bit of corporate subversion at a time. The whole damned thing needs to be brought before the people, it has gone far enough.

---

I'm not sure what's your beef with drone strikes, but as far as bringing the whole thing "before the people", what makes you think that "the people" will use it wisely and to a more beneficial net effect than the state would?

Quote:

---

There is a legislative/corporate alliance that includes the Defense industry and the Intelligence Apparatus, and it is every bit the monster that Eisenhower warned us about. The crap has to go, or the government has to admit that democracy is not the future. The alternative is an entire generation of people like me who fully understand that this is a load of crap we're being fed.

---

If a man is not for sale, he's not for sale no matter what. Look at John McCain for instance. I disagree with him on a great deal of issues, but the man has honor and integrity and he managed to keep them throughout the decades in the Senate. Elect people with integrity, you get a government with integrity. Otherwise, garbage in -- garbage out.

Eh, well - if congressional aides are said to pretty much do all the work for their superiors, perhaps we might just leave it all to them? :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I have a beef with Awlaki getting killed. The man was never charged with anything, and we will never know if just anyone can in fact be killed by a Drone at the President's whim. There is literally no way to know, because the entire criteria are classified with the rest of the program.

---

And you think that if the people held the trigger to that hellfire missile, they would not have pulled that trigger?

Quote:

---

The whole thing needs to be put before the people because it is the people who own this boat. Congress has become an institution, not a governing body. The entire system needs to be re-evaluated, and I wouldn't even know where to start. I just know it needs to happen. What we have is not good government, it is good graft.

---

Here's a thought... if "the people" get to run everything, who will be held accountable for when things go wrong? The people aren't gonna flagellate themselves, they'll forgive themselves and pretend like nothing happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That's not the point. I think any laws that pertain to killing US citizens should be openly debated before being acted upon. In this case the government took it upon itself to draft secret laws and then kill the guy, without ever having a public debate on the implications. The people were cut out of the deal and urged to cheer about it. That's tin-foil-hat-shit that is all too real.

---

If that's your pet peeve, I understand. To me it made little difference, I'd kill that bastard if he were American, Saudi, Russian or Papuan. It made little difference to me. If the government tries something like that on someone who does NOT publicly declare himself to be the enemy, yeah, I'll have a problem with that. As far as Awlaki goes, he's precisely where he belongs.

Quote:

---

All I'm arguing for is open government. The occasional referendum is essential to that.

---

How occasional? What kinds of issues in your opinion would be worthy of a referendum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Pay attention! They circumvented the constitution and the American people are taking it as a matter of course. We have fallen, hard. Its not a pet peeve. If you have any basic understanding of law at all, you understand the power of precedent. Our bureaucracy runs on it, and always has.

---

I understand and I do not care. Rules are good, but we can't be slaves to those rules 100% of the time and regardless of what's going on. Between feeling righteous and having Awlaki alive vs feeling less righteous and having him dead I'd choose the latter every time.

Quote:

---

Congress is what needs a referendum. The military industrial complex needs a referendum. Congress no longer represents the will of the people, and I think the people deserve a chance to demonstrate that fact in a fair referendum of some sort. Gerrymandering and other sorts of corruption have rendered the normal methods obsolete or, rather, defeated at the hands of politicians.

---

You offer no specifics. You want to take the power, but you aren't stating for what purpose. How are you different from the government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

He'd be dead either way. The problem is that the checks and balances were ignored to make it happen. He wasn't exactly Bin Laden. The precedent of how Awlawki came to be killed is way more important than the fact that he was killed.

---

The precedent is: if you declare yourself to be the enemy of the US and actively aid enemies of the US, you get to die in a huge explosion. I like that kind of precedent.

Quote:

---

I don't want shit. Nobody does. Congress should have all the power it was designed to have, and it should be doing the peoples' work with that power. That's not what is going on. Do you know the percentage of congressmen that go on to be lobbyists when they are done in Congress? Over 50%. Did you know insider trading rules don't apply to Congress? The whole damned thing is a giant, unwieldy, embarassing, and expensive conflict of interest. It needs to be reformed, not replaced. Not just congress, but the whole apparatus of government.

---

Will if be staffed by a race of altruistic supermen? No matter what system gets put in place, it will be abused. Every time. Guaranteed. The current system would work just fine if we have the will to send good people to Washington. Not partisan hacks, but actual decent people who care about this country. Change that, and you won't have to change anything else, the system will work like a charm just the way it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Until it isn't just enemies of the state.

---

If that day comes I'll say "Cube, you were right, let's get our guns."

Quote:

---

Did you know that chaining yourself to a tree can get you over 30 years in prison as an environmental "terrorist"? Did you know that legislation was pushed for in large part by Haliburton, in order to safeguard their natural gas exploitation of public land, under special exemptions from long-standing environmental law?

---

Has anyone been sentenced to 30 years for that?

Quote:

---

Did you know that the private prison industry houses many illegal immigrants, and has also been instrumental in lobbying for tougher laws on immigration? This crap is so broken.

---

Sure, the industry is looking out for itself. What's there to do, send those guys to state prisons? Release them? Give them citizenship? There are no easy solutions.

Quote:

---

I agree, but you are refusing to see how borked the system is. No honest man can survive in Washington. Even your buddy McCain sold out years ago.

---

I see its borkedness, but its borkedness must be taken in the context of the big picture. Certain changes can be made, but they must be slow, gradual and well thought out. I firmly believe that if people truly lose their patience with some aspect of our life, they will change that aspect fairly quickly and fairly radically. I also do not think that any specific American problem has reached its boiling point just yet.

First the NSA, now the DEA...

Quote:

---

A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

---

Justice schmustice, right?

from your link:





One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept.

But they don't listen to the call, right? Right, and SFTW is the tooth fairy! And GC is actually head of the RNC. Any more lies from these people?

Not to be outdone, the FBI wants in on the action too...

Quote:

---

The U.S. government is quietly pressuring telecommunications providers to install eavesdropping technology deep inside companies' internal networks to facilitate surveillance efforts.

FBI officials have been sparring with carriers, a process that has on occasion included threats of contempt of court, in a bid to deploy government-provided software capable of intercepting and analyzing entire communications streams. The FBI's legal position during these discussions is that the software's real-time interception of metadata is authorized under the Patriot Act.

Attempts by the FBI to install what it internally refers to as "port reader" software, which have not been previously disclosed, were described to CNET in interviews over the last few weeks. One former government official said the software used to be known internally as the "harvesting program."

Carriers are "extra-cautious" and are resisting installation of the FBI's port reader software, an industry participant in the discussions said, in part because of the privacy and security risks of unknown surveillance technology operating on an sensitive internal network.

It's "an interception device by definition," said the industry participant, who spoke on condition of anonymity because court proceedings are sealed. "If magistrates knew more, they would approve less." It's unclear whether any carriers have installed port readers, and at least one is actively opposing the installation.

---

Someone pass me a tinfoil hat please.... :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Might be time to get rid of my smart phone and go back to a dumb one.

---

That's not going to stop anything. Doesn't really matter whether you say it, SMS it or write it publicly on Facebook. If they capture all of it, then they get your message anyway.

What really surprises me is that some of you people are against it. Given that this is legal due to the patriot act, you don't sound very patriotic. Why do you hate freedom and aid terrorists? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's not going to stop anything. Doesn't really matter whether you say it, SMS it or write it publicly on Facebook. If they capture all of it, then they get your message anyway.

What really surprises me is that some of you people are against it. Given that this is legal due to the patriot act, you don't sound very patriotic. Why do you hate freedom and aid terrorists? :inquisitive:

---

There's only one thing left to do: Each and every one of us has to send out at least one terrorist phonecall/SMS per day. Maybe mention to close family members something about blowing up a school or something along those lines. If the entire population gets flagged and has to be monitored, the whole surveillance system will implode.

Why worry? If needed, the system can be easily overwhelmed with false positives and become totally useless. On that note, is my shipment of TNT ready yet?

Oh yes, by all means!

But remember the kid in Texas. It was an obvious joke but they locked him up and through away the key.

Making jokes or trying to overwhelm the system will get you in a lot of trouble. These people make the Stasi look like the good guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

These people make the Stasi look like the good guys.

---

Oh some of them weren't that bad. I used to go fishing with that one guy...

Anyway I mean I don't plan to do anything illegal that I'd have to hide and still I don't think this is right. Wanting my privacy doesn't have anything to do with being a terrorist.

Hooray, add another apathetic cog in the machine.

No, the answer is not to give up. It doesn’t matter that you are tying to have a low profile either, or have no bad intent.

You are missing what is happening!


In your neighborhood there is a dangerous paranoid. He thinks everyone is out to get him and that everyone is a terrorist. He thinks it is his job to eliminate all those terrorists to save the world. This makes everyone a target. Any tiny innocent thing can set this guy off.

But you can’t call the police because they believe him.

That Him, just happens to be the Federal Government and all of its agencies.

You are all, defacto bad people!

The Nut Job has to be stopped and put some place where they won’t hurt anyone. But it is not going to be easy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Oh yes, by all means! But remember the kid in Texas. It was an obvious joke but they locked him up and through away the key.

---

That's because it was just him. Add a million more and the system becomes useless.

5 years ago the same people bemoaning the government now were actively cheering it on and throwing out the traitor line at any opportunity. I feel less than nothing for you people.

This is what the nation state does, in fact if the United States wasn't doing this I would think the bureaucrats are getting lazy. The correct way to change this is to organize, and elect representatives whom will change the law and afford the same protections to phone and e-traffic that the post gets (which was a big battle in its day) This is nothing new, correspondence has always been a privacy vs security battle.

The real "Orwellian" thing here is this melodrama on the internet. People confirm their biases, bitch, throw around words like stasi and bemoan the state of things to make themselves feel important. You know what's important? Voting, excersising your rights as a citizen.

I'm just waiting for some obese, mouth breathing, tea party ass to pump a postal worker full of lead because he's a government employee. There is nothing worse in this life than people with short memories.