The NSA-(Just because we REALLY should discuss this)

[FiredMotorCompany]

We haven't touched on this subject to date, per se.

But, the genie is out of the bottle. Now, legal council KNOWS data and evidence exists that MAY exonerate their client in the NSA data storage. And NSA will kick and scream "National Security" in an attempt to refuse. But how long before a federal court rules the needs of a defendant obligates the government to supply any evidence they have that could prosecute a defendant should also be available to exonerate the defendant as well.


Lawyers eye NSA data as treasure trove for evidence in murder, divorce cases

And I fear few people, not just the low-information Americans, are not taking the situation as seriously as they should.

Suppose the argument is made and supported that all data should be archived because you could reverse prosecute a national security terrorist with every phone, Skype, email, internet search, cellphone tower ping, credit card transaction and traffic camera bit of evidence?

You could prosecute ANY citizen for virtually any infraction, given the desire and motivation.

Did you violate the "Terms Of Use" for ANY website? That's a felony.
Did you copy a CD you didn't own? Felony
Did you fib on your taxes? Felony.
Did you obey EVERY law you are subject to?

Believe me. A government with THAT much power can squash any opponent easily.

And what the chronically obsessed Obama supporters refuse to consider is the possibility that the next administration may not view THEM so favorably.
Just because Congress was briefed on the system and the FISC knows about it doesn't minimize the danger we are walking into naively.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Benjamin Franklin

[FiredMotorCompany]

Prism appears to be a "tap" on all internet traffic going through the largest ISPs and internet sites, such as ATT, Google, Sprint, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizone, ....................

 

These entities may truly have been unaware of the program and could rightfully claim they are NOT allowing the government to tap their data, but the internet is a unique creature.

 

The secret (?) is routers. In this case, fiber-optic routers. Their job is to direct data packets toward their intended destination. So an email sent from a Gmail user in a remote corner of the world is broadcast to multiple routers who attempt to find the fastest and most direct route to the servers at Google. And despite the sense of security one feels when they connect with a HTTPS (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure) connection such as used when you access your online banking service, that only encrypts the data from point to point. So that Gmail connection is encrypted from the remote sender until it leaves Google servers on it's way to the recipients ISP (AOL, Windstream, ATT, Time Warner, WOWWAY, etc....) where is becomes plain text readable by ANYONE who cares to look. And it is still to be determined if that HTTPS survives the move within Google from one server to another, such as Google Groups or Talk.

 

The router is basically a traffic cop who sees the address the packet is intended to go to and directs it down a path that reports it is able to pass the packet on. In the case of a fiber optic connection, lasers emit light in pulses and differing timing and phases, as opposed to the traditional copper wiring and electrical signals most users have known. The NSA likely has placed a "splitter" in the stream of fiber optic laser signal so that the data is duplicated. Half continues on to Google and the other is directed to NSA data centers for storage, analysis and access. And since this occurs just before it reaches Google, for example, the NSA can filter the data collected based on the knowledge it had been intended for Google, ATT, or any of the other ISPs.

 

And PRISM is likely the system that analyses the data stream (laser light). Whereas a real prism defracts sun light into it's component wavelengths, laser light is only one wavelength, so PRISM filters and separates the components of the data traffic into its fundamental parts, Network (IP addresses, ports, protocols, services,applications, devices and locations), Semantic (Content, topics, trends, communities and locations) and finally, User (Presence, profiles, identities, associations and relationships).

 

What must be understood is the metadata, that part of a message NOT directly the content, when aggregated and properly assembled can tell far, far, far more about you, your movements, your history, your actions, your intents and your mindset than anyone outside the NSA realizes.

 

Anyone concerned about this?

 

You should be.

[FiredMotorCompany]

And what if the " powers that be" decide they need a federal judge to rule in their favor in a particular case. Do they use the NSA data to implicate and imitate the judge to rule in your favor?

 

Not possible? Think again.

[cal50]

J. Edgar Hoover's wet dream.

Its generally accepted that Hoover and the FBI had a "special" file room or area that off the record information was kept. One set of files for above board searches (with warrants) and the special one for non-authorized or warrant-less data collected. Today's intel network is a large expansion of what was going on small scale WAY before technology was advanced to what it is today. The NSA / NSC tech goes back to carnivore and clipper chip technology to the new collection centers under construction that is really a giant internet switch and satellite link for communication relay.

 

Bush and others came up with the Patriot Act to fast track targeting persons of interest. It was suppose to be set up for an easy to obtain warrant to listen in on foreign individuals conversing with domestic based contacts. The FISA court was in theory suppose to issue a warrant to listen in to specific identified persons. It was not intended to be a mass capture of all domestic communication with no specific warrant spelled out.

 

Even if you consider Snowden (?) a patriot I am sure he has broken his contract agreement for confidentiality so he will go to prison at some point or be found dead at some point.

 

The government listening in on US citizens domestically, without a warrant is clearly wrong. We can see how recently the justice department had bogus warrants approved and snooped around the AP and a few reporters personal data. I doubt its any less intrusive when you can have a massive building built just for capturing said information with no warrant needed from the outside world and keep it on the up & up.

 

The IRS just gave a good demo of abuse of power, lying , targeting specific groups and leaking personal information and no one being held accountable or heading to prison,yet.

Edited June 21, 2013 by cal50

[All-Or-Nothing]

Meh................

 

 

 

Even if the Supreme Court, Any court in the Nation, anyone tied into the judicial system in the nation said "You can't do this, you will go to jail for life"...and made a public nationwide simultaneous broadcast condemning anyone who does it.

 

 

It will continue to happen anyways. You are sadly, sadly mistaken if you think somehow this kind of stuff will EVER be stopped or even slowed down. Wake Up.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Meh................

 

 

 

Even if the Supreme Court, Any court in the Nation, anyone tied into the judicial system in the nation said "You can't do this, you will go to jail for life"...and made a public nationwide simultaneous broadcast condemning anyone who does it.

 

 

It will continue to happen anyways. You are sadly, sadly mistaken if you think somehow this kind of stuff will EVER be stopped or even slowed down. Wake Up.

We can only attempt to make the government work within the law.

 

The worst thing we can do is accept those transgressions we discover.

[RangerM]

It becomes a question of what are you willing to accept, in exchange for what security it may (or may not) garner.

 

People wanted to place blame after 9/11. The basic problem (with 9/11) was lack of "connecting the dots". The information was probably there, just not coalesced in an interpret-able whole.

 

The NSA has been doing what it's doing (monitoring communications) for decades. Is it really a surprise that they monitor the internet? It would surprise me more if they didn't, especially since it's easier (ie. more contained). Although in the past, the NSA is supposed to direct its attention toward the external. The FBI is supposed to cover the internal. That said, if the NSA wasn't doing it, the FBI would.

 

Does it make it right? Not really, although the Constitution is supposed to protect me (as an American) against evidence obtained without a warrant.

 

The recent revelations about collection of phone records concerns me insomuch as the American Government took those records from the phone companies. That is confiscation of the phone companys' private property.

 

The proper (imo) way it should have been handled is they government should have ordered the phone companies NOT to destroy their records; OR, they could (voluntarily) turn them over to the government if they no longer wished to maintain them. The government should not have taken possession of them or compelled the phone companies to turn them over. Recent IRS revelations should make anyone wary of that.

 

Could a person's (internet) activities be publicized if a partisan within the NSA decides to send them to a political opponent (like the IRS did)? Yes. Would that be wrong? Yes. Am I worried? No. There are too many ways to anonymize oneself, and more are coming. People should be more worried about what they put on their Facebook page or Twitter.

 

People used to make fun of George W. Bush for using pen and paper (and not email). The joke is on them. The NSA doesn't (and probably couldn't) monitor a letter sent via USPS or other courier.

[Edstock]

We can only attempt to make the government work within the law.

 

The worst thing we can do is accept those transgressions we discover.

 

Like the treatment of Bradley Manning, kept in solitary confinement.

[cal50]

Like the treatment of Bradley Manning, kept in solitary confinement.

 

Solitary is nicer than being hanged or shot.

Being a whistle blower and violating your security clearance comes with a price to pay.

[BlackHorse]

We can only attempt to make the government work within the law.

 

The worst thing we can do is accept those transgressions we discover.

 

 

Oh don't pay attention to him Fired. He is just opposing you because he's a liberal and you're a conservative and that's it. If this NSA thing had come out while a Republican was in office he would be on this thread agreeing with you. He's just waiting for his big brother Langston to come along and tell him what to say next.

[RangerM]

Like the treatment of Bradley Manning, kept in solitary confinement.

If true, it's probably for his own protection.

 

His role as a traitor is a bit more concrete.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Oh don't pay attention to him Fired. He is just opposing you because he's a liberal and you're a conservative and that's it. If this NSA thing had come out while a Republican was in office he would be on this thread agreeing with you. He's just waiting for his big brother Langston to come along and tell him what to say next.

I am concerned with any political party having such power.....unrestrained. All powerful government is no better than tyranny.

[BlackHorse]

I am concerned with any political party having such power.....unrestrained. All powerful government is no better than tyranny.

 

I agree completely with that. I know the ACLU has already initiated a class action law suit against the NSA over this matter.

[Langston Hughes]

Oh don't pay attention to him Fired. He is just opposing you because he's a liberal and you're a conservative and that's it. If this NSA thing had come out while a Republican was in office he would be on this thread agreeing with you. He's just waiting for his big brother Langston to come along and tell him what to say next.

 

If it came out with a republican president fired would be the only conservative here against it, while the rest of you would be okay with it. After all this is merely an extension of what was going on during Bush's presidency, minus the warrant-less wire tapping.

[BlackHorse]

If it came out with a republican president fired would be the only conservative here against it, while the rest of you would be okay with it. After all this is merely an extension of what was going on during Bush's presidency, minus the warrant-less wire tapping.

 

Actually there was wire tapping under Bush and many of us were not to happy about it even then. The difference being that under Bush the program was restricted to monitoring only calls coming in to or going out of the United States. At the time both Obama and Biden did their usual drama queen dance and cried about how awful it was and how Bush was such a bad guy for doing this and blah blah blah. Then Obama expanded the program to include every single American with a phone in the country. Because he's a lying ass hypocrite.

Edited June 22, 2013 by BlackHorse

[Trimdingman]

Sooner or later, we will have to get rid of government.

[Edstock]

If true, it's probably for his own protection.

 

His role as a traitor is a bit more concrete.

 

"His role as a traitor": traitor? That's a Gopper knee-jerk; Manning is a brave American who has shown you that your government breaks its own laws. Wake up, smell the coffee.

 

Meanwhile, Manning has been treated dreadfully, with treatment that violates the Geneva Convention.

[RangerM]

If Manning is covered by Geneva convention, then I'm assuming you're suggesting he's a POW.....essentially agreeing he's a traitor?

[cal50]

"His role as a traitor": traitor? That's a Gopper knee-jerk; Manning is a brave American who has shown you that your government breaks its own laws. Wake up, smell the coffee.

 

Meanwhile, Manning has been treated dreadfully, with treatment that violates the Geneva Convention.

 

 

 

Manning is enlisted and anyone in the military enlisted or commissioned you forfeit free speech rights once you are sworn in.

What he did was pass along classified information, regardless of the contents he was wrong in doing so. Period.

Edited June 23, 2013 by cal50

[Langston Hughes]

Actually there was wire tapping under Bush and many of us were not to happy about it even then. The difference being that under Bush the program was restricted to monitoring only calls coming in to or going out of the United States. At the time both Obama and Biden did their usual drama queen dance and cried about how awful it was and how Bush was such a bad guy for doing this and blah blah blah. Then Obama expanded the program to include every single American with a phone in the country. Because he's a lying ass hypocrite.

 

Wow, the program under Bush was not using the FISA court which was the issue. The present program uses the FISA court and it has expanded (which i'm not keen on) but you aren't as usual being honest with us or yourself. You only care that it's Obama and we all know that. But try this on for size.

 

Gen. Michael Hayden, former National Security Agency Director under George W. Bush, praised the Obama administration’s transparency regarding the NSA’s surveillance of phone records.

“The Obama administration was more transparent .. than we were in the Bush administration,” Hayden told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Wednesday. “They made this metadata collection activity available to all the members of Congress, not just all the members of the intelligence committees.

 

Despite the supposed decision to loop in more lawmakers on the process, Hayden said that Obama's decision not to stop, and even expand, the NSA efforts was "really good news" and something of a redemption for national security officials in the Bush administration.

 

"We should just take a sense of satisfaction that what we were doing, once candidate Obama became President Obama, he saw that these were of great value and frankly, were being very carefully done," Hayden said. "National security looks a little different from the Oval Office than it does from a hotel room in Iowa."

 

 

 

 

[BlackHorse]

That's great Langston. Then why did Obama make such a big deal about how awful this program was when Bush was President? This is the problem with too many of our elected officials. Candidate Obama acted like the NSA program was a horrible idea that was going to infringe on the rights of Americans and how dare that dirty old George Bush violate the Constitution and blah blah blah What happened to that guy? Now that he's President he is expanding the program. How the hell do you have any amount of faith or trust in anything this guy says? And it's not just him of course, there are plenty of politicians on both sides that do this. This is why people like myself have no confidence in our elected leaders. Today they have one point of view on a subject; tomorrow its just the opposite. You can't trust someone like that. Bush was unpatriotic for running up the deficit according to Obama, then he adds trillions more to it. Is Obama then also unpatriotic? Marco Rubio was against amnesty as a candidate, now he's part of the gang of 8 that is trying to get it passed. Joe Biden was outspoken about his oppostion to the NSA wire tapping program in 2006, now he's all for it. It goes on and on. We can't trust these people anymore. They don't take a stand on anything and stick to it. How the hell can you ever be sure that the man or woman you voted for will remain true to the promises they made as a candidated. You can't. This is the problem with our government. So, you know, if you want to keep kissing Obama's ass and acting like he's the greatest thing since thong panties go right ahead. But I've got eyes in my head and common sense so no thanks.

Edited June 25, 2013 by BlackHorse

[Langston Hughes]

That's great Langston. Then why did Obama make such a big deal about how awful this program was when Bush was President? This is the problem with too many of our elected officials. Candidate Obama acted like the NSA program was a horrible idea that was going to infringe on the rights of Americans and how dare that dirty old George Bush violate the Constitution and blah blah blah What happened to that guy? Now that he's President he is expanding the program. How the hell do you have any amount of faith or trust in anything this guy says? And it's not just him of course, there are plenty of politicians on both sides that do this. This is why people like myself have no confidence in our elected leaders. Today they have one point of view on a subject; tomorrow its just the opposite. You can't trust someone like that. Bush was unpatriotic for running up the deficit according to Obama, then he adds trillions more to it. Is Obama then also unpatriotic? Marco Rubio was against amnesty as a candidate, now he's part of the gang of 8 that is trying to get it passed. Joe Biden was outspoken about his oppostion (opposition) to the NSA wire tapping program in 2006, now he's all for it. It goes on and on. We can't trust these people anymore. They don't take a stand on anything and stick to it. How the hell can you ever be sure that the man or woman you voted for will remain true to the promises they made as a candidated. (candidate)You can't. This is the problem with our government. So, you know, if you want to keep kissing Obama's ass and acting like he's the greatest thing since thong panties go right ahead. But I've got eyes in my head and common sense so no thanks. (just some spelling corrections)

 

I don't come in here kissing Obama's ass. I am merely the counterpoint to your constant barrage of Obama hatred.

 

Did president Obama changed his stance on quite a few issues? He did and some of them I was not happy about, especially the ones where he moved to the right. However i don't see a problem with a pragmatist being in office. Every president has moved their stance on issues when they come into office, it's the reality of the job. When you get away from looking at things from a ideological point a view and start thinking of them in terms of policy and effectiveness then you have a different view on why president's change their stances.

 

I can't help that you see things in ideological terms of liberalism and conservatism, and that you really don't understand the reality of either. It makes for some fun arguments but that's about it. There's no depth or nuance to them as you showed in the discussion on Paul Ryan. I'm discussing economic theory as part of a election platform and your railing about liberalism and how it's always failed. At least you get to feel superior because my typing and grammar is atrocious.

[BlackHorse]

I don't come in here kissing Obama's ass. I am merely the counterpoint to your constant barrage of Obama hatred.

 

Did president Obama changed his stance on quite a few issues? He did and some of them I was not happy about, especially the ones where he moved to the right. However i don't see a problem with a pragmatist being in office. Every president has moved their stance on issues when they come into office, it's the reality of the job. When you get away from looking at things from a ideological point a view and start thinking of them in terms of policy and effectiveness then you have a different view on why president's change their stances.

 

I can't help that you see things in ideological terms of liberalism and conservatism, and that you really don't understand the reality of either. It makes for some fun arguments but that's about it. There's no depth or nuance to them as you showed in the discussion on Paul Ryan. I'm discussing economic theory as part of a election platform and your railing about liberalism and how it's always failed. At least you get to feel superior because my typing and grammar is atrocious.

 

Oh please spare me your bullshit assessment about what I do or don't understand. You don't know shit about it, shit about what your saying or shit about me. You got your head so far up Obama's ass it's not even funny.

[cal50]

You got your head so far up Obama's ass it's not even funny.

 

Actually that is funny because its not good to remove something from its natural environment.

[Langston Hughes]

 

Oh please spare me your bullshit assessment about what I do or don't understand. You don't know shit about it, shit about what your saying or shit about me. You got your head so far up Obama's ass it's not even funny.

 

Naw, i think i'll continue. As a counterpoint to your constant need to mention my grammar.

 

 

Actually that is funny because its not good to remove something from its natural environment.

 

Hey, if your going to talk about me, then perhaps you should take me out of ignore.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Langston Hughes