26 replies to this topic

[Selena]

One big event is dominating the news this week, so let's focus on that.

 

The National Security Agency, in the interest of protecting the US, is actively tracking the cellphone records of American citizens -- chiefly through Verizon services. They aren't tracking just suspicious individuals, as was the original wire-tapping policy of the PATRIOT Act, but just about every American with a cellphone. It has apparently been doing this for over seven years, and it is perfectly legal. They search for call patterns that could indicate terrorist activity -- something of a preemptive strike, you might say, compared with searching phone records after someone is thought to be guilty of a crime.

 

Supposedly, this just concerns basic information. Numbers dialed, numbers answered, duration of calls, etc. They do not record the content of your conversations (at least according to them). This is considered a massively helpful tool in the fight against terror, according to the folks in charge.

 

New claims indicate that this tracking can only be used against "non-US persons."

 

Although, personally, I'd be suspicious of that last statement. The right to due process has entered something of a gray zone since the passing of National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, and that could be used as a loophole to turn their gaze inward -- especially after things like Boston.

 

 

 

Source 1 (LA Times)

Source 2 (BBC)

Source 3 (BBC, follow-up)

NSA Info (wiki)

Info on PRISM, the tracking program (wiki)

 

 

 

Thoughts, comments, rants about the end of American freedom? I think it is doubleplusungood.

[JRPomazon]

The people responsible are going to blame George W. Bush and his administration for everything and we'll call it a day. Standard procedure.

[Egann]

What the hell?! Judges hand out wiretapping warrants like candy, and no one complains about privacy if you've got one of those.

 

Oh, what? It's just metadata?

 

You know every closed doors meeting of every major politician? I want to know where they met, the names of who they met with, and who was paying for the venue. That's just metadata, too, you know.

 

Seriously, our politicians need to stop watching Minority Report and actually try to fix problems.

[Showsni]

I wonder what kind of patterns actually indicate terrorist behaviour RE mobile 'phone usage, and what they do if a given 'phone exhibits that behaviour. Just call round to check you're not a terrorist? Or go to the actual recording and screening your calls?

I mean, if they're searching for specific patterns, there must be some innocent people who happen to fall into those patterns entirely by coincidence. So, what? They then start lsitening in on their calls?

[Selena]

From what I understand so far, if your call patterns are flagged by the system, then NSA agents obtain a (no doubt easily obtained) warrant to listen to your actual calls. A federal investigation begins from there.

[Oberon Storm]

I don't really keep up on current events as much as I used to. A comination of working all the time and wonderin half the time why there is even a debate about half the shit that's going on. I find myself watching a report about it tonight on television. And I'm struck by the claim that those responisible will blame Bush and move on. First, let's be fair, these surveillance measures did start under Bush, but also no one is blaming Bush. I think this is something of a problem.

 

I remember the original scandal with the warrantless wiretaps and all that. I remember when they decided to retroactively make it legal. They even went so far as to grant immunity to telecommunications companies. But then Obama was elected, and nothing changed. What should have happened is when he was first elected in 2008 he should have come out and said this is wrong and it would be discontinued. He saw what was wrong with torture and put a stop to that. He has tred to get Guantanamo closed, unsuccessfully at first, but he is trying again. But spying on your own people is OK. Because it helps catch bad guys.

 

I know this isn't the only questionable policy Obama inherited and decided to keep using, but so far this makes me the angrier than others. It doesn't matter how much it helps law enforcement or the NSA. It's a violation of, I feel, constitutional rights.

[Egann]

I think it was Limbaugh who said "So now the only people with a right to privacy are women who want an abortion." The man can be pointed every now and then.

 

The problem I have isn't necessarily that the NSA was doing this. It's that they didn't ask the voters first. As a democracy, we, the voters, elect the representatives who are your bosses. I will grudgingly allow the Patriot act because it was specifically targeting foreigners, and citizens do get some privileges. It's horribly impolite, but not outright offensive.

 

This? You do not have the prerogative to go over our heads like this.

 

Also, they say they managed to thwart a terror attack in NYC with this a few years ago? Two things. 1) Clearly it doesn't always work: you didn't catch the Boston Bombers. In fact, only one success could be a fluke, too, so this is nowhere near enough results to justify this kind of program. 2) in order to accurately assess how successful the program has been, we (the voters) need to know how many warrants have been issued erroneously. Compared to other, legitimate tip sources, of course.

[Selena]

I think it was Limbaugh who said "So now the only people with a right to privacy are women who want an abortion."

 

And the folks who want to buy guns via newspaper classifieds, of course! Extended background checks, what anti-American nonsense....

 

 

But yes, this program is unnecessary. It's certainly helpful, I imagine. But barcoding every single American would technically be helpful, too. As would implanting everyone with a GPS chip so that we could know where everyone was at all times. Think of how efficient court cases would be -- now you don't even need to have witnesses or fuss around with people telling lies on the stand! The computer knows all!

 

In a weird twist back to video games, if any of you haven't played the original Deus Ex, I'd really recommend it for the themes and philosophies alone. It was written back in '99, and (dismissing the more fantastical elements of the tale) actually covers a lot of subjects that are coming true in the modern day. Including this one. Part of the story involves an AI developed by the government - stemming from the old ECHELON project - that constantly observes all digital and telephone communication, deliberately searching for specific patterns.

 

Later on, you meet a prototype AI that's programmed to bring up all information on a person when they try to access "his" systems. He addresses the user as if he's an omnipresent god. He mentions their parents, their upbringing, their career, weight, eye color, anything that could possibly be on file. The protagonist is obviously freaked out, then starts lecturing the AI on how this is a massive invasion of privacy.

 

The AI answers by saying that, despite being "taught" to value privacy, all humans secretly like feeling as if someone -- whether it's a god or a computer programmed to be all-knowing -- has been watching over them for their entire lives. Thus why so many people pray to a god who is effectively the ultimate Big Brother.

 

 

 

Which begs the curious question: What does it really matter if someone's watching you? Or even knows a great deal about you? Is it the simple act of being watched that bothers you? Or the potential threat of someone abusing that power? The government won't care or spread around that you're watching acrobatic midget porn, for example.

 

Question precludes the slippery-slope of there being morality police to crack down on certain behaviors -- it's just about the act of someone watching you.

 

When it comes to someone knowing all my movements, I... you know, I don't really know why it bothers me. It just does.

[Egann]

Which begs the curious question: What does it really matter if someone's watching you? Or even knows a great deal about you? Is it the simple act of being watched that bothers you? Or the potential threat of someone abusing that power? The government won't care or spread around that you're watching acrobatic midget porn, for example.

 

Because it undermines friendship. Someone who knows about your life that deeply should be someone you've let into your life, not who barged in. Yes, keeping secrets is bad for emotional health, but the trust involved in keeping them is also what maintains natural friendship. When the secrets involved don't break laws, the government doesn't need access. We are the government's bosses, not their friends, and I'm certainly not friends with the random low-ranking NSA agent who winds up tapping calls. We have a right to privacy and obscurity while we can expect transparency and openness from our government.

 

Although, tangentially, I think the ideas of Big Brother watching me and God watching me are fundamentally different. There's a difference between a metaphysical peer and a metaphysical superior. Here are a few examples:

 

• We regard government as our metaphysical inferior. We created it to serve our needs for order, and it is maintained by our individual authorities. It is  not physically, nor even metaphysically like us and does not serve it's own needs the way we serve our own, often through it.

 

• Frankenstein's Monster is Frankenstein's metaphysical peer. He is fundamentally like Frankenstein in that he has a physical form and physical needs. He can also, like Frankenstein, consider his own needs and prioritize them. 

 

• Animals are our metapysical peers, but much lower priority. Human civilization has much more potential than animal herds, so we give ourselves priority, and if push comes to shove our needs and wants win out. Situations like keeping livestock for slaughter is perfectly acceptable because this is mutually beneficial: we feed the animals, give them medicine, a better standard of living than in the wild, and ensure that while their species is domesticated they will never go extinct. It's not like cattle destined for ground beef get nothing out of us.

 

If push comes to shove, I'd think that this is a better distinction between Atheist and Theist than "I believe in God. True or False." The Atheist believes there cannot be a metaphysical superior, so you wind up with atheists making characters like Q in Star Trek: TNG. Q is "godlike" but basically a metaphysical peer because, in universe, he was created by the same laws and functions of the universe that created humans.

Edited by Egann, 10 June 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[wisp]

One of my friends posted http://trollthensa.com/ on Facebook today. What do you guys think about it? I've got mixed feelings, personally. It sounds like a good troll, but it makes me nervous. The government in general is just starting to scare me. I'm a very private person and I don't like people knowing even the most innocuous things about me unless I choose to tell them. It scares the shit out of me that they've granted themselves the power to just spy on us this way. I came across this little gem on the internet where someone was basically saying everyone should shut up and stop assuming the government cares what you're talking about because it's egotistical and they don't care about targeting you. That isn't the point. I don't care if they aren't targeting me personally; it's still wrong for them to have the authority to go around the judicial system and spy on someone without a warrant.

[arunma]

One thing that's important to remember here is that all this stuff was initially authorized by the Patriot Act.  True, I did read one of its authors claiming that these warrantless studies of metadata go too far.  But stuff like warrantless wiretapping was first allowed by the Patriot Act.  If Americans want privacy, we need to stop freaking out every time we get bombed and giving up our liberties for a little temporary security.  That said, it turns out most Americans don't want liberty.  Just this morning on CNN I saw a poll stating that 56% of Americans consider it acceptable for the government to spy on its citizens.  I guess Benjamin Franklin can shove it...

 

Personal opinion here; as much as I don't like it I can accept government spying if Obama is the one doing the spying.  Because I more or less trust Obama.  But I will never trust any Republican politician, and the problem here is that Obama is setting up a legal infrastruture where government spying is the norm.  What happens if a Republican gets elected in 2016?  Well, I could see the government start to haul away Americans simply for expressing viewpoints that aren't consistent with the state religion of evangelical Christianity.

[wisp]

Most people I know were against the Patriot Act in the first place. I don't know where these people are who keep throwing our liberties at the government saying, "Take them, please!" but I figure there must be a lot of them.

[Veteran]

One of my friends posted http://trollthensa.com/ on Facebook today. What do you guys think about it?

 

It's an excellent idea but falls under the same problems as striking. It only works if everyone does it. Really they ought to have had a larger countdown, throw in some serious advertising and then do it.

[Green Goblin]

I feel I should weigh in on this a bit.

 

First, I've worked at Verizon Business for the past 2.5 years.  I'm a billing consultant, so I know the ins and outs of the phone heirarchy over here (Need to be able to investigate any and all services to determine whether or not a claim is justified).

 

The information given is literally just phone numbers and who they dial to.  No names.  No billing addresses.  Just phone numbers.  And people don't actually OWN the numbers, obviously.  They pay Verizon for the use of them.  So philosophically, I see why Verizon had legal backing in doing this.  The government asked to see information regarding Verizon's telephone service, Verizon obliged.

 

They're not recording conversations or listening in on everyone.  I know this specifically because Verizon only keeps records of numbers called and minutes spent.  That's it.  It's come up in multiple cases for me and there is literally no way to determine what is being said through any given phone conversation.  If they get a warrant, the NSA themselves can do a wire tap to listen in on conversations. 

[Oberon Storm]

That is still too much information for the government to collect.

[Steel Samurai]

But not too much for Verizon to collect?

[Green Goblin]

That is still too much information for the government to collect.

 

How do you figure?

 

But not too much for Verizon to collect?

 

We need it for billing purposes, obviously.

[Selena]

Well, here are the drawbacks.

 

Verizon, as you point out, obviously needs this sort of data for billing purposes and what not -- that's not surprising or unexpected. And we've already established that nobody's listening in on actual conversations -- so that's not in question, either. And it's true that you're technically "renting" a phone from a company, so it's not really "yours" to begin with.

 

But unless details on the PRISM program are in the terms of service somewhere, customers aren't aware that this kind of data is being gathered and sent to a third party -- in this case the federal government -- without a warrant involved. Thus why everyone's shocked now that the secret's been spilled.

 

They're aware that data is gathered on Verizon's purely business end of things, because that's how cell service works, but not PRISM's "track down suspicious activity by searching for questionable calling patterns" side of it. It's true that they can already pull up phone records or wire-tap, but that's all done with a warrant acquired through proper channels. Tracing call patterns goes above warrants, and even if it's just numbers involved, they're going to attach those numbers to names if they have the slightest cause to do so, and that's not an overly complicated thing to do.

 

In this day and age, someone's cellphone number can effectively be used like a barcode -- as a form of numeric identification. Most people keep the same number indefinitely.

 

Verizon is a commercial company. It doesn't have the ability to bring you in for questioning based on your call patterns or behavior -- that's why it's worse for the government to be collecting these things. People already get held for questioning for being "flagged" in a system for one reason or another, usually a harmless combination of personal data. The whole case opens a can of worms as to how far this could go. Wiretapping was part of the reason Nixon was impeached, for example, but now it's considered normal, if not acceptable.

 

PRISM is a program that better enables the feds to make use of that "detain people indefinitely without needing to tell them why" ability they weasled into NDAA '12. It's a lot of dangerous implications.

[Oberon Storm]

But not too much for Verizon to collect?

 

Yeah. Billing. I work for Time Warner Cable. Sometimes customers just want to know. And if someone wants to dispute a directory assisstance or international charge, we need to be able to provide a record.

 

 

That is still too much information for the government to collect.

 

How do you figure?

 

The fourth amendment. It doesn't matter how little data is collect or how inconsequencial it seems. It also doesn't really matter how much it helps any level of law enforcement. In the end it's still wrong.

[Egann]

Not only is what Lena said entirely true, but you can tell a lot about someone based on what numbers they dial. You don't need to know what someone said if they call the plumber. Now that example's rather clean. How about calling a lawyer? Or to an abortion hotline? The very reason the metadata is being collected is because any detective can piece together decent pictures with that kind of information, even with the content omitted.

 

And this is in the hands of the government? How long until the incumbent party gets the bright idea they can use this information to punish donors of the other party? Oh, that rich person gave the Libertarian party money? Let's find out what dirty secrets they're hiding. Ohh? Call to a random woman? Possibly an affair? Let's send this as an anonymous tip to the press.

 

This kind of information can be used to selectively destroy enemies. The chance for corruption is just too great, especially considering the program is not transparent: I didn't know the data was being collected, so how am I supposed to trust what they're doing with it?

 

I'm sure the next thing to follow is that the NSA's been logging our internet histories.

Edited by Egann, 13 June 2013 - 12:46 PM.

[Selena]

I'm sure the next thing to follow is that the NSA's been logging our internet histories.

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...nternet-giants/

 

It's an offshoot of another NSA program called "Stellar Wind," and has also been going on for almost a decade.

[Egann]

And so much for "Metadata."

 

I mean seriously, does the NSA think they're the KGB or something?

[Selena]

Dick Cheney calls Snowden a traitor.

 

Snowden says he takes that as a compliment, coming from Cheney.

 

 

 

In any case, polls show that just over half of Americans are.... totally okay with this whole PRISM thing. And a similar majority want to see Snowden put on trial for speaking out about this program. With the wikileaks scenario, I could see a reason for that standpoint because leaking military data actually put the lives of contacts and undercover operatives at legitimate risk. But this? All he did was tell Americans that the government was effectively watching them. There's no fallout apart from the feds looking bad.

 

I am actually surprised that more people aren't completely outraged by this. Threaten to ban military-grade assault rifles or limit magazine sizes and people lose their minds. Tell people the feds are spying on them and... just a mild acceptance?

 

It's not pick and choose which single amendment you want to defend. You can pick all of them. It's okay. Don't worry. We don't run out of freedom if you pick more than one.

[Jasi]

I think a big part of the problem is a lot of people, like myself, look at this and go "well fuck, what am I supposed to do? There's probably nothing to do, oh well, guess this is the new normal." It's not that I don't care or think it's right, it's that I don't believe that I have much power to do anything about it. If the government wants to spy on us, they're gonna. It's cynical and horrible but I think it's true.

 

Smaller issues like magazine size, I think people can kick up enough of a fuss about that the government will listen. But being able to spy on Americans is just such great power, and so useful to the government's aims, that I don't see them giving it up, even if they were to pretend they're going to. 

Edited by Jasi, 18 June 2013 - 07:37 AM.

[Egann]

The real problem I have isn't that they were doing this--that merely irritates me--but that we were never told. This is supposed to be a democracy, and this program and the programs like it have direct implications on how I live my life. And yet I never had a chance to veto it, and apparently my constitutionally elected representatives didn't, either (or they outright betrayed me by not telling me about it.)

 

From a country which prides itself on being a democracy, this is absolutely unacceptable. Keeping stuff about World War II classified when almost no one is left to court martial is questionable enough. I am a voter: I am supposed to be the final authority in this nation. How dare you keep this hidden from me, and even more to the point, how dare you outright lie to me about it being "only metadata" when it was exposed. This undermines the very nature of our democratic system of government.

 

The more I think about this, the more livid I get. In my opinion, everyone who knew about this program and kept mum is guilty of high treason. I can understand making an exception to the "take them behind the shed and shoot them" approach, but they certainly don't belong in my government. They need to be fired, without federal benefits.

Edited by Egann, 18 June 2013 - 09:59 AM.

[Crimson Lego]

And it seems now the government's filed espionage and theft of government property charges against Snowden:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...=PublicRSS20-sa

[JRPomazon]

They can also try to get him on sexual harassment and third degree murder for all I care, the US government want Snowden to pay for what he did and badly and I honestly don't think they very much care how they get him.

 

Frankly, I think a lot of people already had an idea the the government fell into the "big brother" niche, from the conspiracy theories to the people who wore tin foil hats on their heads. And it turns out that it wasn't so crazy after all. A majority of the citizens in the United States don't mind that the government monitors them? That's just shameful. What do they expect to find anyway? They think by pressing their eyes on the back of ever American's head that somehow they're going to catch a terrorist in the act? That we're going to prevent these things from happening in the first place? Bullshit, and let me tell you why. The older Tsarnaev brother of the two Boston Marathon bombers was tagged by the Russian Government as a potential terrorist before he came back to the United States to prepare his attack. The Russians told us "hey, you might want to look into this guy. We really think you should keep an eye on him." Of course, the hint went on deaf ears and in the mean time he bastard converts his younger brother to his way of thinking and they make their bombs. I don't need to explain what happened next. So the government gets this metadata, they keep pulling numbers and tapping in to whoever they like for whatever reason they fancy and say that somehow they find something suspicious. You honestly think these people have the common sense to DO anything smart with this kind of power, let alone the power they already possess?

 

The people who did this, knew this was going on and allowed it to continue are criminals. They should lose their jobs and their benefits. But of course, they'll all be relocated to different departments and keep their benefits while some small fries get thrown under the bus. In the end, nothing really changes. But damn it all it really ought to.

Edited by Game Master JRPomazon, 23 June 2013 - 02:41 AM.