Snowden and the NSA

[JimboUK]

Since this is all based on hypothetical scenarios where someone might get their hand on this "metedata" to be used for evil based on thinking policy will be changed at the drop of a hat against the general public.

 

Lets create a new hypothetical scenario...

 

Say this domestic surveillance you find out happens to save your children and family from a bomb attack that years later you learn about because the info becomes eventually declassified. Would you think different of domestic surveillance knowing that if the government wasn't doing it back then your entire family would have been killed by a bomb attack? or would it be worth your childrens lives and your whole family to be killed so privacy of metedata will be safely secure for generations to come?

 

There's a balance to be struck. We could tackle crime by having a permanent curfew where people are only allowed to leave the house to go to work, street crime, murders and all sorts of other crimes would be cut dramatically, lives would be saved as less people would die in street robberies, would that saving of those lives be worth giving up your freedom for? I was caught up in the Harrods bomb many years ago, I've seen first hand what terrorism can do, I still wouldn't be willing to give up my rights for some false sense of security.

[sukeban]

@Colorwheel

 

You phrase a question like that and you already know what the answer will be--that precisely no one is going to choose to sacrifice their family for the sake of principle. That is, of course, human nature. But that also is not really a fair-minded way of getting to the real issue at play here, which is, from a societal perspective, where does one find the proper balance between individual liberty and the threat of terrorism? Certainly, we could, as a nation, aspire to halt all terrorism (indeed, all inconvenience and crime!) by constructing an omniscient surveillance state and legislating all previously discretionary human behavior (eating more than 2000 calories now punishable by law!), but obviously there is a limit to how much order you can introduce into a society before it becomes illiberal. Now, that is a debate I suppose we can have (indeed, probably will have), and I secretly suspect that there is a significant percentage of people in this country who would desire a more autocratic or perhaps technocratic system of governance, but, going on the assumption that the United States still stands for the maximization of individual liberty, such a course of action does not strike me as keeping in the spirit of the Founders.

 

In my eyes, terrorists are mostly incompetent and bad at what they do--they are, decidedly, not the sort of threat that should demand of us a sacrifice of one of our most cherished (at least rhetorically...) rights, that of privacy. Obviously, this right is under heavy bombardment these days, from a commercial sector desirous of pecuniary advantage as well as from a government seemingly possessed of an agenda of its own self-aggrandizement. I would certainly not accuse anyone in government of conspiring toward any illiberal makeover of our state, but I most definitely believe that members of the intelligence establishment think of themselves as existing in a realm above the law, having internalized the belief that their mission transcends the petty concerns of those below them, those with a less "clear" vision of the problem. I also believe that politicians (and FISA judges, elite figures in the media, etc.) like to fancy themselves as rather ersatz Judi-Dench-as-M-like figures, that they are all "in the loop," and "consulted," and, more importantly, able to vicariously participate in the power and mystique wielded by these agencies through their own enthusiastic approval of their behavior. I believe that politicians are terrified by the possibility that they might lose access to this information--and the ceremonies involved in its presentation--the receipt of which is so fundamental to their self-conception as a ruling class, and that they are thus rendered unable (far more so than unwilling) to meaningfully critique or circumscribe the intelligence establishment's behavior.

Edited June 24, 2013 by sukeban

[ginnyfizz]

 

 

Combine this with the fact that courts can now sit in secret with people not being allowed to hear the evidence against them, and therefore not prepare a defence, it looks very ugly indeed to me.

 

That can maybe happen in your country but in america that would be concidered evidence being held back in court and can't be used against someone unless it is shared with the defence.

 

 

Well it certainly can and does happen here in The Country Formerly Known as the Mother Of The Free. No, colourwheel, I do not live in a former Iron Curtain country or ...well I was going to say tinpot dictatorship, but it could be said that we are part of Obama's dictatorship. Now let me see, what was the excuse for secret courts? Oh yeah, "national security" and "what about terrorism cases?"

 

 

Since this is all based on hypothetical scenarios where someone might get their hand on this "metedata" to be used for evil based on thinking policy will be changed at the drop of a hat against the general public.

 

Lets create a new hypothetical scenario...

 

Say this domestic surveillance you find out happens to save your children and family from a bomb attack that years later you learn about because the info becomes eventually declassified. Would you think different of domestic surveillance knowing that if the government wasn't doing it back then your entire family would have been killed by a bomb attack? or would it be worth your childrens lives and your whole family to be killed so privacy of metedata will be safely secure for generations to come?

 

There's a balance to be struck. We could tackle crime by having a permanent curfew where people are only allowed to leave the house to go to work, street crime, murders and all sorts of other crimes would be cut dramatically, lives would be saved as less people would die in street robberies, would that saving of those lives be worth giving up your freedom for? I was caught up in the Harrods bomb many years ago, I've seen first hand what terrorism can do, I still wouldn't be willing to give up my rights for some false sense of security.

 

 

Totally agree with you jim_uk. I had no idea you were there too Jim, I experienced the Harrods bombing first hand, and as I said before, I also had a relative who was murdered by terrorists.

But I also had a relative who spent years in Uncle Joe's gulags because it was decided that he was "an enemy of the people" and he never heard the evidence against him either. Wonder why the current situation scares me more than the terrorists ever could? And I do not wish to give up my freedoms "just in case" one might be caught. I feel just as you do , Jim.

 

@sukeban.

 

If nobody is going to sacrifice their family for principle, I am not sure how you would explain the number of people who volunteered during WW1 and WW2, without waiting for the draft. Remarkably few families tried to stop them.

[sukeban]

@Ginnyfizz

 

On second thought, this is a silly tangent. Roaches explained the problem with the dilemma that CW posed in her question. Your scenario and her scenario describe two completely different things.

Edited June 25, 2013 by sukeban

[JimboUK]

@Ginny Yeah I remember it as if were yesterday, I was a young teenager and we lived about 20 mins train ride outside of Central London. My Mum had told me not to go anywhere near London because in the run up to Christmas London would be a target, needless to say I didn't take a blind bit of notice, I met my friends at the station and off we went, bloody stupid thing to do.

[colourwheel]

 

 

 

Combine this with the fact that courts can now sit in secret with people not being allowed to hear the evidence against them, and therefore not prepare a defence, it looks very ugly indeed to me.

 

That can maybe happen in your country but in america that would be concidered evidence being held back in court and can't be used against someone unless it is shared with the defence.

 

 

Well it certainly can and does happen here in The Country Formerly Known as the Mother Of The Free. No, colourwheel, I do not live in a former Iron Curtain country or ...well I was going to say tinpot dictatorship, but it could be said that we are part of Obama's dictatorship. Now let me see, what was the excuse for secret courts? Oh yeah, "national security" and "what about terrorism cases?"

Whoa now... Obama is a dictator now? How did this topic get from domestic surveillance to accusing the president as a dictator... I guess i will never understand this...

 

let me get one thing straight Ginnyfizz, if you are takling about "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" as "secret courts" it's just a name has nothing to do with prosecuting anyone in a court of law it's only to decide whether or not to issue a warrant... huge difference from being prosecuted.... the proceedings are kept secret because of classified information involved threatening national security.

 

As for my hypothetical scenario about a families being saved due to years of domestic surveillance...

 

I can understand I have made an uproar of emotions concidering the reactions to everyone who has responded... I was just simply adding another "hypothetical scenario" since this thread seems so filled with how evil domestic surveillance can be to the general public. When none of us really know anything for fact if what the government is doing despite it being right or wrong has saved us countless times from another 911 attack.

Edited June 25, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Whoa now... Obama is a dictator now? How did this topic get from domestic surveillance to accusing the president as a dictator... I guess i will never understand this...

I wouldn't quite consider Obama to be a dictator but domestic spying on citizens, politicians, academics, and activists is one of the hallmarks of fascism.

 

 

let me get one thing straight Ginnyfizz, if you are takling about "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" as a "secret courts" it's just a name has nothing to do with prosecuting anyone in a court of law it's only to issue a warrant...

 

The issuance and execution of an arrest warrant is arguably a step in the prosecution of the law. To describe a court that controls surveillance of citizens as "just a name" and imply that it lacks real power is absurd. The FISA court, which in itself is not an entirely bad thing, has no oversight with regard to the NSA spying. In fact, there is no court or higher authority of any kind that oversees the NSA domestic spying, which is unprecidented in our history. It has effectively become extra-governmental agency.

 

Here is another relevant quote from Russ Tice:

 

"As a Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) officer it is continually drilled into us that the very first law chiseled in the SIGINT equivalent of the Ten Commandments (USSID-18) is that Thou shall not spy on American persons without a court order from FISA. This law is continually drilled into each NSA intelligence officer throughout his or her career. The very people that lead the National Security Agency have violated this holy edict of SIGINT."

 

@colourwheel: Have you always been so supportive of domestic surveillance? Did you support domestic spying back in 2005 when Room 641A was all over the news? When the administration at that time was being rightly criticized for it did you speak up in favor of that president's administration, or speak against the allegations of dictatorship that were leveled against him?

Edited June 25, 2013 by TRoaches

[colourwheel]

 

@colourwheel: Have you always been so supportive of domestic surveillance?

 

 

Never been super suportive for this I actually think it's wrong, just saying I am not paraniod like most people uproaring how evil this is after knowing this has been going on for over a decade...

Edited June 25, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Never been super suportive for this I actually think it's wrong, just saying I am not paraniod like most people uproaring how evil this is after knowing this has been going on for over a decade...

So, if I understand you correctly, you think that it is wrong but that we should not worry about it or speak out against it? We should silently condone something that is wrong?

[colourwheel]

 

So, if I understand you correctly, you think that it is wrong but that we should not worry about it or speak out against it? We should silently condone something that is wrong?

 

I was never suggesting that either.

Edited June 25, 2013 by colourwheel