What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
79 Comments
- Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -4/+64Just like so many shady acts of this government, it is done behind closed doors with small groups of power brokers. This is your "freedom". Remember children, fear the terrorists!
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35> The DOJ lawyers don't have high enough security clearance to investigate (according to the NSA).
So DOJ lawyers can't be trusted with national security, but random AT&T employees can? - zaphodbblx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31see how government and corporate seemlessly(and shamelessly) cover each others asses?
this my friends is the beginning of institutional fascism - Chive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30The Nazis also claimed to be acting in the interest of "national security" in the 1930s when Hitler was coming to power. The German public went along with it and over time Hitler dismantled the other branches of government and created a fascist dictatorship. The Italians loved the fact that Mussolini made the trains run on time and closed their eyes to his accumulation of power.
Our founding fathers knew the risks of large and intrusive government. They knew the dangers of letting too much power accumulate in the hands of too few. But the americans of today have their TVs, McMansions and SUVs. So they care little about the lessons of history.
Something really bad will likely have to happen before the great herd of sheeple in this country pull their heads out of the sand, move past the patriotic jingoism and really start looking at what is going on. - tiptone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30That's probably it, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's shady as hell and illegal.
- rebz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22The point of having the "freedom" that we do in this country is not, and should not be limited to exceptions and higher powers who can tap into our daily lives (at any medium). The point why people make such a big deal about this now, is because as we let go of certain bits of our freedom (especially as people were so willing to do after 9/11), things snowball into much bigger issues. If _this_ is seen as only a small issue, and that millions of people should not be worried about who sees who they are calling, what is next?
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Yes, there is the potential for national security damage. But the fact of the matter is that nobody in this country is above the law. Bush clearly broke the law by allowing this to happen, and now he is using the "state secrets" tactic to keep it from going any further.
It is irrelevant that this program may make us safer, and it is irrelevant that exposing it may put us in more danger. This country is based on a system of laws to protect the freedom of its citizens. There is NO justifcation for violating those laws. - Chive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Following that logic the government and it's huge spying apparatus could literally do anything. They could spirit your entire family away and hold them for life without charge. They could assasinate american citizens who they suspected of crimes or just didn't like. And, when challenged, they could simply cite national security and refuse to allow anybody to investigate.
Remember all that stuff from civics class about checks and balances? Well, it really is there for a reason. The Fascists from Bushco are not even allowing congress any oversight when it comes to these shady programs. And that my friends is no longer a constitutional democracy - it is the beginning of a dictatorship. - Dgen_X, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20everyone with the "I'm not calling Al Queda...why should I care if they listen" mentality
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I dont know why the judiciary rolls ovver like that but the supreme court in katz vs the us pretty much rejected the arguement of national security with this statement
"Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required." - tiptone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Where are we going and what's up with this handbasket?
- there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@Oxygen
Bro by logging all calls made by Americans it would certainly help fight terrorism (very marginally though since terrorsts are generally "sleepers" and could all use payphones or other quite simple alternatives to bypass this)
Next we can go to listening to phone calls (with software of course) and this too would help catch terrorists.
Next we can put military on the ground with machines guns..... and this too could help prevent terrorism
Next we can have arrests without due process... and this too would help prevent terrorism,
Next we can set up interment camps to torture people at.... and this too would help prevent terrorism
Next we can give orders to shoot slow responding suspicious people of sight
In fact, I'm pretty sure a few of the above are already in place to some degree. In addition they are already checking libraries for books you read, your DMV records, your health records, your banking info, your education level, yada yada.... and it takes effectively nothing to get wiretap. And be the way, Israel has been using this approach for FIFTY YEARS. Has this fixed their "little" problem?
Were these the values your mom and pop brought you up with? Is this what America is about? How come we didn't need this during the cold war against fully stacked Russia? We now even have a creepily named government agency called "Homeland security".
So excuse me if I ask what is the official metric for determining when the hysteria called "the war of terror" is over? When all the Arabs are in chimneys or nuked? And if one more big bomb goes off every 8 years-- is it worth the trillion dollars and taking more of our rights away? Honestly I want a direct answer at least to this because a few of the Republicans around here keep moving the line each time more information creeps out. (I know all Republicans aren't this stupid though...you go Specter)
In the end what this gigantic fear is about is nukes right?
So please tell me how spending billions of dollars monitoring how many Americans ordering out pizza.(without ANY judicial oversight) is protecting us better than say spending that very same money better tracking those that use and work with nuclear material? Or monitoring overseas communications more effectively? Or a million other things? Or do you see assassins everywhere and Americans are now considered "the enemy?
In fact I would argue the wasted funds dedicated to this area are actually CONTRIBUTING to terrorism since better options are being underfunded and spying creates more mistrust of the government It's like when Bush wanted to invade Iraq and only the Dixie Chicks had the balls to say that it was stupid move. 500 billion dollars and climbing of money that could have been used to fight terrorists instead of create them.
Don't let him use that fear trick on you again. He had his chance to prove himself and he blew it. All you need to know is that you could turn America into a complete police state and YOU KNOW it wouldn't be enough to prevent an object as small as a nuke from being smuggled in. It sucks but it true.
Welcome to the real world and how the rest of the world feels about OUR nukes. Ain't pretty feeling having a bullseye on your head is it? This is why (like it or not) even though we are likely going to be eventually attacked again--.we have to work with diplomatic agencies like the UN. We already know the alternatives like invading countries don't work now don't we?
I've heard all these terrible revisionist history to defend our aggression. Attacking Russia DID NOT END the cold war . If we had done so... it would have lead to nuclear armageddon. And this ain't WW2 and I'm not Chamberlain BECAUSE WE ARE THE INVADERS. Instead of being the only nation in the world that vetos UN peace resolutions, we need to fix the stalled and forgotten Palestinian/Israeli problem. This, when we propped up the Shaw (who overthrew a democratically elected goverment), and the Iraq invasion is exactly what has acted as a recruitment vehicle for hatred of Americans by Arabs.
Over the last 50 years a hundred billion dollars of foreign has gone to Israel-- which often was used to buy American weapons that killed Arabs. Now the chicken has finally come home to roost and hundreds of millions of people resent us for it. Don't buy the stupid line "they hate freedom" just because they have slightly different values. Palestine and our troops in the middle east is primarily the reason this will continue-- because it keeps the funding and hatred at a boiling point. They feel they are being colonized at gunpoint and to be honest I don't see any Arabs patrolling the streets with M-16s around here.
Does this mean that guys that strap bombs to themselves aren't crazy and we shouldn't take measures to protect ourselves? Of course not but we need to try make amends for past errors too and give these people some dignity back-- instead of putting on our stupid hats and pretending we are morally perfect. Using weapons to continue to solve problems (in a world with nukes) really sets a bad example. If we keep acting like disrespectful ***** because we have big guns, if ain't the Arabs, I'm sure someone will eventually get us and it won't be annouced..
Here is the new word for the day. D-I-P-L-O-M-A-C-Y. It's tedious and imperfect but get used to it. - rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17So lemme get this straight...
ATT's scratches the governements back.
The government scratches ATT's back..
were so screwed - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16"A great evil exist that threatens every man woman and child in this great nation.
We must take steps to ensure domestic security and protect our homeland"-- Hitler
one of the reasons i thought the name "homeland security" was such an unwise choice. - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15"Wouldn%u2019t it be in the states best interest to quash an investigation that may reveal that intelligence, and not allow the information to be released?"
If this kind of activity by the administration was isolated, sure.
But, there has a been a pattern of the executive branch gaining access to information that it didn't have before while simultaenously restricting access to itself -with no oversight-.
Given that context, what you're saying is akin to "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." - Ekstra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14At the very least people should be able to find out if their personal phone records were sent to the government. Even if we get no other details about what the information is being used for, we should have the right to know that our personal records are in government hands.
Shouldn't we be able to request this under the Freedom of Information Act? Not super secret details of the investigation, just "am I part of it or not?" .
I'm sure the big telco's would hate having to send an email to all their customers saying 'Yes, we did turn over YOUR data.' - Dgen_X, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16oh well...it was bound to happen
this all really steams my clams...everyone who talked about moving from the USA because we went to Iraq really does have a reason to do so now - rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21Why such secrecy and control? Since World Trade Center 7 blew up, (the 47-story steel building that wasn't hit by a plane, and wasn't in the path of falling debris), there has been a media blackout -- 99% of Americans haven't heard of it. The government would have to answer why, who set the charges, and when.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html and
http://www.wtc7.net - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14An employee of the NSA was recently busted for soliciting a child for sex. Knowing they have very lax screening proccess for employees would you allow a known pediphile track your daughters calls, get to know her netowrk of friends, get to know where she hangs out and what she does?
This year many members of congress have been indicted as well as members of the bush admin, it is amazing the trust people put in people they dont even know.
The only valid question here
"Can this be abused?"
and if so it requires oversite.. end of story.. Doesnt matter if the pope was in charge.. This is america and this is how we do things. All the national security fear mongering, all the if alquaida is callling we want to know BS is moot untill you answer that one question. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13lol good luck hope you can find a paper ballot
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12i do think the bush admin are a bunch guys who have lived above the law all their lives. they take it for granted. personally, i think the entire bush family asset should be confiscated and used to help fix all the things he has broken and to pay some compensation to the families of those who were killed in iraq.
i do know something about the type of statistics that might used. it just makes sense that it some sort of analysis of variance. ANOVA. while it can be used for bad... it could also provide info that isn't necessarily going to hurt anyone. it simply looks at all the phone numbers and says when this call is made these other phone numbers do something that correlates with it. it could be very valuable. if used only to catch terrorists. i question if my definition of terrorist is the same as theirs.
the problem is see is that this administration doesn't seem know when to stop. if you throw emails... and other electronic data collected in as variables... it gets to be less about terrorists and more about americans. also an ANOVA or whatever doesn't put a terrorist label on it. its just variables that correlate. also the data becomes less useful as time goes by.
what the information could also be used for would be maybe... gerrymandering like they did in Texas to ensure republican wins.
bottom line... if clinton had done this... he would likely have been honest about it. and the conservatives would be all over it. bush has shown NO tendency towards honesty. everything about him is questionable from his election to making us targets of terrorist... to creating easy ways for terrorist to enter the country with weapons... to promoting wwIII in the middle east.
i hope we nail him. i hope he has to answer for his crimes. i hope he has to come face to face with the families of soldiers that have died in a war based on lies. it scares me to think that elite military people are speaking out against him. what do they know that we don't? what do they think that we haven't. why does the 27 year veteran of the CIA that was trusted to brief his dad... have to resort to ambushing rumsfeld at a press breifing.
something seriously stinks. - taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11no one is willing to believe that it was an inside job, despite the evidence that it was. Despite the fact that 8 of the suspected hijackers where found alive in other countries. Despite the fact that none of the physics match up to pentagon. the official story doesn't make sense if truly looked into.
I dont know who on the inside knew, but somebody did. Those towers fell from internal explosions. cordite was used on the pentagon.
its sad to say, but it should be said. - autobahn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10This is hilarious. I can't wait to vote this administration and the republicants out of office.
I can't believe that people actually still swallow the "national security" "we doing it to fight dem terrists!" BS pill. - volcompimp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9If the Democrats can't win the coming elections off this and the billion other issues they can easilly hold against this administration, they are the stupidest mother ***** alive.
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8> were all the AT&T people who had access to the collected data and the systems that collected it provided with the proper security clearances (and given the required background checks)?
Even if they were, what's stopping the DOJ lawyers from being provided with security clearance and given background checks? There's *nothing* that makes the AT&T employees any more trustable than DOJ lawyers. - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"i do think the bush admin are a bunch guys who have lived above the law all their lives. they take it for granted. personally, i think the entire bush family asset should be confiscated and used to help fix all the things he has broken and to pay some compensation to the families of those who were killed in iraq."
Bushes breaking the law runs in the family.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22prescott+bush%22+prohibition - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Your country is a dictatorship...
noone ever said the public wouldn't enjoy having a dictator, or even vote for him (even if it is out of fear)
Just be aware that it *is* possible to have a dictatorship *and* a democracy at the same time. You're not free just cause you get to punch holes in a card and vote for the conservative left or the conservative right every now and then. - ekkridon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Seldom have I been happier to live in Canada. Actions that violate the consitution and legal declarations that such an assertion cannot be tried in court because the evidence required to proceed is secret are frightening to say the least. It it a governrnent of the people and by the people and only lastly FOR the people and as such the big brother governement-knows-best attitude is a frightening attack on the transparency of a democratic system.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Yep, I wore a tank top just yesterday.
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7> breakfastpants' response to Bogtha: "Not to rain on your *****, but corporate employees can get security clearances. *gasp*"
Although delivered to Bogtha in a somewhat insulting fashion, your point is correct. But this brings up an important point: were all the AT&T people who had access to the collected data and the systems that collected it provided with the proper security clearances (and given the required background checks)?
If not, then not only might this be a questionable practice but at the very least, by any reasonable standard, it sure takes the air out of Capta1nA's "DOJ lawyers don't have high enough security clearance" argument. - ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Before the main two towers fell, the more significant fires on each of them had already been analysed and strategies devised to put them out. They were not hot enough to cause structural collapse. If they were, the firefighters who were up there devising the strategy would not have been able to get close enough to analyse the fire and develop such a strategy. None of the buildings that fell on that day could have fallen any other way than a controlled demolition. Before the administration started putting pressure on, that's what all the experts in the field said.
- zengonzo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9
If all the people who objected to such things were to simply split, what would that leave? - taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Who said it was Bush? All I said was that it was an inside job. In reality Bush was probably deliberately kept out of any loop of this conversation. The evidence does not suggest that it was jet fuel fire that made these towers fall.
The building simply didn't fall right for it to have been caused by fire on the upper level of the building. That would not have caused the building to fall straight down.
The firefighters of that day saw the buildings fall and said it looked like a controlled demolition.
If you watch the videos of it you can see the demolition charges being set off. (slow your video down and watch it.)
The Molten lead AT THE BOTTOM SUPPORT for the tower could not have been physically possible to the jet fuel fire.
most of the jet fuel exploded on impact to the tower - outside the tower - not inside the tower.
The firefighter radio records have the Chief Firefighter in the floor of the jet fuel explosion saying that it could easily be put out with two lines. There is no way he could have even reached the floor if the fire were of the intensity to destroy the building.
Even if WTC 7 had been hit be debris, it would not have imploded on itself in the manner that it did and there was also molten lead at the base of this building that had damaged its structural integrity. That could not have happened from the way our government tells us it happened.
The firefighters describe multiple explosions, as though someone was setting of charges.
The evidence simply points to an inside demolition.
Watch this video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change
it only adds up one way. and you wont like the sum. - revolution1x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6According to some conspiracy theories, one of the main reasons for the NSA spying (especially on the Internet) is to locate and identify the dissidents (activists, whistleblowers, people opposing their schemes, people trying to wake people up, etc), that is, those they don't want to have around in the "New World Order" (world domination efforts overseen by an elite group of people, apparently involving Rothschild family members at the top of the chain of command, among some others), and that they are supposedly planning another 'fake' terrorist attack (aka false-flag terrorism) to declare martial law in the U.S. and eventually send those dissidents to FEMA concentration camps... If that stuff is true, I hope we'll wake up before it's too late.
- psyon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Not that I agree with the idea, but if you are compensating anyone, give it to the families of people were were drafted and died in Vietnam. Everyone that died in Iraq volunteered to be in the military.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@lordzer0
Just so I understand your point correctly... are you saying you disagree with Bush but also disagree with Clinton's actions in this regard? (because if so I completely agree with you and all the other Presidents that have slowly turned America into a surveillnace state)
However if you are going to say Clinton was a numbnut and Bush is herioc for doing things far worse--- then you are just another Republinazi willing to give up your freedoms for "the great leader" rather than admit you made a mistake voting for the dude. - kualla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6...so what does it take to get an impeachment vote started???
- ChildeRoland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I just retired from AT&T (during the merger with SBC) and I'm ashamed of my old company.
But -- I'm not surprised that Ed Whitacre rolled over for the government. I'm just glad he wasn't leading the troops at the Alamo, or we'd be going through customs as we went into Tejas. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4 Only if you can afford them, and the way gasoline prices, food, and clothing are rising at record speeds, combined with a low minimum wage which most of the citizens receive, firearms are not affordable by the majority of our citizens, and most of those that do have them are either law enforcement, the gestapo, or criminals.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ lordzer0
Then how does attacking Clinton add anything to this debate then? You seem like your just trying to protect Bush and I called you out. If not answer the simple question... Would Clinton be bad and Bush good for using surveillance on Americans?
Dude, I don't hate all Republicans but the arrogant Neo-Con "American century" Randroid types--- all gotta go next election. Way too much sneaky sh~t going on and in case you didn't notice the underlying philosophy is "I only care about myself". Don't you think Katrina proved that they don't really care about Americans? They'do EXACTLY what is in their "personal" interests.. not the publics interests. They just finished telling you that's what they believe.
And in case you haven't noticed we are far LESS secure today then when Bush took office. (despite the huge hole he's created in the public coffers) All that guy is good for is blowing sh~t up, removing civil liberties, making enemies--- and rhetoric speeches about "freedom" that he obviously has no respect for. I personally think the Democrats are pussies for not trying to impeach him.
Politics aside though, his approach obviously doesn't work against an adversary this big and distributed.
(read long post above for some constructive alternatives) - PoorYorick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If the government can use this technology to find terrorists, can they use it to find the people who are leaking information about this and other programs?
What gets me about this and the eavesdropping program is not what it finds, but what it deters. We need whistleblowers in this country. They keep corruption at bay. If this program is allowed to continue, and you know about corporate or government wrongdoing, are you more or less likely to call your local journalist? - there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ekkridon
I wouldn't me so glad if I were you.
The NSA might do some unconstitutional spying on Americans but I'll guarantee you Canada is a complete open book to them--- with dossiers on everyone. The have their man in Ottawa now right? Doesn't take much effort to send him over your folder.
~ for the archives - mauriceh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Bear in mind I am a Canadian, but:
You *still* have the right to bear arms, correct? - there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5lordzer0
---
"You do realize that you're digging (ha ha) yourself in a very deep hole."
---
I'm not the one who's in the hole. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm.
---
"CellPhoneRecords.com"
---
Cellphones.com can't come into my home and arrest me for talking "subversively".
---
"But to answer your question--of course not. Without a warrant, court order, or 'other legal authorization', (thank you Clinton) it's legally unacceptable to intercept phone calls between American citizens. Period."
---
That's first thing you've said that sounds like an adminission government surveillance is a bad thing (although I don't think you understand Calea requires a warrant and Bush isn't getting them for what he's doing)
http://www.askcalea.net/faqs.html
As for ECHELON, technically it's for overseas calling. However considering the nature of the Internet is seems clear it is a bad idea (at least as far as I'm concerned) What the goverment should be focusing on is gathering info from specific targets and highly sensitive areas..... not trolling all worlds' data (including America). It didn't help against 9/11 did it?
---
"Is it acceptable for Clinton to do it, but not Bush?"
---
I already answered that question. NO. Here let me answer it again NO. One more time NO. Digg was not around when Clinton was putting bigger hooks into us for you to hear me yelling out then too. But you telling me you have no evidence Bush is spying on Americans?
THOUSANDS of news articles, NSA employees that have come forward, ATT&T employees telling of secret NSA rooms, General Hayden and Bush himself admitting it themselves (but according to them limited and legal,,,what else are they going to say?)..
This all tells me you are reallly deep into the cult worship aspect of politics.
Bro, honestly I feel bad for you, because you're in utter denial. The next few years are going to be tough as more info comes out on global warming and how massive the debt is (so they can point at Democrats for raising taxes to pay for their wasteful spending). And when the Democrats win the next election and probably congress too, they'll be able to talk to the NSA guy and figure out exactly all the Bush cronies were doing.... and it ain't going to pretty when you are on the other end of that.
"We the People..." are not here to serve any of these wannabe highschool class presidents. They are simply a convenience. We don't want ANY government with this kind of power because that will make them OUR bosses. Surely as a rightwinger you can understand that?
I can only hope when the Democrats are in power that you yell as loudly as I have to protect your civil liberties. Trust me..... I'll still be yelling and not letting up--- until I see laws and controls in place because I know they'll keep going if no one speaks out against it.
At one point... income tax was a "temporary" war time measure too. - ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The demise of your nation as you know it is already a foregone conclusion. You cannot vote your oppressors out anymore; they will not allow it. You cannot stave off the tide of their big government. You thought liberal big government was going to be bad, you have no idea what conservative big government means for you and your everyday lives.
The next few years are going to be very important in deciding the future of your nation and the constitution you apparently hold dear (despite not being prepared to defend it). Your constitution was built to protect you from the eventuality of your government, and you expect your government to be self-denying and guard the constitution for you, so that you have to time to catch up on your soaps and your Monday Night Football. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. Citizenry is not something to take lightly.
Right now, you either fight or die. Whether by sword or by voice, that's a decision someone is going to have to make within the next two years. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And as usual, one hand watches the other. It's like those con artists on the streets where you get to pick which cup the coin is under.
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@pabster
You may want to try getting a clue before spouting ignorant assertions next time. Here's a place for you to start learning about the monitoring of domestic phone calls by the NSA.
http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&q=nsa+domestic+calls&btnG=Google+Search
Yes domestic. And it's all over the news. But hey, perhaps not if you only watch Fox/Bush - news. - there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Like a typical Republican you conveniently leave out facts.
Template C --- "Media now discovers government has gone too far with surveillance" - PsyX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not that they're more trust worthy, but rather that they make great scapegoats :)
- genmud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What is horrible is that I am probably less than 50 feet from some of that hardware that mines the data :-(
I am currently in an AT&T datacenter -
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is