The Patriot Act May Be Dead Forever

The PATRIOT Act had nothing to do with 9/11 or fighting terrorism to begin with. It was simply a grab-bag of items law enforcement had wanted for years and was never going to get. But, opportunists saw the towers go down and it was in front of lawmakers and signed a month and a half later.

This isn't conspiracy nut talking, either. That's a direct summary of a quote of a top-level FBI agent in charge of monitoring terror finance.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Clapper lied under oath, ex director Alexander had investments from information appropriated from Chinese hackers. these are the men at the top.

They don't give two shits about the values of the country they purport to serve. NSA following the law is like DEA civil asset forfeiture following the law; they have the paperwork but it is completely unethical.

Patriots, my ass.
Click to expand...

Clapper lied under oath? Clapper wasn't allowed to answer that question truthfully. You can bandy all you want that he could have put it off but the truth is the entire question was a setup, Clapper just fell for it, doesn't mean he was duplicitous, just dumb.

I don't know what your talking about with Alexander, maybe a link if it's not too much trouble.

Making comparisons between the NSA activities and Law Enforcement Agencies is apples and oranges, they are not even in the same league. Might as well compare High School with Annapolis.

The real truth is you just care as long as it doesn't rock your belief system. You believe they are all out to get you and if you ever had to face up to the fact that they don't even know you exist it would crush you.

It's OK, I understand, the world needs needy people just like it needs all the other types. I took classes on Diversity and Sensitivity.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Being legal doesn't make it right. Yes, they are following the law as it's written. But, the law needs changed. That's what they are working on now. lcpiper has gone on how legal it is, and he's correct. They aren't breaking the law. It's just a really shitty way of doing things.
Click to expand...

I agree on all points.

And to further on aardvark sandwich's mentioning of Clapper and Alexander, frankly, if I had been their Boss I would have fired both of them for the fucked up way they handled this entire issue.

Over 10 years ago when William Binney became concerned that the Agency was violating the law, instead of ignoring the man they should have listened to his concerns and brought him in and briefed him on the program. The man should not have been left in an ethical and moral quandary so complete that he threw away his career and retirement over it. Doing this to him was unconscionably shitty. Because they left him in the wind to twist, He went whistle-blower and became a major influence for Snowden and we know what that has brought us to. A great deal of what we are going through today is because they treated a good guy like William Binney like a mushroom when he was having a real problem with what He thought was happening. He deserved better treatment then that.
 
lcpiper said:
Clapper lied under oath? Clapper wasn't allowed to answer that question truthfully. You can bandy all you want that he could have put it off but the truth is the entire question was a setup, Clapper just fell for it, doesn't mean he was duplicitous, just dumb.

I don't know what your talking about with Alexander, maybe a link if it's not too much trouble.

Making comparisons between the NSA activities and Law Enforcement Agencies is apples and oranges, they are not even in the same league. Might as well compare High School with Annapolis.

The real truth is you just care as long as it doesn't rock your belief system. You believe they are all out to get you and if you ever had to face up to the fact that they don't even know you exist it would crush you.

It's OK, I understand, the world needs needy people just like it needs all the other types. I took classes on Diversity and Sensitivity.
Click to expand...

I like how in one comment you give a complete cop-out to lying under congressional oath to calling someone else sensitive.
 
Phoenix333 said:
Just how do you go about proving that?


I never said intelligence activities were unnecessary. Spying on every citizen's activities 24/7 is what is unnecessary. That's what people are afraid is happening, and knowing the history of abuses on the part of the Federal Government, it's a justified fear. Remember how this country was founded, and the attitude of the Founders: Government is not to be trusted.


Thank you Captain Obvious. I really needed that refresher on Intel 101. :rolleyes:

My problem is with the Federal Government treating its own citizenry as if it's the enemy, while ignoring the real threats. If you think I'm wrong, get back to me on how that border fence is coming along, and the number of Al Qaida and ISIS operatives that have been kept from crossing and infiltrating the country. All the wire tapping in the world doesn't mean shit if you leave the fucking front door open.



Uh-huh. Then explain how shit like this happens:

http://freebeacon.com/issues/congre...-facility-housing-illegal-immigrant-children/

The last I checked, HHS doesn't "officially" engage in classified activity.... yet I'm supposed to believe that the NSA does everything above-board when the freaking HHS can bar a congressman in his own district from visiting the facility?

If you wonder why people refuse to believe you it's because they have absolutely no good reason to. You can't provide any evidence because, as you said, it's all classified, so that means people have to rely on the word of the people that are allowed to see it. Well, in the case of Rep. Bridenstine, there's no word to give because even he wasn't allowed to see what wasn't even classified. As for the people that are allowed... do you honestly expect anyone to believe a word Obama says? He's the one with the top clearance, and he is a proven liar over and over.

Just who are people supposed to trust, hmm? The President? The Senate Intelligence Committee? Now there's a contradiction in terms. You? Ever hear of Fast and Furious? The BATFE got caught red handed breaking the law, and the US Attorney General had his fingerprints all over it. How about the IRS and Lois Lerner? Now explain why anyone should accept your word that nobody in the NSA is breaking any laws if other Federal agencies have already been caught either breaking laws or failing to enforce them. YOU claim to work for government intelligence, so the burden of proof here is on YOU. YOU provide proof that everything is above-board, and then I might believe you. Right now I have zero reason to believe any of your overtures of reassurance that the NSA is acting lawfully and with no malice toward the American people.
Click to expand...

I do not understand how you even entertain the simple concept that Employees for HHS are even remotely like employees at the NSA. Man you have no concept at all.

First of all, most of those HHS Employees wouldn't make it in the door to be a janitor at the NSA. Second, most of the people working for the NSA are actually Activive Duty Military. They are Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen who are on assignment there. I missed an assignment to Ft. Mead in 1983 because I extended my current tour in Korea so I could marry my wife.

You are right, the HHS isn't doing any classified work, so their people only go through the most basic of National Agency checks for employment, they are not particularly skilled, they are not predominantly Active Duty servicemen. The civilian employees do not mostly come from a Military Service background. They are not an organization that takes an oath to;
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Click to expand...

And I can not verify that anything in the article you linked to is accurate. I can't say the writer exaggerated when he claimed that HHS "forbade" the congressman access. Chances are it's more like the guy said you have to make an appoint cause I want to be there when you show up. The "three weeks" part could also just be exaggeration. I can tell you something, if I were a US Representative and wanted to visit a Federal Facility nobody would be telling me I couldn't go, not and keep their job. Would You?

As for Fast and Furious and all that shit, I have no doubt what so ever that these people don't want to take responsibility for their fuck ups. That's what Hillery Clintons email server is all about. these entitled self servicing assholes at the top will do anything to avoid being held accountable when they fuck up. But I don't buy into the grand government conspiracy bullshit. These people are just incompetent and will do anything to avoid being held accountable.

But you have to understand something, and this is why I love William Binney, He is a perfect example of an awesome NSA Employee, moral and ethical and courageous to the bone. He did what was right, He fought for what He believed was right. He sacrificed his own future, and He isn't a young man. What is amazing about William Binney, I know hundreds just like him. He isn't even rare, in fact, it's harder to find people that don't measure up then it is to find others like him. What made William Binney stand out was that He was more directly involved in the software development of the program's code so He knew more about how it worked and the risks against unlawful activity if His code didn't have the proper safeguards that He had developed. He had a more personal stake, if something wrong was being done it was being done with "His Code", his responsibility.

So if you have an organization with thousands like this man, what makes you think anyone can get away with subverting it even if they are the "boss". Who sits at the top don't mean shit down where things happen. Down there things are done right or they are not done. And yes, there are always those few that are bad, we saw them in the news as well, like 15 or so out of 40,000+ employees, and some of those turned themselves in or admitted under polygraph, or were caught immediately and fired. Hell, only one got to keep Her job as every single one that willfully broke the rules was terminated or quit before they could be fired. You could not ask for a tighter run ship then the NSA, really.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
I like how in one comment you give a complete cop-out to lying under congressional oath to calling someone else sensitive.
Click to expand...

First, He was NOT under oath.

Second, you know damn well He could not actually answer the question, the Congressman that asked the question also knew it couldn't be answered without divulging classified information, so it was a trap. And you are more fucking indignant about the victim falling for the trap then about the dickhead Congressman who played him. That's what I like about you.
 
TwistedAegis said:
The PATRIOT Act had nothing to do with 9/11 or fighting terrorism to begin with. It was simply a grab-bag of items law enforcement had wanted for years and was never going to get. But, opportunists saw the towers go down and it was in front of lawmakers and signed a month and a half later.

This isn't conspiracy nut talking, either. That's a direct summary of a quote of a top-level FBI agent in charge of monitoring terror finance.
Click to expand...

So an FBI Agent, who is in charge of Finance, wait .. in charge of monitoring finance. A pencil pusher right? He is an accountant for fuck's sake. He had something to do with drafting the Patriot Act? He was right there in the forefront of it all. You know it's not hard to get some little officious dickhead to say something when they want to be seen as important and really they are just a functionary.

If a writer wanted to get the lowdown on how a bill was crafted, you'd think maybe a Congressional Staffer or someone inside some committee would be a good source, but what the hell, I am sure that "a top-level FBI agent in charge of monitoring terror finance." sounds pretty damned convincing to some people.
 
lcpiper said:
First, He was NOT under oath.

Second, you know damn well He could not actually answer the question, the Congressman that asked the question also knew it couldn't be answered without divulging classified information, so it was a trap. And you are more fucking indignant about the victim falling for the trap then about the dickhead Congressman who played him. That's what I like about you.
Click to expand...

So you're okay with our elected officials lying as long as they're not under oath?

I'm not.

I would rather they be honest with us than lie about top secret information.
 
Kindly take your words out of my mouth chockomonkey :D

Neither Clapper or Alexander were elected to anything although that sleazeball Congressman, He was elected.

But that's a dodge of sorts. There is no such thing as being honest about classified information, it is illegal to divulge classified information, illegal as in go to prison illegal. This is why Snowden will certainly face Prison if He returns. In fact, you could go to prison for divulging Confidential Information, it doesn't even have to be Secret or Top Secret. And that Congressman sat on the House Intelligence Committee so He knew, He know his question required an answer that was classified and He knew Clapper could not answer the question in that setting, but He asked it anyway. It was a trap, and it worked. Clapper was stupid to answer it that way, but He would have been stupider to have answered it and divulged Classified Information. That could have ruined him. He wouldn't have gone to Prison over it, not the way it happened, but His career would have been over. I have no doubt the Congressman blindsided Clapper pretty damn good to get Clapper to lie instead of dodge it on the grounds that it was classified. Clapper fucked up but He didn't actually do anything wrong. See, You look at it as if one, this was an investigation, it wasn't. And two, your point of view is that the NSA had something illegal to hide when they didn't. So Clapper didn't lie to hide wrongdoing, He lie to protect something that was classified. That's why nothing was done to him other then the other big shots know He'd be shit in a poker game, He'll never rise any higher, His career is on the down slide.

So those are my words on it, no need for you to put your own where they don't belong ;)
 
lcpiper said:
So an FBI Agent, who is in charge of Finance, wait .. in charge of monitoring finance. A pencil pusher right? He is an accountant for fuck's sake. He had something to do with drafting the Patriot Act? He was right there in the forefront of it all. You know it's not hard to get some little officious dickhead to say something when they want to be seen as important and really they are just a functionary.

If a writer wanted to get the lowdown on how a bill was crafted, you'd think maybe a Congressional Staffer or someone inside some committee would be a good source, but what the hell, I am sure that "a top-level FBI agent in charge of monitoring terror finance." sounds pretty damned convincing to some people.
Click to expand...

Ok fine, take the source out of it. You think the USA PATRIOT Act was really thoughtfully crafted, and a mere month and a half after 9/11 it's placed into law? Support the USA PATRIOT Act or not, but you can't claim that these weren't tools law enforcement had always wanted anyway, and simply rode the 9/11 horse to get them in place.

Hell, the lone wolf provision has never even been used, supposedly, yet they're still fighting to keep it in.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Ok fine, take the source out of it. You think the USA PATRIOT Act was really thoughtfully crafted, and a mere month and a half after 9/11 it's placed into law? Support the USA PATRIOT Act or not, but you can't claim that these weren't tools law enforcement had always wanted anyway, and simply rode the 9/11 horse to get them in place.

Hell, the lone wolf provision has never even been used, supposedly, yet they're still fighting to keep it in.
Click to expand...

No, this is what I think of the Patriot Act, I said it here;
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041636143&postcount=85
hen Congress Passed the Patriot Act I had concerns but I decided that as long as we still maintained the power to undo it, then it was a risk worth taking. Over ten years has passed and I see nothing wrong with letting the Patriot Act expire, it was a hasty piece of legislation. We have had more then enough time to revisit that Bill, remake it into something that works well given all the things we have learned in the meantime.
Click to expand...

And, just to be clear, I think I am frequently correct.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/02/legislation-to-resume-overhaul-nsa-surveillance-clears-key-senate-hurdle/

The USA Freedom Act would:

Resume the NSA data collection program, but only for a transition period of six months. After that, the legislation would no longer allow the NSA to sweep up Americans' records in bulk. Instead, it would leave the records with phone companies and give the government the ability to seek access with a warrant.

Continue other post-9/11 surveillance provisions that also lapsed Sunday night. These include the FBI's authority to gather business records in terrorism and espionage investigations and to more easily eavesdrop on suspects who are discarding cellphones to avoid surveillance.

Create a panel to provide the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court with guidance on privacy and civil liberties matters.

Increase transparency for the surveillance court's decisions.
Click to expand...
 
lcpiper said:
First, He was NOT under oath.

Second, you know damn well He could not actually answer the question, the Congressman that asked the question also knew it couldn't be answered without divulging classified information, so it was a trap. And you are more fucking indignant about the victim falling for the trap then about the dickhead Congressman who played him. That's what I like about you.
Click to expand...

yeah....you're not sensitive :D
 
anyone ever notice that the NSA gurus enthusiastically fault the character of the Snowdens and the Ellsbergs, but completely lower that bar for active personnel?

Fun to watch.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
anyone ever notice that the NSA gurus enthusiastically fault the character of the Snowdens and the Ellsbergs, but completely lower that bar for active personnel?

Fun to watch.
Click to expand...

Does William Binney fall into the same category?

No, I don't know much about the Ellsbergs, Binney is OK, Snowden on the other hand is, well He needs His day in court.

I know He is some sort of hero for alot of people. But to me He is low. I think He has been a liar all his life. I think He cheated his way into His jobs and that when they caught onto Him He bailed with the goods. I think that He has caused far more damage then anything good He has brought about.

He didn't really even expose the Meta-Data program, Binney did that years before. Snowden did bring proof tho. But along with that Snowden has released enough other information, information that has nothing at all to do with programs directed against Americans and the damage He has caused is really bad. Others don't see that, others don't realize what that means. They don't think how that ties in with what Russia and China are doing and they make sarcastic cute remarks "the bad terrorists are going to kill us all....", but they don't imagine it had an impact on how many Ukrainians are dead or How we are having a tougher time with ISIS. No, people can't possibly be dieing because of something Snowden released that should not have been known.
 
lcpiper said:
Snowden has released enough other information, information that has nothing at all to do with programs directed against Americans and the damage He has caused is really bad. Others don't see that, others don't realize what that means. They don't think how that ties in with what Russia and China are doing and they make sarcastic cute remarks "the bad terrorists are going to kill us all....", but they don't imagine it had an impact on how many Ukrainians are dead or How we are having a tougher time with ISIS.
Click to expand...

Is there proof of any of this?
 
Skripka said:
So long as you're not under oath, it is perfectly acceptable to lie through your teeth to government regulators. Didn't you know?

Icpiper land must be a fun place.
Click to expand...

Skripka, if I knew your real name was Thomas, (honest it was just a guess), and I asked you your real name, and you knew that I already knew your real name but I am sworn under oath to protect classified information and your real name is classified, then would you call it a lie if I said your name was Gorge?

Would you say it was a lie, but I had no choice, that I had to lie. That the oath to protect classified information is higher then the requirement to answer questions from a man who already knows the answer to what he asks?

I think your insistence to cry foul is foolish in light of the entire situation. That standing on your moral high ground is petty at the least. And truth be told, the fact that others with the Power and Authority to punish him for it did nothing says that I am not alone.

It shouldn't have happened, the Congressman was way out of bounds with that grandstanding stunt and you know what, We haven't heard anything from that wise ass since have we? Clapper did answer stupidly but it didn't make him a criminal, it just made him human.
 
lcpiper said:
Skripka, if I knew your real name was Thomas, (honest it was just a guess), and I asked you your real name, and you knew that I already knew your real name but I am sworn under oath to protect classified information and your real name is classified, then would you call it a lie if I said your name was Gorge?
Click to expand...

That situation doesn't require a lie; you can simply state that conflicting oaths binding you do not allow you to answer the question in this venue as the answer is classified.
 
lcpiper said:
Does William Binney fall into the same category?

No, I don't know much about the Ellsbergs, Binney is OK, Snowden on the other hand is, well He needs His day in court.

I know He is some sort of hero for alot of people. But to me He is low. I think He has been a liar all his life. I think He cheated his way into His jobs and that when they caught onto Him He bailed with the goods. I think that He has caused far more damage then anything good He has brought about.
Click to expand...

What's with all the capitalized He's and His's?
 
chockomonkey said:
Is there proof of any of this?
Click to expand...

s there proof He released information that had nothing to do with activities directed against US Persons? Absolutely, I remember some where the writer specifically stated that a certain program was only being used overseas and not in the US but most of the authors just run right past that distinction and release the good stuff without this caveat relying on the attentive US Citizens to assume the worst and not question the import.

As for proof of the effects?

Why is it Russia and China are so bold? Neither has pulled the kind of shit they are doing now in over 30 years and all of a sudden they have no fear. Maybe it's just because Obama is weak but maybe it's because they can pull off things before we can figure out what they are planning and engineer ways to sidetrack them.

You know there are many ways to keep an aggressive adversary in his place. When he needs/wants oil and is eye balling a neighbor you can offer a trade deal. When He looks at sideways at another country you can hold Joint Training Exercises and maybe put up a small liaison base that just happens to be in the path of attack. All I am saying is that there are many ways to distract and occupy someone when you know their plans and that is what the DoD Intelligence Community is all about. Knowing what other countries can do, what they are doing, and what they are likely to do.
 
lcpiper said:
Skripka, if I knew your real name was Thomas, (honest it was just a guess), and I asked you your real name, and you knew that I already knew your real name but I am sworn under oath to protect classified information and your real name is classified, then would you call it a lie if I said your name was Gorge?

Would you say it was a lie, but I had no choice, that I had to lie. That the oath to protect classified information is higher then the requirement to answer questions from a man who already knows the answer to what he asks?

I think your insistence to cry foul is foolish in light of the entire situation. That standing on your moral high ground is petty at the least. And truth be told, the fact that others with the Power and Authority to punish him for it did nothing says that I am not alone.

It shouldn't have happened, the Congressman was way out of bounds with that grandstanding stunt and you know what, We haven't heard anything from that wise ass since have we? Clapper did answer stupidly but it didn't make him a criminal, it just made him human.
Click to expand...

If we accept your premise, you should have no problem with a congress person grandstanding since that is their Job.;)

Asking questions was just part of their Job, therefore they did nothing wrong. She can't help it if there are programs going on, her Job was to ask questions to the person presented to Congress, which happened to be Clapper.
 
TwistedAegis said:
That situation doesn't require a lie; you can simply state that conflicting oaths binding you do not allow you to answer the question in this venue as the answer is classified.
Click to expand...

Right, that is the best answer. I agree completely. Well, except for the conflicting oaths part. there were no conflicting oaths as Clapper was under one oath only, to protect the classified information. He was not under oath when he was questioned.
 
lcpiper said:
These people are just incompetent and will do anything to avoid being held accountable.
Click to expand...
Accountability is what people want. It's what people are not getting. If one agency is not being held accountable, and there's this level of incompetence, then it's reasonable to assume there's incompetence at any level in any agency.

So if you have an organization with thousands like this man, what makes you think anyone can get away with subverting it even if they are the "boss". Who sits at the top don't mean shit down where things happen.
Click to expand...
That is the most ridiculous logical fallacy I've ever heard, and how do you know personally that this organization has thousands like this person? You don't. You can't, unless you're one of the bosses, and if you are, why would you be praising underlings that buck their superiors?. Of course who's at the top matters. If it didn't then the chain of command is useless, or else the people under the chain of command are disobeying orders. So you have the choice of a breakdown of order or a lack of discipline and dissension in the ranks. Either way it's a lose-lose.

You could not ask for a tighter run ship then the NSA, really.
Click to expand...
So you're saying the agency that's spying on US citizens is the most efficiently and effectively run agency in the government. What a lovely reassurance that is, especially after what you just said about NSA workers ignoring their superiors. I'll tell you something about ships. The captain gives the orders, and there's a word for when sailors disobey the captain: Mutiny. On land we call it treason. Of course... if someone gives an illegal order then you're right to disobey it, but then, that wouldn't be a very tight ship would it? The duty of the person in that situation is to blow the whistle on the treason of the one(s) above them that are giving the illegal orders, otherwise they're complicit and have violated any oath(s) they have taken to uphold the Constitution. So let me make this clear: If your bosses give you illegal orders and you don't report it to the American people and expose it, you're complicit in an act of treason. If your bosses give you orders that are legal that you dislike and you choose to disobey them, then you're guilty of treason. Of course, that's assuming you're not just flat out lying about how the agency is run... but if what you said is true, based on your own words, someone in the NSA is committing treason and the fact that nobody's blowing the whistle on it means people that know it's going on are allowing it, which violates any oath to defend the Constitution... which again is treason.

Either way... you still failed to prove anything while offering the usual platitudes. "Trust us! We're from the government and we'll never violate your rights! Honest!" I'll believe Joe Isuzu before I'll believe that. It seems to me that the only thing you're here for is to be the NSA's spokesman on [H]ardOCP's message board. I wonder how much of what gets posted here isn't part of some assignment to analyze what people say and think. Post propaganda, then analyze responses. That is the NSA's job, after all, is to gather information, and a tech enthusiast site is fertile ground for finding intelligent and free-thinking troublemakers. You're probably analyzing everything I write to determine if I'm one of those home-grown radicals or something, hmm? Got all sorts of statistical data plugged into some kind of threat-analysis program for people that won't buy into the bull, to see how "dangerous" I am? Now wouldn't that be ironic if that were the case. I know you'd never admit to it if it were, but the idea of one of your targets for analyzing you and doing a better job of it strikes me as incredibly funny.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
If we accept your premise, you should have no problem with a congress person grandstanding since that is their Job.;)

Asking questions was just part of their Job, therefore they did nothing wrong. She can't help it if there are programs going on, her Job was to ask questions to the person presented to Congress, which happened to be Clapper.
Click to expand...

Better get back to He and His....
Last year at a hearing on surveillance, Sen. Ron Wyden asked Clapper whether the NSA collected "any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans” — to which Clapper said "No, sir ... not wittingly.”
Click to expand...

Darrell Issa wasn't the one asking his questions and by the way, the exact question was this;
Last year at a hearing on surveillance, Sen. Ron Wyden asked Clapper whether the NSA collected "any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans” — to which Clapper said "No, sir ... not wittingly.”
Click to expand...

What if the number wasn't millions or hundreds of millions, what if the answer was 900,000? Then Clapper's answer wouldn't be a lie now would it?

And let's go out there. If I collect data, say the Census Bureau does it's statistics on the population every year or the CDC does statistics on people effected by diseases, etc. Is this collecting data on Americans? If you don't know who you are collecting the data on, I mean which data belongs to who, then are you actually violating someone's privacy?

Where I am going is this, straight up, ask yourself this one question. If the Meta-Data collected by the NSA is in fact stored in a database that is not connected to any other database and not accessible to anyone but the NSA, and there is no way for them to know who's information belongs to who. And the only way your number could become something they would pull and start looking into is if you had been in contact with the bad guys, (within 2 hops as they say). And even then, for them to pull your number and request details from your carrier that they would first have to get a Court Order to pull it and as soon as they know that your number belongs to an American they have to go back to a Judge again and get a warrant, otherwise they have to destroy what your provider gave them. Is that reasonable protection of your privacy.

I know there are a lot of ifs, but everyone else uses the same ifs for the other part of the argument.
 
Might as well get clear on this "under oath" fiction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/james-clappers-least-untruthful-statement-to-the-senate/2013/06/11/e50677a8-d2d8-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_blog.html

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-Ore.): “This is for you, Director Clapper, again on the surveillance front. And I hope we can do this in just a yes or no answer because I know Senator Feinstein wants to move on. Last summer, the NSA director was at a conference, and he was asked a question about the NSA surveillance of Americans. He replied, and I quote here, ‘The story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.’

“The reason I’m asking the question is, having served on the committee now for a dozen years, I don’t really know what a dossier is in this context. So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”
Click to expand...
 
lcpiper said:
Where I am going is this, straight up, ask yourself this one question. If the Meta-Data collected by the NSA is in fact stored in a database that is not connected to any other database and not accessible to anyone but the NSA, and there is no way for them to know who's information belongs to who. And the only way your number could become something they would pull and start looking into is if you had been in contact with the bad guys, (within 2 hops as they say). And even then, for them to pull your number and request details from your carrier that they would first have to get a Court Order to pull it and as soon as they know that your number belongs to an American they have to go back to a Judge again and get a warrant, otherwise they have to destroy what your provider gave them. Is that reasonable protection of your privacy.

I know there are a lot of ifs, but everyone else uses the same ifs for the other part of the argument.
Click to expand...

Yes that sounds reasonable. The chance of abuse is still there, but honestly it's been there for awhile, even before bulk data collection. You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. You cant let a handful of fuckwads ruin it for the rest of us.

Well, you can actually, and that happens all the time. But it's a trend i'd like to see stop.
 
You know what, the more and more I dig into this and read it, the clearer it becomes.

I must appologize :eek:

It becomes plain to me that I have misunderstood and that I am mistaken. Clapper was under oath during this questioning.
 
Boston terror suspect plotted to behead police officers shot. See, look what that idiot did by shutting down these departments. It could have been worse...
 
Phoenix333 said:
Accountability is what people want. It's what people are not getting. If one agency is not being held accountable, and there's this level of incompetence, then it's reasonable to assume there's incompetence at any level in any agency.


That is the most ridiculous logical fallacy I've ever heard, and how do you know personally that this organization has thousands like this person? You don't. You can't, unless you're one of the bosses, and if you are, why would you be praising underlings that buck their superiors?. Of course who's at the top matters. If it didn't then the chain of command is useless, or else the people under the chain of command are disobeying orders. So you have the choice of a breakdown of order or a lack of discipline and dissension in the ranks. Either way it's a lose-lose.


So you're saying the agency that's spying on US citizens is the most efficiently and effectively run agency in the government. What a lovely reassurance that is, especially after what you just said about NSA workers ignoring their superiors. I'll tell you something about ships. The captain gives the orders, and there's a word for when sailors disobey the captain: Mutiny. On land we call it treason. Of course... if someone gives an illegal order then you're right to disobey it, but then, that wouldn't be a very tight ship would it? The duty of the person in that situation is to blow the whistle on the treason of the one(s) above them that are giving the illegal orders, otherwise they're complicit and have violated any oath(s) they have taken to uphold the Constitution. So let me make this clear: If your bosses give you illegal orders and you don't report it to the American people and expose it, you're complicit in an act of treason. If your bosses give you orders that are legal that you dislike and you choose to disobey them, then you're guilty of treason. Of course, that's assuming you're not just flat out lying about how the agency is run... but if what you said is true, based on your own words, someone in the NSA is committing treason and the fact that nobody's blowing the whistle on it means people that know it's going on are allowing it, which violates any oath to defend the Constitution... which again is treason.

Either way... you still failed to prove anything while offering the usual platitudes. "Trust us! We're from the government and we'll never violate your rights! Honest!" I'll believe Joe Isuzu before I'll believe that. It seems to me that the only thing you're here for is to be the NSA's spokesman on [H]ardOCP's message board. I wonder how much of what gets posted here isn't part of some assignment to analyze what people say and think. Post propaganda, then analyze responses. That is the NSA's job, after all, is to gather information, and a tech enthusiast site is fertile ground for finding intelligent and free-thinking troublemakers. You're probably analyzing everything I write to determine if I'm one of those home-grown radicals or something, hmm? Got all sorts of statistical data plugged into some kind of threat-analysis program for people that won't buy into the bull, to see how "dangerous" I am? Now wouldn't that be ironic if that were the case. I know you'd never admit to it if it were, but the idea of one of your targets for analyzing you and doing a better job of it strikes me as incredibly funny.
Click to expand...

Phoenix333, as I said before, the NSA is not the HHS or the IRS. As I said before, most of their employees are either Active Duty Military or they came from the Military. So painting this group of people with the same brush as you would the TSA for instance is just ridiculous.

As for how I know so many have the same character as William Binney, it's cause I have worked around them for decades.
 
chockomonkey said:
Yes that sounds reasonable. The chance of abuse is still there, but honestly it's been there for awhile, even before bulk data collection. You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. You cant let a handful of fuckwads ruin it for the rest of us.

Well, you can actually, and that happens all the time. But it's a trend i'd like to see stop.
Click to expand...

Well, but we have haven't we?

I mean, the most notable response by the Federal Government and the Intelligence Community in reaction to the leaked classified information;

isn't that they shut down the program, cause they actually haven't.

not that they have greatly reformed things, cause they haven't.

it's that they have instituted full scale online/digital surveillance on a subset of the American People, those who have been granted Security Clearances. This isn't meta-data, this isn't just their work email. It is everything they do from work and from home.

Smile, You are all certainly within the two hop collection radius, and are involved in collection efforts targeting .... me :rolleyes:

Sorry guys, I have become the modern digital version of Typhoid Mary :(
 
lcpiper said:
Better get back to He and His....


Darrell Issa wasn't the one asking his questions and by the way, the exact question was this;


What if the number wasn't millions or hundreds of millions, what if the answer was 900,000? Then Clapper's answer wouldn't be a lie now would it?

And let's go out there. If I collect data, say the Census Bureau does it's statistics on the population every year or the CDC does statistics on people effected by diseases, etc. Is this collecting data on Americans? If you don't know who you are collecting the data on, I mean which data belongs to who, then are you actually violating someone's privacy?

Where I am going is this, straight up, ask yourself this one question. If the Meta-Data collected by the NSA is in fact stored in a database that is not connected to any other database and not accessible to anyone but the NSA, and there is no way for them to know who's information belongs to who. And the only way your number could become something they would pull and start looking into is if you had been in contact with the bad guys, (within 2 hops as they say).
Click to expand...

Two hops is a lot. Osama talks to me. I talk to 100 people over the course of their listening. Those people talk to 100 (1 hop?) and we're at up to 10,000 people. If that's 1 hope then the next iteration means up to a million. But even one hope is insanely broad

And even then, for them to pull your number and request details from your carrier that they would first have to get a Court Order to pull it and as soon as they know that your number
Click to expand...

What prevents them from using it? Is there a machine that requires a Fisa Judge's thumb print to access those searches? If not, then it's there for the taking, and it's silly to think that people who use it. I worked for a wireless company and I know that the DB of call records was accessible by many and I saw people misuse it. But you're probably right. The NSA is made up of saints who never do anything wrong :rolleyes:

belongs to an American they have to go back to a Judge again and get a warrant, otherwise they have to destroy what your provider gave them. Is that reasonable protection of your privacy.

I know there are a lot of ifs, but everyone else uses the same ifs for the other part of the argument.
Click to expand...

Well then this change had no affect, because they still have to go to a judge....they just won't be able to access it without the order (unless they hack into the various systems...which they probably already have done).
 
Icpiper would've argued for us all to support the Quartering Acts and join the Red Coats out of fear of native savages!
 
Kueller said:
Icpiper would've argued for us all to support the Quartering Acts and join the Red Coats out of fear of native savages!
Click to expand...

I would have totally supported it. The British are really nice people and being objectionable about them charging taxes, then joining a rebellion over a buncha propaganda about it being unfair that all of a sudden, the colonies had to pay it like the rest of the empire was dumb to begin with. All it did was mess up international relations and we still ended up paying taxes, which is something rebellious libertarian/anarcharist dumb-dumbs can't figure out will happen again to them regardless of how much they rock the boat to stir up trouble. So yeah, keep complaining and you'll find out that no matter what you do, you still end up here again. It's lots smarter to try to make stuff better where and how you can within the rule of present law instead of lighting stuff on fire and screaming like a frothy-mouthed silly head that hasn't bothered to think a little about the thousands of years of human history that prove them wrong.
 
Technically the Colonists objected to not having representation.

:(

Ok, so yeah, nothing's really changed there... Anyone fancy a scone?
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I would have totally supported it. The British are really nice people and being objectionable about them charging taxes, then joining a rebellion over a buncha propaganda about it being unfair that all of a sudden, the colonies had to pay it like the rest of the empire was dumb to begin with. All it did was mess up international relations and we still ended up paying taxes, which is something rebellious libertarian/anarcharist dumb-dumbs can't figure out will happen again to them regardless of how much they rock the boat to stir up trouble. So yeah, keep complaining and you'll find out that no matter what you do, you still end up here again. It's lots smarter to try to make stuff better where and how you can within the rule of present law instead of lighting stuff on fire and screaming like a frothy-mouthed silly head that hasn't bothered to think a little about the thousands of years of human history that prove them wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, my main point was more the fear mongering...but whatever I can work with the empire angle too.

Over thousands of years of human civilization one dominant recurring theme is that of superpowers growing too large to be effectively managed, over-extending themselves militarily, becoming mired in bureaucracy and ultimately collapsing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top