Government spying on Americans

[Jmayer20]

I'm sure you have heard it before, the government spying on American citizens without a warrant. Obama and the NSA claim that this is necessary for making sure that there are no more terrorist attacks. Also many supporters of this unlawful spying say "why does this matter? If you are not doing anything wrong or illegal then why do you care if the government is spying on you? " I'm going to now explain how both arguments are weak and why we should care if the government is spying on us without a warrant.

First off the government claims it is needed to stop another terrorist attack. The NSA does not just spy on Americans that it thinks are working with terrorists like Al Qaeda. They could get a warrant for that. What the NSA does is gather up millions of e-mails, facebook info, ect. They gather as much of this information as they can and then they have people looking randomly through this information in the off chance that they happen to come across something. Unless they have a million people doing this then it is a very stupid idea.

It would be kinda like if the government hired someone to search through not just a haystack but through an entire barn full of hay for one tiny needle, while only using his/her bare hands. To make matters worse the government does not know if the needle is in this particular barn or if the needle even exists. Whats more they do not ask the farmer for permission to do any of this or even provide a warrant. So I think its safe to say the NSA's argument that it protects us from terrorists is bullshit.

Now here's why we should care if the government is spying on you. To those who say why should you care if the government is spying on you if what you are doing is not illegal, I say that you are being very naive if you think that is all the government will use this power for. Keep in mind that there are corrupt people in both the NSA and throughout the rest of the government. Even if you have not done anything illegal can you honestly say there is nothing embarrassing in your entire life that you wouldn't want the general public to know about? We all have secrets. Imagine if someone in the government came up, revealed that they knew one of your secrets and unless you did everything they wanted they would make it public. This is only one example of how people in the government could misuse this kind of power.

That's why our founding fathers created an amendment that required warrants. Because they could see how such power unchecked would be misused. Finally I would like to point out that if the government can be allowed to ignore one of our amendments then can you really be sure that all of our other freedoms and liberties are safe?

[chupacabras89]

They need to be cautious while looking for needles in haystacks because sooner or later someone is going to get poked.

[Jmayer20]

At 5/29/14 03:46 PM, chupacabras89 wrote: They need to be cautious while looking for needles in haystacks because sooner or later someone is going to get poked.

Could you please be more clear with what you are trying to say?

[orangebomb]

At 5/29/14 01:57 PM, Jmayer20 wrote:

It seems like we've been over this many times with different folks, and logical conclusions seem to go out the window, at least for most.

I'm sure you have heard it before, the government spying on American citizens without a warrant. Obama and the NSA claim that this is necessary for making sure that there are no more terrorist attacks.

Considering that we've haven't been attacked since 2001, with the exception of the Boston bombings, you can't say that they didn't do it's purpose, if you include the foiled terror attempts as well. Though, even the most advanced security measures can't stop all terror attacks, however unlikely they may be.

Also many supporters of this unlawful spying say "why does this matter? If you are not doing anything wrong or illegal then why do you care if the government is spying on you? " I'm going to now explain how both arguments are weak and why we should care if the government is spying on us without a warrant.

That's a rather solid argument actually. If you do nothing wrong, then nothing should happen to you as far as the government is concerned, though a rogue cop/officer might have something else in mind. Frankly, those who try to counter that argument either have serious skeletons in their closet, are one of those government consipiracy nut bars (think Dale Gribble) or are simply that paranoid, and often times, they go hand in hand.

It may not 100% foolproof, but then again, what is?

First off the government claims it is needed to stop another terrorist attack. The NSA does not just spy on Americans that it thinks are working with terrorists like Al Qaeda. They could get a warrant for that.

They need overwhelming proof that said person is working or supporting Al-Qaeda from afar before they can do anything on said person. How they deal with it depends on the circumstances. In other words, someone who accidentally stumbles on a terrorist website shouldn't necessarily be black-listed as a terror sympathizer, but repeated user to those websites along with giving money or support to them online is a red-flag.

What the NSA does is gather up millions of e-mails, facebook info, ect. They gather as much of this information as they can and then they have people looking randomly through this information in the off chance that they happen to come across something. Unless they have a million people doing this then it is a very stupid idea.

Which is why you should always think before you post anything on the Internet, ignorance is no excuse for stupidity, especially when anyone can take something the wrong way, and then things get messy from there. Plus, corporations have been doing this for a long time, (data mining) which is why you see so many of their advertisements in the mail, even if you never did business with them before, and no one makes much of a fuss about that.

Also 99% of the time, they really don't give a shit what you the net, with the exceptions of terrorist support and child porn. Just because the NSA gathers it up doesn't mean they're going to use it in everyday conversations.

It would be kinda like if the government hired someone to search through not just a haystack but through an entire barn full of hay for one tiny needle, while only using his/her bare hands. To make matters worse the government does not know if the needle is in this particular barn or if the needle even exists.

Expect that the needle does exist, and hay isn't exactly the Internet. These are two totally different situations with two totally different mind sets.

Whats more they do not ask the farmer for permission to do any of this or even provide a warrant. So I think its safe to say the NSA's argument that it protects us from terrorists is bullshit.

Far from it. Overbearing, possibly. Blurring the lines, you could make a theoretical case. But at the end of the day, you can't necessarily argue against the results.

Now here's why we should care if the government is spying on you. To those who say why should you care if the government is spying on you if what you are doing is not illegal, I say that you are being very naive if you think that is all the government will use this power for.

As I just said before, ignorance and stupidity should never should be used as an excuse, and you can't automatically assume that no one is looking when it comes to the Internet, even if it's a fact that 99% of the info is generally ignored by the NSA in the first place.

Keep in mind that there are corrupt people in both the NSA and throughout the rest of the government. Even if you have not done anything illegal can you honestly say there is nothing embarrassing in your entire life that you wouldn't want the general public to know about? We all have secrets.

Read previous statement above.

Imagine if someone in the government came up, revealed that they knew one of your secrets and unless you did everything they wanted they would make it public. This is only one example of how people in the government could misuse this kind of power.

What are the odds of that happening? Very low. Unless you are a criminal or likely suspect, the government isn't going to bother playing hardball with the average Joe, and even an indicative person who will try to pull something like this off without impunity is almost impossible.

That's why our founding fathers created an amendment that required warrants. Because they could see how such power unchecked would be misused. Finally I would like to point out that if the government can be allowed to ignore one of our amendments then can you really be sure that all of our other freedoms and liberties are safe?

Not this crap again, it seems like the paranoid strawman is fond of using this as a crutch as an argument.

First off, the founding fathers argument is one of the weakest points you can make because there is no way that they could've imagined something like this, which is why they made most of the Constitution vague beyond the general framework (the 2nd amendment is a dead giveaway of this) in the case of unusual or extraordinary circumstances. Second, your rights aren't exactly being threatened or slipping away any more than the terrorists could ever do by this, and the only reasons why they would come up with this is either ignorance or paranoia.

On paper, what the NSA is doing is obviously wrong, or at the very least unnerving to think about it. But once you dig deeper, you realize that not everything is what it's cracked out to be and there is a lot more to it than pissants like Alex Jones or other conspiracy folks want you to believe.

[Voltage]

the government spies on everyone, just dont do anything stupid and hopefully you wont go to prison for 20 years

[Jmayer20]

To orangebomb

Okay, there is a lot to respond to here. First off you claim that major terrorist attacks from Al Qaeda have not happened since 911 because the NSA is spying on us. This is complete and utter bullshit. There are several reasons why Al Qaeda has not done another major terrorist attack. One of the reasons is that Al Qaeda is not as strong now as it was back then. Also the fact that they managed to pull off that attack was largely dumb ass luck on their part. Suffice it to say us not getting attacked again has nothing to do with the NSA spying on us.

You then go on to say that "sure there will be corrupt people and may not 100% foolproof, but then again, what is?" Indeed it isn't perfect that is why we have warrants. The NSA is bypassing these warrants that's the problem.

You then claim that "you need over whelming proof that the person is working with Al Qaeda before you can get a warrant." Once again this is complete bullshit. If you have any rational reason to think that that person is working for Al Qaeda then it is not hard to get a search warrant and if they had overwhelming evidence then they could arrest the prick.

While I agree that it is stupid for people to put sensitive info on the internet that does not excuse what the NSA is doing. Also e-mails are often very private. The government looking at that would be like if they wiretapped your phone and started listening in on your calls.

You point out that companies do the same thing but how does this help your case. How does a company doing something wrong justify the government doing something wrong?

To my hay comparison, you say "Expect that the needle does exist, and hay isn't exactly the Internet. These are two totally different situations with two totally different mind sets." Sigh...I thought it was obvious I was making a comparison but I guess you failed to pick that up. Think of it this way. Lets say you are working for the NSA and you were randomly given a large amount of e-mails to look through out of millions of others that they have collected. Do you have any idea how insanely unlikely it would be that you or your co-workers would actually find something. You don't even know if the info that the NSA has gathered has any important info. That's why I made that comparison with that barn. You are about as likely catch a terrorist with this method as you are to find that small needle in that barn full of hay.

You then say "What are the odds of a politician coming after you" Then you imply that it is unlikely that a politicization would do something corrupt. It is true that it is very unlikely that a politicization would single you out of the rest of the population. But it is also extremely unlikely that you personally will be caught up in a terrorist attack, which is the whole point of why you want this NSA spying. As for the NSA being used for corruption there are examples. Like the Watergate scandal with Nixon.

You make the crappy argument that the founding fathers could never possibly be able to conceive of terrorism. This is partially true but not in the way you think. You see they did have terrorism back then they just didn't call it terrorism. There were people back then that murdered civilians, destroyed property, kidnapped, tortured, and did all the other things that we would now associate with terrorism.

The founding fathers did make it so that our government could change over time but to override something in the constitution or an amendment to the constitution congress needs a two thirds majority to pass an amendment to override it. Last I checked an amendment was not passed to override the one with warrants. That's why what the NSA is doing is illegal.

Finally I have made it clear that this program that the NSA is doing does not work. But lets say for the sake of argument that it did decrease the chances of another terrorist attack. Is it really worth it. If the government can ignore the amendment process in the name of our "protection" then they can do the same for any of the amendments in the name of "protection". Our ancestors risked their lives for their freedom and liberty. Our founding fathers knew when they made the declaration of independence that civilians would get caught in the crossfire and die but they did it anyways for our freedom and liberty. Yet here you are almost gleefully giving up your liberty in exchange for the false promise that by doing so the government can protect you better from the boogeyman terrorist. Well considering what our ancestors did for freedom and how easily you're willing to give it up I say that you are a coward and a wimp.

Benjamin Franklin said it best. Any society that is willing to give up a little liberty for a little safely deserves neither and will lose both.

[NewgroundsMike]

They're not just spying on Americans, they're spying on the whole fucking world. Hell, maybe they're even spying on me right now. And it really pisses me off that our politicians don't even attempt to do shit about it because it might "endanger our relations to the US". As if it was worth having good relations with a country that employs people to break our laws on our soil, to violate the rights of our citizens.

I read an article today that said, "Snowden is not a traitor, but a true patriot". I'll just leave you with this.

[orangebomb]

At 5/30/14 10:34 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: They're not just spying on Americans, they're spying on the whole fucking world. Hell, maybe they're even spying on me right now.

Like they honestly care about you or what you do in your own free time, please don't reduce yourself to a tinfoil hat wearing loony who believes in conspiracy theories outright.

And it really pisses me off that our politicians don't even attempt to do shit about it because it might "endanger our relations to the US". As if it was worth having good relations with a country that employs people to break our laws on our soil, to violate the rights of our citizens.

How exactly are we violating your rights when the actions are technically legal and you completely signed off on them? Politicians may be idiots, but they know not to piss off someone who has kicked their ass twice in war, and essentially saved their country from from being split in two by a wall. We don't break any of your laws, contrary to what Merkel bellyaches about when talking to Obama.

I read an article today that said, "Snowden is not a traitor, but a true patriot". I'll just leave you with this.

True patriots don't cower to Russia just because they snitched about something they don't like. By this logic, you must think that Bonnie and Clyde were heroes for robbing banks in the Depression, or Tookie Williams was a good guy because he made anti-gang initiatives despite being a gang member himself who was a drug abuser and gunned down 4 innocent people. You should seriously consider who you praise, lest you fall for the slippery slope when it comes to criminals.

Naïveté mixed with ignorance is a dangerous combination in real-world politics.

[Jmayer20]

At 5/30/14 11:09 AM, orangebomb wrote:
True patriots don't cower to Russia just because they snitched about something they don't like. By this logic, you must think that Bonnie and Clyde were heroes for robbing banks in the Depression, or Tookie Williams was a good guy because he made anti-gang initiatives despite being a gang member himself who was a drug abuser and gunned down 4 innocent people. You should seriously consider who you praise, lest you fall for the slippery slope when it comes to criminals.

While I agree that most of what NewgroundsMike said sounded like paranoid ranting I agree with what he said about Snowden. Snowden is a patriot that sacrificed everything for his country in order to expose the government committing wrong doing.

Onto what you said, your comparison of Snowden to dangerous violent criminals who greatly harmed society is bullshit. People like Bonnie and Clyde did not have good intentions for society as a whole. Their criminal actions were purely for selfish reasons. Snowden sacrificed everything for our country. Certainly a hell of a lot more then you ever would.

You made the claim that a true patriot would not stay in Russia, but lets look at the position that he is in. If he comes back to the States then he will be immediately arrested and locked way. He will have no chance to defend his actions before the American people even in a court because what he released is technically still top secret even though it has already been released to the general public by Snowden. But if he remains in Russia then he has a chance to argue his point to News reporters and then from there to the rest of the country. I watched the NBC interview with Snowden, he defended his actions very well and pointed out how what the NSA is doing is wrong. You really should watch that interview with Snowden.

You then go on to the whole slippery slope argument which by the way is a crappy argument. It basically goes under the premise that if you allow a minor non violent crime to happen then first you will start minor crime then everyone in society will start committing crime. Then the crimes start getting more extreme and violent. Then everyone in society loses all sense of morality. Then everyone will start to eat their own babies, raping there own children, civilization will collapse, and then humanity as a species will go extinct. Suffice it to say this is complete and utter bullshit and you call me paranoid. Word of advice, you should probably stop using the slippery slope argument because it does not work.

Finally I would like to know what your idea of an American patriot is because it seems to me that you think a patriot should just mindlessly follow the government and NEVER question what the government is doing.

[NewgroundsMike]

At 5/30/14 11:09 AM, orangebomb wrote: Like they honestly care about you or what you do in your own free time, please don't reduce yourself to a tinfoil hat wearing loony who believes in conspiracy theories outright.

They do collect a lot of stuff that they don't care about, they just do it because they can. Or do you realy believe those enormous amounts of data are all necessary to prevent terrorist attacks? How did tapping Merkel's phone for example prevent any terrorist attacks?

How exactly are we violating your rights when the actions are technically legal and you completely signed off on them? Politicians may be idiots, but they know not to piss off someone who has kicked their ass twice in war, and essentially saved their country from from being split in two by a wall. We don't break any of your laws, contrary to what Merkel bellyaches about when talking to Obama.

It is illegal to spy on people here, unless you're the police and have a warrant. And Merkel doesn't really bellyache when talking to Obama, she just keeps eating all the shit he gives to her. She's essentially selling our nation's soul and people are still stupid enough to vote for her. It sucks.

True patriots don't cower to Russia just because they snitched about something they don't like. By this logic, you must think that Bonnie and Clyde were heroes for robbing banks in the Depression, or Tookie Williams was a good guy because he made anti-gang initiatives despite being a gang member himself who was a drug abuser and gunned down 4 innocent people. You should seriously consider who you praise, lest you fall for the slippery slope when it comes to criminals.

Those comparisons don't really work. No one was hurt or killed because of Snowden's actions, except for the US's image. Bonnie and Clyde and Tookie Williams committed real crimes, whose victims were real people. Snowden, on the other hand, uncovered crimes that were committed. It's like you let the thief go and chase the guy who screams, "Hold the thief!" instead. Snowden is persecuted for political reasons, which, in my opinion, directly contradicts democracy.

Naïveté mixed with ignorance is a dangerous combination in real-world politics.

Naiveté mixed with ignorance is what got us into this whole mess.

[orangebomb]

At 5/31/14 10:51 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: They do collect a lot of stuff that they don't care about, they just do it because they can. Or do you realy believe those enormous amounts of data are all necessary to prevent terrorist attacks? How did tapping Merkel's phone for example prevent any terrorist attacks?

That's what happens when you are connected to the Internet or have anything with a cord as a way for communication,(unless they have non-traceable technology, which I greatly doubt) and the concept of privacy is non-existant because of this, things like this is going to happen. Also remember that that the vast majority of the data is irrelevant to fighting terrorism, and is only there because of the Internet and phone lines are connected to the servers themselves. It only sounds unnerving because everything is being stored there and the off-chance that some rogue will abuse it for their purposes.

It is illegal to spy on people here, unless you're the police and have a warrant. And Merkel doesn't really bellyache when talking to Obama, she just keeps eating all the shit he gives to her. She's essentially selling our nation's soul and people are still stupid enough to vote for her. It sucks.

So it is in America, contrary to popular opinion. However, there is a thing that is called probable cause, in which police forces can act upon a substantial lead. (that's a basic understanding of the rule, but I'd rather not go into much detail here) as for Merkel, I know little of her or the politics in Germany, so I won't comment on that. But, how exactly is she "selling Germany's soul" in all this?

Those comparisons don't really work. No one was hurt or killed because of Snowden's actions, except for the US's image.

Perhaps the comparisons were a bit exaggerated, but they were all criminals who evaded the law for whatever their reasons. There is no such thing as a victimless crime, and just because you think that the government "deserved" the smear caused by Snowden, doesn't necessarily mean that was right. Ironically, it wasn't the spilling of secrets that was the problem, as Snowden had legal means to do so, (talk to Rand Paul or Ted Cruz) but either through ignorance or his misguided pretenses of "patriotism", (and that is used very loosely) Snowden committed a crime, and he is hiding in Russia to escape justice. Try to justify it all you want, the law is the law.

Bonnie and Clyde and Tookie Williams committed real crimes, whose victims were real people. Snowden, on the other hand, uncovered crimes that were committed. It's like you let the thief go and chase the guy who screams, "Hold the thief!" instead. Snowden is persecuted for political reasons, which, in my opinion, directly contradicts democracy.

As I said before, he had legal means to do what he did (and someone like Rand Paul could've easily weaponized that against Obama) but he didn't. This doesn't contradict democracy in any way shape or form, this is largely the business of politics. We need to be careful when it comes to the slippery slope when it comes justifying criminal behavior, especially when something that isn't black and white and is liable for misunderstanding.

Naiveté mixed with ignorance is what got us into this whole mess.

I wouldn't say that. If I didn't know any better, it would be you who is being decieved by those who are generally ignorant, and by those who fail to understand that this is misunderstanding about something that the rest of the world either signed up for, or had no have no reason to complain about something that doesn't affect them, and are only concerned with said misunderstanding.

[Korriken]

At 5/29/14 03:23 PM, stevenman36 wrote:

Also, I don't think most people have something embarrassing (Or are even important) enough that would warrant the government to blackmail them with it.

Don't be so sure about that. Something the NSA catalogs about someone now could come back to haunt that person dozens of years later.

If you don't think government officials would not use this data against political rivals, think again.

Politician: What's that? This guy was a bully as a child and experimented with drugs and homosexuality and paganism as a college student? That's juicy, not to mention just what we need to sink his election chances and make sure our party wins.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/31/14 09:09 PM, Korriken wrote: If you don't think government officials would not use this data against political rivals, think again.

Yeh, but why spend hundred of millions using the NSA when you can spend far less and with a ton more legaility the old fashioned way?

[Light]

At 5/31/14 10:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/31/14 09:09 PM, Korriken wrote: If you don't think government officials would not use this data against political rivals, think again.

Yeh, but why spend hundred of millions using the NSA when you can spend far less and with a ton more legaility the old fashioned way?

Because the NSA-route is more effective and comprehensive?

It's possible that Barack Obama, for example, has some genuine demons in his past that should remain secret, but might not if he was subjected to this 1984-style surveillance his whole life.

Of course, it remains to be seen if future politicians will have to worry about this kind of stuff.

[Warforger]

At 5/31/14 10:56 PM, Light wrote: It's possible that Barack Obama, for example, has some genuine demons in his past that should remain secret, but might not if he was subjected to this 1984-style surveillance his whole life.

How so? The guy had a childhood anyone the right of Bill Clinton would find disturbing because 1) raised in a single parent household 2) went to Qur'an school 3) visited Pakistan with his Pakistani friend 4) did drugs. Everyone knows this (or can) but the only people who care are those people who decide whether or not they like a politician based on whether or not they have an R next to their name. Unless he did something REALLY bad before he became President I doubt he'll get knocked down. I mean he's just spying on Americans, but he hasn't spied on Congress yet, now THAT would be a crime (well that was Nixon's crime anyway). We wouldn't want our Congressmen thinking that they don't have any privacy would we?

I think what it is is media attention, if the media decides it's a big deal then it'll be a big deal.

[DoctorStrongbad]

At 5/30/14 10:34 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: They're not just spying on Americans, they're spying on the whole fucking world.
I read an article today that said, "Snowden is not a traitor, but a true patriot". I'll just leave you with this.

There is really no way to stop the government from spying. They have done it for many years, and there seems to be no end in sight.

[NewgroundsMike]

At 5/31/14 08:24 PM, orangebomb wrote: That's what happens when you are connected to the Internet or have anything with a cord as a way for communication,(unless they have non-traceable technology, which I greatly doubt) and the concept of privacy is non-existant because of this, things like this is going to happen. Also remember that that the vast majority of the data is irrelevant to fighting terrorism, and is only there because of the Internet and phone lines are connected to the servers themselves. It only sounds unnerving because everything is being stored there and the off-chance that some rogue will abuse it for their purposes.

Just because something like this can happen, doesn't mean it should. I hate that why-does-the-dog-lick-his-balls mentality. How is it any of your government's business what I'm doing here? I don't plan on assassinating the President or anything. Neither do 99.999% of the rest of the world. Still, all that data is being collected just because they can.

So it is in America, contrary to popular opinion. However, there is a thing that is called probable cause, in which police forces can act upon a substantial lead. (that's a basic understanding of the rule, but I'd rather not go into much detail here)

Probable cause doesn't mean that you just collect everything you can find, not knowing whether it helps you with the investigation of a crime, not even knowing whether or not there was a crime in the first place. You just make a suspect of every person on Earth. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

as for Merkel, I know little of her or the politics in Germany, so I won't comment on that. But, how exactly is she "selling Germany's soul" in all this?

She cares more about what Obama wants than about what the German people want. I would call that selling Germany's soul.

Perhaps the comparisons were a bit exaggerated, but they were all criminals who evaded the law for whatever their reasons. There is no such thing as a victimless crime, and just because you think that the government "deserved" the smear caused by Snowden, doesn't necessarily mean that was right. Ironically, it wasn't the spilling of secrets that was the problem, as Snowden had legal means to do so, (talk to Rand Paul or Ted Cruz) but either through ignorance or his misguided pretenses of "patriotism", (and that is used very loosely) Snowden committed a crime, and he is hiding in Russia to escape justice. Try to justify it all you want, the law is the law.

Something can be morally right and legally wrong at the same time, and vice versa. But when you've got cases like this, it usually means your system is broken. You'd rather side with your obviously broken system than try to fix it. Snowden isn't hiding in Russia to escape justice, he's doing so because he knows there will be no justice for him. He did the right thing, yet he's treated like the worst criminal in world history.

As I said before, he had legal means to do what he did (and someone like Rand Paul could've easily weaponized that against Obama) but he didn't. This doesn't contradict democracy in any way shape or form, this is largely the business of politics. We need to be careful when it comes to the slippery slope when it comes justifying criminal behavior, especially when something that isn't black and white and is liable for misunderstanding.

That "slippery slope" thing is kind of the dumbest argument I've ever had to read. Just because I side with a whistleblower doesn't automatically mean I'll side with a murderer when I get the chance. I will sure as hell never side with any killer, and if anyone knows that, it's you. And yes, it does contradict democracy when it's a criminal offense to expose the government's wrongdoings.

I wouldn't say that. If I didn't know any better, it would be you who is being decieved by those who are generally ignorant, and by those who fail to understand that this is misunderstanding about something that the rest of the world either signed up for, or had no have no reason to complain about something that doesn't affect them, and are only concerned with said misunderstanding.

How does it not affect me? They have the means to spy on me, and they do collect lots of irrelevant information, and now you tell me I shouldn't be concerned. I don't fucking want to be spied on! I'm sure most people don't want to be spied on. It's all just because of people like you who are scared of their own shadow and see a terrorist around every corner, so you want everyone else to be scared of you, so you can feel safe. Well done. But you should know one thing: Fear destroys societies.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/1/14 07:05 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: Probable cause doesn't mean that you just collect everything you can find,

First off, what all do you think the government is even collecting?

You just make a suspect of every person on Earth. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Making people suspects does not degrade the innocent until prove guilty ideal. Punishing people without a trial does.

Something can be morally right and legally wrong at the same time, and vice versa.

Just like Martin Luther King and Gandhi, but what did they do? They took the punsihments. Why? Because by taking their punishments they put all of the guilt on the state, as opposed to Snowden who took much of it with him by running, and by running to China then Russia no less. While the morality of his ogirinal act does not change, the morality of him and his message is severely adversely affected by him running away.

You'd rather side with your obviously broken system than try to fix it.

We side with Snowden on the original break. We side against Snowden with regard to how Snowden handled it. Trust me, there were definitely ways to get this out and do so in a manner that is legal. He just chose to take the glory for himself, instead of furthering his message properly.

Snowden isn't hiding in Russia to escape justice, he's doing so because he knows there will be no justice for him. He did the right thing, yet he's treated like the worst criminal in world history.

The right thing? What about going to Congress? What about going to other officials? Had Snowden done all of that and been ignored, then AND ONLY THEN would it have been OK for him to release it to the press. He essentially played the vigilante role, and guess what? Vigilantism is illegal.

And yes, it does contradict democracy when it's a criminal offense to expose the government's wrongdoings.

First off, no it doesn't. Second, America is not a Democracy. Never has been.

How does it not affect me? They have the means to spy on me, and they do collect lots of irrelevant information, and now you tell me I shouldn't be concerned. I don't fucking want to be spied on! I'm sure most people don't want to be spied on. It's all just because of people like you who are scared of their own shadow and see a terrorist around every corner, so you want everyone else to be scared of you, so you can feel safe. Well done. But you should know one thing: Fear destroys societies.

What you do in public or on someone else's property is not private. therefore, the gathering of that imformation is not spying, but basic observation. Make sense, or are you one of those who thinks speed cameras are a violation of privacy?

[Light]

At 6/1/14 01:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

First off, no it doesn't. Second, America is not a Democracy. Never has been.

I really don't want to sound like a smart ass, but yes, America is a democracy.

You might retort by saying that it's a "republic," but according to the dictionary, republics are a kind of democracy.

[Light]

Definition of democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

Yep, America is a democracy, Camaro.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/31/14 10:56 PM, Light wrote: Because the NSA-route is more effective and comprehensive?

Actually, I would posit the old methods are better. By old methods, I mean digging through his past and finding people he knows. The NSA might be able to find some bad sentences or soundbites here and there, but the unearthing of an old enemy can brin gup entire bad stories and bad chapters in a life.

Just look at Wehby in Oregon. She may have said some dumb shit in the past, but the most damning things against here were the fights she had with her exes, and that was found the old fashioned way.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/1/14 06:21 PM, Light wrote: Definition of democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

Yep, America is a democracy, Camaro.

If you would read that same website's definition of Republic, it would fit far more with the US than the definition of Democracy. Which makes part # of the Democracy definition a lazy fact at best.

Here's a quick defintion: Democracy is direct vote. Republic is voting for representatives to vote on your behalf.

Which of those two is more like the American Federal system?

[Light]

At 6/1/14 07:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/1/14 06:21 PM, Light wrote: Definition of democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

Yep, America is a democracy, Camaro.

If you would read that same website's definition of Republic, it would fit far more with the US than the definition of Democracy. Which makes part # of the Democracy definition a lazy fact at best.

Here's a quick defintion: Democracy is direct vote. Republic is voting for representatives to vote on your behalf.

Which of those two is more like the American Federal system?

Admittedly, the definition of Republic.

But remember this definition that I cited?

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

That part of the definition applies to the U.S., Camaro. You'll have to keep in mind that there are different kinds of democracy. Direct democracy is one of them, and representative democracy is another. For all intents and purposes, "republic" is a synonym for "representative democracy."The dictionary is on my side on this one, man. :-)

[Light]

At 6/1/14 06:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Actually, I would posit the old methods are better. By old methods, I mean digging through his past and finding people he knows. The NSA might be able to find some bad sentences or soundbites here and there, but the unearthing of an old enemy can brin gup entire bad stories and bad chapters in a life.

Just look at Wehby in Oregon. She may have said some dumb shit in the past, but the most damning things against here were the fights she had with her exes, and that was found the old fashioned way.

I'm willing to concede that it might work better in some cases to do things the old-fashioned way, but looking toward the future, it'll be far more damaging to look into a politician's digital past, unless he/she decided years and years in advance not to leave a trace of him/herself on the Internet. An awful lot of millenials will be entering the world of politics and some will have wished that they didn't post pictures of themselves doing stupid shit on Facebook/Instagram, even if they had those photos deleted.

Of course, my concern is more theoretical than anything. Maybe this won't be a problem in the future, but I feel that it would be imprudent to dismiss this as wild speculation, given the kind of surveillance state that America has become now.

[Korriken]

At 5/31/14 10:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Yeh, but why spend hundred of millions using the NSA when you can spend far less and with a ton more legaility the old fashioned way?

Because the data is already there, and as long as you don't reveal your sources and no one squeals on you, why not? Long term data collection can turn up things that a simple search may not. Given that people can delete their social media posts, etc, you may not find that juicy detail that the person tweeted few years beforehand.

[Jmayer20]

OK to all of you that are for letting the government spy on us, what you said has pretty much been a rehash of what orangebomb has already said. I have already goon into every one of his stupid points and pointed out the flaws in every single one of them. I ask that you all look back at my previoius posts and try to argue how these points are wrong, if you cant them maybe you should consider that you might be wrong.

Next if none of you think that there is nothing wrong with what the NSA and Obama are doing and the only people that are against it are crazy conspiracy nuts with tin foil hats then why has Obama not tried to have Congress pass an amendment that would override the one that requires warrants? Why has he consistently avoided having this issue brought before the Supreme Court?

Well the first is because he realized that he does not have overwhelming support for such an amendment and because of this he fears that he will not get it to pass. If it doesn't pass then it will be more out in the open for question which would lead it to going to the Supreme Court. This brings us to the second question. Obama knows what he is doing is unconstitutional so if it goes to the Supreme Court then he will lose all this power that he has gained.

Finally to Camarohusky you claim that Snowden should have tried to get the info out legally. There is no way he could have released the info legally. Also there were people who tried to fight this legally before. First Bush and then later Obama did everything in there power to keep them silent. Obama even raided the homes of those who tried to fight this. Snowden saw this and realized that the only chance to have Obama and the NSA held accountable for there actions was to release what the NSA was doing to the public. If you don't believe me here is a link to a couple of videos from front line going into all of this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/

[orangebomb]

At 6/2/14 12:26 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: OK to all of you that are for letting the government spy on us, what you said has pretty much been a rehash of what orangebomb has already said.

It seems like you're the one who is re-hashing the same argument over and over again, thinking that all this exists in a black and white vacuum of morality, when the truth is a lot more complex than what you or NGMike are making it out to be. I'm simply explaining my points, you're repeating the same thing ad nauseum and using a "what if" scenario as a justification.

Next if none of you think that there is nothing wrong with what the NSA and Obama are doing and the only people that are against it are crazy conspiracy nuts with tin foil hats then why has Obama not tried to have Congress pass an amendment that would override the one that requires warrants? Why has he consistently avoided having this issue brought before the Supreme Court?

IIRC, the Patriot Act was supported across the board in Congress, and other than some fringe groups and ignorant people, most of us haven't exactly gone off the deep end and asked for it's repeal because we've done nothing to garnered their attention, much less even cared. Also, privacy isn't covered in the Constitution at all, and for that matter, no basic rights are being threatened by any of this, at the very worst, it's simply blurring the line on certain liberties that most of us either ignore or don't even have. This isn't really worth adding to the Constitution at all.

Plus, to ratify anything to the Constitution is far longer and more complicated than just signing a simple law, and that's all I'm going to say about that, as I'm no legal expert when it comes to lawmaking.

Well the first is because he realized that he does not have overwhelming support for such an amendment and because of this he fears that he will not get it to pass. If it doesn't pass then it will be more out in the open for question which would lead it to going to the Supreme Court. This brings us to the second question.

Even if he had overwhelming support, it was highly doubtful that any amendment would pass, especially when most of them either signed off on it in the first place, or have no desire to get rid of it.

Obama knows what he is doing is unconstitutional so if it goes to the Supreme Court then he will lose all this power that he has gained.

First off, the Patriot Act doesn't interfere with the Constitution at all, I'd just explained it. Second, there were many times under Bush 43 and Obama that the Supreme Court could've overturned it, and they didn't, because there are no real grounds for it to be overturned. The Constitution is not a black and white document that should be followed to the letter, because it was designed to be open for interpretation (2nd amendment comes to mind) beyond the basic framework, and there has been far more egregious cases of violations to the Constitution than this any they weren't overturned or shunned. Granted, it was during wartime, and they rectified that soon afterwards, but that still doesn't mean that they weren't violating the rules. (or at least skirting the line)

It seems like you people are totally missing the forest from the trees, and every time I try to explain a contradicting opinion that is usually accurate or rational in this issue, it seems like I get the same response, generally coming from a place of ignorance and misplaced paranoia.

[NewgroundsMike]

At 6/1/14 01:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First off, what all do you think the government is even collecting?

I don't know, but they could collect everything. And they do collect stuff that's of no use to them.

Making people suspects does not degrade the innocent until prove guilty ideal. Punishing people without a trial does.

Perhaps it was wrongly worded, but still, you just suspect everyone without knowing if there is a crime to begin with. That goes a bit far for "probable cause".

Just like Martin Luther King and Gandhi, but what did they do? They took the punsihments. Why? Because by taking their punishments they put all of the guilt on the state, as opposed to Snowden who took much of it with him by running, and by running to China then Russia no less. While the morality of his ogirinal act does not change, the morality of him and his message is severely adversely affected by him running away.

Why does the rest of the world not think so? (Politicians don't count in this case).

The right thing? What about going to Congress? What about going to other officials? Had Snowden done all of that and been ignored, then AND ONLY THEN would it have been OK for him to release it to the press. He essentially played the vigilante role, and guess what? Vigilantism is illegal.

Considering he's American, and a certain kind of paranoia seems to run among you guys, he probably thought someone would find a way to silence him before it got that far.

First off, no it doesn't. Second, America is not a Democracy. Never has been.

At least you admit it.

What you do in public or on someone else's property is not private. therefore, the gathering of that imformation is not spying, but basic observation. Make sense, or are you one of those who thinks speed cameras are a violation of privacy?

Yeah, I guess I should go back to writing letters.

[Warforger]

At 6/1/14 11:36 PM, Korriken wrote: Because the data is already there, and as long as you don't reveal your sources and no one squeals on you, why not? Long term data collection can turn up things that a simple search may not. Given that people can delete their social media posts, etc, you may not find that juicy detail that the person tweeted few years beforehand.

Oh yes, because if twitter existed in 2001 Al-Qaeda would've posted "brb gonna crash a plane into the WTC" then removed it afterwards which would've alerted the government to their dastardly plot and prevented 9/11.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/2/14 01:09 PM, NewgroundsMike wrote: I don't know, but they could collect everything. And they do collect stuff that's of no use to them.

That's absolutely true. Then again, in ANY investigation only a small percentage of what is gathered ends up being of any use.

The program Snowden unveled only takes the metadata of the calls and emails. This means that it takes merely the origination, destination, and length. FYI, none of those things are private. Think back to Constitution times with regard to the "papers" referred to in the 4th Amendment. By looking at most correspondance letters you could easily determine the size of the paper, the origination (via the seal), and often times the destination written on the front. Extraploated to today's media, this means the existence, size, and origin/destination, are not private information. The info the NSA gathered is no different than the Post office cataloguing the origin, destination, and size of every parcel that went through it.

This doesn't mean the NSA is not collecting more in depth info, Bourne Ultimatum style. My guess is that they do do this on some level. This is a very different issue.

Perhaps it was wrongly worded, but still, you just suspect everyone without knowing if there is a crime to begin with. That goes a bit far for "probable cause".

True. However, probable cause only applies to things protected by the 4th Amendment. I have claimed that what the NSA was gathering was not protected, and is littl emore than observing and ctataloguing public information.

Why does the rest of the world not think so? (Politicians don't count in this case).

Because that way they can look like the good guys, even though they enjoy the fruits of th US's work, and knowingly do so. It's a catty high school girl style power play on their part.

Considering he's American, and a certain kind of paranoia seems to run among you guys, he probably thought someone would find a way to silence him before it got that far.

He's in the NSA. He's at the spearhead of information gathering. If anyone would know about his methods first, it would be his position.

If you look at the anguage used in Congress, you'll see that inflammatory talk and undermining in order to find a scandal are rampant. The time was perfectly ripe for him to go to one of the bridge burners in Congress (Ted Cruz) and let them handle it.

My guess is that he wanted the attention and glory for himself first and a solution to the problem a distant second.

Yeah, I guess I should go back to writing letters.

Is privacy from an agency that doesn't give a shit worth the problems and delays associated with paper mail? Not really.