The US House "Representatives" says NSA Spying... here to STAY

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Michael, Jul 25, 2013.

  1. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Wyden and the other senators on the Intelligence Committee already knew the answers to the questions posed to Clapper. They just wanted Clapper to publically take the heat for what they’d already endorsed in private, setting him up for the expected blowback from the paranoid citizenry and their kindred spirits in media and government.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Like I said, you're a born politician - a natural.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    In a clear case of harassment by the State, Glenn Greenwald's partner was detained at Heathrow airport for NINE hours and interrogated under Terrorism Act.

    That's no shit - The State does NOT like that we now know about the NSA. Given the State has no respect for Private Property - it stole all of his electronic equipment, his phone, his lap top - all of it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    FROM: Alan Rusbridger, The Guardian:

    Miranda, a Brazilian citizen in transit from Berlin to Brazil, said he was released without charge after nine hours of questioning but minus his laptop, cellphone and memory sticks.

    The detention of Miranda has rightly caused international dismay because it feeds into a perception that the US and UK governments – while claiming to welcome the debate around state surveillance started by Snowden – are also intent on stemming the tide of leaks and on pursuing the whistleblower with a vengeance. That perception is right. Here follows a little background on the considerable obstacles being placed in the way of informing the public about what the intelligence agencies, governments and corporations are up to.

    A little over two months ago I was contacted by a very senior government official claiming to represent the views of the prime minister. There followed two meetings in which he demanded the return or destruction of all the material we were working on. The tone was steely, if cordial, but there was an implicit threat that others within government and Whitehall favoured a far more draconian approach.

    The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back." There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."

    During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route – by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention. Prior restraint, near impossible in the US, was now explicitly and imminently on the table in the UK. But my experience over WikiLeaks – the thumb drive and the first amendment – had already prepared me for this moment. I explained to the man from Whitehall about the nature of international collaborations and the way in which, these days, media organisations could take advantage of the most permissive legal environments. Bluntly, we did not have to do our reporting from London. Already most of the NSA stories were being reported and edited out of New York. And had it occurred to him that Greenwald lived in Brazil?

    The man was unmoved. And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred – with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.

    Whitehall was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age. We will continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden documents, we just won't do it in London. The seizure of Miranda's laptop, phones, hard drives and camera will similarly have no effect on Greenwald's work.

    The state that is building such a formidable apparatus of surveillance will do its best to prevent journalists from reporting on it. Most journalists can see that. But I wonder how many have truly understood the absolute threat to journalism implicit in the idea of total surveillance, when or if it comes – and, increasingly, it looks like "when".

    We are not there yet, but it may not be long before it will be impossible for journalists to have confidential sources. Most reporting – indeed, most human life in 2013 – leaves too much of a digital fingerprint. Those colleagues who denigrate Snowden or say reporters should trust the state to know best (many of them in the UK, oddly, on the right) may one day have a cruel awakening. One day it will be their reporting, their cause, under attack. But at least reporters now know to stay away from Heathrow transit lounges.
     
  8. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
  9. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    You can thank our NSA: another email service shuts down

    Yeah, no f*cking shit - the NSA and our Nanny State is doing it's very best to make it impossible for "FREE" United States Citizens to legally have private personal communication amongst ourselves any longer.

    Our Nanny, is a Sociopath. This is in clear violation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. You are statistically more likely to be hit by a lightening strike than to be killed by a "Terrorist".

    Silent Circle Preemptively Shuts Down Encrypted Email Service To Prevent NSA Spying

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Or die in a nuclear attack, so let’s defund the Department of Defense.
     
  11. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Let me get this right, if we don't spy on every and all Americans - we're all going to die in a nuclear attack?


    Oh, and yes, we need to de-fund the DOD. With sound money, private property, and law, humans could live ANYWHERE they wanted to on earth, and I think you'd find with the TRILLIONS of dollars wasted on weapons, instead spent making the things and services people want and enjoy - life would be much better.

    The military industry complex is there to make itself rich - not to make you safer. It actually makes you less safe.
     
  12. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    I was questioning your logic that assumes that since the occurrences of terrorist or nuclear attacks are low, traditional efforts to prevent them must be unnecessary. You don’t think a strong intelligence and defense apparatus has anything to do with our history of security?

    Wasteful spending and effort is not limited to government, it’s pervasive throughout our culture. Expecting to remedy this condition by catering to flawed human desires is not enough. There needs to be a codified system of regulation to offset human behavioral deficiencies, and a body to enforce said regulation, that body is your beloved state. The ultimate trick is separating the influence of those flawed human desires from the law.
     
  13. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Firstly, the USA is the only nation to have attacked a city (two actually) of civilians (women and children) with nuclear weapons.

    Second, who is attacked more by 'Terrorists', the USA or Canada? Why? Why do you say we have 'low' incidence of Terrorist attacks? Relative to whom? Seems to me we're either always at War or always talking about going to War. The USA could, from a certain point of view, be considered a warmongering State. How many 9/11 type events have happened to Norway? New Zealand? Australia? Japan? Ect....

    I think you need to rethink your notion of "low".

    We're more offense than defense. If we were "defense" then we wouldn't have military bases in 60+ countries and be fighting two wars. One against a nation of people who had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11.

    "History". Not since the Civil War have we spied on Americans as we are now. Only now we do? WHY? A couple goat-f*ckers in a cave somewhere? THAT'S the reason? Hey, I got an idea, how about we leave their shitty country alone, and I bet they leave our shitty country alone. Your chances of being killed by an American are MUCH higher than by a "Terrorist". Maybe we should attack America? Oh, we are.

    The reason why Americans are being spied on by our Government is because it's not "our" Government. I understand why people hate what they think of as "Capitalism" because in our Oligarchy it's Socialism for the Rich and Capitalism for the Middle Class and Poor. Which is actually Progressive Fascism - and to run a Socialistic State, you can't have privacy and civil liberty. See: North Korea, China, E. Germany, etc...

    There's a HUGE difference between the Government wastefully spending money (actually debt) and a Private Citizen or Corporation.

    Yes, that's called Laws that protect Property Rights. It's part of our *GASP* US Constitutions. The ONLY thing we need a Government for is to protect those rights. Instead we have one violating those rights.
     
  14. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Apparently the threat of devastating nuclear retaliation has worked well to keep the historical use of such weapons to just two bombs.

    You don’t think the above lists of US allies aren’t applying similar anti-terror strategies in concert with the US?

    You were the one minimizing the threat of terrorism with your lightning comparison.

    I don’t disagree that there have been instances of misapplication of US military power, but that doesn’t diminish its potential for maintaining positive order at home and abroad.

    Government surveillance has always been with us, it’s only gotten more convenient with technical innovation.
    Isolationism, it does have its appeal. Let’s become a self sufficient nation. Nothing or nobody comes in or out of the country, let the rest of the world stew in their own juices. The only terrorists we’ll have to spy on will be within our own borders, and since anybody is a potential terrorist, that means everyone gets watched. Stop and frisk for whitey too.

    But property isn’t actually private when it’s a subset of a larger society. The government is constitutionally bound to ensure property is used in a manner consistent with codified priorities. You are justifiably limited to what you can do with your property.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    As with friction, bribery, and other vices and evils, difference in degree becomes difference in kind.

    The pestilence of informants, the ubiquity of surveillance, the arbitrary and idiotically capricious nature of these files and records and the constant strain of dealing with them if you somehow become a target, are serious matters. This is not same old same old, when the Feds are setting up the physical means to tap your phone and you have to take their word that they won't do it unless it's really important. This is not same old when every time you try to board an airplane you have to anticipate being met with guns and five hour delays at the destination, when your diary and computer and phone calls and conversations with your new girlfriend and medical records and food preferences are public property for the entertainment of the kinds of people who like that kind of job.

    That level of terrorism fear is servile cowardice. Servile cowardice is unAmerican.
     
  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    And another website shuts down: Tech legal news site Groklaw shuts down.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Groklaw's founder, Pamela Jones, has decided to pull the plug on the website, citing surveillance concerns in the wake of the NSA spying revelations.

    You wanted the State - you got it. Enjoy your Central Bankers, Public Housing, Public 'Education', ObamaCare, Endless Wars, TSA and NSA.

    You wanted Progressivism, well, you got it. But, you don't get to keep your personal privacy and civil liberties. Those are the price you pay when you resort to force over voluntarism. Prosperity is time and freedom, we become less prosperous each and every day.

    And this MUST occur. Without free market efficiencies, there is no economical manner in which the State can provide you with the services you want for 'free'. It's impossible. But you refuse to elect anyone who doesn't promise you free stuff. Even now, as you hand your children over to State-sanctioned day-supervision facilities (from aged 6 weeks!) so you can get back to work and pay your taxes to the State - you keep electing the politicians who promise you "affordable" daycare. As if THEY can provide this to you. You just keep licking that bullsh*t up. A nice little pat on your head by your Farmers and oh how proud you waddle back to your paddock knowing your did your civic duty to the Nation - like a good patriotic Citizen.

    Do enjoy your free roads, they cost your kids a lot more than you'll ever know.
     
  17. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I heard a Citizen just yesterday at the bar tell me: I don't know why we have to pay for the bailouts with our taxes, why doesn't 'the Government' just pay for it?

    AND there you go in a nutshell.
     
  18. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    It’s not about fear, it’s about knowledge. The more knowledge that can be amassed about every aspect of our existence, the better we can understand and address the social and environmental dynamics that govern our lives.
     
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    There's no "we" involved, no "our", no "knowledge", and no "understanding".

    This is a government abusing its citizenry for its own advantage, however it sees fit. Allowing oneself to be abused like that from fear of "terrorism" is servility motivated by cowardice.

    No we don't. This latest slide into disaster started with a whole bunch of people who talked just like you electing a President - Reagan - who talked just like you, promising to get the government out of our lives and to end all the free stuff.

    And what he did, of course, is the same as you would - cut taxes on rich people.
     
  21. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Is the Farmer abusing his Cattle when he puts a few down? Times are tough on our Tax Farm and now that our Farmers have been made whole/bailed-out, looks like he's going to have to put a few of the Cattle down. This is a fact of running a Farm. And the Farmer is running a Farm - not a Charity. We Cattle are there for milk and meat. This is a business.

    Don't be confusing those pats on the head the Farmer gives you when you lick his fingers with genuine love. No no, your Farmer doesn't 'love' you. He is concerned about your productivity - yes, that is true. But don't confuse that concern with feelings of love. You got to pick your Farmer - now get back to your paddock and keep your head down. Wouldn't want to piss off your Farmer - no telling what he's capable of doing to you.

    Welcome to Progressive Fascism, as they say: The Road to Hell, is paved with plenty of Hope and Change demagoguery.

    Actually, Reagan was talking to YOU. You may think you hate Reagan, but the truth is - as usual, exactly the opposite. You LOVE your front men like Reagan - they give the Tax Cattle something to moo moo moo about while they waddle around their Farmer's paddock.

    We need to "Tax the Rich". Why? Value only exists in our mind - those numbers on the fiat paper, another zero can be added or taken away easily enough. There's no 'NEED' for the Republic to 'Tax' the rich - because the Republic can generate as much fiat currency as it so wishes. There's an endless supply of 0000's in the machine.

    My suggestion is to vote Hillbillery - that'll show them. Oh, I'd also suggest signing up to fight in the ME, you know, to defend our Civil Liberties and all. Didn't you know? The Terrorist's Hate our "Freedom" because we're the bestest Nation the Earth has ever seen. God's own Children.
     
  22. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    “We” as in collective humanity, of which for good or bad governments are a part of. Disseminating acquired knowledge to suitable members of humanity has great potential for collective good.

    How is one abused by observation? Any abuse, justified or not would depend on the action of the observer, which would be the actual root of contention, not the observation itself.

    Isn’t it cowardice to irrationally fear observation?
     
  23. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,411


    "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

    —Ayn Rand


    You apologists for mass public surveillance reveal just how christian you are at the roots: an omnipresent God watching over your everyday meanderings—feels normal for you, huh? And then treating your elected representatives like a privileged class from a grotesque church-hood—the guardians and priests of your servitude. But at the end of the day, these elected representatives are just ordinary men and women, no greater no better, who are just as mortal and corruptible as anyone else. Why should they have the privilege of infringing upon my privacy?
     

Share This Page