Inkbunny

but he gave proof they monitor EVERYONE difference.

Stumpycoon

10 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 10 years, 9 months ago by Owner

Not really. They COULD monitor everyone, but they pay attention to "persons of interest" who have already been identified. The idea that anyone is monitoring what average joe's do on the internet is just plain stupid. Beyond "Is Joe Smith trying to download the terrorist's cookbook? No? Moving on...".

Similarly the police are empowered to investigate everyone...but they focus on suspects of crimes that have been committed.

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

This is merely a fact of law, not action.  Is it against the constitution, aka warrantless searches of your private behavior or not?

It is indeed warrantless and indeed a search.

You can claim because its a general search its ok.  No that is entirely what the constitution is against, the government must have a specific reason to search YOU in this country.  Why because the british were doing general home to home searches for violations of the law back in the 1770's.  This kinda pissed us off.  It should now too.

Furthermore, you claim oh our benevolent government is only searching for terrorists.  They would never use that information for other reasons, or the fact they are STORING that information forever.  They could never use this info for other reasons in the FUTURE?

Stumpycoon

10 years, 9 months ago

link

I agree.  I'm just saying it's not new or unprecedented.

It's like this...the police COULD pull over any driver, but the police will only pull over people they suspect of something or someone driving erratically.  So say you have someone driving erratically and dangerously, and the police pull them over to prevent them having an accident, that's kind-of okay.  But we're not going ape about how the police could pull over anyone (even without a reason, like a routine breath test) or how they can choose to stop and search someone they suspect might commit a traffic crime based on their current behaviour.

Now for the NSA stuff, the question is "what would one need to do to incur their interest"?  In the same way they don't wire-tap everyone why would they read everyone's emails?

So, yeah, I agree with you about the problems but not the unbalanced level of interest.  When that situation has precedent, why are people ONLY focusing on that one example?  It seems to me that the reasons are that all the others are 'normal' which people have grown accustomed to and this is one people can attempt to falsely pin on Obama.

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

well see in this country you are wrong on a number of levels.  The police can not here pull over anyone.  It is illegal for them to pull you over if they do not have probable cause of a crime, traffic or otherwise.  So they pull you over...why did you pull me over.  Ummm....ok am I being detained?  no am i free to go?  you are on your way.

You definately can not pull someone over who was driving correctly and give them a routine breath test.  If they were driving erratically, a bit different.  However, they generally ask to give a field sobriety test, like walking along a line etc.. (btw, they are designed so that 15-20% will fail them when sober) and you can refuse to participate.

But even comparing that to the NSA....a more appropriate analogy would be, were going to put cameras in all your bedrooms.  But its ok, we'll only turn them on if we suspect something.  yeah....

Why is this a problem?  the 4th amendment is the right to be left along by your government.  Its not the, if im not doing anything wrong, i wouldnt object to a camera in my bedroom act.  So it is undeniably against the 4th amendment for police to randomly search people without probable cause as it is the government to collect information secretly.

Stumpycoon

10 years, 9 months ago

link

Like I said, I am not disagreeing about these problems, only pointing out that despite the 4th amendment these situations are not new or unprecedented.

Now for the pull-overs, sure they can.  For example:
"Why did you pull me over."
"You were driving erratically."
"No I wasn't, this is just a DWB isn't it?"
"No sir, driving erratically, my partner and I both saw you, your word against ours."
And the more the driver protests the more he's 'causing trouble'.  Is it right? No. Does it violate the 4th? Yes. Does it happen? Yes.

Now about routine breath tests, can the cops not just pick a road and breath-test everyone?  Like say somewhere they expect drunk drivers for St Patrick's day.  I was under the impression they could do that in the USA?

And about the bedroom camera, i'm not disagreeing, it just seems there's a difference to how elements of the USA operate already and with what the 4th intended...this so-called revelation by Snowden is just one more for the pile.

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

well Lincoln violated the constitution too. Not being new does not mean we shouldnt stand up for it, The british did the same things 270 yrs ago.

So you basically just agreed police doing that is illegal and should be punished, and yes they can, you can get their camera tape and sue them.

Unfortunately they can, not breath tests tho, that requires probable cause still, and you have the right to avoid the stop altogether. Ie it must be posted enough to give you time to avoid the stop.

and the thing is they arent just monitoring My internet, theyre monitoring YOUR internet in Australia, how you feel about that?

Stumpycoon

10 years, 9 months ago

link

Good point about not standing for it.  But my point is it's all one problem, why give some examples a pass but stand resolutely against another?  I am commenting on the hypocrisy and letting some slide, not saying "let it all slide", if that makes sense.  My bad if I was unclear.

Ironically I would prefer the USA monitor my internet than Australia because i prefer the apathetic competence of the NSA compared to the interventionist incompetence of the Australian major political parties.  We have had both parties attempt (and fail) to implement internet censorship, for instance.  We were looking at a scheme that would have put us under censorship equal to Middle Eastern countries and second only to China at one point, the full on morality-police routine.  We also had both parties attempt (and fail) monitoring ALL emails to search for forbidden material (then justifying it by claiming we needed to wage a war on pedophilia), and attempts to make ISPs responsible for reporting to the government any users who downloaded contraband or accessed forbidden sites.

...yeah.  I'll take the NSA over the Australian government (either party) and send them a grateful thank you letter.

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

um, what makes you think that isnt happening here? our president said he could kill americans without a trial on US soil, theyre making at least 10 detention camps in the US, they continue to pass laws that sound as if its going to be the US citizen vs the government.

Stumpycoon

10 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 10 years, 9 months ago by Owner

Same problem, that's been going on for a while.  Either it's all wrong and always been wrong...or not.  It's not suddenly wrong because Obama did it, or one part of the problem is not okay because it's new.  And aren't all the old FEMA camps still there?  Why are they fine but the new camps not?

*edit*  Gitmo is still there but Obama said he'd close it, on the topic of camps.  That's not okay, in my book. */edit*

Like I said before, it's all part of a bigger and older problem and I don't see how looking at the one most recent (even though not recent) element in isolation can lead to reversing the momentum of the widespread interlocked problems undermining the 4th.  Not to say the most 'recent' bit then is okay...just saying it's all not okay.

And furthermore, the problem is way older than Obama's presidency...if people direct their energies at (still) trying to impeach Obama over it...that won't help the problem at all 'cos it's not going for the source, or even close.

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 10 years, 9 months ago by Owner

its all wrong, this is just first proof they were doing it. But we all knew they were secretly doing it...since the creation of the FBI

Gitmo per say isnt wrong, no trials and torture is wrong. All I want them to to is admit its illegal and stop trying to say it is. First steps

Stumpycoon

10 years, 9 months ago

link

I feel the same about Gitmo. But I wouldn't say this is the first proof, I think that's where you and I disagree? But yeah it's one big ball of wrong.

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

and really, our FBI prolly never stopped blackmailing and monitoring politicians after Hoover. Any wonder they all come out in unison that someone reporting illegal wiretapping is a traitor in unison>?

but still share and vote, getting them to admit its illegal is first step.

Stumpycoon

10 years, 9 months ago

link

You're a card carrying Republican. Why are you opposing Bush the second's Patriot Act?

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

I am definately not a card carrying republican. I am opposing the Patriot act because I found out last year what it meant. Warrants given out by a rubberstamp panels of chosen judges that are so corrupt they sign 99.99% of redacted warrants. What real judge would sign a redacted warrant? to basically spy on hundreds of thousands of Americans.

It is again, against the constitution and against human rights. Government's answer? Trust us to do what's best in secret, you elected us to do this. No. No one should trust their government to do whats right, when they clearly do not do so in public.

Stumpycoon

10 years, 9 months ago

link

If you're not a card carrying Republican then you have a gigantic PR problem, my friend. ^_^

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

eh im against big government liberal things too, like climate warming hoaxes XD

I'm against regulation except on most fundamental safety things, as its generally big business using the government to make money and shutting out competition.

Stumpycoon

10 years, 9 months ago

link

So what do you describe yourself as then? That sounds a bit like little-L libertarian?

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

i just call myself conservative. Not a republican tho, theyre crooks too.

Stumpycoon

10 years, 9 months ago

link

In that case may I ask a question. What conservative politicians (or parties, if any) do you support? Do any measure up?

Hippiemouse

10 years, 9 months ago

link

both republicans and democrats are corupt liars...makes me glad i always vote green

Iffy350

10 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Hippiemouse

So you don't vote?

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Hippiemouse

Eh some republicans and democrats are good. Those who think more government is the answer are the bad ones. There's a couple in congress that want less government and following the constitution.

Zenobius

10 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 10 years, 9 months ago by Owner

You know, I've always wondered... since the NSA has been accused with Espionage why doesn't Snowden simply resort to the Uniform Code of Military Justice? (Article 106a) So that the ones who were wrong stand trial for their actions?
... then again, I can imagine why they would go on a manhunt since 'espionage' is punishable by death.
But people doing something like this to save their own asses, even though they 'knew' were wrong to begin with is of all ages.

I dunno about anyone else but I highly disrespect people who go around saying something along the lines of: "I'm a man of my country, The law is the law, you need to obey the law because the rules were made to protect people... which basically gives me a free pass to do everything I think I can get away with! And when something goes amiss, then everyone needs to see things from my perspective of course." <- 90% of people with an authority function or so it seems.

I understand 'why' they do it (terrorism), but 1. they did it without the conscent of the american citizens (which is against the law), 2. ignored official laws (act 106a of Military conduct) and 3. (from moral/logical standpoints) They could've been more open about it to the people, so the people know that: "They're being watched in terms of safety measures", instead, they keep it secret, that doesn't make people feel safe, that makes people feel like they're being watched > therefore, judged.
Saying that this case 'stinks' is like saying the sky is blue.

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Zenobius

what's even worse is its against the constitution and the administration uses hand picked judges to block any attempt to actually try this case on those grounds. People have tried to sue the government over it and theyve been kicked out of court by judges hand appointed to do that very thing.

Winterfeline

10 years, 9 months ago

link

I have a fair share of respect to a lot of Americans that I have come to know and consider pleasant people, but I have also come to view American government as a nutjob group trying to hoard all the powers and rights while avoiding even a little responsibility, stomping down any whistleblowers like Snowden. That's a mere opinion formed by watching news articles that make it over to Europe from the U.S and hearing comments from the American citizens, I've come to notice that hearing out several people informs you more about the actual truth than the news. I like my truth without a twist of propaganda and censorship after all.

Jimmy

10 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Winterfeline

"	Winterfeline wrote:
	That's a mere opinion formed by watching news articles that make it over to Europe from the U.S and hearing comments from the American citizens, I've come to notice that hearing out several people informs you more about the actual truth than the news. I like my truth without a twist of propaganda and censorship after all.

Whenever someone speaks, they give it their own view and twist. This journal is an example. Only one side of an issue is given. It is hard to have a civilized discussion, especially when someone is not informed of all the points of the subject. I only heard briefly of the incident and did not hear what the politicians have said. So what I gather... someone revealed a classified program and has now fled. That is not a whistle blower, that is a traitor. Now, what the people need is to prove that the program was illegal to start with. Monitoring phone calls without a warrant is illegal (4th amendment). Analyzing phone numbers with dates and times is an investigative process. So we should ask, is knowing that you made a phone call a crime?

Winterfeline

10 years, 9 months ago

link

I would accept its people views and their own twists if it was one or two, but when I have more than two dozen people that don't know one another saying the same thing, it starts to feel a fair bit more reliable. Of course, information filtered through different people changes form, but still, its a bit alarming.

As for the legality of the issue, I think that a few governments already gave the fellow sanctuary for a short while at least, US being pressuring on the world community forces him to move before any orders to hand him over can be put through in the country he resides in at that current moment. As for the 'traitor/whistleblower argument' the same governments that sheltered him have -quoted- US laws and then right next to it displayed orders in the paper that show illegal acts were being commited.

So I think that U.S got caught committing crimes against its own populace, and it wants to strangle the guy that did give out this information. I'd call him a traitor if he gave out military secrets, but instead, he gave out facts concerning -regular people- and how Government monitors them.

From my view point the fellow's a hero that struck a blow against would-be-Tyrants.

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

@ Winterfeline

totally agree. Hope you will sign the petition in the link and spread the word.

Stumpycoon

10 years, 9 months ago

link

I'd probably sign the petition because of what a non-issue it SHOULD be. It's not new, and not news, so why make Snowden take the fall for stating the obvious?

It's like everyone forgot the NSA was doing this then are losing their sh%t once reminded of things they should have already known. If anything, that collective amnesia and short memory is a bigger threat to the USA than anything Snowden 'revealed'.

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

Yes it is illegal.  Collecting your personal information without your consent is a search just as much as listening to you make a phone call.  And this is bigger than that, we know that they also collect everything you do on the internet and search that by whatever criteria they make up.  What else are they doing that we dont know about?  Do you really trust that's ALL they are doing?  Why?  because Obama assured us so.  Yeah right.

As far as being a whistleblower, um he is, not a traitor.  A traitor releases information of legal activities that can harm people.

Snowden releases information about unconstitutional searches of NSA, FBI, CIA, ya know the GOOD guys, the ones who wiretapped Martin Luther King, kept blackmail files on tons of americans and politicians to keep them in line...this is illegal and should be exposed as such.  You can't downplay it, saying oh theyre only taking your phone records....that's still a search.  I dont want them looking at my phone records or my internet, or coming in my house without a warrant signed by a real judge.

Jimmy

10 years, 9 months ago

link

An illegal act exposing an illegal act is still treason.

And another thing, these "searches" started under Bush, so stop blaming Obama for the patriot act. Sheesh, there is enough crap going on in the president's office to complain about.

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link

Its not illegal. There is such as thing as a whistleblower law that is supposed to protect people uncovering illegal acts of government or business.

and both are bad, why do liberals try to say its not bad because Bush did it too? Both violated their oath of office and both should (have been) impeached. Maybe even be jailed.

Jimmy

10 years, 9 months ago

link

The problem here is what is legal and illegal. The powers who make the laws, the powers who enforce the laws and the powers who interpret the laws have so far shown that the individual conducted an illegal act. SOME people are claiming it was legal. Fine, then convince the powers to be that it was legal. Do that then the whistleblowers law would protecting him.

Yiffox

10 years, 9 months ago

link