Don't entertain this garbage.

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:29 AM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

1. You know, some folks are that ignorant

Of their rights...some are propaganda masters.

I'm not sure we can tell the difference any longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:54 PM

L0oniX (31,493 posts)

220. Known terrorists with US phone books starts calling random or not so random numbers ...what happens?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:30 AM

Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)

2. Very, very, well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:33 AM

KittyWampus (55,894 posts)

3. Pathetic. You use the word "spy" but fail utterly to define exactly what has happened and what is

objectionable.

Frankly a good amount of DU'ers seem to be not quite as well-informed as they pretend to be, extremely quick to jump on any bandwagon if it agrees with their preconceived bias & extremely prone to ratfucking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:34 AM

JI7 (87,923 posts)

4. many have an agenda

just like the wingnuts i'm seeing on other sites spewing the same shit against Obama i see on here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JI7 (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:35 AM

KittyWampus (55,894 posts)

6. Why is the Left so prone to ratfucking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:36 AM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

9. ...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:38 AM

Skittles (149,451 posts)

11. LOL

you really think repeating it will make them understand? SCHEDULING WOO ME FOR ASS KICKING!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Skittles (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:40 AM

KittyWampus (55,894 posts)

13. And yet the OP is basically meaningless. It's telling how some love throwing the word "spy" around

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:48 AM

Skittles (149,451 posts)

24. your reaction is WAY more telling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:05 AM

backscatter712 (26,355 posts)

43. PLONK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:42 PM

GoneOffShore (16,909 posts)

249. You're missing the point -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022970768#post43

Here's the first bit of something posted on Reddit the other day:

I live in a country generally assumed to be a dictatorship. One of the Arab spring countries. I have lived through curfews and have seen the outcomes of the sort of surveillance now being revealed in the US. People here talking about curfews aren't realizing what that actually FEELS like. It isn't about having to go inside, and the practicality of that. It's about creating the feeling that everyone, everything is watching. A few points:

1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.

And did you watch "Lives of Others"?

We are turning into East Germany under the STASI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 08:43 AM

GoneFishin (5,217 posts)

173. Very telling response. Hmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to GoneFishin (Reply #173)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 07:01 PM

DirkGently (12,151 posts)

255. No one loves claiming "ratfucking" more than

practitioners of the same.

Projection, basically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:59 AM

mercymechap (579 posts)

34. So the hell with any chance

of catching any terrorist groups that may be communicating and plotting against us because we don't want our phone conversations (which mine happen to be utterly boring) being maintained in case our phone number happens to crop up in some terrorist's list of accessed numbers?

Times have changed. We used to be able to board planes without having to be scanned for possible bomb materials in our possession, we are being "photographed" in the street, in stores, on highways, etc., because of the many crimes being committed and the possibility of catching the criminals by accessing such records.

The way i understand the use of this data is not to listen to every conversation, but rather to have it in the case some apprehended terrorist's phone happens to have accessed your number. Seems pretty damn smart to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:06 AM

backscatter712 (26,355 posts)

I'd be just as outraged as you if I thought our phone conversations were being recorded. They're not. But go ahead and fan the flames of ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Cheviteau (Reply #197)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:28 AM

TommyCelt (799 posts)

208. Hmmm...

I'd be just as outraged as you if I thought our phone conversations were being recorded. They're not.

What assures your knowledge this isn't happening? Because members of our government say so? You're far more trusting than I am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TommyCelt (Reply #208)

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 09:54 PM

mercymechap (579 posts)

304. And what prompts you think that

they are recording your conversations? Paranoia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #304)

Fri Jun 14, 2013, 08:12 AM

TommyCelt (799 posts)

327. Because they can...

Because historically those who have the power to do such things exploit it, rather than ignore it.

As I noted in another response to you, I believe our basic disagreement here is trust. Will you acknowledge that the government (no matter if it's flying a red or blue banner) has the technical (not legal) ability to peruse the content of this data being collected?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Cheviteau (Reply #197)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:35 PM

Skittles (149,451 posts)

247. you know that was satire, right?

in reference to other DUers who have said such nonsense - that's why it was in over-the-top caps

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 08:55 PM

Skidmore (37,364 posts)

264. Wow, that's mature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:10 AM

SammyWinstonJack (44,099 posts)

49. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:17 AM

Ms. Toad (31,765 posts)

59. Until it happense to be used against you

since I am an attorney, part of my field is internet law & privacy, and I actually write some of those agreements, I think I have a pretty good idea of what they say. And I also review questions they have about whether what they want to do falls within the limits of the agreement. But for the most part, since screw-ups are very expensive and my job during the day is to protect my client, the short version of most agreements I write is, "You have no privacy, get over it." And you are right that many people don't read them - that is also their choice. What is not OK is for us to be deprived of the ability to make that choice - or of the right for redress in court. When my clients screw up, you can haul them into court. When the ACLU sued on behalf of people whose data we now know was being captured, the Supreme Court said they had no standing to sue because it was pure speculation that their data was being captured, and they hold all of the data and cannot be compelled to produce it or even acknowledge it exists (private companies can be).

There are far fewer people who write their congresspeople about anything than there should be, but I'm also on the governing body of a faith based lobby group - which lobbied against the Patriot Act when it was first introduced - and pretty much continuously since then: http://fcnl.org/search/?q=patriot%20act (and that narrows your choice of who I am to ~200 people - or perhaps 100 . . . as long as I'm not using a misleading title

and combining the first paragraph it probably narrows the field to no more than a dozen, and perhaps only one. I haven't actually checked).

But - back to the topic - there are people who care deeply about these issues who do lobby (and have since 9/11), do write their congresspeople, who do develop personal relationships with them to try to restore governmental respect for privacy and civil liberties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #94)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:27 AM

snappyturtle (14,656 posts)

128. Glad you like the new flavor of the day Kool-Aid because it's obvious

you've drunk a lot of it!

Take a very deep breath and slowly let it out. NOW...if you were a terrorist ripe to do damage to our country and you're making plans....why in the hell would you use a traceable phone? amen.

The man behind the curtain has been revealed....it's all scam propaganda. These governmental secret societies had enough info to seriously thwart 911 and they didn't....nor have they stopped anything. DiFi has come out and said they will keep their successes to themselves! LOL We all know that one way to deter bad behavior is to make public examples out of the perpetrators but they won't....because ?????? Think about it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to snappyturtle (Reply #128)

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 11:19 PM

mercymechap (579 posts)

312. So you think that pre-paid phones can't be traced?

why in the hell would you use a traceable phone

Apparently you are the one that has been drinking the KoolAid.

Any cell phone can be traced. They may not be able to get your name if you paid cash, but the calls made can be traced and they can at least know the location from where the calls were placed.

Good luck hiding from the FBI once they know the approximate location of your calls.

Why make an untraceable call? There are always situations that call for anonymity. A call to Child Protective Services has always been one of the top reasons. Here is a way to guarantee no trace back from NORMAL sources. This DOES exclude NSA, FBI, CIA and other departments that have access to Eschelon.

Read more: How to Make a Virtually Untraceable Phone Call | eHow http://www.ehow.com/how_4863492_virtually-untraceable-phone-call.html#ixzz2W9n3H0jV

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #94)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 08:52 AM

progressoid (48,252 posts)

175. Well, if it doesn't affect you then it must be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to progressoid (Reply #175)

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 10:06 PM

mercymechap (579 posts)

306. Oh, but because your panties are all

in a wad over it, I guess we must all agree with you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #306)

Fri Jun 14, 2013, 12:22 AM

progressoid (48,252 posts)

324. The point...

you missed it.

This is for you: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #94)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:00 PM

Half-Century Man (5,279 posts)

213. We have had DHS for over ten years...

And we have had no evidence of it being effective. No, it is effective, just not as it was sold to us.
Adding another layer to the 700+ layers of our bureaucracy is not making it MORE efficient.
Making it oversight resistant is just stupid.

I get that at that time we decided we needed a big bad guard dog; well now its gotten fat, it shits on the carpet, knocks company down, steals from the table, and keeps humping our leg. Knock it into submission or put it down, it is fucking up our house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Half-Century Man (Reply #213)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 03:55 AM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

300. Nice one!

That photo that sat on DU's front page for the last 48 hours, of some big centralized NSA headquarters made me want to puke. We are supposedly in austerity mode - to such an extent that people are dying when the bridges they are driving on collapse underneath them.

But all this nonsense of Spying on this and Spying on that. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this is simply yet another way for the military industrial governmental complex to pad its pockets, while making us feel scared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #69)

Name removed Message auto-removed

Response to mercymechap (Reply #69)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 08:38 AM

sibelian (7,804 posts)

171. That's a chimera.

It has nothing to do with terrorism, they are not taking the data to get terrorists they are taking the data to GET THE DATA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sibelian (Reply #171)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:07 PM

delrem (9,688 posts)

292. correct.

Having all the data on all personal affairs gives total control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #69)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:19 AM

HiPointDem (20,729 posts)

198. stupid post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HiPointDem (Reply #198)

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 11:23 PM

mercymechap (579 posts)

313. Then debate it,

just saying it is a stupid post makes your post even more stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #313)

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 11:26 PM

HiPointDem (20,729 posts)

fails all the time - sad, but true - as the result of over-zealous prosecutors (for political reasons or otherwise), lazy defense attorneys, dumb-as-a-post jurors, bored judges, etc.

Which has nothing to do with metadata collection.

It is not enough to say, "Yeah, but this COULD happen." Until it happens, it is pure speculation without any basis in fact or reality.

"If it leads nowhere but to a loss of our freedom to associate with whomever we please without fear of being labeled a terrorist, that loss is too much."

Exactly when did you lose your freedom to associate with whomever you please? Was it yesterday when you read something on DU? Was it when this kind of data-mining went into effect, which was years ago?

Last edited Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:11 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

141. Sort of the way the PATRIOT Act has been used against "dangerous terrorists", right?

I mean, that's what it was sold to us as.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/patriot-act-used-to-fight-more-drug-dealers-than-terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 06:47 AM

freedom fighter jh (1,782 posts)

156. To have it in case a terrorist's phone happens to have access your number.

Or in case someone in government wants to shut you up for any reason at all.

Suspicious of government, am I? Our system is built on protecting citizens from government.

Your records may be boring. Mine are private, the way going to the bathroom is private: I'm not doing anything in there that I need to be ashamed of, but I'd be embarrassed as hell if anyone could see me doing it. Some folks may have done things that are truly wrong but unrelated. Think of Eliot Spitzer, trying to rein in the banks from their unscrupulous practices, and brought down for seeing prostitutes. When a state's chief executive, charged with enforcing the law, violates the law, yes, that is a problem. But that was not relevant to Spitzer's efforts to protect the people from predatory banking practices. Had he succeeded, many would be better off.

These records are a club that government can use to whack any one of us over the head, especially if we get uppity and try to question them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #156)

Fri Jun 14, 2013, 12:18 AM

mercymechap (579 posts)

322. Well, collecting just the numbers of

terrorists and the people they contact would present a bit of a trick, wouldn't it. I doubt that your number will ever even be looked at, but if you feel safer knowing that no one has it, then all I can say is that your paranoia is beyond help.

When it comes to phone conversations, you can hardly compare that to bathroom sessions, especially when the safety of all Americans is involved. If pooping in front of people would keep many innocent people from being killed, you would still opt for your privacy? If it was your own family? Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 06:51 AM

Dorian Gray (13,156 posts)

157. Just because

it's "smart" doesn't mean it's not a total violation of our rights.

And just because you don't mind your rights being violated doesn't mean that the rest of our society doesn't mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 08:53 AM

Bluenorthwest (45,319 posts)

176. You mean the way they caught the Boston Bombers? After the fact? After warnings from other

nations, lots of 'red flags' and interviewing the elder one face to face they let them go about their business. So your theory is that folks with that level of competence can be trusted with and can make sense of this data, in spite of the Boston, Ft Hood, Underwear Bomber etc? What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #176)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 03:48 AM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

297. And how about this evidence - officials from at least THREE SEPARATE NATIONS

Tried to warn us about the attacks on the World Trade Center, early September 2001. And those warnings were ignored.

I see the whole War on Terror as bogus, but a total money making operation for the One Percent.
By criminalizing 290 million of us, they have a guaranteed expansion of surveillance programs, which we as patriotic citizens must accept, without question as to the rhyme, reason or any auditing of the damn money being spent (Aren't we as a nation broke, and needing to cut 4,1 trillions of dollars from the national budget over ten years? Apparently not!)

And if you ever protest, (or even demand an audit!) then you too can be considered a terrorist, and now they have justifiable cause to grab you and take you away. Remember, right now over 18 states are privatizing their prisons, and agreeing to keep those prisons at 98% capacity!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:50 PM

reusrename (1,716 posts)

218. Yeah, that's the ticket!!

cuz dem terra-ist just luv to chat about their activities on the phone and thru emails and such

That's the ticket!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 07:36 PM

Horse with no Name (33,939 posts)

258. See here is the thing

Yes, we are being photographed.

Yet, what happens when WE photograph what THEY don't think we should? I think this is kind of chilling for people who live in a "free" country...don't you? But you see, we have ceded these rights with very little pushback. And nothing like Hitler happens overnight. It is ALWAYS little by little...and the brownshirts are always calling us alarmists.

https://www.google.com/search?q=arrested+while+photographing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US

fficial&client=firefox-a

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mercymechap (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 04:23 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

301. I feel like crying.

The excuse they gave, after first denying it all of course, is so lame that I honestly did not think anyone would believe it.

Have you thought about that at all? They spy on MILLIONS of Americans, but they're 'not listening' to your calls, they only want your phone # in case one day if a terrorist has your phone # in his phone book they can find you.

Think about that for a minute. If they find a terrorist's address book with your number in it, they HAVE the phone number!! They've already found you! They don't need to go to any list of millions of numbers to find you. The number is IN the terrorist's book!! Or on his phone records. Now why would they need to collect millions of people's phone numbers when it's right there in the terrorist's address book or his phone??

Sigh! No wonder they tell so many lies and fairy tales, there really are people who believe them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:38 AM

JI7 (87,923 posts)

Is s/he in a relationship with someone in DC that has some power? Who's their boyfriend?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:00 AM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

35. And why are you, the right so against the Constitution? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:26 AM

ReRe (10,597 posts)

145. I'm an old fart...

... could you define your slang "ratfucking"? Respectfully, of course....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ReRe (Reply #145)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:50 AM

emulatorloo (41,897 posts)

190. Google Nixon Charles Colson Ratfucking

Political dirty tricks, sabotage, including infiltrating leftist groups posing as a leftist in order to stir the pot

That's what the Nixon crowd called it. Ratfucking

Straight wiki definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to emulatorloo (Reply #190)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 06:40 PM

ReRe (10,597 posts)

253. Thank you dear...

I know who Chuck Colson was but had never heard that term. Guess I haven't read enough Watergate books?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ReRe (Reply #253)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 12:05 PM

emulatorloo (41,897 posts)

288. Any time, my sweet friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to emulatorloo (Reply #288)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 09:15 PM

ReRe (10,597 posts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:48 AM

napoleon_in_rags (3,991 posts)

25. Sorry, our guys in DC make it pretty easy.

Bush: Hey, will you guys sweep this crap I took on the floor under the couch!
Obama: Sure, no need to re-litigate history.
Bush: Thanks!
(a while later)
Bush: Oh my God! Obama took a crap on the floor and swept it under the couch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to napoleon_in_rags (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:13 AM

summer-hazz (112 posts)

52. Brilliant

deduction napoleon!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to napoleon_in_rags (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:10 AM

laundry_queen (8,646 posts)

203. LOL, that's pretty much it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:17 AM

sibelian (7,804 posts)

179. You seem to have this thing that people have been "conditioned"

...into not wanting to be spied on.

Maybe they actually believe what they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sibelian (Reply #179)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:53 PM

2naSalit (73,218 posts)

271. Interestingly

it's more like the other way around, many have been conditioned to not be willing to see what's going on... perhaps they are too involved with the latest gadget or game to bother.

This is getting interesting and creepy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JI7 (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:52 AM

mercymechap (579 posts)

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JI7 (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:06 AM

HiPointDem (20,729 posts)

196. you have an agenda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:42 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

15. If someone is tracking my phone calls, they are spying on me. If the government is doing it

it is chilling. If they are using' national security' as their excuse, they are using the same excuse all totalitarian governments have used throughout history.

There is no 'defining' spying. Either someone I don't know is tracking the phone calls I make or they are not. That is all the defining I need. That is all the defining I needed when Bush was caught doing it. They were spying on the American people using telephone companies to do it. It was illegal then, Congress moved like lightening to make the illegal, legal to protect Bush and the telecoms. Why? Because they knew it was illegal spying.

If it's hard for you to understand the very simple concept of government spying on your private activities, then there really isn't much anyone can say to help you understand.

Did you support it when Bush was caught doing the exact same thing btw?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:54 AM

mn9driver (4,214 posts)

30. Is someone tracking your phone calls?

In what way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mn9driver (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:01 AM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

38. Havent you been paying attention? Or are you living in a denial bubble? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #38)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:18 AM

mn9driver (4,214 posts)

62. I've been paying quite close attention. Thanks for asking.

I am a Verizon customer and use the internet extensively. I call overseas quite a bit due to my traveling. Nothing that I have read leads me to believe that my calls are being, um, "tracked". I am asking why the poster believes their calls are being tracked, and who is tracking them. A logical followup question would be, for what purpose do you believe your calls are being tracked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mn9driver (Reply #62)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:28 AM

WinkyDink (51,311 posts)

183. ARE YOU BEING DELIBERATELY OBTUSE????? CAN YOU READ AT ALL????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to WinkyDink (Reply #183)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:18 PM

NealK (1,534 posts)

242. I'm afraid that it's either that (being deliberately obtuse) or

that poster is in total denial. The same way a fundie will continue to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, despite the overwhelming amount of proofs that it's not the case, in order to protect their belief system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mn9driver (Reply #62)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:59 PM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

221. Even the President, who would be in a position to know,

Admitted to it in a presser the other day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mn9driver (Reply #62)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:31 PM

EmeraldCityGrl (4,310 posts)

233. I can think of several suggestive yet innocent

statements you could write in those overseas emails that would prove to you
your emails are being "tracked." Unfortunately most are too terrified of the system
to test it. You would be asking for a world of misery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mn9driver (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:16 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

They believe in the Security Fairy...who makes you believe it's all OK...here's a little fairy dust...just go back to sleep

Yep, follow the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #132)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 06:40 PM

sheshe2 (79,397 posts)

254. Do you actually have a link to that, sabrina!?

Well no wonder our taxes are so high....we have zillions of agents on the ground tacking our pizza orders.

Please link the tooth fairy too, I want to read her take on this. Thank you for your time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mn9driver (Reply #127)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:13 AM

mn9driver (4,214 posts)

205. Ah. Your pizza orders are being listened to by agents.

Got it. I wonder how many agents it takes to listen to 8 billion voice and text transactions every single day? With the sequester, they're probably falling behind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mn9driver (Reply #65)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:48 AM

cui bono (19,926 posts)

133. And what do you think that data is that is being collected?

It's calls, emails, internet activity. So yes, your calls are being tracked since the information about them is stored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mn9driver (Reply #65)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 01:24 AM

tex-wyo-dem (3,190 posts)

283. mn9driver...hate to break this to you, but...

Phone calls ARE data...digital data. No different than an email or text msg or Internet search or message board post, etc, etc. It's all just digital data that the NSA is storing and running through massive computer algorithms to seach out keywords, etc. Now, voice call data does have to be treated differently in that it has to be decypted and converted to analog data and run through voice recognition software to make it usable/understandable. Voice recognition software is only partially reliable, so often the data has to be reviewed by actual human ears.

My point is that the NSA is saying they are just gathering data....the loophole is that includes voice calls, of everyone, that they have full access to without any specific judicial oversight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to mn9driver (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:12 PM

delrem (9,688 posts)

and to think they probably get paid for their sloppy work. laughable & sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:13 AM

SammyWinstonJack (44,099 posts)

53. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:49 AM

joshcryer (62,185 posts)

84. "every government has the right to ... 'intelligence'." - sabrina 1

The utter hypocrisy abounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to joshcryer (Reply #84)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:16 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

98. Every country does have the right to 'intelligence'. What exactly is your point? As you can see,

I certainly never said otherwise. But every country does NOT have the right to spy on an entire population without any kind of probable cause. Your repeated attempts at 'gotcha moments' have always failed so miserably I don''t understand why you keep trying.

Did Venuzeula wire tap the phones of all of its citizens secretly and when exposed claim it was for 'national security' reasons? Not that I am aware of. But if someone tries to assassinate an elected president, here or anywhere else, they sure do have a right, a duty to find those people. And that is done by the usual and accepted methods of catching any criminal.

The topic here is spying on the American people as Bush did, using the telecoms to do so. Just so you don't veer off once again into the wilderness. And thanks for posting that, if I say so myself, it was not a bad comment, which I stand by entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #98)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:27 PM

joshcryer (62,185 posts)

232. That comment stands for itself. I am glad I was proven correct.

I knew that eventually the US surveillance state would come up and that you would denounce it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to joshcryer (Reply #232)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:37 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

234. Of course it does, I already said that. Your 'gotcha' moments, while flattering to me that my words

are so memorable to you, are hilarious. Every country has the right to Intelligence, is that clear enough for you?

Do you know what we are discussing here? You seem confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #98)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:14 PM

delrem (9,688 posts)

294. good response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 07:05 AM

Skidmore (37,364 posts)

160. The issue is with Congress.

I really don't understand why people give Congress a pass and don't expect the body to get to work on correcting the mess they made. At this point, the law needs to be changed and the place that starts is in the legislature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Skidmore (Reply #160)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:02 AM

LondonReign2 (5,213 posts)

192. Has the Administration asked for the law to be changed?

No, because they fully support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Skidmore (Reply #160)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:20 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

199. No one gets a pass. The President who told us this week that he 'kept Bush's policies'

and yes, Bush should have been impeached or at least an investigation should have taken place the first time this information was leaked, when it still was illegal. Instead, Congress, including this President and many other Democrats at the time, voted for an amendment to the FISA Bill making legal what Bush did.

The only people who get a pass are those who did not vote for the FISA Bill amendment, the usual actual Liberals.

Ron Wyden gets a pass and to some extent, Udall both have been trying to object as much as they could considering how secret all of this has been, to protest the surveillance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:07 AM

Summer Hathaway (2,770 posts)

46. Exactly.

If the gathering/keeping of personal information equates to 'spying', my doctor, dentist, accountant, bank, etc. are all guilty. And they have way more personal info on their office computers about me than my phone number, who I've called, and for how long. Way more.

"Frankly a good amount of DU'ers seem to be not quite as well-informed as they pretend to be, extremely quick to jump on any bandwagon if it agrees with their preconceived bias & extremely prone to ratfucking."

Again - exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:33 AM

summer-hazz (112 posts)

71. Exactly

and seriously..

Wake up folks....This "spying" thing is a distraction once again
from being able to get a damn thing done in DC...imho

WTF!!!

This is not news!!!
but hey... whatever works the nerve ....right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:52 AM

cui bono (19,926 posts)

135. You forgot the sarcasm tag. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 08:57 PM

dgibby (9,474 posts)

265. And in each of those instances,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022970768#post43

Here's the first bit -

I live in a country generally assumed to be a dictatorship. One of the Arab spring countries. I have lived through curfews and have seen the outcomes of the sort of surveillance now being revealed in the US. People here talking about curfews aren't realizing what that actually FEELS like. It isn't about having to go inside, and the practicality of that. It's about creating the feeling that everyone, everything is watching. A few points:

1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.

And did you watch "Lives of Others"?

We are turning into East Germany under the STASI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:35 AM

bvar22 (39,909 posts)

5. !

Rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:35 AM

LittleBlue (10,362 posts)

7. I am shocked at what some DUers are posting

Things that those same DUers would have cried bloody murder under Shrub

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LittleBlue (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:40 AM

KittyWampus (55,894 posts)

14. Funny, I am NOT shocked at how many DU'ers are howling at the ringing of a ratfucking Pavlovian bell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:43 AM

nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)

17. So civil rights are a Pavlovian bell?

Gotta give you credit, that's a novel way of that old propaganda technique.

We call it discrediting the argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 03:40 AM

truedelphi (32,324 posts)

296. And our Commander in Chief continually refers to them as

"Traditions." For some reason, he cannot bring himself to say that "in this nation, we have rights." Instead, he talks about "traditions."

My feeling is that maybe he did spend too much time in Indonesia!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:43 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

18. When Bush was caught spying on the American people using the telecoms to do it, did you

defend him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:56 AM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

33. Why

"When Bush was caught spying on the American people using the telecoms to do it, did you defend him?"

...on earth would anyone defend that?

ACLU Ad: The President Lied to the American People and Broke the Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973979

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:04 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

42. Why on earth then, would Congress CHANGE the law to make his unlawful behavior legal?

And why would THIS president vote to protect Bush and the telecoms for breaking the law?

Could any one of us get Congress to retroactively change a law so that our illegal behavior became legal? Why do you think Obama wanted to protect Bush and went so far as to vote to change a law in order to do so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:38 AM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

74. That is not what the law did. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #18)

joshcryer This message was self-deleted by its author.

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:57 AM

joshcryer (62,185 posts)

90. Obama voted against telecom immunity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/nsa-verizon-surveillance-constitution

Yet he uses that immunity on a daily basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:02 AM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #73)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:43 AM

Summer Hathaway (2,770 posts)

79. Not just cowardly

but, in many cases, masochistic.

Ever notice how many here consistently use terms like I bow to my corporate overlords, or, we are mere peons, or, the elitists don't care about us?

Some people seem to truly desire being downtrodden, being beaten down, being victims. They don't just embrace it - they relish the very concept of it.

Fascism is here - so is the 'police state' we're all living under - so are all the other things people on this site rail about day after day.

I read it on the internet - it MUST be true!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #113)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:58 AM

cui bono (19,926 posts)

139. When all the citizens' communications data is stored then we have a police state.

But don't let that stop your being an apologist for someone who is violating the constitution. Who needs that anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #40)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 07:04 AM

Dorian Gray (13,156 posts)

The corporate-authoritarian propaganda in the MSM and right here on DU now is inviting you to "debate" your fundamental Constitutional rights. You are being asked to have very respectful and serious discussions about the pros and cons of the government's having the right to spy on every single one of us, and amass and store our private information and communication activities in databases that can be accessed at any time in the future. The rationalizations are varied but invariably outrageous: Corporations do it, so what's the difference? Doesn't the new world of terrorism demand new methods? Don't you realize some bad, bad Republicans are against this?

...absolute nonsense, and just the kind of disingenuous claims that are driving the misinformation. No one is asking for a debate on "the government's having the right to spy on every single one of us."

The debate is about whether the program does so or not. If it does, it's runs counter to the law. If if doesn't, which is the administration's claim, then it's lawful.

As someone posted earlier: "If these activities were only targeting foreigners, or terrorist, there would be no story here."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2979341

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:47 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

They'll attack the messenger or obscure the issue or scream at you if that fails. Entertaining fallacies means they've already won because the truth must be somewhere in between in argument. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:48 AM

delrem (9,688 posts)

23. However, as Obama knows, there is no debate. That's just rhetoric in a speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:51 AM

markiv (1,489 posts)

26. party uber alles

it who's right, not what's right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:53 AM

Amonester (11,541 posts)

29. Who can define in details what "unreasonable searches" really means?

lets throw that out too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Amonester (Reply #60)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:24 AM

HiPointDem (20,729 posts)

200. so what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Amonester (Reply #60)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:11 AM

bobduca (1,763 posts)

204. Laws should autoupdate!

Why isn't Apple and or Microsoft on top of this?!?! Times change, laws need updates!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Amonester (Reply #60)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:26 AM

Fumesucker (45,851 posts)

207. Guy Fawkes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes

Guy Fawkes (13 April 1570 – 31 January 1606), also known as Guido Fawkes, the name he adopted while fighting for the Spanish in the Low Countries, was a member of a group of provincial English Catholics who planned the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

Fawkes was born and educated in York. His father died when Fawkes was eight years old, after which his mother married a recusant Catholic. Fawkes later converted to Catholicism and left for the continent, where he fought in the Eighty Years' War on the side of Catholic Spain against Protestant Dutch reformers. He travelled to Spain to seek support for a Catholic rebellion in England but was unsuccessful. He later met Thomas Wintour, with whom he returned to England.

Wintour introduced Fawkes to Robert Catesby, who planned to assassinate King James I and restore a Catholic monarch to the throne. The plotters secured the lease to an undercroft beneath the House of Lords, and Fawkes was placed in charge of the gunpowder they stockpiled there. Prompted by the receipt of an anonymous letter, the authorities searched Westminster Palace during the early hours of 5 November, and found Fawkes guarding the explosives. Over the next few days, he was questioned and tortured, and eventually he broke. Immediately before his execution on 31 January, Fawkes jumped from the scaffold where he was to be hanged and broke his neck, thus avoiding the agony of the mutilation that followed.

Fawkes became synonymous with the Gunpowder Plot, the failure of which has been commemorated in England since 5 November 1605. His effigy is traditionally burned on a bonfire, commonly accompanied by a firework display.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Amonester (Reply #41)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:14 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

55. If they suspect two or more violent extremists are using a telephone, which they surely are I

would presume, you think they need to spy on several million people to try to listen to what they are saying?

If someone commits murder should the police be allowed to search a few million homes in an effort to try to find the murderer? And how on earth would doing that help them to find a murderer?

The 4th Amendment says 'no'. And oddly enough murderers are caught all the time without the police breaking down the doors of millions of people.

And if our intel community is so incompetent that they have to listen in to millions of phone calls, hoping they will be lucky and find the needle in the haystack and that is the only way they can think of doing it, they should all be fired. We are not safe.

Of course all totalitarian governments use 'national security' as an excuse for keeping their populations under surveillance. That is why the FFs wrote the 4th Amendment. To protect us from that kind of government.

Nixon violated the 4th Amendment, although he didn't spy on the entire country. After that we got the FISA bill, not perfect by any means, but at least it required the government to get a warrant BEFORE spying on anyone. Congress changed that law to protect Bush when HE violated the law, retroactively. Why do you think any Democrat voted for such a blatant tactic to save Bush from possible impeachment for this crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Amonester (Reply #41)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:17 AM

JoeyT (6,785 posts)

61. Because that's not how probable cause works.

In the sense that, despite all the so-called 'spying', AND the fact that the authorities were 'pointed' at one of them by a foreign intel service, the LAW was such that they were PROTECTED ... they couldn't just lock 'em up with actual, real 'probable cause'. That tells me that our 'Rights' are still very much 'in place'.

Had the bombing NOT happened, because the older brother was sitting in jail right now, entirely based on 'warnings' from Russia and from the government snooping on his internet and cellphone communications (w/o a warrant), then there'd probably be DU members with 'Free T*arnaev!' signatures, and rightly so in that case. But the fact that he WASN'T arrested and held tells us all that our 'rights' are still well in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to brett_jv (Reply #239)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:06 PM

brett_jv (1,245 posts)

31. Hope and Change....It's..ITS A COOKBOOK!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:00 AM

MuseRider (33,472 posts)

37. Absolutely.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:01 AM

backscatter712 (26,355 posts)

39. K&R! I invite all DUers of true American blood, who love the Constitution, to use the PLONK.

See this?

The red arrow points to the Ignore Person feature of DU, which is a distant descendent of the killfile of USENET fame.

It's your asshole filter. Put a person on your ignore list, and everything he ever does on DU disappears! He becomes an unperson!

And I encourage you to use it.

Why?

These people are not here to debate.

They're here to disrupt sensible discussion. They're here to spew propaganda. They're here to practice character assassination. Back when DU was first set up, we didn't tolerate this shit. These fuckers got sent on their way with a tombstone engraved with "He disrupted poorly."

We're not in high school forensics club. We don't have to play nice with these two-bit Der Sturmer wannabees. This is a place for progressives and liberal Democrats. Teabaggers, conservatives and authoritarian fascists are not invited.

*PLONK* the fuckers!

Ostracize and shun the fuck out of them.

The jury system is an abject failure in throwing these shitheads out. Take matters into your own hands.

They're not worthy of our respect. Debate is an act of respect, which you give to a person whose opinion you value, even if you disagree.

These authoritarian slimefucks don't deserve the respect of debate. They take our act of respect, and use it to barrage us with an endless stream of insult, character assassination and deception. The people shitting on this board clearly don't respect our opinions. They don't reciprocate the respect we've given them over and over. They're gaming the system to shout us down.

I don't respect the pieces of shit who are here to tell us that we should bend over for the Stasi-like surveillance system the NSA's put together. I don't respect the fuckers who are here to verbally destroy anyone who dares to dissent, or to commit acts of civil disobedience. You want to play the game of Lets Find What Dirt We Can Dig Up On Whistleblowers, fuck you.

Respect is finite, and for these quislings, I'm fresh out.

When you make these sorts of attacks, and spew this disrespectful bullshit, and shit all over our values, it's clear you don't have the interests of your fellow Americans, or progressives in mind. And at that, you are no longer my friend. You are my enemy.

Don't make me post my Ignore list publicly. I'm sorely tempted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:16 AM

AnotherMcIntosh (11,064 posts)

58. Rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:46 AM

BrotherIvan (9,126 posts)

82. Rec this post

I'm stunned by all the authoritarian sturm guzzling on these threads and that people take the time and energy to reply to these whacks. Just like Republican bullshit, this kind of BOrG Crap™ needs to be stopped in its tracks because it is infecting debate. You might call it spin and propaganda but these people aren't being paid (perhaps not all of them), they just continue spewing out their Crap, calling people racists and hysterical and being as offensive as possible. Do not engage them for it only feeds their need for attention. Their ratfucking is so apparent it's laughable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:16 AM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

124. I've never once used the ignore feature, but

this place is so fucked up I think you're right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:08 AM

ReRe (10,597 posts)

140. Amen! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am convinced that this is the only way to deal with this situation here in DEMOCRATICunderground. It has truly become intolerable. I'm so tired of making nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:15 AM

Egalitarian Thug (12,448 posts)

143. I ignore them the old fashioned way, but then I'm just a ratfucker.

Besides, if you put them on ignore you don't get to laugh at the insane shit they spew, and now more than ever, we need to laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 07:17 AM

hootinholler (26,449 posts)

162. I can't make you do anything

but if you want to PM that ignore list to me I think I would find it interesting.

Great points, but, I will disagree with the jury system's job. It's not to remove policy trolls and disinformation artists, but to smack down the stupid trolls who can't help themselves.

Some of the most authoritarian here are long time DUers. While putting them on ignore may improve your experience, it also allows them to post shit unchallenged. The lack of challenge is then held up as the will of DU and helps move the forums to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 08:23 AM

Fix The Stupid (910 posts)

166. Try it peeps - it really cleans up the DU experience!

I'm working on the "obvious RW Troll/Corp. Propoganda" file...

It's a start...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:20 AM

sibelian (7,804 posts)

180. I almost wish you WOULD post your ignore list.

I suspect yours and mine would look very similar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sibelian (Reply #180)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:24 AM

backscatter712 (26,355 posts)

182. Look for the pictures of Klingons...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:32 AM

morningfog (18,115 posts)

209. The only people I put on ignore are assholes and shills.

There is some over lap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:34 PM

ctsnowman (1,903 posts)

226. I have resisted doing this

I left HP (the web site) because the trolls just got out of hand after AOL (and we all know what that stands for

) I came back to DU and am now just as sick of it. I'm going to try your idea. I just can't stand some of the BS anymore. Thanks for the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 07:41 PM

Horse with no Name (33,939 posts)

259. I'd like to see it

If I am not on it! LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:11 AM

Fuddnik (8,846 posts)

50. Kick and Rec!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:14 AM

Autumn (42,866 posts)

54. My suggestion is that those people not be responded to.

Why give them a response at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Autumn (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:30 AM

backscatter712 (26,355 posts)

70. +1! That's what the PLONK is for!

They disrespect us with their spam and bullshit, why should we respect them by engaging them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #70)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 08:33 AM

Autumn (42,866 posts)

169. There is really no

reason to engage them because it just causes a nasty back and forth. *PLONK* works, but for me it's just as easy to not even bother to respond to them at all or I just a say hi, how are you and thats it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Autumn (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:08 PM

KoKo (84,711 posts)

241. I've just put 10 on Ignore... It was too huge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:23 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

102. It isn't just the Fourth Amendment.

All of the Bill of Rights is placed in jeopardy here.

This program and the others that accompany it like the drones, chill speech and the freedom of assembly and association. Even the freedom of religion and the right to petition the government could be implicated.

The right to a fair trial could be endangered if your attorney's phone records are known to the very authorities who are investigating your case.

This is a major threat to our freedom and the Bill of Rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #102)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:26 AM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

105. Excellent, important point. See this OP:

They are attempting to normalize the step-by-step elimination of the Constitution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981711

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Reply #105)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:34 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

If you read the Atlantic article, you will understand that, while Obama is not a dictator, the stage is being set so that one can easily take over.

The drones, the total information awareness net, corporate domination of our elections, scare campaigns. there are so many elements that, whether intended or not, whether out of fear or out of some sinister strategy (and that is not clear), are destroying the framework of our constitutional rights.

Sorry if you can't see it. And maybe we will catch ourselves before we fall. But we are falling. How gradually I do not know.

...this read like more fear mongering to me.

I mean, there is constant outrage over these programs. The push back comes only when the facts are misrepresented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #118)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:54 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

119. There is a lot to be afraid of. How could the government

conduct such a program in secret and behind our backs. That is really, really ugly.

I hope that Congress will act to abolish these programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #119)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:10 AM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

122. See this

There is a lot to be afraid of. How could the government

conduct such a program in secret and behind our backs. That is really, really ugly.

I hope that Congress will act to abolish these programs.

...is what I mean. From other programs decades ago through to Bush's illegal spying on Americans, I simply don't get the shock.

The FISA court has been a secret court for such opinons since the late 1970s.

This is why I find the willful misrepresentation of the program disturbing. It's one thing to disagree with it, to want it to change, but it's another thing entirely to use it to scare people, especially through the characterizations that this is a new and even more nefarious program than Bush's illegal spying. It's no such thing, and such characterizations feed extreme anti-government sentiments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #122)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:17 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

125. Did you read the court order?

It is far too broad. It is available from a link in the original Greenwald article in the Guardian.

The program is clearly very broad. The subpoena ordered Verizon to collect a very broad range of information. The government should not be concerned about a range of information that broad. Snowden stated that his program was looking at all that information and sifting it and analyzing it. That is way more than was contemplated at the time the FISA legislation was written.

This is a shameful thing. There is no excuse. I trust that Obama, who is a decent person, will turn this around and return us to a country in which we don't have so much power vested in our executive. The court order I saw makes a joke of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, due process (the right to notice and to be heard in a court) and FISA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #114)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:46 AM

cui bono (19,926 posts)

147. The notion of being an apologist for Obama just because he is a D

is no more justifiable than the RW being an apologist for BushCo.

But your notion statement, however, is a false equivalency, since Obama's actions are the actions of a police state where as the claims of him being a communist or akin to Hitler are nonsense and not based on facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cui bono (Reply #147)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:24 PM

DissidentVoice (813 posts)

246. Well said

I voted for Obama twice, and I am increasingly feeling sorry I did.

Ever since the Reagan years, Democrats have increasingly been trying to position themselves as "GOP-Lite" (no thanks to the verdammt DLC) and want to show "Hey, we're tough on crime! We're tough on terrorism! We're not 'socialists!' Honest!"

This is the fruit reaped by that wrongheaded attitude, along with "welfare reform," Bill Clinton rolling over and playing dead in 1994 on health care, and President Obama caving to Max Baucus on the public option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ProSense (Reply #114)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:39 AM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

188. He isn't a communist. He is functioning as a totalitarian. Learn the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #102)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:35 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

186. Let me guess, it's the 2nd amendment too?

You do realize you're beginning to sound like this great defender of the Bill O' Rights, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:33 AM

G_j (40,349 posts)

109. anyone who trusts private contractors

to respect our constitutional rights, is foolish or worse.

And you are right about the "debate" theme. It's a trick used all the time, especially in the media, and unfortunately it seems to work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to G_j (Reply #109)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:51 PM

nashville_brook (20,958 posts)

270. so true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:41 AM

SleeplessinSoCal (7,974 posts)

115. If the government could spy on all of us, we'd not only have 0 unemployment, we'd need more spies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 02:54 AM

Number23 (24,544 posts)

120. It's finally happened. You have finally succumbed to your paranoia

News flash: You may think DU is the Alpha and Omega of the universe but no one else does.

I recommend that when we see utter garbage like this, we simply respond with the text of the Fourth Amendment, and probably the First, too, since that is equally under assault.

Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:19 AM

still_one (87,921 posts)

I just don't. Call me paranoid all you want, but I think it's best to try to stop something before it spins out of control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to savebigbird (Reply #161)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 08:24 AM

Historic NY (36,737 posts)

167. Then you'd better give up all those cell phone devices...

internet, debit & credit cards even your grocery card....data is being collected dailiy on every aspect of your life.. Data mining is big business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Historic NY (Reply #167)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 08:26 AM

Logical (22,457 posts)

Some people have a difficult time seeing the forest because of the trees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:07 AM

WillyT (72,631 posts)

178. Most Excellent Points !!! - K & R !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:36 AM

ucrdem (15,502 posts)

187. You mean this garbage?

I agree with you there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:43 AM

DirkGently (12,151 posts)

189. It's amazing how willing people are to be co-opted into a bad idea.

We all thought it was obvious when Bush's secret surveillance was revealed to have broken the law, that you can't do it that way -- we can't have the entire process of review also be a secret.

But now here we are. Another President; another secret program found to have been violating the Constitution, and we can barely speak through the dustorm of appeals to loyalty and ad hominem attacks against those bringing the issues to light.

We can have an open democratic society, or we can have uber-secret, unaccountable police action we are assured "is vital to national security.

We can't have both. The amazing thing is how many people think it's a hard choice, or that the secret police state is the better idea.

Because how could that go wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:02 AM

stupidicus (2,570 posts)

193. that sums it up nicely -- the usual suspects want compliance/support

in their endless quest to deny imperfections or worse.

I'm sure their reasons are many and varied, like hero worship, avoiding that "duped" feeling, but they likely all have the same common denominator denial always does -- ego preservation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:03 AM

HiPointDem (20,729 posts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:08 PM

Puzzledtraveller (5,937 posts)

214. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:37 PM

Angelonthesidelines (70 posts)

216. The Bill of Rights was written before

Assault rifles were invented
Nuclear destruction was not possible
before Electronic communications, before SciFi existed

Just like Second zealots defend the rights of unstable losers easy access to an AR15, Fourth zealots defend the rights of Muhamed Zazzi to private terror attack plans.

I'm not saying just accept it.

I am saying we volunteer to EVERY NSA intrusion by using phones, email, social media, et al.

What is so wrong with going off the grid? Many many people live entire lives without anything electronic blinking or beeping.

If there is a better way to stop this abuse of power, I cannot think of one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:52 PM

L0oniX (31,493 posts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #229)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 08:52 PM

msanthrope (37,549 posts)

263. Doesn't require a warrant. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to backscatter712 (Reply #225)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 08:48 AM

Schema Thing (10,283 posts)

285. Actually they do need a dragnet if they want to observe what said terrorist

said and did in the past. They have to collect and store "the past".

Which does seem like it would be useful information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 01:34 PM

ctsnowman (1,903 posts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:19 PM

temmer (358 posts)

243. KICK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:47 PM

AndyA (16,993 posts)

244. Yeah, I had a long time DUer respond, "It's legal, so what's your point?"

The ignorance is incredible. Guess allowing President Obama to do whatever he wants to do is more important than our rights.

Figures the right to privacy is secondary to the right to bear arms. Pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 04:58 PM

yodermon (6,142 posts)

251. "unreasonable" can mean whatever the fuck the people, congress, courts, or executive interpret it

to mean. Right now it happens to mean "um, search everything, kthx, don't get mad bro"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 07:31 PM

blkmusclmachine (16,149 posts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:58 PM

boilerbabe (2,214 posts)

273. damn i am glad i am not the only one who is totaly creeped out by these fucking partisan apologists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:09 PM

snot (10,378 posts)

274. K&R'd!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:48 PM

Uncle Joe (55,600 posts)

277. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, woo me with science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:21 PM

jsr (7,712 posts)

280. Amen to that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 01:33 AM

TheKentuckian (23,947 posts)

284. Damn, I wish I could rec this again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #284)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 09:59 AM

Aerows (39,961 posts)

286. I rec'd it for you n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 12:18 PM

Catherina (35,568 posts)

289. I took my rec away so I could rec it again. Your OP can't be rec'd enough. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 10:24 PM

limpyhobbler (8,244 posts)

291. rec #340.

The security-surveillance-military-industrial complex has gotten to big for its britches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 02:33 PM

KoKo (84,711 posts)

303. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 10:12 PM

Tx4obama (36,974 posts)

307. The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that phone records are not protected by the 4th amendment

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. The pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company's central offices. In the Majority opinion, Justice Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen registry constitutes a violation of the "legitimate expectation of privacy" since the numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

Background
In Katz v. United States (1967), the United States Supreme Court established its "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. It overturned Olmstead v. United States and held that wiretaps were unconstitutional searches, because there was a reasonable expectation that the communication would be private. The government was then required to get a warrant to execute a wiretap.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

The Smith decision left pen registers completely outside constitutional protection. If there was to be any privacy protection, it would have to be enacted by Congress as statutory privacy law.

-snip-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Tx4obama (Reply #307)

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 11:18 PM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

311. No.

Phone records are only a small part of this issue
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3006038
Posted by Fearless

We're talking about geo-location from cell towers. While at some points you are in the "public sphere" and can legally be monitored by anyone without warrant (so long as it isn't stalking), there is no way to differentiate whether or not you have entered a private location (be it business, home, or private residence). Therefore it is ILLEGAL to data mine for the geo-location data for cell users as the US government HAS done.

Without a warrant, you (person, company, or government) are not constitutionally allowed to obtain this information on anyone. The courts have dealt with this issue in the past A LOT in dealing with the definition of "expectation of privacy". The only place where this is allowed is by the company that you are dealing with. For instance, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to your geo-location information from the cell company themselves, because you agree to their services.

The Obama Administration would contend currently that under the precedent for expectation of privacy that they are then allowed to take your data because of the lessening of the expectation of privacy precedent regarding emails after they've reached their destination. That is, they hope to argue (although invoking state secrets means at least for the time being they won't have to) that your data enters the public sphere when it is aggregated by the telecom. That is however false. Otherwise it would also be required to be publicly available, as would your SSN, any product you buy on a club card at a grocery store, all online purchases by accounts made on Amazon, EBay, PayPal, etc. Additionally all searches on search engines by your computer, all tv shows watched from many cable providers, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, AIM, Skype, etc. If they argue that they have entered the public domain then they are also arguing that ALL people are legally ALLOWED to view that data because it is no longer covered by the protections of the expectation of privacy.

The courts have left this area extremely gray and for good reason. Government agencies want the leeway to use your information but at the same time keep up the idea that you still have privacy. You can't have both.

It comes down to the fact that the Administration is intrinsically WRONG in their belief that what is being done is legal. Because if it is legal, then you have no expectation of privacy in ANY of this aforementioned information, including your SSN for instance. Either the information is in the public domain and they and everyone can see it legally or it isn't and no one can. That is the law and that is the precedent as it relates to the Fourth Amendment.

Here is a BASIC description if it for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Reply #311)

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 11:49 PM

Tx4obama (36,974 posts)

318. From your Wiki link...

-snip-

In general, one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things held out to the public. A well-known example is that there are no privacy rights in garbage left for collection in a public place.[2] Other examples include: pen registers that record the numbers dialed from particular telephones; ...

-snip-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy#Overview

Same as in the excerpt below...

The Fourth Amendment only protects you against searches that violate your reasonable expectation of privacy. A reasonable expectation of privacy exists if 1) you actually expect privacy, and 2) your expectation is one that society as a whole would think is legitimate.

This rule comes from a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1967, Katz v. United States, holding that when a person enters a telephone booth, shuts the door, and makes a call, the government can not record what that person says on the phone without a warrant. Even though the recording device was stuck to the outside of the phone booth glass and did not physically invade Katz’s private space, the Supreme Court decided that when Katz shut the phone booth’s door, he justifiably expected that no one would hear his conversation, and that it was this expectation — rather than the inside of the phone booth itself — that was protected from government intrusion by the Fourth Amendment. This idea is generally phrased as "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."

A big question in determining whether your expectation of privacy is "reasonable" and protected by the Fourth Amendment arises when you have "knowingly exposed" something to another person or to the public at large. Although Katz did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the sound of his conversation, would he have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his appearance or actions while inside the glass phone booth? Probably not.

Thus, some Supreme Court cases have held that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information you have "knowingly exposed" to a third party — for example, bank records or records of telephone numbers you have dialed — even if you intended for that third party to keep the information secret. In other words, by engaging in transactions with your bank or communicating phone numbers to your phone company for the purpose of connecting a call, you’ve "assumed the risk" that they will share that information with the government.

-snip-

Full page here: https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Tx4obama (Reply #318)

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 11:53 PM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

320. And you deliberately ignore the substance of the post,

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2013, 12:45 AM - Edit history (2)

which is that there is much, much more here than telephone numbers. The government cannot claim that all of this information has entered the public sphere when it is not made publicly available.

That is, they hope to argue (although invoking state secrets means at least for the time being they won't have to) that your data enters the public sphere when it is aggregated by the telecom. That is however false. Otherwise it would also be required to be publicly available, as would your SSN, any product you buy on a club card at a grocery store, all online purchases by accounts made on Amazon, EBay, PayPal, etc. Additionally all searches on search engines by your computer, all tv shows watched from many cable providers, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, AIM, Skype, etc. If they argue that they have entered the public domain then they are also arguing that ALL people are legally ALLOWED to view that data because it is no longer covered by the protections of the expectation of privacy.

Either something is in the public sphere, or it isn't. The government cannot have it both ways.

And even though the technical "legality" in this case is clearly a sham and a joke, it should also be noted that technical "legality" is a historically bankrupt argument when discussing encroaching tyranny, anyway. It is the modus operandi of authoritarian regimes to "legalize" whatever they want to do. Sometimes they shamelessly create new laws. Sometimes they twist and distort the interpretation of old laws. It is clear here that both the letter *and* the spirit of the Fourth Amendment are being raped. These pathetic, incessant arguments by the plutonomy's propaganda machine that yet another major assault on our Constitution is perfectly "legal" are nothing short of despicable and horrifying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 10:55 AM

Catherina (35,568 posts)

328. A timely KICK! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Catherina (Reply #328)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:05 PM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

329. Thanks for kicking it.

What times we live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 02:02 AM

Catherina (35,568 posts)

332. A timely KICK! Don't entertain the garbage! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Name removed Message auto-removed

1. You know, some folks are that ignorant

220. Known terrorists with US phone books starts calling random or not so random numbers ...what happens?

2. Very, very, well said.

3. Pathetic. You use the word "spy" but fail utterly to define exactly what has happened and what is

4. many have an agenda

6. Why is the Left so prone to ratfucking?

9. ...

11. LOL

13. And yet the OP is basically meaningless. It's telling how some love throwing the word "spy" around

24. your reaction is WAY more telling

43. *PLONK*

249. You're missing the point -

173. Very telling response. Hmm.

255. No one loves claiming "ratfucking" more than

34. So the hell with any chance

45. *PLONK*

63. Yeah, that's fine with me -

148. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOUR PHONE CONVERSATIONS ARE BORING!!!!!

197. BS

208. Hmmm...

304. And what prompts you think that

327. Because they can...

247. you know that was satire, right?

264. Wow, that's mature.

49. ...

59. Until it happense to be used against you

69. Boy, I thought the only paranoid people

85. Yes - fixate on the details

94. The chances of the FBI/CIA

110. I'm sure you felt the government was just as benevolent

295. We didn't agree about the ACA, but we certainly agree about

298. We didn't agree about the ACA but we seem to be in agreement over

305. If Jeb Bush or even Glenn Beck (Horrors) were to

308. You are very naive.

309. I'm not naive, I'm just not as

310. I am completely aware of all of that.

319. You may think that you are making choices

323. Actually -

128. Glad you like the new flavor of the day Kool-Aid because it's obvious

312. So you think that pre-paid phones can't be traced?

175. Well, if it doesn't affect you then it must be fine.

306. Oh, but because your panties are all

324. The point...

213. We have had DHS for over ten years...

300. Nice one!

171. That's a chimera.

292. correct.

198. stupid post

313. Then debate it,

315. debating it would only elevate it to an importance above its stupidity.

317. Which is your way of

210. I don't have anything to hide...

302. The question is what do THEY have to hide.

314. And that is what they have

326. No...not nearly enough oversight to make sure that's what the "have" to do

331. They have no right to surveil en masse in the first place.

250. You obviously have forgotten that slippery slopes get slipperier and steeper

72. Do you have any solid info

99. It is not a non-sequitor

108. Our system of justice

121. You could try reading the post again.

129. ...

134. Because the impact of collecting one kind of data about who you are associating with

321. I can understand why you

325. Really?

212. So...

316. Exactly!

131. You deserve neither liberty nor security. n/t

141. Sort of the way the PATRIOT Act has been used against "dangerous terrorists", right?

156. To have it in case a terrorist's phone happens to have access your number.

322. Well, collecting just the numbers of

157. Just because

176. You mean the way they caught the Boston Bombers? After the fact? After warnings from other

297. And how about this evidence - officials from at least THREE SEPARATE NATIONS

218. Yeah, that's the ticket!!

258. See here is the thing

301. I feel like crying.

12. i don't believe some of them are the left

20. Exactly! (nt)

43. PLONK

45. PLONK