Government Spying on Millions (Verizon)

[Cackalacky]

Legal != constitutional

The Patriot Act is all kinds of unconstitutional.

I love BobD.... but I cant for the life of me see how violating at a minimum 6 of the 10 Bill of rights is constitutional. The debate for me, and its one that I could have, is for the interception of data once it is gone and before it gets where it is going. I liken it to mail (real postal mail). If someone opened your mail, read it, resealed it, tracked it, and sent it on its way, that would be illegal. Now doing this for millions of people in order to form webs of interconnections is duplicitous. It is not a matter of if you are doing something or not. The data allows them into your personal world. They will know all kids of details based on your behavior over the telecommunications. Under the Patriot Act, they can label you an enemy combatant for any reason, illegally obtain your personal metadata, and do what ever the **** they want to with it. If peopl think the IRS is a bunch pitbulls when it comes collection time, imagin what the intelligence agencies are with all your electronic fingerprints.

 

[Cackalacky]

Fortunately they aren't unconstitutional. I know many would want them to be, some will try to argue they were, but they aren't and I think you know that. That argument would go nowhere. The program has and will continue to have strong bipartisan approval by the key members needed.

Reform the Patriot Act | American Civil Liberties Union

Strong bipartisan support in this political climate = unconstitutional.

 

[Cackalacky]

Our founding fathers would have this idiot hung by the neck or shot for giving away state secrets. Duty and honor were popular back then. just ask dshans , Boggs or OMM

I am thinking you missed this earlier from Bogs ( Sorry Bogs to quote you)

I am having a hard time seeing this as a traitorous act.

He exposed a secret covert program, that if it is all that it is billed, violates the Constitution thoroughly, which makes those running the Prism program traitors.

What you are describing is more of a stunt. Unless they find readings of insanity, most people are unwilling to go into hiding and subject their family to harassment, arrest, (torture) excuse me, questioning, all for the sake of "pulling off a stunt."

And I can't find it in my heart to believe anyone who calls a guy like this a traitor, for exposing a top secret program with a sole purpose of covertly collecting with swaths of data, without adequate oversight.
__________________

 

[BobD]

No institution is worthy of such absolute loyalty. Particularly not one with such a poor record as the Federal government.

This is where we'd disagree strongly. I would argue there is nothing more deserving of my absolute loyalty. The US Government is only as good as the people in it.

 

[Cackalacky]

And for shits and giggles, lets not forget that texts, emails, facebook, and other electronic personas are admissible in court as they can objectively define a person's behavior.

 

[chicago51]

Two things I think need to happen

1 - More transparency and accountability from government. (I know I'm dreaming here)

2 - After number #1 is achieved we need to stop outsourcing this type of stuff to private for profit corporations

NSA leak prompts calls for U.S. to reduce reliance on contractors | Reuters

 

[BobD]

I am thinking you missed this earlier from Bogs ( Sorry Bogs to quote you)

No, I didn't miss it. I was just suggesting that Boggs could tell us from personal experience what it was like in the 1700s

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

And for shits and giggles, lets not forget that texts, emails, facebook, and other electronic personas are admissible in court as they can objectively define a person's behavior.

In that case

I have never disagreed with the federal government or any other government agency in my life.

And marijuana is the devils weed... I would never touch it.


I hoped you enjoyed reading this Mr. Intelligence man

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is where we'd disagree strongly. I would argue there is nothing more deserving of my absolute loyalty. The US Government is only as good as the people in it.

And if, as you suggest, the people in it should be absolutely barred from revealing government wrong doing, how are we to identify the bad actors from the good?

I brought up the Church's sex scandal previously because I know your feelings on that subject strongly contradict your arguments here. Some hardcore Catholics feel like the victims who went public essentially betrayed the Church; how is that different than your arguments on what constitutes treason?

 

[BobD]

And if, as you suggest, the people in it should be absolutely barred from revealing government wrong doing, how are we to identify the bad actors from the good?

There is a channel set up for people within the government to speak up if they need to and anyone with a security clearance knows it.

brought up the Church's sex scandal previously because I know your feelings on that subject strongly contradict your arguments here. Some hardcore Catholics feel like the victims who went public essentially betrayed the Church; how is that different than your arguments on what constitutes treason?

I am in no way qualified to cast my judgment in matters of religion on anyone.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

There is a channel set up for people within the government to speak up if they need to and anyone with a security clearance knows it.

Right. And messages sent up this channel have a realistic chance of affecting change? Your experience with bureaucracy apparently has been much more positive than mine.

I am in no way qualified to cast my judgment in matters of religion on anyone.

I'm not asking you to cast judgment. I'm asking you to compare your arguments in this situation to your feelings on the other; a completely subjective task.

There are lots of parallels in my view: (1) both institutions have developed a culture that rejects transparency; (2) that culture has enabled abusive practices that run counter to the best interests of each institution's constituent base; and (3) there was no real chance to effect change in either until such abuses were made public.

I suspect that you feel differently about these two instances of whistle blowing due to different levels of emotional attachment to the institutions involved. I'd argue that both were overwhelmingly positive developments; and due to the immense power the Federal government wields, the public interest in promoting transparency (and in encouraging whistleblowers) is even greater here than it was in the Church's sex scandal.

 

[Cackalacky]

No, I didn't miss it. I was just suggesting that Boggs could tell us from personal experience what it was like in the 1700s

Lol.

 

[phgreek]

It is bad enough that the government spies on us but then it outsources it to private for profit corporations. Not only do these corporations cost more tax payer money but they only answer to profit, at least the government to a lose extent still has to answer to the public.



How Private Contractors Like Booz Allen Cost Taxpayers More

I disagree with much of what was said about cost comparisons here...

1.66 times more for a contractor. On its face that isn't my experience...I did a direct competition with the government for work...its been a few years, but I'm guessing things are much the same. The government's bid admitted they guessed at what their overhead rate is, and estimated salary with a 1.2 multiplier for benefits...thats insulting, and stupid. The reality is, the government employee who has been around gets MONDO vacation/sick time (like 4X that of contractors), rich healthcare benefits, and in the IT/Cyber world their pay is reasonable...and magically that goes from a 3.2 multiplier (which is what that benefits package costs on the outside) to a 1.2...lies...all lies.

2) 15-20% (some %...guessing at 15-20) of the high paid analysts are guys the government COULD NEVER HAVE HAD...but can contract for....skews the numbers...that is if you are inclined to make the assumption the government could do the job w/o those guys...they can't. You can't count the pros from dover you'd never have had on your staff uncle sam.

3) Ever tried to fire a non-productive employee...try that in the government. The bottom line is, when you compare government performance on a finite project with contractor performance...contractors win on cost, schedule, and quality...and innovation..PLEASE!

So I believe on their face...in terms of hard costs...the 1.66 claim can't be true. As well based on the other issues affecting Total Lifecycle Cost...Uncle Sam CANNOT compete.

Now...am I more or less worried a contractor has, or has access to "Meta" data vs. government. No. Neither should have it, but the government certainly has shown me no reason to be more or less confident in their employees than a BAH guy to be more cost effective or a better steward of the data...

 

[BobD]

Right. And messages sent up this channel have a realistic chance of affecting change? Your experience with bureaucracy apparently has been much more positive than mine.



I'm not asking you to cast judgment. I'm asking you to compare your arguments in this situation to your feelings on the other; a completely subjective task.

There are lots of parallels in my view: (1) both institutions have developed a culture that rejects transparency; (2) that culture has enabled abusive practices that run counter to the best interests of each institution's constituent base; and (3) there was no real chance to effect change in either until such abuses were made public.

I suspect that you feel differently about these two instances of whistle blowing due to different levels of emotional attachment to the institutions involved. I'd argue that both were overwhelmingly positive developments; and due to the immense power the Federal government wields, the public interest in promoting transparency (and in encouraging whistleblowers) is even greater here than it was in the Church's sex scandal.

I don't see parallels as I don't believe a church should have secrets and as is obvious from my previous statements, I feel they can be a valuable tool to a government.

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't see parallels as I don't believe a church should have secrets and as is obvious from my previous statements, I feel they can be a valuable tool to a government.

I want to see what is in the Vatican Vaults.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't see parallels as I don't believe a church should have secrets and as is obvious from my previous statements, I feel they can be a valuable tool to a government.

This is a legal argument, which isn't really relevant to the comparison I made. The Church's sex scandal was made possible by a culture that rejected transparency; not by a set of special legal privileges that prevented necessary disclosure.

Obviously governments have to have some secrecy in order to operate effectively. But in light of the recent explosion in the number of documents for which the government is claiming classification, we're far beyond the point of reasonableness. The Feds now operate within a similar culture of secrecy, which encourages the abuse of power and hinders its correction.

Both are pernicious, and need to be challenged.

 

[T Town Tommy]

My one serious post with this whole deal is that it is all predicated on the fact that the information being gathered will not be used for political purposes but rather national security. I am all for what keeps our country safe but I fear that somewhere down the road this information will be used for political gains. It appears to have already happened at the IRS. And all that really bothers me.

 

[BobD]

I want to see what is in the Vatican Vaults.

Wouldn't that be awesome.

 

[BobD]

This is a legal argument, which isn't really relevant to the comparison I made. The Church's sex scandal was made possible by a culture that rejected transparency; not by a set of special legal privileges that prevented necessary disclosure.

Obviously governments have to have some secrecy in order to operate effectively. But in light of the recent explosion in the number of documents for which the government is claiming classification, we're far beyond the point of reasonableness. The Feds now operate within a similar culture of secrecy, which encourages the abuse of power and hinders its correction.

Both are pernicious, and need to be challenged.

I think what many people fail to see is that our government doesn't WANT to screen everything they do. The job is friggin insanely huge.

I see what your saying about transparency in the church, or the lack thereof, but there is a big difference between reporting a crime and divulging secrets used to hopefully prevent them.

 

[enrico514]

My one serious post with this whole deal is that it is all predicated on the fact that the information being gathered will not be used for political purposes but rather national security. I am all for what keeps our country safe but I fear that somewhere down the road this information will be used for political gains. It appears to have already happened at the IRS. And all that really bothers me.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think what many people fail to see is that our government doesn't WANT to screen everything they do.

So they only do it grudgingly, and with the best intentions? Because I can easily think of a bunch of self-serving and nefarious reasons to classify as much as possible (which they're currently doing). And it's not like we can even debate this publicly; rolling back the extent of classification is nearly impossible because CLASSIFIED and TERRORISM.

I see what your saying about transparency in the church, or the lack thereof, but there is a big difference between reporting a crime and divulging secrets used to hopefully prevent them.

So the government is justified in doing almost anything as long as it's directed toward the prevention of crime? What are your thoughts on the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments?

 

[BobD]

So they only do it grudgingly, and with the best intentions? Because I can easily think of a bunch of self-serving and nefarious reasons to classify as much as possible (which they're currently doing). And it's not like we can even debate this publicly; rolling back the extent of classification is nearly impossible because CLASSIFIED and TERROR.



So the government is justified in doing almost anything as long as it's directed toward the prevention of crime? What are your thoughts on the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments?

Yes, I believe they are doing it with the best intentions. I don't believe there is some giant conspiracy against the freedoms of the American people. They are trying to do the best they can with what they have, they'll never make everyone happy and they'll always be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

As far as the amendments, they are awesome and slightly outdated just like me

 

[Grahambo]

WhiskeyJack vs BobD:

 

[kmoose]

Speaking of the Bill of Rights...................

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/b_3tfemWm5Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Yes, I believe they are doing it with the best intentions. I don't believe there is some giant conspiracy against the freedoms of the American people. They are trying to do the best they can with what they have, they'll never make everyone happy and they'll always be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

As far as the amendments, they are awesome and slightly outdated just like me

You clearly have more trust in government than I, and you're apparently willing to trade a lot more liberty for security than I am. Different strokes, I guess.

At the very least, can you understand why this makes less trustful citizens uneasy? We never got the benefit of a public debate on this crucial security v. liberty issue. And now we're being assured that this massive unconstitutional domestic spying program is perfectly harmless because the people running it are benign individuals, etc.

But we can't get any details on the program or the safeguards in check, because CONFIDENTIAL. We'll just have to trust them.

 

[BobD]

You clearly have more trust in government than I, and you're apparently willing to trade a lot more liberty for security than I am. Different strokes, I guess.

At the very least, can you understand why this makes less trustful citizens uneasy? We never got the benefit of a public debate on this crucial security v. liberty issue. And now we're being assured that this massive unconstitutional domestic spying program is perfectly harmless because the people running it are benign individuals, etc.

But we can't get any details on the program or the safeguards in check, because CONFIDENTIAL. We'll just have to trust them.

Some days I wonder if I have too much faith in them, but I do know there are some exceptional people within our government trying to do the very best they can for us.

I've also never met any honest hardworking American that's been harmed in anyway by government surveillance programs. If there are some, I'm sure the press will dig them up and maybe I'll have to rethink my stance.

 

[dshans]

Our founding fathers would have this idiot hung by the neck or shot for giving away state secrets. Duty and honor were popular back then.

Does the name Nathan Hale ring a bell? We two hoisted many a mug and sang sea shanties back in the day.

 

[BobD]

Does the name Nathan Hale ring a bell? We two hoisted many a mug and sang sea shanties back in the day.

Paul Revere nearly ran me over.

 

[chicago51]

WhiskeyJack vs BobD:

IE Rivalry / Feud of the year nominee.

 

[BobD]

WhiskeyJack vs BobD:

IE Rivalry / Feud of the year nominee.

No feud here, just a discussion and a test......My three brain cells testing whiskeys patience.