Bill Maher decides to permanently entrench himself on the wrong side of history

there isn't, which is my problem with it. only greenwald (and presumably snowden, though if some sources are to be believed, not even him) has access to them.

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:50 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 9:45 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

It's kind of funny that people can think that a government abusing its power to collect all the data from every citizen isn't in fact abusing the data they have collected. Collecting the data to begin with is an abuse. As citizens of the United States we are continually abused by our government on a daily basis. We have no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they wanted trust and faith they should have not broken and damaged it. Let's not apologize or support their efforts.

 

Regardless of how corrupt the us govt is, they still need to keep secrets. Governments need double agents and clandestine operations and all that shit.

 

So it's not a matter of apologizing for or supporting their efforts, it's just a matter of what should be secret and what shouldn't be.

 

 

There is precedent for this kind of abuse.

 

I keep mentioning it and no one seems to bother (typical response to history i spose, so forgive my frustration), but there was massive public backlash against COINTELPRO, probably the most intrusive government spy/surveillance network up to the modern day leaked apparatus. Both apparatus essentially act the same and the public is completely in the dark as to who can be granted access to the information when. FBI and CIA directors have already been implicated in the past as having used the covert information gathering groups to blackmail or leverage other levels of the executive and legislative gov't branches, including certain POTUS themselves.

 

To think that a data mining collective even more pervasive exists with even less public or administrative knowledge of it is incredibly susceptible to abuse.

 

Everyone keeps harping on the ability of the "big gov't" to monitor all citizens, and that's definitely a justified concern. But think about the potential for abuse between factions within the government themselves. A presidential or senatorial candidate could theoretically be blackmailed by high-security officials that may not like their proposed platforms. Again, this is not new, it actually happened in the past- JFK, Johnson, Nixon just to name three. Not to mention Reagan being "in the dark" about the black-ops in Iran and the illegal arms trades.

 

Seriously, if people think this isn't a legitimate criticism, they might be the most gullible people on earth.

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:34 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:11 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

it can be applied to a certain extent, but that same type of 'influence' you speak of can also be wielded at corporations, but in a very miniscule fashion like purchasing power, etc. This is the point we've reached with the NSA, we can maybe 'influence' public opinion but do you really think that we can somehow take a public vote against NSA policy at this point? I really don't believe we can, the government is not going to give up this extreme new power they have very easily.

 

to quote gandalf 'there is only one lord of the ring and he does not share power' :)

no you don't get to vote who will run google and what are its ethical standards will be so it's not similar at all.

of course you can vote against NSA's authority, did someone one prohibit you from voting for paultards for example ?

why won't the government give up particular abilities and authorities if it will become publicly unsanctioned ? there have been countless of reforms in every field imaginable. your ideas about government, its goals and people working in it are comical.

 

 

The thing with government is that you have to elect someone to represent you. A lot of people voted for Obama because we thought he would be awesome and make all the changes we would make in government. Looked what happened. It's because of the lack of direct influence.

 

In business I am personally involved. My decisions have direct influence, and are completely under my control.

 

Honestly, I think this has to do with the fact that republics are inherently flawed. They were designed in a time when the involvement of every citizen in their own government was impossible. It was a "best we can do with what we have" type of solution.

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:48 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:34 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:11 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

it can be applied to a certain extent, but that same type of 'influence' you speak of can also be wielded at corporations, but in a very miniscule fashion like purchasing power, etc. This is the point we've reached with the NSA, we can maybe 'influence' public opinion but do you really think that we can somehow take a public vote against NSA policy at this point? I really don't believe we can, the government is not going to give up this extreme new power they have very easily.

 

to quote gandalf 'there is only one lord of the ring and he does not share power' :)

no you don't get to vote who will run google and what are its ethical standards will be so it's not similar at all.

of course you can vote against NSA's authority, did someone one prohibit you from voting for paultards for example ?

why won't the government give up particular abilities and authorities if it will become publicly unsanctioned ? there have been countless of reforms in every field imaginable. your ideas about government, its goals and people working in it are comical.

 

 

The thing with government is that you have to elect someone to represent you. A lot of people voted for Obama because we thought he would be awesome and make all the changes we would make in government. Looked what happened. It's because of the lack of direct influence.

 

In business I am personally involved. My decisions have direct influence, and are completely under my control.

 

Honestly, I think this has to do with the fact that republics are inherently flawed. They were designed in a time when the involvement of every citizen in their own government was impossible. It was a "best we can do with what we have" type of solution.

 

so what exactly happened ? can you summarize the situation before obama, what obama promised to correct before the elections and whether he delivered it until now ?

 

we're not talking about just every business but those businesses who deal with your data, gmail for example. how can you say that you can really influence what they do with it ? you can opt out at some point to stop delivering them more data but you really have no control what so ever what they do with what they already have.

tl:dr; greenwald is boss

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:57 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:48 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:34 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:11 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

it can be applied to a certain extent, but that same type of 'influence' you speak of can also be wielded at corporations, but in a very miniscule fashion like purchasing power, etc. This is the point we've reached with the NSA, we can maybe 'influence' public opinion but do you really think that we can somehow take a public vote against NSA policy at this point? I really don't believe we can, the government is not going to give up this extreme new power they have very easily.

 

to quote gandalf 'there is only one lord of the ring and he does not share power' :)

no you don't get to vote who will run google and what are its ethical standards will be so it's not similar at all.

of course you can vote against NSA's authority, did someone one prohibit you from voting for paultards for example ?

why won't the government give up particular abilities and authorities if it will become publicly unsanctioned ? there have been countless of reforms in every field imaginable. your ideas about government, its goals and people working in it are comical.

 

 

The thing with government is that you have to elect someone to represent you. A lot of people voted for Obama because we thought he would be awesome and make all the changes we would make in government. Looked what happened. It's because of the lack of direct influence.

 

In business I am personally involved. My decisions have direct influence, and are completely under my control.

 

Honestly, I think this has to do with the fact that republics are inherently flawed. They were designed in a time when the involvement of every citizen in their own government was impossible. It was a "best we can do with what we have" type of solution.

 

so what exactly happened ? can you summarize the situation before obama, what obama promised to correct before the elections and whether he delivered it until now ?

 

we're not talking about just every business but those businesses who deal with your data, gmail for example. how can you say that you can really influence what they do with it ? you can opt out at some point to stop delivering them more data but you really have no control what so ever what they do with what they already have.

 

 

He campaigned as the antithesis to Bush basically. Not surprising really. He promised to end lobbying or at least fix it. He promised to end the wars which is basically a promise to discontinue large scale military operations. I think he promised universal healthcare(or at least a fix), but what he has provided is kind of shit and might end up screwing the system even more. He promised to close Guantanamo. There are other things I'm sure I just can't remember them all. I just remember feeling that this guy was going to fix the injustices that existed within our government based on the things he was campaigning for. He has done a lot of executive branch overreach shit too.

 

Oh, and on your earlier comment about Bush getting voted back in so the public must have agreed with what he was doing. The propaganda machine was a lot stronger back then. It's sort of losing steam as more and more people get involved in the internet. The avenues for free information flow are greater. People are waking up to the idea that media is garbage, etc, etc. I also remember a lot of people claiming to vote for Bush over Kerry strictly because they wanted a "strong" leader during a time of war. Everyone was pretty scared back in those days.

 

I can influence gmail because if they do something that I don't agree with I can choose to boycott their services immediately. It isn't in their best interest to piss of their customers which is the whole idea behind free-market. That is what is supposed to keep them honest. This is why I have direct influence. This is why things happen very quickly in business as opposed to government.

 

I'm sure other people here no more about Obama than I do. I've haven't been paying that close of attention in the last couple of years.

absolute 100% full 180 from candidate Obama Edited January 21, 2014 by John Ehrlichman

huh ? did snowden leak something that points at actual spying on citizens that everyone but you missed ?

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:40 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

absolute 100% full 180 from candidate Obama

 

Wow, that is amazing. So, he was either entirely full of shit, his mind was changed after facing the realities of the job, or he is being taken advantage of by high level government agents.

i think as far as we know it's the 2nd thing you said, listen carefully to the part in this below speech "we looked at past practices and.... they help stop terrorist attacks' essentially saying that he disagrees with his previous beliefs on what he understood to be the NSA policy of 2007

i believe these questions were asked of him at a totally unrelated media appearance back in may of 2013 but im sure he saw it coming and prepared with talking points/bull-shit defenses Edited January 21, 2014 by John Ehrlichman

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:48 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:40 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

absolute 100% full 180 from candidate Obama

 

Wow, that is amazing. So, he was either entirely full of shit, his mind was changed after facing the realities of the job, or he is being taken advantage of by high level government agents.

 

 

People underestimate this. Imagine going from knowing a bit of how the world works to then being privvy to virtually every bit of intelligence the U.S. gov't has. That would pull even the most radical, principled person and tug them at least a little bit towards the center.

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:28 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:57 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:48 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:34 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:11 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

it can be applied to a certain extent, but that same type of 'influence' you speak of can also be wielded at corporations, but in a very miniscule fashion like purchasing power, etc. This is the point we've reached with the NSA, we can maybe 'influence' public opinion but do you really think that we can somehow take a public vote against NSA policy at this point? I really don't believe we can, the government is not going to give up this extreme new power they have very easily.

 

to quote gandalf 'there is only one lord of the ring and he does not share power' :)

no you don't get to vote who will run google and what are its ethical standards will be so it's not similar at all.

of course you can vote against NSA's authority, did someone one prohibit you from voting for paultards for example ?

why won't the government give up particular abilities and authorities if it will become publicly unsanctioned ? there have been countless of reforms in every field imaginable. your ideas about government, its goals and people working in it are comical.

 

 

The thing with government is that you have to elect someone to represent you. A lot of people voted for Obama because we thought he would be awesome and make all the changes we would make in government. Looked what happened. It's because of the lack of direct influence.

 

In business I am personally involved. My decisions have direct influence, and are completely under my control.

 

Honestly, I think this has to do with the fact that republics are inherently flawed. They were designed in a time when the involvement of every citizen in their own government was impossible. It was a "best we can do with what we have" type of solution.

 

so what exactly happened ? can you summarize the situation before obama, what obama promised to correct before the elections and whether he delivered it until now ?

 

we're not talking about just every business but those businesses who deal with your data, gmail for example. how can you say that you can really influence what they do with it ? you can opt out at some point to stop delivering them more data but you really have no control what so ever what they do with what they already have.

 

 

He campaigned as the antithesis to Bush basically. Not surprising really. He promised to end lobbying or at least fix it. He promised to end the wars which is basically a promise to discontinue large scale military operations. I think he promised universal healthcare(or at least a fix), but what he has provided is kind of shit and might end up screwing the system even more. He promised to close Guantanamo. There are other things I'm sure I just can't remember them all. I just remember feeling that this guy was going to fix the injustices that existed within our government based on the things he was campaigning for. He has done a lot of executive branch overreach shit too.

 

Oh, and on your earlier comment about Bush getting voted back in so the public must have agreed with what he was doing. The propaganda machine was a lot stronger back then. It's sort of losing steam as more and more people get involved in the internet. The avenues for free information flow are greater. People are waking up to the idea that media is garbage, etc, etc. I also remember a lot of people claiming to vote for Bush over Kerry strictly because they wanted a "strong" leader during a time of war. Everyone was pretty scared back in those days.

 

I can influence gmail because if they do something that I don't agree with I can choose to boycott their services immediately. It isn't in their best interest to piss of their customers which is the whole idea behind free-market. That is what is supposed to keep them honest. This is why I have direct influence. This is why things happen very quickly in business as opposed to government.

 

I'm sure other people here no more about Obama than I do. I've haven't been paying that close of attention in the last couple of years.

 

that's all very nebulous and subjective, (besides guantanamo i guess). that's not how you measure the quality of the president, moreover you should take into account what he actually tried to do and was prevented from achieving by forces outside of his influence.

i was expecting something of this kind: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/

 

  Quote

 

I also remember a lot of people claiming to vote for Bush over Kerry strictly because they wanted a "strong" leader during a time of war. Everyone was pretty scared back in those days.

 

isn't it a legitimate reason to vote for specific policies ?

 

  Quote

 

I can influence gmail because if they do something that I don't agree with I can choose to boycott their services immediately. It isn't in their best interest to piss of their customers which is the whole idea behind free-market. That is what is supposed to keep them honest. This is why I have direct influence. This is why things happen very quickly in business as opposed to government.

 

and if you boycott their services does it mean that they immediately stop (potentially) exploiting your data for their purposes ? i mean you have exactly zero oversight about this.

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:48 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:40 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

absolute 100% full 180 from candidate Obama

 

Wow, that is amazing. So, he was either entirely full of shit, his mind was changed after facing the realities of the job, or he is being taken advantage of by high level government agents.

 

woah wait a minute, how did you get from whatever snowden leaked to the conclusion that it is spying on citizens and thus breaking of the promise? was there evidence that nsa agents systematically and illegally peek at information about private citizens without warrants (which imo would be considered spying) ?

Edited January 22, 2014 by eugene

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:03 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:28 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:57 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:48 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:34 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 10:11 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

it can be applied to a certain extent, but that same type of 'influence' you speak of can also be wielded at corporations, but in a very miniscule fashion like purchasing power, etc. This is the point we've reached with the NSA, we can maybe 'influence' public opinion but do you really think that we can somehow take a public vote against NSA policy at this point? I really don't believe we can, the government is not going to give up this extreme new power they have very easily.

 

to quote gandalf 'there is only one lord of the ring and he does not share power' :)

no you don't get to vote who will run google and what are its ethical standards will be so it's not similar at all.

of course you can vote against NSA's authority, did someone one prohibit you from voting for paultards for example ?

why won't the government give up particular abilities and authorities if it will become publicly unsanctioned ? there have been countless of reforms in every field imaginable. your ideas about government, its goals and people working in it are comical.

 

 

The thing with government is that you have to elect someone to represent you. A lot of people voted for Obama because we thought he would be awesome and make all the changes we would make in government. Looked what happened. It's because of the lack of direct influence.

 

In business I am personally involved. My decisions have direct influence, and are completely under my control.

 

Honestly, I think this has to do with the fact that republics are inherently flawed. They were designed in a time when the involvement of every citizen in their own government was impossible. It was a "best we can do with what we have" type of solution.

 

so what exactly happened ? can you summarize the situation before obama, what obama promised to correct before the elections and whether he delivered it until now ?

 

we're not talking about just every business but those businesses who deal with your data, gmail for example. how can you say that you can really influence what they do with it ? you can opt out at some point to stop delivering them more data but you really have no control what so ever what they do with what they already have.

 

 

He campaigned as the antithesis to Bush basically. Not surprising really. He promised to end lobbying or at least fix it. He promised to end the wars which is basically a promise to discontinue large scale military operations. I think he promised universal healthcare(or at least a fix), but what he has provided is kind of shit and might end up screwing the system even more. He promised to close Guantanamo. There are other things I'm sure I just can't remember them all. I just remember feeling that this guy was going to fix the injustices that existed within our government based on the things he was campaigning for. He has done a lot of executive branch overreach shit too.

 

Oh, and on your earlier comment about Bush getting voted back in so the public must have agreed with what he was doing. The propaganda machine was a lot stronger back then. It's sort of losing steam as more and more people get involved in the internet. The avenues for free information flow are greater. People are waking up to the idea that media is garbage, etc, etc. I also remember a lot of people claiming to vote for Bush over Kerry strictly because they wanted a "strong" leader during a time of war. Everyone was pretty scared back in those days.

 

I can influence gmail because if they do something that I don't agree with I can choose to boycott their services immediately. It isn't in their best interest to piss of their customers which is the whole idea behind free-market. That is what is supposed to keep them honest. This is why I have direct influence. This is why things happen very quickly in business as opposed to government.

 

I'm sure other people here no more about Obama than I do. I've haven't been paying that close of attention in the last couple of years.

 

that's all very nebulous and subjective, (besides guantanamo i guess). that's not how you measure the quality of the president, moreover you should take into account what he actually tried to do and was prevented from achieving by forces outside of his influence.

i was expecting something of this kind: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/

 

  Quote

 

I also remember a lot of people claiming to vote for Bush over Kerry strictly because they wanted a "strong" leader during a time of war. Everyone was pretty scared back in those days.

 

isn't it a legitimate reason to vote for specific policies ?

 

  Quote

 

I can influence gmail because if they do something that I don't agree with I can choose to boycott their services immediately. It isn't in their best interest to piss of their customers which is the whole idea behind free-market. That is what is supposed to keep them honest. This is why I have direct influence. This is why things happen very quickly in business as opposed to government.

 

and if you boycott their services does it mean that they immediately stop (potentially) exploiting your data for their purposes ? i mean you have exactly zero oversight about this.

 

 

I don't get what you are getting at with all this? Like I could offer a rebuttal, but I've been saying the same stuff, and I'm at a loss for what you are trying to prove.

Edited January 22, 2014 by AdieuErsatzEnnui

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:09 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:48 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:40 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

absolute 100% full 180 from candidate Obama

 

Wow, that is amazing. So, he was either entirely full of shit, his mind was changed after facing the realities of the job, or he is being taken advantage of by high level government agents.

 

woah wait a minute, how did you get from whatever snowden leaked to the conclusion that it is spying on citizens and thus breaking of the promise? was there evidence that nsa agents systematically and illegally peek at information about private citizens without warrants (which imo would be considered spying) ?

 

 

There is evidence that the government requests large amounts of data. There is evidence that activity is monitored. I think the exact determination is being made via the snowden documents.

list of some of the 375 bills blocked by republicans under obama, with descriptions (from july 2012)

 

list of 225 obama accomplishments (with citations)

 

*runs*

Edited January 22, 2014 by very honest

  Quote

 

I don't get what you are getting at with all this? Like I could offer a rebuttal, but I've been saying the same stuff, and I'm at a loss for what you are trying to prove.

a rebuttal to what ? that obama is actually objectively bad, that you control what google does with your data and that snowden leaks show that nsa doesn't adhere to constitution ? well go ahead then.

Edited January 22, 2014 by eugene

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:15 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:09 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:48 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:40 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

absolute 100% full 180 from candidate Obama

 

Wow, that is amazing. So, he was either entirely full of shit, his mind was changed after facing the realities of the job, or he is being taken advantage of by high level government agents.

 

woah wait a minute, how did you get from whatever snowden leaked to the conclusion that it is spying on citizens and thus breaking of the promise? was there evidence that nsa agents systematically and illegally peek at information about private citizens without warrants (which imo would be considered spying) ?

 

 

There is evidence that the government requests large amounts of data. There is evidence that activity is monitored. I think the exact determination is being made via the snowden documents.

 

whose activity and under what circumstances ? is this monitoring illegal under constitution or not ?

can you say anything concrete already ?

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:19 AM, eugene said:

 

whose activity and under what circumstances ? is this monitoring illegal under constitution or not ?

can you say anything concrete already ?

 

well here is one of the actual documents he leaked if you want to read it for yourself.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/09/icelandic-legislator-im-ready-to-help-nsa-whistleblower-seek-asylum/ (scroll about halfway down this page to the PRISM slideshow taken from the NSA by Snowden)

 

this one pertains to how they get private companies data without suspecting a specific individual of a crime, collecting all data in a blanketed fashion

 

update: you know i have to admit it is a little frustrating how hard it is to find the full documents, this NSA slideshow is incomplete, I've seen one that's about 20x longer. Anybody know a convenient place to get all his stuff? In this instance I'm a little irritated at Greenwald about this

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:58 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

People underestimate this. Imagine going from knowing a bit of how the world works to then being privvy to virtually every bit of intelligence the U.S. gov't has. That would pull even the most radical, principled person and tug them at least a little bit towards the center.

 

 

i know i'm in the minority here of the watmm seniority for being a Bill Hicks lover, but i thought this was a pretty appropriate response to make light of what you said about underestimating what happened.

Edited January 22, 2014 by John Ehrlichman

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:19 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:15 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:09 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:48 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:40 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

absolute 100% full 180 from candidate Obama

 

Wow, that is amazing. So, he was either entirely full of shit, his mind was changed after facing the realities of the job, or he is being taken advantage of by high level government agents.

 

woah wait a minute, how did you get from whatever snowden leaked to the conclusion that it is spying on citizens and thus breaking of the promise? was there evidence that nsa agents systematically and illegally peek at information about private citizens without warrants (which imo would be considered spying) ?

 

 

There is evidence that the government requests large amounts of data. There is evidence that activity is monitored. I think the exact determination is being made via the snowden documents.

 

whose activity and under what circumstances ? is this monitoring illegal under constitution or not ?

can you say anything concrete already ?

 

 

 

I need you to make a point and stop making entire posts of questions. if you want information google it. I'm not here to educate you I'm here to post my opinion, and debate the validity of other people's opinions in reference to our governments activity. I don't have time for this.

 

Like, when you replied to my post after John posted that video I hadn't even said anything about the NSA. It's a bit confusing. I already told you the exact details are waiting to be determined. It's already been determined that large scale phone data is being collected. Companies are being requested for large amounts of data while they are being issued gag orders.

 

The government usually doen't break the law anyway, because they change them so they can operate while infringing the constitutional rights of citizens. This was made super apparent, at least for me, under Bush and Obama has been involved in a lot of similar activity.

 

Like, just because something "legal" doesn't make it justifiable man.

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:47 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:19 AM, eugene said:

whose activity and under what circumstances ? is this monitoring illegal under constitution or not ?

can you say anything concrete already ?

well here is one of the actual documents he leaked if you want to read it for yourself.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/09/icelandic-legislator-im-ready-to-help-nsa-whistleblower-seek-asylum/ (scroll about halfway down this page to the PRISM slideshow taken from the NSA by Snowden)

 

this one pertains to how they get private companies data without suspecting a specific individual of a crime, collecting all data in a blanketed fashion

 

update: you know i have to admit it is a little frustrating how hard it is to find the full documents, this NSA slideshow is incomplete, I've seen one that's about 20x longer. Anybody know a convenient place to get all his stuff? In this instance I'm a little irritated at Greenwald about this

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:58 PM, LimpyLoo said:

People underestimate this. Imagine going from knowing a bit of how the world works to then being privvy to virtually every bit of intelligence the U.S. gov't has. That would pull even the most radical, principled person and tug them at least a little bit towards the center.

 

i know i'm in the minority here of the watmm seniority for being a Bill Hicks lover, but i thought this was a pretty appropriate response to make light of what you said about underestimating what happened.

 

do they look at or use this data illegally, aka actually spying on people without proper procedures ? because i don't really see how collecting data is remotely close to the concept of spying. (not to mention that there's nothing in that powerpoint that can confirm the claim the nsa sweeps all of the data) Edited January 22, 2014 by eugene

  On 1/21/2014 at 6:50 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 5:00 PM, lumpenprol said:

the point about airstrikes or police conduct or nsa is this: if you generally trust police not to rob you or shoot you why do you mistrust nsa on privacy abuses? both are perfectly capable of concealing their trails. so i think this public hardon about this ordeal is very irrational.

the secrecy of those post 9/11 courts and expanded authorities IS obviously sanctioned by the public because bush was reelected after implementing them (and obama admin, afaik, reduced their authority somewhat). i don't think you can say that just because their operation is secret it's ripe for abuse, ironically you don't know what this veil of secrecy covers exactly (some of snowden leaks did unveil inner oversight, i remember) and their secrecy is obviously important to their functioning. snowden and co had enough time to expose abuses but they revealed nothing of that kind. it's perfectly fine to debate the need for secrecy and those powerful tools for surveillance, but this debate went full retard from the get-go with speculations and baseless accusations of abuse.

 

saying that state own all data is like saying that cops own all our lives. they don't own it, they have a right to access to it under specific circumstances just like a cop has a right to shoot you under specific circumstances. also, i don't think you have a right to conceal criminal activity from the government.

 

 

actually I don't trust the police at all, which is why I'm happy to know they can't enter my house without a warrant, look in my car or search my body without permission, etc etc. I also have the right to remain silent in front of them (a brilliant right, imo). Here, you might find this helpful in understanding some of the rights we are supposed to have as US citizens:

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

 

Again, these were enacted to protect citizens from abuse of power. That's a cornerstone of what used to be our governmental philosophy - that there need to be checks and balances, and protection of an individual's rights (to privacy, freedom from self-incrimination, etc) if one is to prevent govt. power from running amok.

 

As others have said, the ability to gather all that information about us is in itself a violation of our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

Regarding your last point, i don't think you have a right to conceal criminal activity from the government, I would even go so far as to say we do have the right, it is subsumed under our right to privacy. Technically, jaywalking is a crime. Technically, tearing one of those little tags off your mattress is a crime. Technically making a "California rolling stop" at a stop sign is a crime. Whether people acknowledge it or not, part of the feeling of being free is knowing the police force/govt is limited in terms of how much they can spy on you. Yes, we all expect this in the privacy of our own home, but I expect it when I'm out and about as well, within reason. Which is one reason I hate the rise of video cameras everywhere.

 

Most people won't say it outright, but I bet their growing up was not unlike mine. I stole nudie mags from the corner shop. I did a little graffiti. I broke into derilict buildings. I did any number of small crimes, in the name of having fun and testing limits. As a responsible (ahem) adult now, I know that you can't say all these things are legal, but you can turn a healthy blind eye to them, unless they become a problem. I actually believe it's normal when you're young to play around at the boundary of what's legal and illegal, and test it a bit, in the same way two siblings gradually figure out it's okay to tease your sibling but not push him down the stairs. The purpose of the police is to concentrate on the big shit - murder, embezzlement, kidnapping, pedophiles, etc - not sweat the small stuff, unless asked to. They are supposed to serve the public, not the other way round.

 

However, we seem to be progressing towards a state where the only remaining privacies exist only within your own home, and even then, only with people who are *also in your own home.* Heaven forbid that from the privacy of your own home you send an email or make a phone call to your friend, they'll track that too. It's not the kind of world I want to live in, where the govt. has video of when I was 15 years old and did some graffiti, or has an audio recording of when I told someone "you know what, after the second gulf War, I don't blame someone for 9/11, it was bound to happen sooner or later." (don't even think I said something like this, but I'm sure many did). It's none of the govt's fucking business, unless they have enough evidence to convince a judge (on a case-by-case basis) that I warrant surveillance.

 

We have ridiculously powerful technologies nowadays, it's up to the voters to ensure that we use them selectively, and with great accuracy. You don't want people living in fear that every time they jaywalk or say "I fucking hate Obama" it's going to be kept in perpetuity on a hard drive somewhere.

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:53 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:19 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:15 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 12:09 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:48 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 11:40 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

absolute 100% full 180 from candidate Obama

 

Wow, that is amazing. So, he was either entirely full of shit, his mind was changed after facing the realities of the job, or he is being taken advantage of by high level government agents.

 

woah wait a minute, how did you get from whatever snowden leaked to the conclusion that it is spying on citizens and thus breaking of the promise? was there evidence that nsa agents systematically and illegally peek at information about private citizens without warrants (which imo would be considered spying) ?

 

 

There is evidence that the government requests large amounts of data. There is evidence that activity is monitored. I think the exact determination is being made via the snowden documents.

 

whose activity and under what circumstances ? is this monitoring illegal under constitution or not ?

can you say anything concrete already ?

 

 

 

I need you to make a point and stop making entire posts of questions. if you want information google it. I'm not here to educate you I'm here to post my opinion, and debate the validity of other people's opinions in reference to our governments activity. I don't have time for this.

 

Like, when you replied to my post after John posted that video I hadn't even said anything about the NSA. It's a bit confusing. I already told you the exact details are waiting to be determined. It's already been determined that large scale phone data is being collected. Companies are being requested for large amounts of data while they are being issued gag orders.

 

The government usually doen't break the law anyway, because they change them so they can operate while infringing the constitutional rights of citizens. This was made super apparent, at least for me, under Bush and Obama has been involved in a lot of similar activity.

 

Like, just because something "legal" doesn't make it justifiable man.

 

i want you to back what you actually claim or just concede that you can't, that's the point of arguing in general. you base you opinion on alleged proofs but you can't really provide them to back it up. so what validity are you talking about exactly, do you actually know what validity is ?

 

why do you even begin with the notion that there are details waiting to be determined, what if there's no details ? i don't understand the logic behind your starting point. to remind you, companies from the prism ppt denied that they give data to nsa unconditionally. so at that point in order to continue holding your position you need to provide something that will determine who's lying, snowden or those companies.

 

  Quote

 

The government usually doen't break the law anyway, because they change them so they can operate while infringing the constitutional rights of citizens. This was made super apparent, at least for me, under Bush and Obama has been involved in a lot of similar activity.

how the fuck am i even supposed to address this bit without bombarding you with more request for clarifications ? government doesn't just change laws at wanton, there are very well known procedures in order to do that. if the infrignement of this procedure was so apparent then it should be easy to provide an example.

"so they can operate while infringing the constitutional rights of citizens" - so this is it, the final goal of the government is some mysterious "operation" and it doesn't care about constitutional rights at all ?

 

  Quote

 

Like, just because something "legal" doesn't make it justifiable man.

well if you hold the idea that government can change laws whenever it want then of course it's understandable where that notion comes from. but no, in this snowden ordeal the question of illegality is what it's all about. whether what nsa does is unconstitutional or not, this ordeal's whole existance hangs on the notion that some of this stuff is illegal/unconstituitnal, and they've been unseccesfully trying to prove that it is indeed so for about a year now, i think.

Worth watching this Jacob Applebaum talk too on how the NSA can collect steal information and spy on people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vILAlhwUgIU

  On 1/22/2014 at 1:06 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 6:50 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/21/2014 at 5:00 PM, lumpenprol said:

the point about airstrikes or police conduct or nsa is this: if you generally trust police not to rob you or shoot you why do you mistrust nsa on privacy abuses? both are perfectly capable of concealing their trails. so i think this public hardon about this ordeal is very irrational.

the secrecy of those post 9/11 courts and expanded authorities IS obviously sanctioned by the public because bush was reelected after implementing them (and obama admin, afaik, reduced their authority somewhat). i don't think you can say that just because their operation is secret it's ripe for abuse, ironically you don't know what this veil of secrecy covers exactly (some of snowden leaks did unveil inner oversight, i remember) and their secrecy is obviously important to their functioning. snowden and co had enough time to expose abuses but they revealed nothing of that kind. it's perfectly fine to debate the need for secrecy and those powerful tools for surveillance, but this debate went full retard from the get-go with speculations and baseless accusations of abuse.

 

saying that state own all data is like saying that cops own all our lives. they don't own it, they have a right to access to it under specific circumstances just like a cop has a right to shoot you under specific circumstances. also, i don't think you have a right to conceal criminal activity from the government.

 

 

actually I don't trust the police at all, which is why I'm happy to know they can't enter my house without a warrant, look in my car or search my body without permission, etc etc. I also have the right to remain silent in front of them (a brilliant right, imo). Here, you might find this helpful in understanding some of the rights we are supposed to have as US citizens:

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

 

Again, these were enacted to protect citizens from abuse of power. That's a cornerstone of what used to be our governmental philosophy - that there need to be checks and balances, and protection of an individual's rights (to privacy, freedom from self-incrimination, etc) if one is to prevent govt. power from running amok.

 

As others have said, the ability to gather all that information about us is in itself a violation of our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

 

in other words you trust the police not to bother you without warrants, you trust the institution of warrants. well that's exactly the same kind of trust that i expect that you'll put in the workings of nsa - not to open your file (let's assume the extreme, that it has absolutely every second of your life recorded in hi-def) without a warrant. but for some reason you and many others don't extend this trust in towards nsa.

 

  Quote

As others have said, the ability to gather all that information about us is in itself a violation of our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

i don't see how the existence of your file (lets assume the extreme scenario again) on nsa's computers violates the freedom from unreasonable searches if it's gathered automatically without any human involvement. the nsa knows exactly the same stuff about you whether there is a file on their computer or if there isn't if they need a special permission to access it. and you already conceded (imo) that you do intuitively trust this warrant procedure.

 

if we're clear on that then the only issue that remains is whether you can trust that under secrecy nsa indeed conforms to those norms of proper conduct and so far i haven't heard of a sensible reason why it wouldn't. just like it makes more sense to trust rather than mistrust various governmental institutions by default (not in every country, of course), i mean the water isn't being poisoned and the bridges aren't falling and social security clerks aren't stealing your identity on a daily basis.

 

 

  Quote

Regarding your last point, i don't think you have a right to conceal criminal activity from the government, I would even go so far as to say we do have the right, it is subsumed under our right to privacy. Technically, jaywalking is a crime. Technically, tearing one of those little tags off your mattress is a crime. Technically making a "California rolling stop" at a stop sign is a crime. Whether people acknowledge it or not, part of the feeling of being free is knowing the police force/govt is limited in terms of how much they can spy on you. Yes, we all expect this in the privacy of our own home, but I expect it when I'm out and about as well, within reason. Which is one reason I hate the rise of video cameras everywhere.

Most people won't say it outright, but I bet their growing up was not unlike mine. I stole nudie mags from the corner shop. I did a little graffiti. I broke into derilict buildings. I did any number of small crimes, in the name of having fun and testing limits. As a responsible (ahem) adult now, I know that you can't say all these things are legal, but you can turn a healthy blind eye to them, unless they become a problem. I actually believe it's normal when you're young to play around at the boundary of what's legal and illegal, and test it a bit, in the same way two siblings gradually figure out it's okay to tease your sibling but not push him down the stairs. The purpose of the police is to concentrate on the big shit - murder, embezzlement, kidnapping, pedophiles, etc - not sweat the small stuff, unless asked to. They are supposed to serve the public, not the other way round.

 

 

well alright, i really don't think this alleged nsa apparatus is made for catching people who do any of those things you mentioned. and i don't really see any steps towards this over-gridalization of people's lives that you're wary of.

 

  Quote

However, we seem to be progressing towards a state where the only remaining privacies exist only within your own home, and even then, only with people who are *also in your own home.* Heaven forbid that from the privacy of your own home you send an email or make a phone call to your friend, they'll track that too. It's not the kind of world I want to live in, where the govt. has video of when I was 15 years old and did some graffiti, or has an audio recording of when I told someone "you know what, after the second gulf War, I don't blame someone for 9/11, it was bound to happen sooner or later." (don't even think I said something like this, but I'm sure many did). It's none of the govt's fucking business, unless they have enough evidence to convince a judge (on a case-by-case basis) that I warrant surveillance.

 

 

as i said, there were nothing in snowden leaks' to show that this surveillance (apart from some minor abuses if i remember correclty), the actual peeking at your life, is done without warrant.