Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Jun 9, 2013 22:02:15 GMT -5
Howdy folks,
Just read the article on the guy who says he leaked the NSA info about PRISM. Curious what you all think about this guy?
I find myself very torn. I think we need to track down terrorist communications but in light of how abusive and overbearing our own government has become, I find myself a little worried about all this information gathering. If it is indeed only communications from foreign sources, I'm less worried. However, if this is domestic snooping too, it gives me shivers.
How many of us get our bank account or brokerage account info online, including financial data, account numbers etc?
Do you order guns or ammo online. This info gives them access to everything you look at gun wise, even the amounts and calibers of ammo you purchase and how often you buy.
Are you one of the folks who buy precious metals online? What if the government decides to confiscate bullion? They can track it if you bought it that way.
In fact, they would have access to info on everything you buy online and your credit card records too , so everything you buy with your cards, Pay Pal etc.
It gives them access to a lot of your medical and insurance info if you use a computer for such stuff.
They have access to your political and personal discussions and internet correspondence.
Overall, it gives me a lot of pause because, can we really trust our government anymore? Food for thought anyway because we do so much online these days. I think, given my choice, I'd take my chances with the terrorists and keep my fourth amendment rights to privacy, How about you folks?,,,,,Mel
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 9, 2013 22:20:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Jun 9, 2013 22:24:01 GMT -5
With the 2 billion dollar info storage facility our Gov is building in Utah, I think we should all be worried. The info storage capacity will be measured in millions of terabytes. What is a terabyte you may ask ? 1 Bit = Binary Digit · 8 Bits = 1 Byte · 1024 Bytes = 1 Kilobyte · 1024 Kilobytes = 1 Megabyte · 1024 Megabytes = 1 Gigabyte · 1024 Gigabytes = 1 Terabyte. In otherwords, uncle sam can store every phone conversation, every internet transaction of every single person on earth for probably the next 100m years. And that info can be saved until the earth ceases to exist. Not only is big brother watching you. He's recording everything you say on the phone or internet.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 9, 2013 23:28:19 GMT -5
This is a good question. A far more complex question that defies an easy answer. And I've given it a lot of thought too. On this, I side with the Republicans. Overall, I see the government as the good guys. You can call this pollyanna, but if we can't trust our government, who can we trust? We can't live in caves with no electricity or mediums of exchange. By worrying about our own government, we empower the bad guys, because we deny our only defense a method to defend us. The Govt ALREADY DO filter all your online activities and emails. They don't care about personal details, they filter for keywords, but it's done right now. So the question is not do we mind, but do we want them to stop. I am perfectly happy for them to filter every word I write. Matter of fact, I hope they read what I write and think about it. This is what they monitor for: rense.com/general66/scgh.htmUsing enough combos of the above keywords, someone WILL be reading all your emails and private correspondence. Did you think this wasn't already done? It's no secret. Guess when it started? 2008. You should be thankful for the Democrats stopping ISP filtering for 'copyright infringement' in a gigantic fight against the Republicans last year (SOPA). That would give the government access to EVERYTHING you do online, not just keywords. Protecting us from pirated software and unpaid for movies allows them access to everything we look at. Here is the ACLU's fight for expanding Technological privacy - your concern sounds just like theirs: www.aclu.org/technology-and-libertyAnd... something else to think about... there is NO Right to Privacy in either the US Constitution or Bill of Rights. This is a purely liberal pot-smoker demand. Privacy? Find me a Republican politician who wants legislated privacy. They want the corporations to make money, stop the billions of dollars in pirated software and entertainment. To do that, they have to see everything you download, which includes everything you read or view on a computer.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 9, 2013 23:36:40 GMT -5
With the 2 billion dollar info storage facility our Gov is building in Utah, I think we should all be worried. The info storage capacity will be measured in millions of terabytes. What is a terabyte you may ask ? 1 Bit = Binary Digit · 8 Bits = 1 Byte · 1024 Bytes = 1 Kilobyte · 1024 Kilobytes = 1 Megabyte · 1024 Megabytes = 1 Gigabyte · 1024 Gigabytes = 1 Terabyte. In otherwords, uncle sam can store every phone conversation, every internet transaction of every single person on earth for probably the next 100m years. And that info can be saved until the earth ceases to exist. Not only is big brother watching you. He's recording everything you say on the phone or internet. A SINGLE PHOTO can be 10-20 megabytes. Put this in perspective... you get 2 gigabytes on Photobucket. Remember that 1024 Gigabytes = 1 Terrabyte. Now open your Photobucket account. Top right corner there's a box, and it tells you how much storage you've used in the orange bar as a %. I'm at 63%, and I haven't uploaded 1/1000 of the photos on my TERRABYTE hard drive on my desktop computer. The ONLY thing in that 63% is about 1/2 of my Vegas trip photos, and some rock pix, and that's ALL in the whole account. How much of your 2 gigabytes have you used? Now think about how puny 1 million terrabytes actually is, with a population of 360 million people and a corporate base that sells to the entire 6.5 billion people on earth.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 9, 2013 23:53:25 GMT -5
And just out of curiosity, you guys think Obama should shut down George Bush's Utah Datacenter built for this? : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_National_Cybersecurity_InitiativeThis was a Republican Congress, Republican President, initiative that cost a lot of money and took 5 years to plan and build. It would take the Republican Congress who funded it to shut it down. Those people are mostly still in the Congressional House, and they won't do it. If you want privacy, you'd better vote them all out in 2014, and start supporting the ACLU who are the ones fighting for the privacy you want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 7:54:10 GMT -5
Balls of steel. He stuck his head in the noose for all of us that know there is a lot of s--t going down that should not be. All of you that have your heads in the sand need to wake up and start paying attention. The new world order is coming to a theater near you one step at a time and it is a movie that you do not want to see.
There are some wacko theories out there but they are the perfect distraction for the theories that are not wacko. Do some serious home work and you will find proof of what is going on behind your backs. This is a little p--s pot compared to what is really happening.
Where do I sign up to contribute to his defense? Jim
|
|
droseraguy
Cave Dweller
Member since April 2012
Posts: 426
|
Post by droseraguy on Jun 10, 2013 9:06:58 GMT -5
I guess it's nice to see someone come out and say exactly what we assumed was happening all along. I figured that they always did this stuff and were just to incompetent and fat headed to talk amongst the interdepartments to put it all together. Big brothers and sisters don't play well together.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Jun 10, 2013 9:07:02 GMT -5
*L* First off Rich, as my ole drill sergeant would say, "What is your psychological problem trainee?" What is it? Did your momma not hug you enough as a child? There is no reason for you to chime in with your usual snarky bullsh*t unless you want to answer the question posed.
Many of us know our government is up to lots of info gathering stuff. We are not idiots, though you obviously think you are the "all knowing all seeing one" *L*. My query was simply, how do folks feel about all this government snooping around in our business and the folks blowing the whistle on the various programs?
Like Jim, I think these whistleblowers are pretty darn heroic. While I want to trust our government, there seems to be a bit of a totalitarian trend developing, and knowledge is power. If all this data is stored somewhere, who's to say that, like with the IRS, some folks might want to abuse this knowledge of our activities for political reasons. Got to say, it makes me a bit uncomfortable and I'd like to see congress and the supreme court address the matter re our 4th amendment rights.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 10, 2013 9:59:23 GMT -5
Jim, defense for what? He leaked documents. The day after they hit the papers, Obama declassified the entire program. It's not illegal to get at the documents he 'leaked' anymore.
This was a program that the Bush Admin put into place after 9-11 is I think what Parfive is trying to say (I'm not sure actually). In either case, that's what I linked for you with the wiki, the program started as the "Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative", which led to the building of the Utah DataCenter.
No one's life was risked in his disclosures, so I'm not sure if he'll even get arrested for releasing documents that are today LEGAL to see.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 10, 2013 10:06:12 GMT -5
Mel, the 4th amendment protects against illegal search and seizure. It doesn't cover privacy.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 10, 2013 10:20:12 GMT -5
Judging by the noise level lately, Mel, the average idiot does think Obama just invented this crap last week. As for the question posed, Snowden’s shtick looks a little too pat to suit me, and seven-year-old news don’t exactly make it to *heroic* in my book. NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htmCurious where Ellsberg and Manning fall on that scale? : ) : ) Charles Pierce - “ With the imminent departure of Michele Bachmann from the World's Greatest Legislative Body, we have inaugurated a new semi-regular weekly feature in which we study the possible successor to la Bachmann as Royal Regent of the Crazy People. (Louie Gohmert is, of course, emperor for life.)”
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Jun 10, 2013 10:20:15 GMT -5
Helen, One must understand that they did not have telephones and computers when the 4th amendment was written. If they had them then, they would have been included, believe me. *L* The wording guarantees protection against unreasonable search and seizure of "house, papers and effects". I would suggest that in these days of technology your computer and your phone serve the purpose of your papers/mail and as well are part of your "home and effects", so they should be covered under the 4th amendment protections. Just as a modern day assault type rifle substitutes for the flintlocks of their period and should be covered under the 2nd. Different technology does not mean the constitutional protections are waived. In my book at least, that would seem to be common sense.....Mel
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Jun 10, 2013 10:23:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 10, 2013 10:42:18 GMT -5
Summaries from Wiki:
Computer Security, Privacy and Criminal Law [edit]
The following summarized some of the laws, regulations and directives related to the protection of information systems: 1970 U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act 1970 U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act 1974 U.S. Privacy Act 1980 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines 1984 U.S. Medical Computer Crime Act 1984 U.S. Federal Computer Crime Act (strengthened in 1986 and 1994) 1986 U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (amended in 1986, 1994, 1996 and 2001) 1986 U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) 1987 U.S. Computer Security Act 1988 U.S. Video Privacy Protection Act 1990 United Kingdom Computer Misuse Act 1991 U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines 1992 OECD Guidelines to Serve as a Total Security Framework 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 1995 Council Directive on Data Protection for the European Union (EU) 1996 U.S. Economic and Protection of Proprietary Information Act 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (requirement added in December 2000) 1998 U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) 1999 U.S. Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) 2000 U.S. Congress Electronic Signatures in Global National Commerce Act ("ESIGN") 2001 U.S. Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 10, 2013 10:51:00 GMT -5
From your source's last paragraph: Privacy protection is a liberal concept. The Conservatives (like Justices Scalia and Thomas) want no privacy protection. You aren't going to get a Republican Congress to enhance any privacy, it's the opposite of Republican party ideals. I think it's really curious that you guys embrace one of the most liberal concepts in politics (ACLU level) and reject environmental protections for our air, water, land, critters, and disbelieve in climate change.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Jun 10, 2013 11:36:21 GMT -5
It is all black or white for you, isn't it Helen. Open question for you perhaps, but for me all I need to know is in the most important paragraphs on the page I linked.
Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy Amendment I (Privacy of Beliefs) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment III (Privacy of the Home) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV (Privacy of the Person and Possessions) 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.
Amendment IX (More General Protection for Privacy?) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Jun 10, 2013 11:44:50 GMT -5
I think it's really interesting to watch you embrace not just this, but all the other things that have come to light lately. Virtually everything the left suspected Bush of, Obama has embraced. Quite enlightening, I must say.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 10, 2013 12:12:31 GMT -5
It is all black or white for you, isn't it Helen. Open question for you perhaps, but for me all I need to know is in the most important paragraphs on the page I linked. Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy Amendment I (Privacy of Beliefs) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment III (Privacy of the Home) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV (Privacy of the Person and Possessions) 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. Amendment IX (More General Protection for Privacy?) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. No, it's not black and white for me at all. I don't follow a party line, I like elements of both parties, and dislike elements of both parties. I vote for the lesser evil for my money however, regardless of any other issues. Which this election happens to be all about Medicare and the future of Social Security I paid into. Every other consideration/position is purely academic for me. I'm surprised because you seem to be very black and white, toeing the entire Republican line. So to see this ultra liberal position out of you guys is a bit of a stunner, that's all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 12:19:07 GMT -5
Mel, the 4th amendment protects against illegal search and seizure. It doesn't cover privacy. Actually the federalist papers indicate that it's intent to cover privacy and all the rest. Our founding fathers made a mistake in not specifically enumerating it. This probably because privacy was so sacrosanct they did not consider it an issue. Of course they certainly did not predict what we have now.
|
|