Puerto Rico? Guam? … just guessing.
What about for making anti-U.S. government /CIA statements?
You excuse the CIA for tapping your phone, computer, house as long as it’s done electronically rather than manually?
If you know who it is it wouldn’t be effective, but we can start with Elvis Presley who told the FBI that the Beatles ought not to be allowed in the U.S. because they were a subversive influence.
And what about government shill “forum friends” who snitch to the FBI or CIA because you contributed unfavourably to a thread on American Black Flag operations, Bush’s knowledge of no-WMD’s in Irak or the unholy deeds of Halliburton?
How about critical American-made films about the U.S. that had to be funded by foreign nations because the U.S. government wouldn’t allow American producers do it? Platoon … Born on the Fourth of July. Need I also remind you about McCarthy?
If they travelled to Cuba, for example? An illegal destination according to U.S. law.
:dubious: You got a cite for that one?
I’m going on memory. I’ll search for support, but until I do you can edit it out if you think it’s necessary.
Today radio four had the ex-head of mi5 on and an interview with a “citizen informant” a Muslim who kept MI5 informed of radicals and the not so radicals in his community. They didn’t mention how many they had but it seems likely there are a lot about.
They are not necessarily ‘informants’, MI5 has relationships and an understanding with every Mosque. The general Muslim community polices itself and, for example, Mosque Elders are integral to that activity. This is not underhand or unwanted intrusion.
If and when individuals are identified a whole range of processes are put in place in an attempt to ‘deradicalise’ - it’s interesting that the ‘influencer’ of two recently convited of killing a soldier in SE London was made known to MI5 by his community, who eventiually passed his file to a local group (when he couldn’t be turned). The local group would ordinarily have made contact and worked with him - unfortunately their funding was cut at just the wrong moment.
That doesn’t mean some youngsters aren’t ‘off grid’ but the various tripwire relationships and direct approach strategy does allow MI5 to concentrate its efforts.
Got a cite for that one?
Cite? (noting that if someone contacts the FBI or other government agency to complain about someone else, it’s not an infringement on freedom until the agency actually does something illegal or reprehensible in that regard).*
If this was true, traffic on the Dope would be down to near zero.
Where do you come up with this wackadoodle stuff?
*according to Wikipedia, Elvis supposedly ranted while on a visit to FBI headquarters about various entertainment industry figures he blamed for degrading the morals of America’s youth (including the Beatles, Smothers Brothers and Jane Fonda) but I don’t believe any of them were deported. 
Born on the Fourth of July was produced by Oliver Stone and his partner Kitman Ho and it was distributed by Universal Studios. Platoon was produced by Arnold Kopelson, who is American, and distributed by Orion, which is also American. I don’t know where the money came from, but this sounds totally wrong.
I don’t know about that, weren’t the Smothers Brothers banned to some God-awful place like Missoura?
Thank you. I’m still searching for Platoon.
The NSA spying was allowed for under law publicly debated and approved by Congress and the program was overseen by Federal judges. So the executive was having its actions essentially countersigned by two other branches of government. A Federal judge just ruled that the program was legal.
It’s honestly not much different than allowing police to pull call records, which is an age old practice. For some reason people are up in arms about something that realistically had been going on in slightly different technological forms for years.
What’s also interesting is the duplicity of our European allies, many of whom were up in arms about the NSA having information on European citizens. Until it came out that, oh wait, the NSA never collected that information itself–it was provided by those European’s own security agencies and given to the NSA.
Eh, I haven’t really spoken up about this entire Snowden & NSA fiasco until now, so by all means feel free to disagree with me if I say anything contrary to your own convictions.
First and foremost, yes, I generally ere on the side of Snowden himself being a hero, albeit one that lost some credibility with his flight to Russia. I’m not even saying that he shouldn’t have run in the first place; not at all, I’m just saying that - in the wake of his disclosures - he should have fled to somewhere other than Russia, for relatively obvious reasons.
I mean, look, I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to assume that Snowden saw what happened with Chelsea Manning and ascertained (with relative certainty) that his own whistleblowing would’ve been met with a similarly harsh response. Snowden does not want to spend the rest of his life in prison, and, absent any future extradition or pardon, I can’t imagine any scenario in which he (willingly) steps foot on US soil ever again. If you think that he needs to be punished and “face justice” for his disclosures, then that’s your prerogative, but I personally see him doing exactly the right thing for himself in order to avoid going to prison.
On the topic of the NSA spying apparatus more broadly, I basically side with Bill Maher on the subject. Do I condone what this agency is doing? Fuck no. Do I think that it has overstepped its authority and needs to be reigned in? Absolutely.
Still, in a world in which we have nuclear fucking weapons, I understand that some level of spying and intrusion is necessary in order to prevent those death machines from getting into the hands of extremists. We as civilians will accordingly have to sacrifice some of our privacy to accommodate this surveillance.
Feel free to get pissed off at this post.
Hands up if your jaw hit the floor.
I just don’t understand how people who clearly read these boards have not grasped the extent of the intrusion into their lives.
How on earth is that selective enforcement? That’s a probably-illegal sharing of data between government agencies, but that definitely doesn’t look like selective enforcement to me.
I asked for evidence. Some dude’s rant about a bunch of stuff he saw way back in the day is the weakest form of evidence. Perhaps I should have asked for convincing evidence.
This, however, is a pretty good cite for chilled speech, and I think it lends support to calls to end this abusive program.
Platoon was also partially funded by Dino De Laurentis, an Italian producer who had moved to American in the 1970s. At the same time he was working on Platoon he was giving the world Silver Bullet and Maximum Overdrive, clearly a man who has no connection to mainstream American cinema.
Metadata is little more than records similar to old school phone dumps that police could get from the phone company, showing numbers you’d called and numbers that had called you. That’s what we’re mostly talking about here, records of who emailed whom etc. The ploy to make it more than it was isn’t based on reality.
It was specifically allowed for by Federal law, duly passed by Congress. That law empowered the executive to do this, and put the executive’s actions under purview of the judicial branch. It has all the appropriate checks and balances. A Federal judge has, unsurprisingly, ruled it is constitutional. It makes sense, as it really just expands already legal investigative tools into more modern technology and on larger scale.
Generally something doesn’t become unconstitutional just because it’s done more often or more efficiently.
Here is the problem I have with both Snowden and Manning. They were not neutral actors, or citizen crusaders. They agreed to not be impartial, but instead to work with the security apparatus of the United States. They were not investigative journalists out to ferret out the truth, but Americans who accepted a paycheck and signed agreements saying they were going to help keep State secrets.
Now, does that mean that people in such a position should never disclose what they feel is an immoral act that conscience demands action on? Of course not. But men have been in this situation before, and the correct way to act is the way in which Daniel Ellsberg acted. He went up the chain of command, and only then when it did not work he privately wrote to members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees. One of whom finally took all of the stuff Ellsberg had and read it into the public Congressional record (effectively declassifying it for all time.) Ellsberg acted in a way consistent with both his responsibilities as someone who swore to keep the secrets and his responsibilities as a citizen.
Manning I feel acted out of naivete and immaturity. I don’t think he knew any better or knew what options were available. Ellsberg was a more educated guy who knew about stuff like the Congressional Intelligence Committees. Note that Ellsberg was not convicted for his actions and this was during the height of the Cold War. It’s hard to believe, but we were far more paranoid back then than we are now.
Snowden on the other hand I can only conclude he is concerned solely for himself. If he was truly interested in the rights of American citizens his intelligence cache wouldn’t be spread around secretly to Chinese and Russian intelligence (100% chance both saw 100% of what he had when he was in their jurisdictions), nor would he be parceling things out slowly to journalist friends to maximize exposure. No, he would have done what Ellsberg did–which was turn over the entirety of his information to someone who could put it in the public record. That way all citizens would have free and public access to everything that Snowden felt was worth breaking the law to loose into the public domain. The way Snowden behaves instead tells me he’s a narcissist who wants to maximize attention on himself; he’s no honorable guy like Ellsberg was.
As a tech savvy guy Snowden easily could have made his entire information cache available on torrent sites et cetera, so even if he didn’t trust a congressman he could get it out there. And history shows once stuff hits the P2P networks there is no getting rid of it permanently whatever you try to do.
In some areas the NSA has definitely shown itself to have bad procedures, and some of the things Snowden revealed needed to be done either differently or not at all. Metadata gathering, which is the bulk of the program, I am much less concerned about as it is just a technological enhancement of things done for years.
There’s also a need vs public interest discussion, and where I come down on that is the law that enabled this stuff was written in a way that did not make it clear to casual Americans this was a possible outcome. I’m not sure what the correct way is to make people aware of what public laws enabled, but the metadata collection should have been done in the open. Unlike nuclear secrets, we don’t need it to be secret that we collect metadata. Everyone knows the police can subpoena your phone records, that doesn’t stop people from making phone calls. Same with email, various private messaging networks and etc…it doesn’t actually hurt the intelligence gathering to make it public we collect metadata. I can be almost certain actual bad actors like terrorists and foreign spies know that any electronic form of communications can and probably is compromised. So you limit what you do over those mediums–there’s a reason that Osama bin Laden’s compound had no hardwired connections to anything, and old school courier systems were used for him to communicate.
You’ve ignored a great deal here. For example the judge was ruling only on the collection of telephone metadata. That’s not “the NSA spying.” That’s one of the many things the agency was doing. And another judge recently found it illegal. Further, part of the issue here is that the public was not informed - nor was much of Congress, and the agency wasn’t always honest with Congress. And the FISA courts were secretive, were often lied to by the NSA, and they often acted as a rubber stamp.
I’ve already addressed all of that in my subsequent post:
With the exception of the issue about people “not being informed.” This was the result of publicly passed laws, and members of the intelligence committees actually knew about the specifics.
Like I said, there is a concern that a lay person wouldn’t be able to easily presume what was allowed based on the wording of the law–and I’d like to see that sort of thing handled better somehow. But there was certainly oversight from both the judicial and legislative branches. The fact that the court proceedings were secret does not mean the judges involved were not executing oversight. Since they weren’t hearings involving the jeopardy of any person it isn’t nearly so big a concern to me that they are secret, and the FISA courts serve a good purpose.
The reasons are not obvious to me. What are they?
Because we don’t have anything to hide … therefore we don’t yet believe anyone would have reason to snoop. That’s the reason. To put it another way, we’re not entirely convinced that the STASI and Securitate have come to town. It’s like putting your valuables in your shoes and leaving them on the strand while you take a dip. We do not WANT to believe the danger.
I don’t know what you expect of “neutral actors”. They had been indoctrinated with the fundamental belief that they were working for “the good guys”. When they realized the boss was “the bad guy” what should they have done? You say go up the chain of command. Well, if the good guy cum bad guy is dealing in wholesale murdering of innocent men, women, and children … and the cover-up as disguise - would you trust the boss to tell him what’s on your mind?
If you were working in the hospital and one day came across a letter that proves the doctor who treated your mother was drunk when he accidentally amputated her leg … would you go public with it? Even if you had signed a confidentiality agreement?
Anyway, what do you do when you see proof of how the military opened fire on innocent people, cheered it on, laughed about it, then covered it up once the facts came to light? There is a clause that states you have a duty to report wrong-doing. How many examples do you need where the chain of command tells people to “shut up about it”.
Looking at events that have taken place lately we should ask Daniel Ellsberg what he’d do today in the same circumstances.