It’s not a problem - I’m not saying none of the other stuff is an issue if there’s a court review, but I think that part is also relevant.
Unless I misunderstood her comments, Nancy Pelosi sounded surprised about this. That seemed awfully disingenuous to me.
I find myself oddly attracted to Bush’bama, and it has ruined my night. Thanks.
Some of the tech companies in question are denying knowledge of PRISM. Of course, they may be under court order to do so. Unless this particular data gathering initiative wasn’t approved under FISA?
Our media is having it’s phone tapped.
I was skeptical about this when it was put into place. I’m no longer skeptical.
When a person can be put on a no-fly list with no legal recourse where does that leave society? It’s an electronic iron curtain.
Does anybody really believe that there was EVER a time when the government didn’t do this? The only difference today versus fifty years ago is that we now have the technology needed to record, store, search, and use EVERY single call made no matter where it originates. I believe that Echelon is now just the search engine for a much bigger system.
I’m not sure this changes the equation, but the chart in this article from the Wall Street Journal that seems to indicate that the FISA court has modified the language of the proposed orders in the majority of cases. So it’s apparently not exactly a rubber stamp. (Although I have no idea of the extent of the changes made.)
That article also points out a number of facts about surveillance that may not be so favorable:
The number of requests to the FISA court has increased dramatically since 2009.
The monitoring includes all 3 of the major cell phone networks (Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint). Every time someone makes a call on one of those 3 networks, the NSA gets a record of the location, the number called, the time of the call and the length of the conversation.
The monitoring includes emails and web searches, and provides the NSA with direct access to server systems operated by Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo, and Skype.
The NSA catalogues credit card purchases.
That’s a lot of information.
This is just a FYI - some of you may not kjnow. I see you guys are still linking to .co.uk, fwiw The Guardian does have a US-centric version now at: http://www.guardiannews.com/
You can also get to it from the drop down at the top left of the UK homepage.
To briefly follow up on this and BrokenBriton’s comment above, as with all newspapers in the developed world, The Guardian is struggling with falling revenues. News International’s tack on this is to charge for access to their websites. It seems that The Guardian’s is to try and deliver big international stories to suck in larger number of users from across the globe and sell more advertising on that basis, thus earning bigger revenues and trying to survive as an international news source. As BrokenBriton notes, there is a dedicated bit of The Guardian for promotion of their US content and it’s telling that they are trying to promote sports content from the USA (MLB, NFL and NBA mostly) and Australia (AFL, NRL) to try and get people to come in to the site.
The long and the short of it is, I expect to see The Guardian trying to do more investigations into the US and its political system to try and gain a reputation as a news source worth visiting by people outside the UK. It’s their business strategy.
The Guardian also played a major role in uncovering the phone hacking scandal in the UK, where it was the media (specifically the News International tabloids) doing the hacking. Their editorials are leftist mush and their editing is notoriously bad, but they do good journalism for all that.
And you believe this because…?
By ‘black sites’ do people mean semi/secret prisons in third countries where the US state holds/held people illegally without trial or legal process, indefinitely, and tortures them?
The Government said so.
It’s funny how - when you peel down to bare bones - the only piece of information accepted as a fact is information originated with some Government office.
This could be full of win. The tighty righty’s are born-again advocates against the Patriot Act, hallelujah! They have totally seen the light, now that they can blame Obama for it. Which is a drag, of course, but if it works out that all those guys who voted for the Patriot Act are now on board, what’s not to love?
If Obama had come out totally against all this surveillance stuff and demanded action, they would have been screaming, tearing their hair and rolling around on the floor about what a surrender monkey he was, helping the terrists. Now, they can hardly wait to do what we wanted done in the first place.
I don’t think he planned it that way, but who fucking cares? Lets just hope we get it through before they catch on!
I predict that they will stop caring as soon as they realize there is no way to impeach the president for it. Simply repealing the Patriot Act doesn’t do anything to help their party.
And now that we’ve wrapped up that this can’t be used to score political points by Republicans, all is well and we can go home, because apparently that’s the only issue.
I find it interesting that there is not really a partisan split on this one. Some Dems and some Pubs support this program and others do not. No real split down party lines here.
I agree. The Republicans care as little as the Democrats do when it comes to liberty and privacy. Both sides will jump on any scandal that may damage the other side. They collect their political capital and money and, in short order, things invariably go back to the way they were.
As I’ve observed elsewhere, those most vocally against the program (generally, and online) seem to be hardcore progressives and libertarians. It’s the ones nearer to the middle (or right of libertarians) who don’t seem to care or actively support it.
What is to the right of libertarianism?
In terms of civil liberties, I mean, not in general. (Though I confess that my understanding of the generally used scales may be different/skewed.)
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a group further to the right concerning civil liberties. Not the national party, of course, who only seem to care about privatizing the roads and weed.
