Why the persistent political apathy over NSA surveillance?

[Boyo_Jim]

They’ve just figured out a better use for their spies’ time. My guess is the new data collection method will involve stool samples.

[buddha_david]

@Boyo_Jim

My guess is the new data collection method will involve stool samples.

Is that why those men in black are following me around with a little baggie?

[Siam_Sam]

@Boyo_Jim

They’ve just figured out a better use for their spies’ time. My guess is the new data collection method will involve stool samples.

There are plenty of people who would love nothing more than to fling a little feces at them, quite literally.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Siam_Sam

There are plenty of people who would love nothing more than to fling a little feces at them, quite literally.

Not necessary. The “back door brown box” will “upshit” test results and position data in real time.

[Steve_MB]

@WheatCat

We have never faced an enemy committed to the murder of all the inhabitants of entire American cities

Ach, wirklich?

[Steve_MB]

And the revelations keep on coming:

NSA performed warrantless searches on Americans’ calls and emails

US intelligence chiefs have confirmed that the National Security Agency has used a “back door” in surveillance law to perform warrantless searches on Americans’ communications.

The NSA’s collection programs are ostensibly targeted at foreigners, but in August the Guardian revealed a secret rule change allowing NSA analysts to search for Americans’ details within the databases…

[buddha_david]

@Steve_MB

And the revelations keep on coming:

But doesn’t that end the debate, about whether or not the NSA actually broke U.S. law? The wording’s so vague, that anyone connected by less than 2-3 degrees to a “potential foreign terrorist” could be monitored & tracked with impugnity – and I’ll bet that covers more Americans than those connected that closely with Kevin Bacon.

Not that I agree with what the NSA’s been doing, of course…but the phrase “You Magnificent Bastard” does come to mind.

[Siam_Sam]

@buddha_david

The wording’s so vague, that anyone connected by less than 2-3 degrees to a “potential foreign terrorist” could be monitored & tracked with impugnity – and I’ll bet that covers more Americans than those connected that closely with Kevin Bacon.

I’ve probably rubbed shoulders with quite a few here in Bangkok just walking the streets, particularly in the Little Arabia section on lower Sukhumvit Road.

[ThisUsernameIsForbidden]

Now that we have the NSA, everyone is connected to Kevin Bacon by one degree.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

On the bright side, at least the intelligence community is telling us about all their secret illegal surveillance programs.

[BrainGlutton]

@buddha_david

But doesn’t that end the debate, about whether or not the NSA actually broke U.S. law?

That is not the debate.

[buddha_david]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

On the bright side, at least the intelligence community is telling us about all their secret illegal surveillance programs.

I can picture Gen. Keith Alexander at his retirement villa in the Caribbean:

“Oh, crap. I shouldn’t have said it was a surveillance program.
…Oh, crap. I shouldn’t have said it was a secret.
…Oh, crap! I certainly shouldn’t have said it was illegal! [sigh] It’s too hot today.”

[BrainGlutton]

Well, here’s one candidate who is making a campaign issue of the “surveillance industrial complex.” Sheena Bellows, longtime head of the Maine ACLU, is running as a Democrat to unseat Senator Susan Collins (R).

Is there any justification for mass surveillance by the NSA?

…Mass surveillance of the citizenry is not compatible with the values embodied in the Constitution. We need to return to a day when surveillance was targeted, based upon probable cause, with reasonable court oversight…

Should everything in the Patriot Act be repealed?

When I began working for the ACLU in 2003, there were specific sections that we were very concerned about. For example… “sneak and peaks” [and] Section 215, the business records provision. We predicted in 2003 that would lead to abuse of power, and of course, over a decade later, we’ve seen the result…

It’s time to repeal the Patriot Act and put in place meaningful reforms…

Strong stuff!

[crucible]

Do I recall that ‘sub rosa’ referred to a private place somewhere in a palace in Italy or France where two people could talk without being secretly spied on or overheard? A picture of roses?

Anyway, just saying, there have always been informers and spies and people out to make a buck by knowing what you are talking about.

The great majority of Americans know they aren’t involved in any sort of plots or violence and are not, thus, worried about what the government knows they know or are talking about.

[BrainGlutton]

@crucible

Do I recall that ‘sub rosa’ referred to a private place somewhere in a palace in Italy or France where two people could talk without being secretly spied on or overheard? A picture of roses?

Goes back to ancient Rome, apparently.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@crucible

The great majority of Americans know they aren’t involved in any sort of plots or violence and are not, thus, worried about what the government knows they know or are talking about.

Today the government is engaging in mass surveillance to protect us from the terrorists. Tomorrow, they might be doing it for entirely different reasons.

[buddha_david]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Today the government is engaging in mass surveillance to protect us from the terrorists. Tomorrow, they might be doing it for entirely different reasons.

Curious use of “tomorrow” in that sentence…

[DrCube]

@crucible

The great majority of Americans know they aren’t involved in any sort of plots or violence and are not, thus, worried about what the government knows they know or are talking about.

The “nothing to hide” argument. It’s pretty insidious.

I found an excellent essay while googling, which restates the “nothing to hide” argument in its nuanced, most difficult to refute form:

Therefore, in a more compelling form than is often expressed in popular discourse, the nothing to hide argument proceeds as follows: The NSA surveillance, data mining, or other government information-gathering programs will result in the disclosure of particular pieces of information to a few government officials, or perhaps only to government computers. This very limited disclosure of the particular information involved is not likely to be threatening to the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Only those who are engaged in illegal activities have a reason to hide this information. Although there may be some cases in which the information might be sensitive or embarrassing to law-abiding citizens, the limited disclosure lessens the threat to privacy. Moreover, the security interest in detecting, investigating, and preventing terrorist attacks is very high and outweighs whatever minimal or moderate privacy interests law-abiding citizens may have in these particular pieces of information.

This argument, I believe, is the main reason there has been little outcry over the Snowden leaks. I wonder, since these people have nothing to hide, if they would like to be audited by the IRS every year?

Anyway, the essay deconstructs the argument and shows how its assumptions are wrong:
[ul]
[li]Privacy isn’t necessarily about “hiding” anything. It is a societal right as much or more than an individual right (which must then be sacrificed in favor of “the greater good”). [/li][li]The problem with NSA intrusion is as much about ensnaring innocent people in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy as it is about uncovering embarrassing or illegal personal secrets. [/li][li]Surveillance chills speech. [/li][li]Data mining techniques often profile people and make predictions about crimes they may commit in the future, and no one can defend against accusations of crimes they haven’t committed. [/li][li]The problem isn’t government surveillance so much as the lack of oversight. Nobody has a problem with subpoenas for a murder suspect’s phone records. But this data is taken indiscriminately, and nobody knows how it will be used, how long it will be stored, and whether or not it is being abused.[/li][li]The security implications are overstated. This type of surveillance does little to protect against what is already a very tiny threat. Therefore any type of attempted “balancing” often goes much farther towards privacy invasion than is warranted. [/li][/ul]
There’s more. You should read the essay.

[BrainGlutton]

@buddha_david

Curious use of “tomorrow” in that sentence…

You suggesting we should read “tomorrow” as “today”?

[buddha_david]

@BrainGlutton

You suggesting we should read “tomorrow” as “today”?

More like, “From yesterday onward.”