Which tells me just about everything I need to know.

and stop asking questions about that which does not concern you

forget about your silly whim, it doesn't fit the plan

(meant this as a response to the person who responded to me, not a response to myself, but didnt want a self delete out there)

a) National registration of assault weapons

b) National registration of phone possession

Let's get real about what is going on here. This has very little to do with terrorism or any threats of that nature. But this is about the threat to power by the 0.1%. They just love these cell phones -- AKA devices of obedience. People will give up just about any right in order to have their trusty cell phones, which can report on their whereabouts 24x7. With cell phones, we really don't even need to talk about implanted ID chips. People accomplish the same level of compliance voluntarily.

The NSA may identify some dirt on GOP candidates (e.g. calls to a mistress or abortion clinics) or tea party leaders that could help in the 2014 or 2016 elections. Of course it could go the other way if a different party is in charge. I'm sure the people in charge are all non-partisan but a "lowly worker" may decide to do things without their supervisor's knowledge and use it to attack Dem candidates even in 2014.

... using that information (despite the foundational unconstitutionality of elimination of our rights) is wrong no matter who does it.

I don't care it's Democrats or Republicans. But again, that's neither here nor there, because that's just but one weapon this information could be used for.

This is a very bad thing all around.

We don't know what results the data mining efforts have produced.

Bush's torture was bad (we know now) because we didn't get any positive results. But we didn't know the results at the time so we had to wait and see before declaring it bad.

I do see this like torture in that I can state it's bad in my opinion regardless of what it produces.

seems like the ends are at least part of the issue for some people.

I feel that blanket government surveillance of a large portion of the citizens without specific cause is per se evil (and do not qualify that depending on results).

Fixed it for you.

or other criminal efforts is going to have negative consequences for society.

There's a system of weighing costs and benefits.

Where there are only costs, and no benefits, as is the case with torture, it's an easy call.

You can predict the future?

With a program such as this, collecting data, illegally, has huge implications, and though I don't presume to know the future, I don't see anything positive with giving up my rights.

Maybe that's your dime.

Technology has outpaced our abilities to restrain it properly.

So, that's a non sequitur.

I'm against both.

I don't.

We knew this was going on. Maybe I'm just more resigned.

Hey, that rhymed!

in my opinion--either through hackers/malware/cyberthieves or through corporate monopolies on telecommunications.

Well, actually, I would guard against either in every case, if I were you.

It terrorizes those who are being tortured or those who think they might be captured and tortured, a definite psychological weapon.

... but the degree of which is worse is a red herring.

This is still illegal.

To clarify: When I say that this has the potential to be much worse, worst case scenario is that this information could be used to weed out "enemies of the state" where torture and other horrendous abuses would occur. So, this is like committing a war of aggression. In the abstract, that doesn't sound so bad, but as a result of such war, other war crimes are committed, each tangible war crime seems worse than the original (the abstract war of aggression). They're both illegal, but the degree of the act may seem worse for one as opposed to the other. We see mass graves and we would rightfully say "it's per se evil." When we go to war, some don't even flinch.

I hope I made some sense out of that.

safe from inquiring minds rather than keeping the people safe? Big brother willingly accepts the mass carnage inflicted by the proliferation of guns, including assault weapons, but seems afraid its pants would get soiled should one person die at the hand of a foreign terraist.

I would even bet that it never enters their minds, or rarely, that the erosion of privacy is their own as well as ours. Our leaders, elected officials, and all who find reason and cause in chipping away what is precious and hard won. They too are building the cages in which they will find themselves, their families, friends, and fellow Americans.

I wonder whatever happened to that.

you dont have anything to hide, do you?

There is only one Amendment, and it is the 2nd. All paperwork indicating otherwise must be fed to the memory hole immediately!

since we no longer have the 1st

If they find out I wil

Come wiz us. Ve have queestions to aask of you.

<Had to complete where you were going with your post. Hope you don't mind.>

amendment 4A, do you, now? No, they're not cool enough for a snappy shorthand-type nickname.

The Fourth amendment when written didn't have this "space". It is now We need a court, or government to clarify one way or the other whether it does apply or not, and if not to make sure we have an amendment to make it apply to virtual space. Might need a technical task force to make sure it is done in constructive ways, but the need is there to do this. The problem is that corrupt Washington doesn't want to touch this as long as the absence of any court decision, etc. on this leaves it open for interpretation to allow them to get away with all of this crap.

Nothing - absolutely nothing - has happened in the last 5 years (or several years prior) to change my mind.

I doubt they can even make good use of all that data so I don't see why they would want it.

That being said, it's only phone numbers and date/timestamps and not monitoring of voice communications. It does not rise to the level of 'outrage' for me personally.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

i agree - they would notify the public, before they ever did something like that

That's why warrants are required -to do monitoring IN SECRET with the blessings of a judge.

That's why a warrant was sought and issued in this case. And the fact that it requires a three month review to be re-approved means they are trying to avoid over-reach. Maybe this is still over-reach but they are at least paying lip service to the concept of restraint.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Totalitarian? Yep! Authoritarian? That too! Unconstitutional? I think so, but the Supremes might disagree with me. Despicable? Mean spirited? A bunch of other nasty things? You Betcha!

Fascism? I fail to see how this is government acting on behalf of business or at the behest of business.

Marie Beyle (Stendahl)

I'm not sure I'm emphasizing enough.

...but it does make it easier to quell populist uprisings like OWS.

"Damn, those fuckers are like the NSA!"

"Hey, that was uncalled for!"

"Yeah, fuck you man, nobody's as bad as the Americans!"

"Leave it to some douchebag to go all Fedwin on the thread!"

It's only the phone number and time stamp of the call (as far as we know).

How can it hurt? Think six degrees of separation, or less.

An example:

I call a friend from work frequently. My friend is part of a bike riding club and acts as secretary/treasurer. He frequently calls or is called by members in the club. One of the members has loose ties to an organization that is under investigation by the government. Now a link is established and my friend falls under investigation and for good measure I do too.

There are only a couple of degrees of separation.

Paranoid? I say cautious. Any data collected about me can be used both to obtain more data about me or make assumptions and determinations that aren't necessarily true.

the air, exhibited "odd" behavior down on the ground. People whose names they don't even know.

You think if a computer connected anyone here, through 10 degrees of separation to a tragic event that they would be any less reckless about jumping to conclusions?

Once they realized they made a mistake what percentage of time do you think they would admit it versus trying to double down on the mistake?

just how far they can push us before we riot.

Seems like a bunch of information overload. Do they put all the data in a database and analyze a trend?

Like when the TSA announced they would allow knives on planes did they see a shift in phone calls from certain locations with large Arab populations? Was the info used to suggest that allowing knives on planes would increase terrorist attacks. (This is - you don't need tons of data for common sense)

that remarked. "The power to spy on people will be used against politicians and government officials, eventually. It always is."

Kirk asked in Holder to confirm that the DOJ was not spying on any phones in the Capital, and Holder said he didn't want to discuss that in open testimony. Translation, yes, they are spying on Congress too. When they have enough Blackmail information it will be Hoover's FBI all over again writ large.

Does anyone remember what this country was like before Bush and Cheney sunk their fangs into it?

Based on the same state of mind and intentions.

I don't know how the government is currently defining "terrorist"-- much less how they'll define it in the future.

I mean, does anyone really think these tools haven't been used against, for instance, Occupy Wall Street types in the last few years? We have privacy rights for a reason. At least, we used to.

I don't like the idea any more than I like all the cameras everywhere. Then I remember all the post 9/11 Bush knew and did nothing and the incessant clamour on DU about ignored intelligence. Boston was hellish but not on the scale of those planes and the WTC. I don't have an answer and I wonder if others here do. I don't think any of us know what the shadowy players behind powers are up to. There is such fluidity in power, its use, abuse, and lack of it. I think it is naive to demand total transparency for some things but this blnation hasn't hit on what trade off for security it wants. That is a dialogue which has not really happened.

When I voted for Obama in 2008, I expected him to move to REPEAL the fucking Patriot Act. Not use it willy-nilly.

In 2012 I voted for him again even though I knew better but HOLY SHIT this pisses me off.

I don't even think it's to squash things like OWS necessarily. I think it's more likely to end up being used in the War on Drugs. Arrest someone with drugs? Time to find out everyone he ever talked to and start harassi...uh...investigating them too!

We have no facts on it, and apparently don't intend to or want to find out anything about that.