Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NobodyInParticular

(102 posts)
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 03:01 AM Jul 2013

Does ubiquitous surveillance on the part government agencies mean the end of investigative

journalism as we have known it?

Can any reporter keep the confidentiality of any source that exposes a major crime report facts without governmental agencies shutting down the investigation? All it would take is simply to look at the reporter's phone records and then terminate the investigation by questioning every source he/she has spoken to and intimidating the informers/whistleblowers to stop the story in its tracks?

With such capacities, a government would have the convenience of always, always looking good no matter what it is doing or has done...

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Does ubiquitous surveillance on the part government agencies mean the end of investigative (Original Post) NobodyInParticular Jul 2013 OP
K&R. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #1
Some will now take greater care dipsydoodle Jul 2013 #2
K&R&What JDPriestly wrote. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #3

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
1. K&R.
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 03:04 AM
Jul 2013

Thanks. Your post is to the point and absolutely right.

Without getting the content of your communications, just based on metadata, the government can identify whistleblowers, malcontents, people who report corruption and wrongdoing on the part of the government to Congress or a judge or the press.

This is what people have to understand.

This surveillance program insures job security for those people in government who happen to be crooks.

We need freedom. We need the ability to contact our members of Congress without our government seeing our communications in our metadata.

For example:

Meanwhile in America, the 'land of free,' another NYTimes article exposed how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) operated a "wide-ranging surveillance operation" and spied on "a group of its own scientists" by secretly capturing "thousands of e-mails that the disgruntled scientists sent privately to members of Congress, lawyers, labor officials, journalists and even President Obama."

The agency, using so-called spy software designed to help employers monitor workers, captured screen images from the government laptops of the five scientists as they were being used at work or at home. The software tracked their keystrokes, intercepted their personal e-mails, copied the documents on their personal thumb drives and even followed their messages line by line as they were being drafted, the documents show.

This surveillance resulted in more than 80,000 pages of computer documents. After reviewing them, The New York Times wrote, "The documents captured in the surveillance effort - including confidential letters to at least a half-dozen Congressional offices and oversight committees, drafts of legal filings and grievances, and personal e-mails - were posted on a public Web site, apparently by mistake, by a private document-handling contractor that works for the F.D.A."

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/hope-9-whistleblower-binney-says-nsa-has-dossiers-nearly-every-us-citizen

I think that was under the Bush administration, but the collection of the metadata that made that kind of surveillance and investigation of the dissident (honest) scientists possible is continuing under Obama.

I hope people now understand why this collection of metadata is an abomination and should be stopped.

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
2. Some will now take greater care
Sat Jul 6, 2013, 05:00 AM
Jul 2013

in how they communicate right down to using two bean cans and a piece of string if necessary.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Does ubiquitous surveilla...