Video & Multimedia

WhoIsNumberNone

(7,875 posts) Tue Dec 8, 2015, 08:44 PM Dec 2015

TYT: Politicians Use Scare Tactics To Promote Government Spying

Since the terrorist attack in San Bernadino, major politicians are stepping forward to voice their support for expanded internet surveillance. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush both agree that the US has to stop future attacks by increasing programs like the ones exposed by Edward Snowden. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian (The Point) hosts of The Young Turks discuss.

Do you think we should give up more privacy to ensure that terrorist attacks don’t happen in the US? Let us know in the comments below.

Read more here: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/clinton-and-republican-candidates-agree-increased-surveillance-is-necessary-to-prevent-terror-attacks/

“Presidential candidates from both parties came together at the weekend to call for beefed-up government surveillance programs in the wake of recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.

The candidates did not agree, however, on what kind of surveillance – new dragnet metadata collection, tools to fight encryption or some even more powerful capability – was needed.”

1 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

TYT: Politicians Use Scare Tactics To Promote Government Spying (Original Post) WhoIsNumberNone Dec 2015 OP

Great clip. I am particularly sensitive about the surveillance because I lived in Germany JDPriestly Dec 2015 #1

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

1. Great clip. I am particularly sensitive about the surveillance because I lived in Germany

Reply to WhoIsNumberNone (Original post)

Wed Dec 9, 2015, 06:14 AM

Dec 2015

and Austria near the Eastern border in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I talked to people who lived in Eastern Europe and Eastern Germany also Poland at that time. This kind of surveillance eventually makes citizens bitter and angry. And it does not really make anyone safer.

What would make us safer would be surveillance on the sales and collecting of arms and guns. Of course, I was a terrible chemistry student, but I suppose bombs can be made with ordinary household materials. Still very large purchase of certain materials of that kind could be placed under surveillance.

Internet activity -- my internet activity and yours -- within the legitimate scope of free speech. It should be of no interest whatsoever to the our government. Imagine a Trump in the White house and surveillance available to him of what we write on DU. He would consider those of us who support immigration from Mexico to be subversive.

Warrants that comply with the Constitution''s requirement of specificity are easy to write and get and should be required. Pretty much anything that is useful can be obtained with a subpoena and then warrant in compliance with the Constitution.

It's not that I don't want the government to have relevant information or material that is vital to protecting American lives. It's that there should be a record of every instance in which such material is obtained. We have that right. It's part of our heritage. And it really is not that much trouble.

They missed the San Bernardino case because they were looking for the wrong information and because he looked so stable and prosperous from his profile -- good job, baby, recently married -- what could go wrong?

It's a matter of organizing what needs to be done, of prioritizing, of leaving ordinary people alone and respecting privacy. Very few of us are terrorists or criminals. Many fewer than the mass collection of personal information by the NSA suggests. And the NSA knows that very well.

Warrants are easy to get when appropriate and justified. Ask any criminal attorney or judge.

Reply to this discussion