HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
It's funny that we have to go through all this to stop bulk NSA surveillance. I mean, no permission was needed at all to start spying on people, so why is it so difficult to make them stop?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Congress Introduces New Bills To End Bulk NSA Surveillance
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
You all know I have very different views on this subject then many of you. That's why you may find this uncharacteristic of me.
I'm all for it.
Now let me explain.
Steve says "no permission was needed" but it was given, President Bush did sign a war powers letter authorizing it.
Others say "NSA spying on everything....." variations. I of course have been saying this isn't correct but ......
Whether they are doing things wrong, or not, I am all for legislation that makes such a thing illegal.
I'm all for it.
Now let me explain.
Steve says "no permission was needed" but it was given, President Bush did sign a war powers letter authorizing it.
Others say "NSA spying on everything....." variations. I of course have been saying this isn't correct but ......
Whether they are doing things wrong, or not, I am all for legislation that makes such a thing illegal.
Yakk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,810
Stop... Right...
Etherton
Will Bang for Poof
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,996
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I am sure our dysfunctional Congress and Senate will find some effective way to fumble the ball ... I have faith in their incompetence 
OlIv0rIolI
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 634
No, it just took 30 years for people to find out
I am sure our dysfunctional Congress and Senate will find some effective way to fumble the ball ... I have faith in their incompetence
Yup they'll keep making amendments to the bill that not only neuters what it was originally trying to accomplish, but instead increases surveillance and extends the patriot act indefinitely..... Which will probably get snuck through just like the bullshit 'budget' that just passed recently, because democracy right?
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
People do understand "Terrorism" is not a people or a group right? Terrorism is a definition, it just boggles my mind stuff like this gets passed.
temujin987
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,351
well, it's named pandora's box because according to myth it was her box (or jar) not because she was in it
sorry for nitpicking.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
well, it's named pandora's box because according to myth it was her box (or jar) not because she was in it
Unless he has a cat named Pandora and she is always escaping and leading him a merry chase to recover her
Riccochet
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 29,930
It won't stop. These laws will just stop the reporting of it to those that supported these bills.
If I recall it was "authorized" through a letter that GWB signed.
They were probably already collecting most of this data anyway unbeknownst to all but a few. Telling them to stop bulk surveillance won't work unless there is the threat of being thrown in jail.
We may not be able to watch the watchmen but we can set boundaries and toss them in a cell when we can prove they overstepped. I hope this is what the new bill will do.
They were probably already collecting most of this data anyway unbeknownst to all but a few. Telling them to stop bulk surveillance won't work unless there is the threat of being thrown in jail.
We may not be able to watch the watchmen but we can set boundaries and toss them in a cell when we can prove they overstepped. I hope this is what the new bill will do.
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
This would be great, if the President wasn't vetoing everything the Republican lead Congress put forward, just out of spite. Now we need an end to civil forfeiture.
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
Yeah, but in most of those cases, they brought it to that themselves by trying to kill the cops in the first place. Cops should have the right to defend themselves, when they are actually under threat. There are plenty if people out there who would kill cops if they could.
Some weren't, of course, and those cops should be punished, harshly. My cousin was killed by an off duty cop, and just from the photo evidence I have 6 points of physical evidence to show it was a flat out execution. On top of that, they did a breathalyzer on him 8 hours after the incident and he still blew a 0.05 BAC, so he had to have been mostly hammered when it happened, and when he drove home before this happened. Yet, they covered it all up and protected him.
LOL like anything has gotten through the 'republican' lead congress to even get to him to veto.... All this talk about how the issue was the democrats, yet now the republicans have the house/senate, they can't even agree on their own bills. But sure, lets just keep pointing the finger at the other party, because they are always the problem....
A ton of shit got out of the House only to be buried by Harry Reed in the Senate. Now Obama is burying it. But keep slurping up those talking points since you don't care about the truth.
... The truth (and my whole point) is that both parties are the problem. To ignore that and point fingers at the other is like a kid plugging his ears going blablablablabal during a losing argument....
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
Well, this is heading for soapbox territory but one could argue that both parties are just two sides of the same coin ... one just likes to over regulate the board room and one likes to over regulate the bedroom ... we need something new (libertarians maybe?) that is pro business enough to protect the economy but doesn't care about getting into regulating social behaviors as much
So
There are many more crack headed Americans running around then terrorists, do the math.
Ocean
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,927
i wonder what percentage of these people voted for it in the first place.
The links for the voting record.
The House;
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
The Senate;
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313
Current Members of the House;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_by_seniority
Current members of the Senate;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators
From here you could cut and paste the names into Excel, do some sorting and matching and then a little math. I'll let you finish Ocean.
The House;
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
The Senate;
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313
Current Members of the House;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_by_seniority
Current members of the Senate;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators
From here you could cut and paste the names into Excel, do some sorting and matching and then a little math. I'll let you finish Ocean.
Ocean
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,927
no, the percentage of the current people supporting the bills to end bulk surveillance. (which is an unknown) other than leahy who voted yes on the patriot act.
but i don't know how much of the bulk nsa surveillance is tied exclusively to the patriot act. i think there were other amendments and bills that allowed for that.
There are a lot more unicorns running around here than terrorists as well..... But we gotta keep people scared of that boogeyman so they can keep passing bullshit like the patriot act to tighten their grip on the people they don't serve... All while we keep pretending to be the world police and continuing wars in other countries for profit...
Look dude, if you want to keep ignoring the absolute irrefutable fact that these terrorists are still trying to kill Innocent People I can't help you with that.
It wasn't just American, trains in Spain were bombed and the Spanish pulled their troops out of Iraq. Other countries were attacked, England was and they stuck it out, Italy backed out like Spain. Both Russia and Ukraine had troops on the same base in Iraq when Russia first invaded Ukraine and the Russian Helicopter unit stayed but once Bush convinced Putin to pull his troops back the Ukrainians left in order to protect themselves and deter another Russian attack, guess it wasn't enough.
Guys like you want to say bullshit like there aren't many actual terrorists well get a clue, it doesn't take very many to kill a lot of people. You also want to convince yourself that the increased security isn't doing anything to stop them, that's why the terrorists are forced to try bullshit hail marry moves like wearing a pair of explosive underwear or putting explosives in the heal of their shoes.
So let's stop fooling ourselves that there isn't a threat.
It wasn't just American, trains in Spain were bombed and the Spanish pulled their troops out of Iraq. Other countries were attacked, England was and they stuck it out, Italy backed out like Spain. Both Russia and Ukraine had troops on the same base in Iraq when Russia first invaded Ukraine and the Russian Helicopter unit stayed but once Bush convinced Putin to pull his troops back the Ukrainians left in order to protect themselves and deter another Russian attack, guess it wasn't enough.
Guys like you want to say bullshit like there aren't many actual terrorists well get a clue, it doesn't take very many to kill a lot of people. You also want to convince yourself that the increased security isn't doing anything to stop them, that's why the terrorists are forced to try bullshit hail marry moves like wearing a pair of explosive underwear or putting explosives in the heal of their shoes.
So let's stop fooling ourselves that there isn't a threat.
Our allies who were helping us "protect" the same countries were also attacked? Inconceivable!!
I'm not saying there aren't terrorists. But we are batting the hornets nest (in multiple countries) then crying that we are getting stung by rogue bees... We brought this on ourselves trying to be world police, and our 'allies' are suffering because of it. Mainly due to their location.
GotNoRice
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,031
I think reduction in NSA surveillance would be great - if we were the only country on this planet.
Fact is, it's a shitty fucked up world out there. We can't be afford to be dialing back our surveillance programs while countries like China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc do everything they can to expand theirs. Fast forward 20-30 years to when China is the #1 economy, with probably the #1 military also, and they are throwing their weight around everywhere. Stuff like "free speech" will become a joke. Sure we will still have it here in the US, but Chinese companies (most government controlled) will have so much influence that if they ask someone in the US to censor something, no one is going to say no.
People don't even understand how good we already have it here compared to so many of these other fucked up countries. Even if the NSA is spying on you, at least take solace that none of the information they collect will ever be used in a domestic criminal case against you. As long as you're not engaged in terrorism or something similar, you really have nothing to worry about. NSA isn't about stupid little shit. If they are spying on you and see you smoking marijuana in your living room, it's not like they are going to pass that info on to the local cops. If they find out that your car registration is expired, they aren't going to notify the DMV. NSA spying isn't = cops spying on you. The NSA is on your side.
Fact is, it's a shitty fucked up world out there. We can't be afford to be dialing back our surveillance programs while countries like China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc do everything they can to expand theirs. Fast forward 20-30 years to when China is the #1 economy, with probably the #1 military also, and they are throwing their weight around everywhere. Stuff like "free speech" will become a joke. Sure we will still have it here in the US, but Chinese companies (most government controlled) will have so much influence that if they ask someone in the US to censor something, no one is going to say no.
People don't even understand how good we already have it here compared to so many of these other fucked up countries. Even if the NSA is spying on you, at least take solace that none of the information they collect will ever be used in a domestic criminal case against you. As long as you're not engaged in terrorism or something similar, you really have nothing to worry about. NSA isn't about stupid little shit. If they are spying on you and see you smoking marijuana in your living room, it's not like they are going to pass that info on to the local cops. If they find out that your car registration is expired, they aren't going to notify the DMV. NSA spying isn't = cops spying on you. The NSA is on your side.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I am not quite ready to put the blame exclusively on our own foreign policy gaffs (although that is one factor) ... we could build a giant wall around the USA and go totally isolationist and there would still be people, both within and without, who would wish the USA to be destroyed ... there are certainly more Timothy McVeigh types out there waiting to make their entry in the history books (sadly), even without the foreign folks who hate what our country represents
We were being attacked before 9/11, it's not really that new. What was different about 9/11 was that it was successful, big and on US soil.
I am not going to try and argue decades on US foreign policy, that's a hole with no bottom. But we have to live with where we are today and our "allies" have been getting themselves into trouble well enough without our help. If anything we get into more trouble trying to help them out then we would if we kept our own head down a little lower. Your right about trying to be the "world's police" just as long as you don't confuse it with being the "baddest ass kicker on the block". I don't mind wearing the later title as long as it's coupled with some "Teddy Wisdom" like "Walk softly and carry a big stick".
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
NSA is made up of people. Just like any government entity.
People do bad things. People with power do really bad things.
Mission statements have nothing to do with it.
Wow, GotNoRice, you might not beleive it, but I actually disagree with you. I am going to address why by starting from the bottom and working my way back up.
First, you are right, the NSA is on our side, as in on the side of the Country as an entity, individually it's a little less personal in it's application.
Next, if in the course of Lawful Intelligence collection the NSA identifies a US Person engaged in illegal activity, they are required to pass it on to Law Enforcement. If they feel that messing with the criminal will endanger active collection on an important target they might ask LE to wait awhile, build their case, but hold off on arrest and capture, but an American doesn't get a pass just because the NSA happened across your illegal activity. They will just be more creative in how they use the knowledge of it.
And last, the one that others will disagree with the most, to my knowledge, the NSA isn't spying on Americans, with the exception of the Bulk Cell Phone Meta-Data collection program. This is the only program that has been exposed that comes close to the definition of "spying on Americans" and that's because the only discriminator is that this program collects meta-data on all overseas calls regardless of who is on the end of the connections.
So there it is GotNoRice. About the only thing we have in common is that neither of us feel the NSA is actually working against American's or actually conducting surveillance on us. The rest of your statement is, well it's not correct.
aardvark, I also actually agree with what you are saying here. And we know people in the NSA have abused NSA authority for personal reasons. I don't think it's rampant, I don't think it's systemic abuse. Almost all that we know of wasn't against US citizens and it looks like the Agency does a reasonable job of policing it themselves. The Justice Department hasn't done a very good job of punishing this kind of abuse and that's a sad thing. But as a whole, I have not seen anything that shows the NSA, as an organization, has been spying on Americans in the manner that the media, specially foreign media, claims.
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
Its not NSA, but for an amazing read, look into what the lead silk road investigators are accused of doing. It may as well be from a comic book, it's crazy. They were able to intimidate because of their positions and power. I think we'd be naive to think there are no 'bad apples' in any agency.
So the question isn't if every employee is a criminal, but where would a criminal seek employment.
Also, if General Petraeus gave away state information to a mistress, think of what lesser men would do to someone who may have indirectly and unwittingly antagonized them in their personal lives.
So the question isn't if every employee is a criminal, but where would a criminal seek employment.
Also, if General Petraeus gave away state information to a mistress, think of what lesser men would do to someone who may have indirectly and unwittingly antagonized them in their personal lives.
The Silk Road thing interests me, I'll give it a read.
But the issue with bad apples I look at differently then you. You seem to feel that because someone could abuse the powers of their organization that the organization can't be trusted with that power.
I on the other hand feel that as long as the organization polices it's people and continually checks for bad apples, and will remove bad apples when found, then the needs outweigh the risks.
The NSA has shown that they have pretty robust methods for identifying people who abuse their powers. Most that were caught never even actually got the information that had illegally queried for. That means the organization prevented the damage and removed the bad apple. I don't know how you are going to eliminate all the bad apples in an organization as large as the NSA but they are pretty selective in who even get's approved to work there. Add to this the fact that the risks generally outweigh the gains of misbehaving. Next there are the controls in place that actually prevent many misdeeds, the workers can't pull info they shouldn't have in most cases cause the system protects that data and flags attempts to access it by unauthorized users, hence how some were caught trying. then there are the audits and polygraphs, etc. and now you add to this that all these people are also being placed under monitoring even in their private online life.
If you have never had a Security Clearance then you don't know what it's like. I live 30 miles from Mexico but I have to tell someone in advance if I want to go there for a night out and dinner or to see a dentist. My wife is Korean, her sisters came to visit, I had to report it. One of her sisters asked if we would buy her house so she could buy a better one, She would handle renting it, I had to report it beyond having to report the foreign income to the IRS. I had to tell them about the weed I smoked when I was a kid. Almost every part of my life I had to lay bare for them to evaluate before they would give me the clearance and I didn't actually work for the NSA, just Army Intelligence (Insert oxymoron joke here).
Funny you mentioned Petraeus, it's been my experience that those who are in positions of greater power are more likely to flaunt the rules. Sometimes I think it's cause they start believing they are more powerful then the rules, the rules no longer apply. In truth, many rules can be bypassed with a signature from just such a person. But it's a power they have by virtue of the office they hold, it's not personal, it's not the power of the man himself, it's authority invested in the position because of the position's responsibilities. Problem is, some start believing it's their power.
But the issue with bad apples I look at differently then you. You seem to feel that because someone could abuse the powers of their organization that the organization can't be trusted with that power.
I on the other hand feel that as long as the organization polices it's people and continually checks for bad apples, and will remove bad apples when found, then the needs outweigh the risks.
The NSA has shown that they have pretty robust methods for identifying people who abuse their powers. Most that were caught never even actually got the information that had illegally queried for. That means the organization prevented the damage and removed the bad apple. I don't know how you are going to eliminate all the bad apples in an organization as large as the NSA but they are pretty selective in who even get's approved to work there. Add to this the fact that the risks generally outweigh the gains of misbehaving. Next there are the controls in place that actually prevent many misdeeds, the workers can't pull info they shouldn't have in most cases cause the system protects that data and flags attempts to access it by unauthorized users, hence how some were caught trying. then there are the audits and polygraphs, etc. and now you add to this that all these people are also being placed under monitoring even in their private online life.
If you have never had a Security Clearance then you don't know what it's like. I live 30 miles from Mexico but I have to tell someone in advance if I want to go there for a night out and dinner or to see a dentist. My wife is Korean, her sisters came to visit, I had to report it. One of her sisters asked if we would buy her house so she could buy a better one, She would handle renting it, I had to report it beyond having to report the foreign income to the IRS. I had to tell them about the weed I smoked when I was a kid. Almost every part of my life I had to lay bare for them to evaluate before they would give me the clearance and I didn't actually work for the NSA, just Army Intelligence (Insert oxymoron joke here).
Funny you mentioned Petraeus, it's been my experience that those who are in positions of greater power are more likely to flaunt the rules. Sometimes I think it's cause they start believing they are more powerful then the rules, the rules no longer apply. In truth, many rules can be bypassed with a signature from just such a person. But it's a power they have by virtue of the office they hold, it's not personal, it's not the power of the man himself, it's authority invested in the position because of the position's responsibilities. Problem is, some start believing it's their power.