jon33dn 0 Posted August 8, 2013 Author Share Posted August 8, 2013 Well I guess I'm interested in hearing about your oversight recommendations. So certain judges are assigned to serve on the FISA court, right? They are read in on the capability so they can better understand how the information was gleaned. They look at the case that the NSA has built against certain suspected terrorists and the NSA is requesting personal information on these people (identities, approval to monitor, etc.) Does that sound right so far? Ok, so when you say oversight, who are you recommending for the job? These are judges who understand the legal system. Are you saying that you think the judges are selected using some criteria that gives the agency some leeway on the law or what? I guess Im just confused on where u think the system is flawed....and who u think should review their decisions..... The part where the executive branch skips the judge and uses the information they have illegally obtained. What you said is totally irrelevant, that we have FISA courts? So what, they have shown that they skip such oversight as a matter of policy. There is no excuse for what they are doing. It is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratey 6 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 The part where the executive branch skips the judge and uses the information they have illegally obtained. What you said is totally irrelevant, that we have FISA courts? So what, they have shown that they skip such oversight as a matter of policy. There is no excuse for what they are doing. It is illegal. As I posted before... http://illinoispolicy.org/uploads/media/huxley.png The threat of terrorism will ALWAYS be there. The "war on drugs" will always be there. So both are permanent crisis scenarios. And they are going to invent more and more invasion policies to combat them until we're a surveillance state where everything you do is monitored "for the greater good." That definition of greater good is only going to grow... Do you have any idea how dangerous driving is!? It would be safer for everyone if cars had their speeds capped based on speed limits and GPS readings.(Japan and England are already testing this) Or better yet, self driving cars, what could go wrong? Bad food is bad for you. It should be banned and taxed! At what point do you cut off the "For your safety"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ND3 0 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) The system is certainly flawed. Of the 11 judges on the FISA court, all were appointed by very right-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts, and 10/11 were nominated by Republican presidents. There is some definite bias there. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0) I really can't get over the fact that, since the inception of this court in 1979, it has seen 33,949 submitted requests (through 2012)... and denied 11. Eleven. (http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html). If I were to make a recommendation, I would start with overhauling our foreign policy to be much more non-interventionalist- but that's just a pipe dream of mine. I agree with piratey that we are stuck in an endless war on terror. Terror is an idea- it doesn't just "go away". If we stay in it 'til we win it, we'll be at war forever. (Off-topic, but I disagree that the War on Drugs is endless- when marijuana gets legalized, the War on Drugs will end. It's the only drug that makes the effort profitable, and without this profit, the US government will lose interest very quickly.) I think it's fairly obvious that the PATRIOT Act is in direct conflict with the Constitution. In order to gather this information, you really need a warrant, and I just can't convince myself that the means of completely surrending my digital privacy are worth the ends of only sometimes catching "terrorists" (a word whose definition continues to broaden). Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this show that Snowden was right about being able to look up anybody's digital information?-- XKeyscore, the documents boast, is the NSA's "widest reaching" system developing intelligence from computer networks – what the agency calls Digital Network Intelligence (DNI). One presentation claims the program covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet", including the content of emails, websites visited and searches, as well as their metadata. http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-documents-about-xkeyscore-search-tool-2013-7 Edited August 8, 2013 by ND3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
echo88 74 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 The system is certainly flawed. Of the 11 judges on the FISA court, all were appointed by very right-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts, and 10/11 were nominated by Republican presidents. There is some definite bias there. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0) I really can't get over the fact that, since the inception of this court in 1979, it has seen 33,949 submitted requests (through 2012)... and denied 11. Eleven. (http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html). If I were to make a recommendation, I would start with overhauling our foreign policy to be much more non-interventionalist- but that's just a pipe dream of mine. I agree with piratey that we are stuck in an endless war on terror. Terror is an idea- it doesn't just "go away". If we stay in it 'til we win it, we'll be at war forever. (Off-topic, but I disagree that the War on Drugs is endless- when marijuana gets legalized, the War on Drugs will end. It's the only drug that makes the effort profitable, and without this profit, the US government will lose interest very quickly.) I think it's fairly obvious that the PATRIOT Act is in direct conflict with the Constitution. In order to gather this information, you really need a warrant, and I just can't convince myself that the means of completely surrending my digital privacy are worth the ends of only sometimes catching "terrorists" (a word whose definition continues to broaden). Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this show that Snowden was right about being able to look up anybody's digital information?-- http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-documents-about-xkeyscore-search-tool-2013-7 No, actually it doesn't. Xkeyscore targets foreign Internet traffic, so his claim that it targets Americans in the US is false. That's why the NSA called it out when it came to light instead of explaining its purpose. Snowden is reading presentations on programs and making dangerous assumptions about something he doesn't understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
echo88 74 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 As I posted before... http://illinoispolicy.org/uploads/media/huxley.png The threat of terrorism will ALWAYS be there. The "war on drugs" will always be there. So both are permanent crisis scenarios. And they are going to invent more and more invasion policies to combat them until we're a surveillance state where everything you do is monitored "for the greater good." That definition of greater good is only going to grow... Do you have any idea how dangerous driving is!? It would be safer for everyone if cars had their speeds capped based on speed limits and GPS readings.(Japan and England are already testing this) Or better yet, self driving cars, what could go wrong? Bad food is bad for you. It should be banned and taxed! At what point do you cut off the "For your safety"? So let's just cut off both and see what happens. Seriously? Look, I am a staunch supporter of the legalization of marijuana. I dont think its dangerous at all. Other more serious drugs will have a dramatic impact on the poorer citizens of this country and who is going to foot the bill for their addiction/treatment? We are. At least the war on drugs makes it more difficult/expensive for smugglers to get it into the states. Abandon the war on terror and anarchy erupts. I mean, do you seriously think that if we stop hitting targets with drones in Yemen that AQ will just abandon its mission to eradicate Zionists worldwide? They're not doing this out of revenge. They're doing it because we are Christians and they don't agree with our religious views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
echo88 74 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 The part where the executive branch skips the judge and uses the information they have illegally obtained. What you said is totally irrelevant, that we have FISA courts? So what, they have shown that they skip such oversight as a matter of policy. There is no excuse for what they are doing. It is illegal. No, it is not illegal. You just think it is because you dont understand the process. No one is looking at what you are doing online and no one is listening to your calls. Know how I know? Because you're not a terrorist and you don't behave like one. None of your calls are listened to, nothing of yours is brought to the FISA courts, and none of your internet activity is monitored. What you are arguing for and protesting against only protects terrorists. It lets them hide under the umbrella of anonymity and orchestrate their next move. I know you probably feel safe out wherever you are, but I live in DC. It's just a matter of time if these guys arent stifled.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon33dn 0 Posted August 19, 2013 Author Share Posted August 19, 2013 http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/18/nsa-privacy-violations-editorials-debates/2669477/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.