NSA anti-spying controversy crap

[Newby]

They listened to your phone call and heard you mention the word "hack", and five years later you unexplainedly could not get the job you wanted. And then the credit card company refused to issue you a card. And then your close friends were fired from their government jobs. And you could not understand why this was happening to you.

Then you woke up, and realized this would never happen to you, and it has never happened to anyone.

(Proof please?)

[Adron]

Then you woke up, and realized this would never happen to you, and it has never happened to anyone.

(Proof please?)

Actually, that was a bit exaggerated, but not at all impossible for the future to hold in store. It all depends on what you currently consider a possible threat. Right now threats are mostly muslims with bombs, but hackers could be just as big a threat.


What has happened in the past is that people have been monitored as subscribing to certain newspapers/magazines, handing out leaflets, participating in meetings, or having relatives involved in such activities. This has placed them on watchlists. Those people have then been denied jobs because of checks run against these secret watchlists.

The watchlists in this case were mainly for people suspected of being or sympatizing with communists.

Interestingly enough though, once information starts to be gathered, it tends to accumulate in different ways. Accordingly, at the same time as gathering information on who might be a communist, information was also gathered on drinking habits of monitored people. Obviously useful to identify people who might be dangerous.

[DarkMinion]

The government has been red-flagging phone conversations that include certain key words for decades.

[Grok]

Not domestically, without a warrant.  All of the NSA voice recognition keyword flagging has been on international calls or calls utilizing satellites.

Note that Americans have no problem with wiretaps used for investigations, we have spoken loud and clear that wiretaps are legal, and even provided for such within the law.  We provide any law enforcement wishing a wiretap a procedure where they can go before a judge or grand jury and present their request.  If the judge is satisfied that there is sufficient justification, he will provide the warrant.  This warrant can even be sealed for up to 30 days so that those being tapped would be unaware of it.  The wiretap is almost always granted if the judge feels that the wiretap is likely to result in the evidence being sought.

What Americans do have a problem with is illegal wiretaps, those being done outside the legal framework.  Law enforcement investigators must use warrants for wiretaps.

Too slow you say?  There are special provisions to allow wiretaps to be done before the warrant is obtained.  If the investigators feel time prevents getting the warrant in advance, they can still submit the request afterwards.  The judge will decide then whether to grant the warrant.  I believe this allows up to 30 days in most cases.  30 days past beginning the wiretap to go before a judge and request a warrant.

No reasonable person can see this safeguard as dangerous to anyone except to investigators doing wrongful illegal wiretaps.

[MyndFyre]

Not domestically, without a warrant.  All of the NSA voice recognition keyword flagging has been on international calls or calls utilizing satellites.

Note that Americans have no problem with wiretaps used for investigations, we have spoken loud and clear that wiretaps are legal, and even provided for such within the law.  We provide any law enforcement wishing a wiretap a procedure where they can go before a judge or grand jury and present their request.  If the judge is satisfied that there is sufficient justification, he will provide the warrant.  This warrant can even be sealed for up to 30 days so that those being tapped would be unaware of it.  The wiretap is almost always granted if the judge feels that the wiretap is likely to result in the evidence being sought.

What Americans do have a problem with is illegal wiretaps, those being done outside the legal framework.  Law enforcement investigators must use warrants for wiretaps.

Too slow you say?  There are special provisions to allow wiretaps to be done before the warrant is obtained.  If the investigators feel time prevents getting the warrant in advance, they can still submit the request afterwards.  The judge will decide then whether to grant the warrant.  I believe this allows up to 30 days in most cases.  30 days past beginning the wiretap to go before a judge and request a warrant.

No reasonable person can see this safeguard as dangerous to anyone except to investigators doing wrongful illegal wiretaps.

And then what happens is that a judge decides that there's not probable cause to listen to someone.  FISA requires that you have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed or will be committed in order to place a wiretap.  In other words, there has to be reason you believe that the person you're listening to is a terrorist.  In the current situation under scrutiny, that's not the case; we're listening to people's phone conversations where the person on the other end is the suspected terrorist.  That isn't covered by probable cause under FISA.

Also, FISA requires the warrant petition be filed within 48 hours, not 30 days.

Furthermore, with the new cell phone technology, people are buying the pre-paid phones without IDs.  Terrorists can literally go through hundreds or thousands of different numbers during the course of a week.  Is it really necessary to go through the process of clogging up the courts?

You're right, I don't see the safeguard as dangerous.  I just don't see the current NSA program as dangerous, either.  That doesn't make me unreasonable.

[111787]

"Until you are ready to march off for the good of your country to some god forsaken rock in the middle of nowhere to die for a cause that you may not even believe in then you need to shut the fuck up and observe your democratic right not to participate in your free government."   

There is so much wrong with that statement that I don't even know where to start. 

The obvious one is that this has nothing to do with the topic. 

Next, what is the point of sacrificing yourself on "some god forsaken rock in the middle of nowhere" if your deeds aren't going to let your brother and friends live in freedom?  And part of freedom is your rights, which is exactly what's being abused here.  So in other words, you are saying that people are dying for nothing. 

Of course everybody has a democratic right to not participate in the government; of course, they also have a democratic right and responsibility to participate in the government.  Just because somebody isn't going to die for their country, they shouldn't exercise their right to participate in government?  I don't really understand the connectioni there. 

You miss my point entirely.  What I said has everything to do with the topic at hand, I am tired of people running their mouth off about how the government encroaches on their freedom when infact they abuse the freedom given to them by the government and fail to give up anything in order to ensure their freedom they just expect it.

[Newby]

Hahahaha. 30 days in court for a wiretap. By then, the stupid terrorist could have completely planned out his attack, and could kill possibly millions of lives because your attitude towards our privacy apparently outweighs our safety.

Good job.

EDIT -- Whoops, mis-read.

Well, what if the judge decides to throw the warrant out, but the person they listened in on discussed the bombing of some popular event? What do you do? Let him bomb it because its his privacy and he is entitled to it?

Also, I'm interested, what if the judge throws it out and nothing happens? What happens to the government?

[CrAz3D]

Hahahaha. 30 days in court for a wiretap. By then, the stupid terrorist could have completely planned out his attack, and could kill possibly millions of lives because your attitude towards our privacy apparently outweighs our safety.

Good job.

EDIT -- Whoops, mis-read.

Well, what if the judge decides to throw the warrant out, but the person they listened in on discussed the bombing of some popular event? What do you do? Let him bomb it because its his privacy and he is entitled to it?

Yup, cause here in America ALL civil rights are absolute. 

[DarkMinion]

international calls

And who do you think they're tapping?  People calling their grandmothers?  I think not.

[CrAz3D]

international calls

And who do you think they're tapping?  People calling their grandmothers?  I think not.

Maybe if their grandma lives in freakin Iran or something & constantly talks about blowing up the US.

[iago]

And then what happens is that a judge decides that there's not probable cause to listen to someone.  FISA requires that you have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed or will be committed in order to place a wiretap.  In other words, there has to be reason you believe that the person you're listening to is a terrorist.  In the current situation under scrutiny, that's not the case; we're listening to people's phone conversations where the person on the other end is the suspected terrorist.  That isn't covered by probable cause under FISA.

Also, FISA requires the warrant petition be filed within 48 hours, not 30 days.

Furthermore, with the new cell phone technology, people are buying the pre-paid phones without IDs.  Terrorists can literally go through hundreds or thousands of different numbers during the course of a week.  Is it really necessary to go through the process of clogging up the courts?

You're right, I don't see the safeguard as dangerous.  I just don't see the current NSA program as dangerous, either.  That doesn't make me unreasonable.

That argument is circular.  If they don't have sufficient evidence that the person is a terrorist, then they shouldn't be tapping a possibly innocent person's phonelines.