dagblog - Comments for "No, NSA's General Alexander was Not Making Stuff Up"

A majority of "liberals"

rmrd0000 — Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:12:58 +0000

A majority of "liberals" think that some people may be naive. Many people are not shocked when they learn that NSA monitors foreign universities. The reason that they are not shocked is because they suspect that foreign governments spy on US universities. One of the discussions with the Chinese was about Chinese hacking of US sites.The Chinese were not shocked by the charge of hacking because the Chines are hacking and China's leaders know it. When some gets a case of the vapors about NSA hacking Chines universities and does not acknowledge Chinese hacking, the message received is that the person is out of touch with reality and wants the US to stand down and do nothing.

Most people who use the net know that they are under attack. They have read of Chinese attacks, Russian attacks and Iranian attacks. I suspect that people who read about the US crippling an Iranian nuclear plant and hack Al-Qaeda's online magazine took it with a sense of pride.

Cyber-attacks are real. Video surveillance is real.Video surveillance appears to have aided in helping law enforcement identify the Tsarnaevs. As long as people who realize that there are active threats are labeled as looking for their blankie, and the obvious existent of threats are ignored, people who only identify the US as the root of the problem will be ignored.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that law enforcement can perform DNA testing for people who have been merely charged with a crime. SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. Keep your fingers crossed on what a court that is likely not fully aware of the intricacies of in Internet does regarding random bytes of data on the web and the governments ability to sweep the data.

Technology has changed. The ability of a dedicated person to use simple material to build a bomb is a fact. The ability of foreign governments to hack the US is a fact. Any discussion that centers on what the US government is doing to "protect" us has to be done with the realization of clear and present dangers that pose threats. Few are going to be willing to have the US stand down while other entities continue hacking or terrorists plot. In an era of cyber- attacks, few are going to rely on good old shoe leather detective work alone to protect us.

Any discussion that does not acknowledge external threats and simply labels the US as the source of the problem will be ignored by most people. How do we maintain freedom in the era of cyber-attacks. If video surveillance is a norm, what is the argument against monitoring crowds with drones?

The discussion has to acknowledge that less surveillance might mean an attack occurs. On the other hand there was data available regarding plotting 911 that wasn't addressed. There was data on the Boston Bombing suspects that wasn't addressed. A large database may make us less safe than a smaller, focused database. Lets discuss, but leave the blankie analogy behind.

Emphatically yes - we can

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:52:28 +0000

In reply to Shouldn't 300 million

Emphatically yes - we can amend even the Bill of Rights via vote in state legislatures. Not quite the same thing as referendums, but the best the Constitution allows.

But even if the surveillance is constitutional, there's a limit to what should be allowed in secret in the name of whatever principle. I can't write or call my Congressperson if I don't know that something is happening. Upping security in airports with scanners & take-off-shoes is one thing, tracking all citizen's phone calls & internet habits is another.

In any case, we probably both agree that the 4th Amendment is being thrown under the bus, including by a majority of "liberals" - whether to back their guy in the big house, or just grown scared post-9/11 & it feels like Linus' big ol' bankie.

Nevertheless, gay rights

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:43:17 +0000

In reply to In 1948, about 90% of

Nevertheless, gay rights followed efforts to improve popular support for gays in the military and gay marriage. The courts being usually conservative typically follow, not lead, public opinion, including changing mores on race and sexual identity. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact nor a continual affront to popular opinion, though sometimes is invoked for a critical change.

In 1948, about 90% of

ocean-kat — Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:48:59 +0000

In reply to Shouldn't 300 million

	In 1948, about 90% of American adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed interracial couples to marry. ₁
	In 1967, about 72% of adults were still opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S. ₂

Shouldn't 300 million

ocean-kat — Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:39:28 +0000

In reply to Jesus, another straw man

Shouldn't 300 million Americans be able to vote on whether they want that amount of information held about them?

No, emphatically no. Theoretically we are a nation of laws not men. The Bill of Rights is there to protect the civil rights of all citizens, not just the majority. Many of the advances in our civil liberties would have been voted down if they were up to a vote. Most people agreed with some of the most egregious abuses and if we put it to a vote each time a question come up there would be many more abuses.

One would hope that the majority would vote to protect the rights of the minority. But more often than not, I doubt they would. The will of the people should not matter when it comes to the Bill of Rights. One would hope the Supreme Court would uphold the constitution and protect our rights. Unfortunately those who are closer to my view of the constitution on the Supreme Court have been mostly losing 5-4 for the last dozen or more years.

I think Al Gore articulated my view very well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/14/al-gore-nsa-surveillance-una...

"I am not sure how to interpret polls on this, because we don't do dial groups on the bill of rights," he said.

"This in my view violates the constitution. The fourth amendment and the first amendment – and the fourth amendment language is crystal clear," he said. "It is not acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is."

"I quite understand the viewpoint that many have expressed that they are fine with it and they just want to be safe but that is not really the American way,"

The Constitution was not

rmrd0000 — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:29:42 +0000

In reply to Occasionally the public

The Constitution was not always protective.

Reality check: the

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:08:22 +0000

In reply to You might be right. Even

Reality check: the Constitution trumps. A Patriot Act rammed through Congress can still be unconstitutional, whether as written or as carried out in practice.

If Congress writes it flawed, if Congress doesn't supervise properly, if the Executive Branch doesn't implement properly or hides misuse, if the judicial branch doesn't review or allow relevant grievances to move forward, if there's not enough public or cross-institutional info & transparency to allow unbiased review, a variety of unpleasant unconstitutional effects can result.

This seems to have already happened, but it will take some time to come out of our post-9/11 terror! terror! terror! doldrums where everything can be sacrificed to avoid the possibility that 3000 people might be killed again.

Of course we had 300,000 combat deaths in WWII, and another 50,000 in Vietnam, but these days we're death-averse - we'd rather give up freedoms than risk death or injury. Which is fine, as we have little inspiring to say anymore, so shutting ourselves up is no big loss. Sarah Palin is our new patron saint - The Quitter. Or the latest Barbie - "Constitutional Law is tough".

Even if the theory is right,

Elusive Trope — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:54:44 +0000

In reply to Maybe, but doesn't it depend

Even if the theory is right, the implementation in real time with real human institutions may not be appropriate nor ethical. That is why there should be some form of checks and balances and oversight, which itself needs to have oversight.

I would add that an organization like Greenpeace should not be off limits to such investigations. It's just the investigating agencies need to have valid evidence to justify such investigations.

Occasionally the public

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:12:19 +0000

In reply to I simply asked a series of

Occasionally the public surprises when informed.

In the meantime, we have the Constitution as a reasonable backup, if people maintain it.

I simply asked a series of

rmrd0000 — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:07:20 +0000

In reply to Jesus, another straw man

I simply asked a series of questions. I previously noted that lawsuits were being filed to directly address the legality of the current system. That seems the most rationale approach because Congress is dysfunctional.

You might not like the actual results of a plebiscite on whether the intelligence community should be free to use to techniques currently being discussed.the public very likely agree with drone flights over large nets to monitor crows and provide video feeds if an attack did occur during the event. The idea would be if they didn't stop the events. Suspects could be rounded up more quickly. Do you see the public voting against a greater "sense" of security?