dagblog - Comments for "The Surveillance State Puts U.S. Elections at Risk of Manipulation"

The current NYC Mayor

rmrd0000 — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 16:44:06 +0000

In reply to Spam filter's chewing on my

The current NYC Mayor believes that his police force can physically assault minority citizens to make others in the community feel safe. The judge who ruled the practice Unconstitutional was removed by a panel of judges. A stay was placed on the judges order to halt the physical assault. There will be appeals. It's messy, but it's the Constitution. The data doesn't support Stop and Frisk. Morality doesn't support Stop and Frisk. Until a higher court strikes the law, it will continue. The fight goes on.

In Texas, a law enforcing stringent limits on abortions was struck down by a judge in late October. An Appeals Court overruled the ban on abortions. The new ruling has women's rights groups appealing to the Supreme Court. No one is giving up.

Voter suppression in various states is being challenged under Section II of the Voting Rights Act. The Supremes knowingly gutted the more powerful Section V. People are not giving up their voting rights without a fight. At the State level , there are efforts to unseat the wingnuts and Tea Partyers doing gerrymandering.

People can engage in the fight at any level by supporting the ACLU or the electronic Frontier a Foundation financially, or giving the same type of support to local groups fight for an end to the police state or limiting women's rights. As you learn how groups are fighting back, it takes away a sense that all is lost.

(No subject)

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 15:59:34 +0000

In reply to If you would condense that

Spam filter's chewing on my

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 07:41:05 +0000

In reply to You have been steady in your

Spam filter's chewing on my other reply, but short answer is:

We're talking about content, not just metadata: - The Intelligence Community’s Wide Open, Unprotected Back Door to All Your Content

If they "accidentally" grab your content among petabytes of intercepted foreigner data, they feel allowed to use it for years to come: "Once we have that information I don’t think it makes sense to say, you know, a year later if something comes up we need to go back and get a warrant to search that information."

"The general rule and premise has been that information that’s lawfully acquired can be used by the government in the proper exercise of authorities" - which no longer means overhearing about a planned robbery while wiretapping for drug running - it means billions of unrelated conversations while dragnetting a few continents' communications. No slippery slope there - it's the law (as they interpret it) - they got it somehow tangentially legally, so they can hold on to it forever and use it however they want.

But then I guess I didn't read the Constitution and its generally accepted precedents well the first time:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, except for metadata, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, except if come across by accident or good intention or by being in a foreign country or transacting with foreigners.

Which is how they legally tapped Ben Franklin when he was spending all that time on l'amour as ambassador to Paris. Fair is fair.

The Intelligence Community’s Wide Open, Unprotected Back Door to All Your Content - See more at: http://www.emptywheel.net/#sthash.QBw0VqmI.dpu

Today's EmptyWheel makes it

Anonymous pp — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 07:17:49 +0000

In reply to You have been steady in your

Today's EmptyWheel makes it clear we're *also* talking about content, not just metadata.

And the spook agencies feel that any inadvertent US citizen data they grab among terabytes & petabytes is then free game to search at will - hey, we got it, might as well use it! - specifically:

"The general rule and premise has been that information that’s lawfully acquired can be used by the government in the proper exercise of authorities"

The general rule and premise has been that information that’s lawfully acquired can be used by the government in the proper exercise of authorities. - See more at: http://www.emptywheel.net/#sthash.QBw0VqmI.dpuf

Except that's tended to mean e.g. "if we had a legal wiretap, then hearing about an unrelated crime can then be used".

In this case we're talking mass interception of foreigners' data with some inadvertent (as long as it's less than 50% of the volume!) US citizen data, we can then move it on-shore. And once we have it, well it was legally acquired, so we can use it!

"Once we have that information I don’t think it makes sense to say, you know, a year later if something comes up we need to go back and get a warrant to search that information."

So if I got some nekkid pictures of your wife legally, like accidentally while intercepting millions of furinner emails tangentially related to terrorism, cybersecurity, or general crimes or just suspicious furriner stuff - it makes no sense for me not to use those purty pictures later - why, it'd be just like letting that legally acquired info go to waste, like tossing a perfectly good crème de brûlée in the trash bin.

It means she likes what he

artappraiser — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 00:35:08 +0000

In reply to If you would condense that

It means she likes what he said and the way he said it and agrees with it.

You would rather she repeat everything he said in another form? So we have to read many iterations of the same thing?

I think that a large part of

rmrd0000 — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:16:39 +0000

In reply to You have been steady in your

I think that a large part of the argument is that the battle to rig the vote is going on in front of or eyes. The public has responded with "moral Mondays" in a North Carolina. The government responded with lawsuits filed by the DOJ to combat voter suppression laws. Justice Scalia has made his distaste for " the Blacks" public. Justice Thomas feels no connect to people who do not share his political affiliation. Legislatures are pretty clear about Gerrymandering to blunt the effect of Democratic votes. We are already engaged in the battle over elections.

A 5:4 decision by the Supreme Court took away the Presidency from the guy who won the popular vote in 2000. This was done out in the open.

If you would condense that

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:40:30 +0000

In reply to This.

If you would condense that response a just a little bit it would be one of the most intelligent contributions you have made in a long time.

You have been steady in your

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:39:07 +0000

In reply to NoBamaZero could have used

You have been steady in your criticism of both Snowden as a person and of his actions in releasing the information that he did. That is clear evidence that you think that information was available to an irresponsible person who was willing to act on bad motives. You are surely aware that thousands of people had access to the same and an ongoing ability to dig into the personal information of almost everyone. I guess you trust all of them and you also trust that nobody will try to buy any of them. Then when it is suggested that there is a danger that someone might use information to wrongly affect an election you ridicule the very idea with sarcasm as if it has never happened before and and there is no danger that it will ever happen in the future. That is a dangerous faith I do not recommend. At the end you offer a simplistic claim that legally aboveboard money is the only real danger of perversion of our democracy. Really? You believe all that?

This.

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:54:44 +0000

In reply to NoBamaZero could have used

This.

NoBamaZero could have used

NCD — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:29:20 +0000

In reply to The Surveillance State Puts U.S. Elections at Risk of Manipulation

NoBamaZero could have used the CDC to infect Romney with a lethal pathogen! He could have used the FAA to cause a Romney mid-air collision! He could have used the Transportation Department to booby trap a highway bridge, or programmed a drone or Navy SEALS to take out Romney on the ground or in his car elevator!

He could have used his appointee's to the SCOTUS to stop the vote counting in Florida, or started a war to get re-elected! Oh wait, already been done.

And scariest of all, MarginalRevolution: Obama could have listened to NSA metadata of Romney talking to Merkel........

The real scary thing about US elections is the 'manipulation' of government by big money at election time, TeeVee propaganda, and entire networks gaming the ignorance and prejudices of millions low information voters for the benefit of the 1%.