|
Post by nycbiscuit on Jun 12, 2013 22:02:20 GMT -5
Again, WTF are you talking about? There's a HUGE difference between practical and targeted tracking and trolling all digital communication. And there's an even bigger difference between that and one gov't agency sharing information with another gov't agency.
|
|
|
Post by henchman on Jun 12, 2013 22:13:21 GMT -5
If you don't allow the intelligence agencies to do their job, it's simply a matter of time before terrorists know they can plan anything they want. Unfettered by the watching eye of the CIA or NSA. If you think otherwise, then you truly have learnt nothing.
|
|
|
Post by henchman on Jun 12, 2013 22:14:54 GMT -5
Again, WTF are you talking about? There's a HUGE difference between practical and targeted tracking and trolling all digital communication. And there's an even bigger difference between that and one gov't agency sharing information with another gov't agency. And you are assuming something that isn't necessarily true. www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-terror-hearing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2I'm sure you have expertknowledge of the workings of the NSA and CIA
|
|
|
Post by nycbiscuit on Jun 12, 2013 23:01:58 GMT -5
Wait... because the NSA says they're following the law, that means they're following the law? How did that work out with all the warrantless wiretapping they were doing a few years ago?
Do you think that the NSA is going to say they're doing a crap job, or that they've spent billions of taxpayer dollars on nothing? I don't suppose anyone who works for the gov't would ever say anything to protect their own ass.
|
|
|
Post by henchman on Jun 12, 2013 23:23:12 GMT -5
Wait... because the NSA says they're following the law, that means they're following the law? How did that work out with all the warrantless wiretapping they were doing a few years ago? Do you think that the NSA is going to say they're doing a crap job, or that they've spent billions of taxpayer dollars on nothing? I don't suppose anyone who works for the gov't would ever say anything to protect their own ass. and you automatically assume they are lying.
|
|
|
Post by nycbiscuit on Jun 13, 2013 0:06:27 GMT -5
Not necessarily. But I'll usually take PR spin and general ass covering with a grain of salt.
No doubt they have gotten some useful information from all this data collection and mining. Could they have obtained the same stuff without collecting all communication from AT&T and Verizon's networks, maybe narrowing their search just a wee bit?
All I am saying is that there needs to be a better, less intrusive system beyond collecting everything. I don't know that Big Brother/Dear Leader needs access and the ability to save to everything everyone ever says or writes or takes pictures of or inquires about. And there should be some pretty rock solid safeguards for the stuff they do have.
On that last item, I think it's safe to say it's been a giant FAIL.
|
|
|
Post by jammybastard on Jun 13, 2013 8:04:28 GMT -5
What's the point of protecting the Constitution when we no longer follow it's tenets?
|
|
|
Post by henchman on Jun 13, 2013 13:33:20 GMT -5
Not necessarily. But I'll usually take PR spin and general ass covering with a grain of salt. No doubt they have gotten some useful information from all this data collection and mining. Could they have obtained the same stuff without collecting all communication from AT&T and Verizon's networks, maybe narrowing their search just a wee bit? All I am saying is that there needs to be a better, less intrusive system beyond collecting everything. I don't know that Big Brother/Dear Leader needs access and the ability to save to everything everyone ever says or writes or takes pictures of or inquires about. And there should be some pretty rock solid safeguards for the stuff they do have. On that last item, I think it's safe to say it's been a giant FAIL. Again, they don't collect EVERYTHING. Your assumptions are again wrong. And who do they see who's been talking to terrorists, without looking at phone records? How should They narrow their search? Look for stone tablets? This is 2013. These people are using high tech methods to try and stay under the radar. We have to use high tech methods to keep track of them. Seems pretty simple to me. Or should we give the terrorists the upper hand.
|
|
|
Post by Darren on Jun 13, 2013 15:05:15 GMT -5
I'm just gonna start BC'ing the NSA on all my communication.
|
|
|
Post by henchman on Jun 13, 2013 15:16:40 GMT -5
I'm just gonna start BC'ing the NSA on all my communication. You mean you haven't been?
|
|
|
Post by henchman on Jun 13, 2013 15:17:40 GMT -5
This article pretty much says what I said above. So, anybody who has their knickers in a twist, should read this. And stop acting like everything is PR Spin and ass covering. Link fixed: www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/nsa-congress-mueller/index.html?hpt=hp_t3After a similar classified briefing earlier Thursday for the House Intelligence Committee, Chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan said it was wrong to describe the NSA programs as either monitoring or surveillance. "Wrong word. Not happening," he said of either description. Under one of the programs, under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the government collects billions of phone records to create a database for use in tracking suspected terrorists. Another under Section 702 of the Patriot Act deals with computer activity and other information of foreigners. As explained by Mueller and other security officials, the phone records only show the numbers involved and the date and duration of the call. Any further information, such as the identities of the callers and what was said, requires federal court approval, they say. "If you are going to connect the dots on a 9-11 style event or hopefully prevent a 9-11 style event, you have to have dots in the box in order to connect," Rogers said. "So all of this is just that little bit of information they might need - a phone number to a phone number with no names attached."
|
|
|
Post by boots on Jun 13, 2013 15:37:44 GMT -5
Hey Babe- your link isn't working.
|
|
|
Post by nycbiscuit on Jun 13, 2013 19:01:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by henchman on Jun 13, 2013 19:26:27 GMT -5
Hey Babe- your link isn't working. it is here. Just tried it. Must be the metadata.
|
|
|
Post by henchman on Jun 13, 2013 19:32:09 GMT -5
You can tell quite a bit from some metadata. It's not as anonymous or innocuous as they'd have you believe. Let's say they have records of your phone call metadata. You call your doctor, call an oncologist, call a hospital, then start calling family members—what's the chance you were just diagnosed with cancer? See. Now you are understanding what they are doing. Connecting the dots, connected to known bad guys. Then, if they think something is up, they get a court order for more in depth snooping. They don't give a shit about someone who might have cancer. But they would be interested if they notice a suspect making say, calls and emails to garden suppliers. Pretty innocuous? Hmmm, not really not if they are looking for large quantities of fertilizer. Get it?
|
|