US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2539

On November 20 2015 03:26 oneofthem wrote:
keep thinking that. these technical barriers are used to hide everything from terrorist preaching to white collar crimes. american liberty never included immunity from discovery by court order.

On November 20 2015 03:47 oneofthem wrote:
the specific thing hillary was talking about is complete encryption stuff. it's not broad surveillance.

also would not surprise me if a lot of this noise about the nsa is putin lackeys

Mr Trump said in an interview with Yahoo Politics that he would consider "drastic measures" for monitoring the community.
Asked if that may include registering Muslims in a database or using special ID cards, he did not rule it out.
Islamic State militants said they carried out the attacks in Paris.
The suicide bombs and shootings at various venues across the French capital killed 129 people on Friday.
"We're going to have to do things we never did before," said Mr Trump, a frontrunner in the Republican race for the White House.
"And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling security is going to rule."
He told Yahoo Politics certain things would have to be done "that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy".

The US is going to have to do certain things that were "frankly unthinkable a year ago," said the billionaire businessman, who has previously said mosques should come under surveillance and Syrians should be deported.

Yahoo News asked Trump whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. He wouldn’t rule it out.

“We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump said when presented with the idea. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”

On November 20 2015 03:54 oneofthem wrote:
surveillance is gated by other means, internal procedures and legal authorization etc. for instance, requiring a court order in order to open up an email.

same as your door can be smashed down by a police squad but they need a warrant.

while it's not 100% foolproof, the current legal safeguards isn't as lose and indiscriminate as your data being sold to ad agencies and scammers.

Ben Carson likened Syrian refugees fleeing the country’s bloody civil war and Islamic State violence to dogs on Thursday.

Speaking to reporters in Alabama, Carson stressed that the United States wants smart leaders who care about people, but noted there should always be a balance between safety and humanitarian concerns.

“For instance, you know, if there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog, and you’re probably gonna put your children out of the way,” Carson said. “Doesn’t mean that you hate all dogs by any stretch of the imagination.”

Continuing his analogy, the Republican presidential candidate said that screening refugees is like questioning how you protect your children, even though you love dogs and will call the Humane Society to take the dog away to reestablish a safe environment.

“By the same token, we have to have in place screening mechanisms that allow us to determine who the mad dogs are, quite frankly,” he added. “Who are the people who wanna come in here and hurt us and wanna destroy us? Until we know how to do that, just like it would be foolish to put your child out in the neighborhood knowing that that was going on, it’s foolish for us to accept people if we cannot have the appropriate type of screening.”

The comments come as the retired neurosurgeon’s foreign policy chops have come under fire in recent days — even by those within his own camp. The Obama administration plans to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. in 2016.

On November 20 2015 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:

The difference is I know if my door is being smashed down without a warrant.
The general population has no way of knowing if their emails are being opened without a court order.

On November 20 2015 03:54 oneofthem wrote:
surveillance is gated by other means, internal procedures and legal authorization etc. for instance, requiring a court order in order to open up an email.

same as your door can be smashed down by a police squad but they need a warrant.

while it's not 100% foolproof, the current legal safeguards isn't as lose and indiscriminate as your data being sold to ad agencies and scammers.

On November 20 2015 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:

The difference is I know if my door is being smashed down without a warrant.
The general population has no way of knowing if their emails are being opened without a court order.

On November 20 2015 03:56 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Donld trump being donald trump

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34873057

On November 20 2015 04:06 KwarK wrote:

Yes they do. Your emails are being read.
Sorry. It's that simple. If it makes you feel any better, so are everyone else's.

NSA overreach is not a hypothetical "how would I know if I'm a target" anymore. You are a target.

On November 20 2015 04:05 KwarK wrote:

Internal procedures and legal authorization are not meaningful gates. If you think they are you haven't been paying attention. If it can be read, it has been read. If it can be listened in on, it has been listened in on.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3sf8xx/im_bill_binney_former_nsa_tech_director_worked/cwwpx19

Imagine if the Secret Service were continually breaking your door down and ransacking your house without a warrant. Like a few times a week you'd come home and all your drawers would be emptied out on the floor, your papers would be everywhere etc. If I were to tell you not to worry about it because the police need a warrant to do that I doubt you'd be comforted. I think you'd probably want to get your house a moat. This is no different.

A system based on faith that the secret police (for that is what the NSA are) will not violate the law is only good for as long as they do not routinely break the law and for as long as the lawmakers and courts care about those violations. You do not live in such a state. The next best option is to make it so that they cannot break the law.

On November 20 2015 03:57 Deathstar wrote:
This is all so surreal
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-has-big-plans-1303117537878070.html

On November 20 2015 04:13 oneofthem wrote:
i don't want to rehash old discussions, but the content collection is for archival, i.e. establishing the possibility of search. it's not active search.

as far as active searches go, the broader the search, the less privacy harm. preliminary search is not going to be intrusive and extensive to the extent of 'looking over your shoulders.' the minimization process they have is designed to limit unnecessary intrusions. the FISA court has to authorize at least the broad terms of an investigation.

On November 20 2015 04:13 oneofthem wrote:
i don't want to rehash old discussions, but the content collection is for archival, i.e. establishing the possibility of search. it's not active search.

as far as active searches go, the broader the search, the less privacy harm. preliminary search is not going to be intrusive and extensive to the extent of 'looking over your shoulders.' the minimization process they have is designed to limit unnecessary intrusions. the FISA court has to authorize at least the broad terms of an investigation.

On November 20 2015 04:15 CannonsNCarriers wrote:


Do you remember when Republicans were terrified of big government and thought it was stepping on their freedoms because of the tax-penalty enforced mandate to buy health insurance? Glad to see they came around on the use of federal government power.