US Politics Mega-thread - Page 567

The NSA maintains that we shouldn't worry about human processing, either, because it has rules about accessing all that data. General Keith Alexander, director of the NSA, said that in a recent New York Times interview: "The agency is under rules preventing it from investigating that so-called haystack of data unless it has a 'reasonable, articulable' justification, involving communications with terrorists abroad, he added."

There are lots of things wrong with this defense.

First, it doesn't match up with U.S. law. Wiretapping is legally defined as acquisition by device, with no requirement that a human look at it. This has been the case since 1968, amended in 1986.

Second, it's unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment prohibits general warrants: warrants that don’t describe "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The sort of indiscriminate search and seizure the NSA is conducting is exactly the sort of general warrant that the Constitution forbids, in addition to it being a search by any reasonable definition of the term. The NSA has tried to secretly redefine the word "search," but it’s forgotten about the seizure part. When it collects data on all of us, it’s seizing it.

Third, this assertion leads to absurd conclusions. Mandatory cameras in bedrooms could become okay, as long as there were rules governing when the government could look at the recordings. Being required to wear a police-issued listening device 24/7 could become okay, as long as those same rules were in place. If you're uncomfortable with these notions, it's because you realize that data collection matters, regardless of whether someone looks at it.

Fourth, creating such an attractive target is reckless. The NSA claims to be one of the biggest victims of foreign hacking attempts, and it’s holding all of this information on us? Yes, the NSA is good at security, but it’s ridiculous to assume it can survive all attacks by foreign governments, criminals, and hackers—especially when a single insider was able to walk out of the door with pretty much all their secrets.

Finally, and most importantly: Even if you are not bothered by the speciousness of the legal justifications, or you are already desensitized to government invasion of your privacy, there is a danger grounded in everything we have learned about how humans respond when put in positions of unchecked power. Assuming the NSA follows its own rules—which even it admits it doesn’t always—rules can change quickly. The NSA says it only looks at such data when investigating terrorism, but the definition of that term has broadened considerably. The NSA is constantly pushing the law to allow more and more surveillance. Even Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, the author of the Patriot Act, says that it doesn’t allow what the NSA claims it allows.

A massive trove of surveillance data on everyone is incredibly tempting for all parts of government to use. Once we have everyone’s data, it’ll be hard to prevent it from being used to solve conventional crimes and for all sorts of things. It’s a totalitarian government's wet dream.

On October 25 2013 07:48 Souma wrote:
Sure, but how many foreign leaders are just going to bow down and say, "You can listen to our top-secret conversations as much as you want, no problem!"? I don't believe it's realistic nor do I think it's wise for a country to concede to being spied upon. But of course, if they have consent, then sure, why not? Only problem is, there is absolutely no reason to consent when you're dealing with classified information that may highly influence your country in one way or another. Today's enemy may be tomorrow's friend, but today's friend may also be tomorrow's enemy.

Besides, what exactly are you telling your citizens when you just bend over and let the United States listen to whatever they want? At least put up a front. I sure wouldn't want a President/Prime Minister like that.

On October 25 2013 07:57 DoubleReed wrote:


If he doesn't want us to listen in, then he should fix his security flaws. Consent doesn't matter.

I'm sick of all the grandstanding, lying, and bullshit that comes with foreign policy and espionage. It's pointless and hypocritical to a fantastic extreme.

On October 25 2013 07:59 Gorsameth wrote:
My question tho is, where is the german intelligence in all this, isnt it like there job to prevent Merkels phone from being tapped?

Note I dont condone what the NSA does. But what is the rest of the world doing to prevent it.

Or we could respect an ally's wishes and have some integrity in the matter. You know, the right thing to do. Obviously it isn't gonna happen but telling them, "You have no other choice, consent and be spied on or don't consent and be spied on," is horrible diplomacy.

On October 25 2013 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:


Do you think it's better or worse than the diplomacy we're doing now?

If we're really that uncomfortable saying what we're doing to our allies, then maybe we shouldn't be doing those things.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Thursday put the kibosh on prospects of a deficit-reduction "grand bargain," instead making clear this his priority in upcoming negotiations will be to get rid of sequestration.

"That's all happy talk," he told KNPR Nevada Public Radio. "I would hope that were the case but we're not going to have a grand bargain in the near future."

"I hope that we can do some stuff to get rid of sequestration and go on to do some sensible budgeting," he said.

Pressed repeatedly during the interview on what it'd take for him to consider cutting Medicare and Social Security, Reid stammered, "You keep talking about Medicare and Social Security. Get something else in your brain. Stop talking about that. That is not going to happen this time. There's not going to be a grand bargain."

Reid recounted the recent battle that led to a government shutdown and a near-breach of the debt ceiling and made clear he's lost his patience with Republicans.

On October 25 2013 07:59 Gorsameth wrote:
My question tho is, where is the german intelligence in all this, isnt it like there job to prevent Merkels phone from being tapped?

Note I dont condone what the NSA does. But what is the rest of the world doing to prevent it.

If we all agree spying is inevitable, then what's the big deal?