"Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein (D, Calif.) made waves Tuesday when she publicly accused the Central Intelligence Agency of spying on Senate computers in an alleged attempt to thwart her committee's investigation into Bush era interrogation and detention practices. The senator even suggested that the agency had violated the Constitution and federal law. But while Feinstein is up in arms about the intelligence agency's search of her staff's computer system and network, she has been an avid defender of National Security Agency surveillance programs." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/03/12/feinstein-doesnt-like-the-cia-spying-on-her-committee-but-shes-fine-with-nsa-bulk-data-collection/
"Particularly troublesome is the fact that the NSA essentially admitted that it spies on Congress. In a letter, the agency told members of Congress that they enjoyed no more protections from data collection than the average American." http://www.dailytech.com/Obamas+CIA+Accused+of+Hacking+Into+Sabotaging+Senate+Computers/article34497.htm
I find it pretty amusing that suddenly Congress is getting the vapors over surveillance when its directed at them. Of course, this does their credibility no good when we ask the question, what makes it ok when they do it to regular folk. So, it this one of those resistance is futile and you'll be assimilated posts? Or is it why are you worried about a police state, its already here posts? The tracking and hacking portion is interesting since I'm going into the IT field. And its another endorsement for avoiding the "smart gun" technology.
It is indeed cute to see Dianne Feinstein suddenly discover the right to privacy. She's done a 180 so rapidly I'm surprised her hair isn't on backward.
The solution, obviously, to a government becoming more and more authoritarian and oppressive is to grant that government more power over the people's access to life and liberty preserving firepower.
"Progressive" logic in a nutshell (and a "nutshell" is indeed the appropriate container).
The joke's on you and all the other gun-rights fanatics who really think their freedom depends on the guns they own. I think you know better, but you're like little kids whistling in the dark.
That was certainly a big step, but we started down that road long before Bush. He just built a larger level on the existing foundation--a layer Obama has continued to build on rather than jackhammering away like he and other Democrats claimed they would.
Unfortunately, our last two options--McCain and Romney were fans of continued construction as well.
You know, I hear a lot about the surveillance state. As far as I know, surveillance is much more complete in the cities of England than it is right now in the United States. They have cams on every corner, amirite? Edward Snowden has everybody so upset about all of the information gathering going on. It is very likely a ruse to keep us from knowing what is really going on. We had telephone privacy up until about 1981. That's over. Fortunately, we are a free nation and there still remain certain very real protections. That said, the police and FBI will do everything in their power to apprehend and bring to justice wrongdoers. I'm not worried. Fourth amendment issues are a huge problem. And that's not likely to change ever. But we are still the land of the free. And I don't see how anyone can say otherwise before they are unjustly arrested. It is not surprising the blatant unpatriotic rhetoric drivel of the extreme right, but I expect more from this blog.
Citizens are unjustly arrested everyday, and we know innocent people have been put to death. Cameras in public are not the same as people's private telephone and computer communications being constantly monitored. I never hear mentioned the spying on the public by private corporations, which have much more information about individuals than the government does. We seem to accept that, a big mistake.
Not the Second Amendment alone, but when Americans respect and defend rights, that will keep us free. Safety is guaranteed to no one, even in totalitarian states.
I would like to qualify my last remark. We are not the land of the free for young black males. We also have a huge prison industrial complex that is very cozy with many judges that sees young lives as something worth sacrificing to make a helluva lot of money and support an entire population of worthless non-contributing jobs all on the taxpayer dollar.
Junior, As Greg said, we have to fight violations each step of the way to try to keep from losing our freedoms. Yes, you're right that we don't have as much of a surveillance state as England, but there are cities here that are trying to build such networks of cameras. The surveillance Snowden revealed is just a less visible prong of the increasing surveillance state.
We're not as far down that road as other countries, but we're a lot farther down it than many of us would like.
What you note about the treatment of young black males is something else that concerns us. It also dovetails into the poor treatment of poor people regardless of color. Yes, in many places it happens to blacks more than to whites, but if you are poor, you're likely to wind up on the list of Usual Suspects regardless of color, and be the constant target of entrapment schemes and attempts to pin life altering felonies on you.
Around here, I've encountered cases where an empty two liter bottle in someone's yard (with NO traces of meth in it because no meth was being cooked) was used to charge a guy with meth production--he was innocent but entered a guilty plea because the police threatened to go after his relatives and bankrupt them with legal fees. Of course, once he entered his plea, that just confirmed the cops' idea that the family was hiding something, and they wasted tons of time trying to entrap the rest of them.
This family happened to be white, but I've heard similar stories about black families experiences and about the police not working hard to solve murders in black neighborhoods.
There are major problems all over. Why shouldn't we complain about these violations, try to fight new ones, and if we can ever stop the erosion, then try to roll back the violations that have already taken root?
"Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein (D, Calif.) made waves Tuesday when she publicly accused the Central Intelligence Agency of spying on Senate computers in an alleged attempt to thwart her committee's investigation into Bush era interrogation and detention practices. The senator even suggested that the agency had violated the Constitution and federal law.
ReplyDeleteBut while Feinstein is up in arms about the intelligence agency's search of her staff's computer system and network, she has been an avid defender of National Security Agency surveillance programs."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/03/12/feinstein-doesnt-like-the-cia-spying-on-her-committee-but-shes-fine-with-nsa-bulk-data-collection/
"Particularly troublesome is the fact that the NSA essentially admitted that it spies on Congress. In a letter, the agency told members of Congress that they enjoyed no more protections from data collection than the average American."
http://www.dailytech.com/Obamas+CIA+Accused+of+Hacking+Into+Sabotaging+Senate+Computers/article34497.htm
I find it pretty amusing that suddenly Congress is getting the vapors over surveillance when its directed at them. Of course, this does their credibility no good when we ask the question, what makes it ok when they do it to regular folk.
So, it this one of those resistance is futile and you'll be assimilated posts? Or is it why are you worried about a police state, its already here posts?
The tracking and hacking portion is interesting since I'm going into the IT field. And its another endorsement for avoiding the "smart gun" technology.
It is indeed cute to see Dianne Feinstein suddenly discover the right to privacy. She's done a 180 so rapidly I'm surprised her hair isn't on backward.
DeleteThe solution, obviously, to a government becoming more and more authoritarian and oppressive is to grant that government more power over the people's access to life and liberty preserving firepower.
ReplyDelete"Progressive" logic in a nutshell (and a "nutshell" is indeed the appropriate container).
The joke's on you and all the other gun-rights fanatics who really think their freedom depends on the guns they own. I think you know better, but you're like little kids whistling in the dark.
DeleteMikeb, please continue with your attitude. Americans love it when people are smug.
DeleteThe joke's on you and all the other gun-rights fanatics who really think their freedom depends on the guns they own.
DeleteNot exclusively, no, but a people without the means of killing would-be tyrants is a people tyrannized.
By the way, Mikeb, don't you like to claim that gun rights advocates have no other priorities beyond guns?
Care to explain this, then?
Wow, what's next, a Right to Life campaign or maybe a Family Values movement among the gun nuts?
DeleteI guess that would make almost as much sense as a Pro Rape movement among the forcible citizen disarmament nuts.
DeleteYes, Bush turned it into a police State with his Homeland Security and Patriot Act.
ReplyDeleteThat was certainly a big step, but we started down that road long before Bush. He just built a larger level on the existing foundation--a layer Obama has continued to build on rather than jackhammering away like he and other Democrats claimed they would.
DeleteUnfortunately, our last two options--McCain and Romney were fans of continued construction as well.
You know, I hear a lot about the surveillance state. As far as I know, surveillance is much more complete in the cities of England than it is right now in the United States. They have cams on every corner, amirite? Edward Snowden has everybody so upset about all of the information gathering going on. It is very likely a ruse to keep us from knowing what is really going on. We had telephone privacy up until about 1981. That's over. Fortunately, we are a free nation and there still remain certain very real protections. That said, the police and FBI will do everything in their power to apprehend and bring to justice wrongdoers. I'm not worried. Fourth amendment issues are a huge problem. And that's not likely to change ever. But we are still the land of the free. And I don't see how anyone can say otherwise before they are unjustly arrested. It is not surprising the blatant unpatriotic rhetoric drivel of the extreme right, but I expect more from this blog.
ReplyDeleteIf we don't stand up to violations, no matter how small, we are effectively surrendering to whatever the government wants to do.
DeleteCitizens are unjustly arrested everyday, and we know innocent people have been put to death.
DeleteCameras in public are not the same as people's private telephone and computer communications being constantly monitored.
I never hear mentioned the spying on the public by private corporations, which have much more information about individuals than the government does. We seem to accept that, a big mistake.
But, not to worry, the 2nd Amendment will keep us safe and free.
DeleteNot the Second Amendment alone, but when Americans respect and defend rights, that will keep us free. Safety is guaranteed to no one, even in totalitarian states.
DeleteI would like to qualify my last remark. We are not the land of the free for young black males. We also have a huge prison industrial complex that is very cozy with many judges that sees young lives as something worth sacrificing to make a helluva lot of money and support an entire population of worthless non-contributing jobs all on the taxpayer dollar.
ReplyDeleteJunior, As Greg said, we have to fight violations each step of the way to try to keep from losing our freedoms. Yes, you're right that we don't have as much of a surveillance state as England, but there are cities here that are trying to build such networks of cameras. The surveillance Snowden revealed is just a less visible prong of the increasing surveillance state.
DeleteWe're not as far down that road as other countries, but we're a lot farther down it than many of us would like.
What you note about the treatment of young black males is something else that concerns us. It also dovetails into the poor treatment of poor people regardless of color. Yes, in many places it happens to blacks more than to whites, but if you are poor, you're likely to wind up on the list of Usual Suspects regardless of color, and be the constant target of entrapment schemes and attempts to pin life altering felonies on you.
Around here, I've encountered cases where an empty two liter bottle in someone's yard (with NO traces of meth in it because no meth was being cooked) was used to charge a guy with meth production--he was innocent but entered a guilty plea because the police threatened to go after his relatives and bankrupt them with legal fees. Of course, once he entered his plea, that just confirmed the cops' idea that the family was hiding something, and they wasted tons of time trying to entrap the rest of them.
This family happened to be white, but I've heard similar stories about black families experiences and about the police not working hard to solve murders in black neighborhoods.
There are major problems all over. Why shouldn't we complain about these violations, try to fight new ones, and if we can ever stop the erosion, then try to roll back the violations that have already taken root?