asdf: NPR, current events Options

[THECHICKEN]

interpretation of the law by the Bush Admin and the CIA has been one of the key criticisms...not to mention its review by this sham "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
The issue here is that the law removed the warrant requirement for surveillance of targets "reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."
Vague terminology ++

And how does it affect me directly?
I have friends that live outside of the US, with whom I speak to regularly via phone, email, and IM. I would kindly like the government to stay the fuck out of my conversations.

Whats allowed under that statute:

Allows the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Attorney General (AG), for periods up to one year, to authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons outside the United States if the DNI and AG determine that: (1) there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that such acquisition concerns persons outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Court); (2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance; (3) the acquisition involves obtaining foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of a communication service provider or other person who has access to communications; (4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and (5) the minimization procedures (procedures to ensure the smallest level of privacy intrusion while obtaining such information) to be used meet the definition of minimization procedures under FISA. Requires such determination to be certified and submitted to the Court.

If you fell within that definition I don't give a shit about your privacy... as it is, your privacy wasn't violated and you know it (unless you have some shady ass friends).

So no, you weren't directly affected by this, and if the court established to handle the sensitive information involved is a "sham" that isn't in the statute. I don't think this was vague at all... and i STILL don't understand the complaint about it. Not getting warrants for INTELLIGENCE (military) on people outside of the U.S. in a checked and balanced manner doesn't really scare me that much. If this allowed for unchecked and limitless power to watch everyone (including in US), then i'd be with you, but i just don't see it.

[Psykopath]

Whats allowed under that statute:


If you fell within that definition I don't give a shit about your privacy... as it is, your privacy wasn't violated and you know it (unless you have some shady ass friends).

So no, you weren't directly affected by this, and if the court established to handle the sensitive information involved is a "sham" that isn't in the statute. I don't think this was vague at all... and i STILL don't understand the complaint about it. Not getting warrants for INTELLIGENCE (military) on people outside of the U.S. in a checked and balanced manner doesn't really scare me that much. If this allowed for unchecked and limitless power to watch everyone (including in US), then i'd be with you, but i just don't see it.

"(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information"
Significant purpose, not its only purpose.

And I'd consider it a sham court, considering the federal judges deliberate in secret.
And how about allowing the Attorney General to issue these warrants?
Checks and balances my ass...


But whatever. I despise intrusions, or opening the door to intrusions (slippery slope laws like this one), in to citizen privacy.
You don't see any problem with that, from what you've clearly stated.

[FORSAKENR320]

i agree with zach on this. though, i am guilty of using this same thing in my favor just so you know.

it doesn't directly fall under this law, because each individual must submit permission to us for bonding them out


i can access any clients cell phone or home phone or internet residence if they have a warrant for their arrest that we have them on bond for. each client signs papers though, that wave all their extradition rights, which includes the right to withhold contact information. i contact their service provider, and i can get the last 4 months of call history that this person has had. i can then take that list to the county sherriff's and run it through their call system, and it will automatically give me the address's and GPS location of each call made or recieved. then it's just a matter of putting that to a map, and i know where and when the person is at at each point of the day. we don't resort to this often, but it is within our means.

[THECHICKEN]

"(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information"
Significant purpose, not its only purpose. This wasn't the only requirement... stop selectively reading what you want to hear

And I'd consider it a sham court, considering the federal judges deliberate in secret.
And how about allowing the Attorney General to issue these warrants?
Checks and balances my ass...


But whatever. I despise intrusions, or opening the door to intrusions (slippery slope laws like this one), in to citizen privacy.
You don't see any problem with that, from what you've clearly stated.

So federal court judges review the sensitive information in secret OMG REALLY? Congress passed the law, Federal Judge reviews, and executive decides what are the threats to national security... yep, sounds EXACTLY like checks and balances.

And i didn't clearly state i have no problem with "intrusion to CITIZEN privacy"... I too am against intrusions into privacy, but not when it is warranted under national security reasons and a system for proper procedures is in place to make sure it is done correctly.

I hear constantly how rights have been "taken away" but have yet to be shown how. Maybe even some ABUSES of the system would go to helping how this was a bad thing, but i haven't even seen that.

[Billy]

Either you two answer this:

I hear constantly how rights have been "taken away" but have yet to be shown how. Maybe even some ABUSES of the system would go to helping how this was a bad thing, but i haven't even seen that.

or stfu. I'm not really sure how Zach hopes to win this argument without doing that.

[FORSAKENR320]

Either you two answer this:



or stfu. I'm not really sure how Zach hopes to win this argument without doing that.

the abuse won't happen until other steps have been taken securing other freedoms which we didn't know were at risk. it's a checkmate move, and this is just a pawn of a step.


and billy, you're a sheep

[nickluto]

I agree with Zach that the war on terror is a farce. "War on Emotion" is, sadly, applicable. Look at the last 8 years and what we have done. People, as a whole, tend to act very, very foolishly when they are confronted with the emotion of fear. I don't think you need further evidence to realize this.

I agree that the Patriot Act is silly.

But I laugh at everyone here that there is no evidence whatsoever to provide that an innocent American has been held unconstitutionally by the Patriot Act. Find me one media outlet. I know they are already grasping their cocks in anticipation that they get to diss the abortion that is the lame-duck Bush administration. What? Not one story? Find one...I haven't ever heard of one. Sounds like as fascist as the Patriot Act sounded, there are few that were as adversely affected as you "watchdogs" tend to believe there would be. Using Occam's Razor, it seems the most logical premise would be that this has been happening all along and that the Patriot Act just put it on the books.


Obama's economic plan, on the other hand? I don't think we'll have a dry eye in this forum when that piss hits the parchment.

So, it begs to be wondered....Patriot Act v. Socialist economic policy...


Which one effects the everyday American more...and to what degree?

[Psykopath]

the abuse won't happen until other steps have been taken securing other freedoms which we didn't know were at risk. it's a checkmate move, and this is just a pawn of a step.

Good way of putting it.

By the way, for those that supported Ron Paul (Billy for sure: "I would vote for Ron Paul if he were nominated. But unfortunately, the good people never win it.")

Protect America from the Protect America Act

by Rep. Ron Paul

Before the US House of Representatives, Jan. 30, 2008

Madame Speaker, I rise in opposition to the extension of the Protect America Act of 2007 because the underlying legislation violates the US Constitution.

The misnamed Protect America Act allows the US government to monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant. This clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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."

The Protect America Act sidelines the FISA Court system and places authority over foreign surveillance in the director of national intelligence and the attorney general with little if any oversight. While proponents of this legislation have argued that the monitoring of American citizens would still require a court-issued warrant, the bill only requires that subjects be "reasonably believed to be outside the United States." Further, it does not provide for the Fourth Amendment protection of American citizens if they happen to be on the other end of the electronic communication where the subject of surveillance is a non-citizen overseas.

We must remember that the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 as a result of the U.S. Senate investigations into the federal government's illegal spying on American citizens. Its purpose was to prevent the abuse of power from occurring in the future by establishing guidelines and prescribing oversight to the process. It was designed to protect citizens, not the government. The effect seems to have been opposite of what was intended. These recent attempts to "upgrade" FISA do not appear to be designed to enhance protection of our civil liberties, but to make it easier for the government to spy on us!

The only legitimate "upgrade" to the original FISA legislation would be to allow surveillance of conversations that begin and end outside the United States between non-US citizens where the telephone call is routed through the United States . Technology and the global communications market have led to more foreign to foreign calls being routed through the United States . This adjustment would solve the problems outlined by the administration without violating the rights of US citizens.

While I would not oppose technical changes in FISA that the intelligence community has indicated are necessary, Congress should not use this opportunity to chip away at even more of our constitutional protections and civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to oppose this and any legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

But anyways, nobody seems to understand this "slippery-slope" shit.
And to be quite honest, a 10 minute Google search can't find me a recorded story of an abuse of that specific act (other than the government getting phone records from AT&T and Google searches). So you know what?...I'll concede that one.
Spy on my phone calls, I'm not hiding anything. Hell, go ahead and put a camera on every street corner, it'll cut down on crime. What? You're allowed to film inside my home with those cameras? SURE! Again, nothing to hide here.
Slippery slope. Keep supporting the chipping away of privacy. It's all in the name of security, right?

[THECHICKEN]

Good way of putting it.

By the way, for those that supported Ron Paul (Billy for sure: "I would vote for Ron Paul if he were nominated. But unfortunately, the good people never win it.")





But anyways, nobody seems to understand this "slippery-slope" shit.
And to be quite honest, a 10 minute Google search can't find me a recorded story of an abuse of that specific act (other than the government getting phone records from AT&T and Google searches). So you know what?...I'll concede that one.
Spy on my phone calls, I'm not hiding anything. Hell, go ahead and put a camera on every street corner, it'll cut down on crime. What? You're allowed to film inside my home with those cameras? SURE! Again, nothing to hide here.
Slippery slope. Keep supporting the chipping away of privacy. It's all in the name of security, right?

I understand slippery slope and i honestly agree that privacy should be given up with the biggest of fights. Im just saying that I don't see how the act was such a horrible thing like people act like it was. It even says that it can only be used in the limited circumstances, ones i would agree with. If there are abuses i think they are just that... not necessarily a slippery slope. I say that because nothing was really "given up"... a law was passed, has run its course, and whether it was good or bad is up for debate for the congress again (and courts if it violated someones civil liberties). Clinton passed a law against guns, it ran its course, now we can buy again. You can argue its a slippery slope and handguns will be taken away completely next, but thats part of our system... we pass a law, we like/dislike it, we keep/change it.

And the war on terror has many casualties (many starting from the militant muslims), i wouldn't call it merely a war of emotion. If you don't think militants attacking our military installations, ships, and cities a war, i don't know what you would call it. War in iraq may debateable for "war on terror", but i think its ridiculous to claim war on terror is merely a war of emotion.

[THECHICKEN]

the abuse won't happen until other steps have been taken securing other freedoms which we didn't know were at risk. it's a checkmate move, and this is just a pawn of a step.

and what does this even mean?

[FORSAKENR320]

and what does this even mean?

.... it's the slippery slope you claim to understand....

[Psykopath]

The "War on Terror" as a "War on Emotion" was just a play on words....'terror' is an emotion.
Didn't mean it to be taken so literally. But hey, this IS Techsans.

[nickluto]

The "War on Terror" as a "War on Emotion" was just a play on words....'terror' is an emotion.
Didn't mean it to be taken so literally. But hey, this IS Techsans.

You're SO clever !

[Psykopath]

You're SO clever !

i kn0w rite?! omg

[Dogmeat]

You're SO clever !

Yeah, the "War on Terror" is clever in the same sense "Save the Planet!" is ... sound familiar? heh