Confirmed: the US government has a massive program to track all phone calls

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I'm pretty sure the calls are being recorded...maybe not for immediate analysis but to keep epic amounts of data that can be retroactively mined for patterns when the technology is developed.

On the flip side...imagine you are in charge of keeping a shadowy terrorist group that has a dirty bomb from the Soviet era. Do you really have a choice but to push for this capability?

Maybe terrorists will start using ham radio and bypass all these smart heads.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Itse

"Just because you're paranoid does not mean they're not out to get you".

More seriously though, it is sad how the supposed pillar of freedom and democracy is in such a sorry state when it comes to civil rights.

When there is any hint that this information can actually be used against anyone in a court of law let me know.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Google, Facebook and Apple (among others) probably know everything you do - where you go, how you spend your money, who you associate with, what's going in in your life - and literally track all your electronic life. That creeps me out.

The government knowing who calls whom, not so much. They have my whole medical history, employment, financial, residential, and family history. Pretty much the only thing they don't have is my DNA.

I think it is worth fighting about how an when people use data, but whether they get your data is akin to arguing whether they should be allowed to tax us. To me anyway. Today anyway.

Agreed, I actually would be more worried about these corporations and the data they have.

However, there is one big difference. One can use privacy laws (and yes, I am aware they need serious updating) to strike back at these companies for the most part, if your information or privacy is being seriously violated.

If a government goes further and further down this path, there isn't going to be any court you would be able to go to to protect your rights.

Which is why people need to be vigilant now. But I am beginning to think people have had it too good for too long in NA and it's probably only going to take a major backslide for them to sit up and take notice.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Itse

First of all, there is such a thing as right to privacy.

Second, this is one slippery slope argument that has solid historical evidence to back it up. Unchecked surveillance rights have pretty much always ended up being abused, for reasons varying from the personal (checking up on your wife or girlfriend) to the political (spying on your opponents) to semi-professional (police harassing people who have for example complained about police violence).

Third, the US government officials have historically speaking not been exactly tolerant towards whistleblowers and critics who have access to material they think could actually be damaging. Rights like these are perfect for following up on large groups of suspected whistleblowers, intimidating people etc.

When the goverment has unchecked rights to spy on whoever it wants, it makes it that much harder to criticize and fight back against a government when it's doing something wrong.

Think for example what will happen if the US government goes just a little bit more hardline on demonstrators, Turkey-style. The difference right now is not huge. If the Turkish government would have this kind of resources, it would be much easier for the police to fight the demonstrators, who really are mostly just demanding that the police stop their brutalities.

People are extemely ignorant when it comes to living in a free society. They always tend to think that because nobody is infringing on their rights now, it could never really happen. But civil liberties are not a constant. They move backwards and forwards in various times. And historically speaking, much less blood is shed in countries that constantly hold on to their civil rights and don't let them slip away.

It wasn't that long ago that US was a country with regular rioting against what was perceived as an overly oppressive government protected by police brutality. A good number of people died and everything. Those kinds of times are not the times when you want the police to be their own guardians.

You need to expand on this. You're telling me that knowing that people were making phone calls would make it easier for the Turkish police to crack down on demonstrators? You do understand that this order does not allow for the contents of calls to be obtained, right?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I'm pretty sure the calls are being recorded...maybe not for immediate analysis but to keep epic amounts of data that can be retroactively mined for patterns when the technology is developed.

On the flip side...imagine you are in charge of keeping a shadowy terrorist group that has a dirty bomb from the Soviet era. Do you really have a choice but to push for this capability?

Maybe terrorists will start using ham radio and bypass all these smart heads.

And this is based upon what?

[mikey_the_redneck]

The NSA collects everything. They have a cozy relationship with google as well. The Stasi must know everything about you.

Every single constitutional right is being destroyed in the name of national security. Privacy is a thing of the past. This is the dangerous for Americans, but they largely don't seem to care ..yet.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The NSA collects everything. They have a cozy relationship with google as well. The Stasi must know everything about you.

Every single constitutional right is being destroyed in the name of national security. Privacy is a thing of the past. This is the dangerous for Americans, but they largely don't seem to care ..yet.

I'd be less worried about loss of privacy than loss of anonymity. We've never had much privacy once it come down to it, but that didn't matter as it you were anonymous to the vast majority of people including law enforcement. With the image and face recognition technology we have now, there's a very real risk of the anonymity in public we have now disappearing and that's when the loss of, or lack of privacy laws will become a problem.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by valo403

You need to expand on this. You're telling me that knowing that people were making phone calls would make it easier for the Turkish police to crack down on demonstrators? You do understand that this order does not allow for the contents of calls to be obtained, right?

If you're looking for people who organize things by phone, you don't need hear what they say. Computers are pretty good at finding patterns like call-chains for example.

Originally Posted by valo403

When there is any hint that this information can actually be used against anyone in a court of law let me know.

Let me know when the US law enforcements stops holding people without pressing charges and we can talk more about that. As things are, it matters very little if it holds up in court or not.

Besides, if it did hold up in court it would actually be a benefit for this system, because at court you generally bring up stuff that is related to actual crimes.

Most of the problems of a system like this however come from the potential for abuse. If you're spying on your political opponent for example, the last thing you want is to discuss your findings in a courtroom.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Itse

If you're looking for people who organize things by phone, you don't need hear what they say. Computers are pretty good at finding patterns like call-chains for example.



Let me know when the US law enforcements stops holding people without pressing charges and we can talk more about that. As things are, it matters very little if it holds up in court or not.

Besides, if it did hold up in court it would actually be a benefit for this system, because at court you generally bring up stuff that is related to actual crimes.

Most of the problems of a system like this however come from the potential for abuse. If you're spying on your political opponent for example, the last thing you want is to discuss your findings in a courtroom.

Everything has the potential for abuse, you need to demonstrate actual abuse before you're going to have me concerned.

[PsYcNeT]

The government shouldn't have overreaching security measures because Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, 9/11 Truthism, Lizardmen, the rise of the Fourth Reich, Mole People, Skull & Bones, Koch Multinational, Enron, Exxon, Imperial Oil, Parker-Brothers, Milton-Bradley, Activision, Electronic Arts, Johnson & Johnson, and Lloyd Kaufman.

Also the Jewish Media Conspiracy.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Everything has the potential for abuse, you need to demonstrate actual abuse before you're going to have me concerned.

Guantanamo Bay is not actual abuse? Still a lot of people being held there (and other places abroad) with no trial and no rush to do anything about it.

And like with the drone program, it's been show that some of them ARE actual citizens. Not just 'enemy combatants' who are foreign. Which really doesn't make it any better anyway.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Guantanamo Bay is not actual abuse? Still a lot of people being held there (and other places abroad) with no trial and no rush to do anything about it.

And like with the drone program, it's been show that some of them ARE actual citizens. Not just 'enemy combatants' who are foreign. Which really doesn't make it any better anyway.

I am concerned about the abuse my call history would be able to inflict upon those people at Guantanamo.

Where can we sign a petition?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am concerned about the abuse my call history would be able to inflict upon those people at Guantanamo.

Where can we sign a petition?

I was simply responding to valos comments that there doesn't appear to be abuse in the system, so gathering this info is (should be, is mostly) ok.

There is abuse in the system. It's not a stretch to think that they are looking for people IN THE US, with which to detain without trail.

I would be inclined to agree with valo and the like if everyone was getting speedy trials and such, but this is not the case. There have been cases of rendition that are well documented.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Guantanamo Bay is not actual abuse? Still a lot of people being held there (and other places abroad) with no trial and no rush to do anything about it.

And like with the drone program, it's been show that some of them ARE actual citizens. Not just 'enemy combatants' who are foreign. Which really doesn't make it any better anyway.

Huh? Where did anyone mention Guantanamo? Scope shifting is not an argument.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Huh? Where did anyone mention Guantanamo? Scope shifting is not an argument.

I mentioned GB. As a retort to you saying there are no abuses in the system. I assume you meant there are no legal abuses in the system so collecting this information is ok. If not you will have to clarify.

Collecting this information is an abuse. And some of the things they have done with regards to gathering information AND using it is abuse. GB, extrodinary rendition, etc.

[Daradon]

EDIT: You yourself mentioned that 'when any of this can be used in a court of law, let me know', in your back and forth with Itse.

I was simply saying, court of law may not even come into it as there are abuses in the system, which you also did ask for clarification on, that supercede these most basic of western rights.

Hopefully that clarifies my argument. If you meant something else entirely, let me know.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I mentioned GB. As a retort to you saying there are no abuses in the system. I assume you meant there are no legal abuses in the system so collecting this information is ok. If not you will have to clarify.

Collecting this information is an abuse. And some of the things they have done with regards to gathering information AND using it is abuse. GB, extrodinary rendition, etc.

I'm aware you mentioned GB, as an attempt to shift the scope on to a completely different thing. It is not relevant, why you raised it I have no idea. As I said, scope shifting is not an argument.

[Daradon]

See above. You were the one who brought up the court of law argument, and the one who brought up the abuses in the system argument. GB and the related things I was talking about relates directly to that and is part of the equation.

If they can simply ignore privacy rights, they can be, and have been, used against citizens to deny them other rights as well.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Daradon

See above. You were the one who brought up the court of law argument, and the one who brought up the abuses in the system argument. GB and the related things I was talking about relates directly to that and is part of the equation.

If they can simply ignore privacy rights, they can be, and have been, used against citizens to deny them other rights as well.

Do you understand what scope shifting means? I at no time discussed GB. I discussed the topic this thread is about. I brought up the court of law argument in relation to these alleged abuses. I said that I would be concerned when I see actual harm from these alleged abuses. If you want to have an argument with yourself about GB go ahead, I didn't discuss it.

[La Flames Fan]

I find it fascinating that it was a UK news outlet that was able to attain this, and no American media?? Boy, journalism in general has gone down the pipes there...