About your Government spying on you:

[boppers]

Required reading: http://tinyurl.com/cybgft

Obama's been catching flack for doing what was done under *, Clinton, GHWB, Reagan, Carter, Ford (etc.)...

There's a DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x13788 and a poster suggested I make this into it's own thread.

Reading your mail, watching your web traffic, listening into your phone calls, this has been going on for a long time now.

[endless october]

1. it's wrong, unconstitutional, and should be stopped.

unacceptable under any administration.

[boppers]

2. Spying should be stopped?

The rationale is that this is communication that threatens the nation, are you willing to live with that threat, without information?

Personally, I am.

There's a burden that comes with that, though, where thousands of people will die, because of attacks that weren't stopped.

[endless october]

3. some spying should be stopped, yes.

if you have probable cause to suspect someone, you show that to a judge and get a warrant.

if you don't, no wiretapping / spying / sneaking a peek / any of that bullshit.

that's in the fourth amendment. if you don't agree with it, declare martial law or work to change the amendment.

[boppers]

7. Should the local constable be allowed to read the broadsheets posted in the town square?

What if those "broadsheets" are blog posts on the internet?

The basic premise of the 4th makes sense, where it gets messy is defining public, and private, space.

[endless october]

15. big difference between reading a sheet in the town square

and warrantless wiretapping. or monitoring every electronic communication for keywords. or spying on your citizens with sneak and peek warrants and then making it illegal to tell them they were searched.

it was wrong under Clinton. it was wrong under Bush. it's wrong under any administration.

declare martial law or change the fourth amendment. those are the choices.

[boppers]

19. Is electronic communication, posted on public square billboards...

...with those electronic billboards owned by private companies, "private"?

Much of the confusion, I think, comes from people thinking that internet communications are, in any way, "private".

[endless october]

21. yes. if you call someone or email, it's private.

just like letters and papers were in the 18th century.

[boppers]

23. That's not how ISP's work.

That's not even how mail works.

It's only private in-country, and, adding to that, email can be filtered by an ISP to remove "junk", or "dangerous", email.

[endless october]

37. and if government wants access to emails or internet history

it can get a warrant. in each case. with probable cause.

that's the way the fourth amendment is written. obey it, or work to change it.

[boppers]

46. You're re-writing the 4th.

If a constable walks into a store, and asks to see the last year's purchases, the shop-keeper is not required to request a warrant. They have that option, but it is not required.

There are exceptions, but for the most part, owners can say/divulge whatever they want.

[endless october]

48. ok. is it cool if it's illegal for those shopkeepers to tell you that the request was made?

is it ok to look at grandma's library record without a warrant?

are you arguing that warrantless wiretaps are ok under the fourth?

is the patriot act cool now that Democrats run the show?

my opinion is not only no, but fuck no.

[boppers]

49. Since I'm a firm believer in free speech:

It's okay to look without a warrant, if the information is volunteered.

It's okay to surrender private wiretaps, if the information is volunteered.

Others disagree, quite vehemently, about what speech *I* am allowed, were I to be the one volunteering... especially if I were "volunteering" the speech of others.

This is where the issue gets tricky.

[vaberella]

17. Now you're differentiating between the spying? How do you define that in legal language? n/t

[boppers]

24. "common carrier" and "international/trans-national traffic", for starter terms.

This kind of international traffic monitoring has been going on as long as we've had traffic that spanned nations.

[conscious evolution]

4. My mothers phone calls

to my nephews are a threat to national security?
What about my calls to Johnnies pizza?

Do you really believe that tapping into my phone sex with my girl friend would have stopped the BFEE from pulling off Sept 11?

[boppers]

9. 190+ terrorism convictions since 9/11.

How many were your mother's phone calls, or phone sex?

(Speaking as an internet tapping professional, yeah, we know people are into some whacky stuff, and we don't care.)

[Echo In Light]

20. Can you provide further data on that claim, please?

[Echo In Light]

22. Here's the first page of Google results:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=190%2B+terrorism+convictions+since+9%2F11.&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

... not finding much in the first few pages

[boppers]

26. Remove the "190+", as it's a specific term not used by others.

I forget what the magic "number" is lately.

[boppers]

25. A sample from 2006:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2006/June/06_crm_389.html

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Hilarious.

[tekisui]

8. God, you would have gotten hammered if you had said that

here while chimpy was president.

[boppers]

10. I was talking about it before then.

The "Information Superhighway" has always had cops on it, like any other highway.

Folks just didn't know, and figured it was a free-for-all.

Which turned out to be useful in snaring some pretty bad people.

[Echo In Light]

5. Many Americans fail to realize a govt's primary enemy is its own populace

End the spying now ... especially given the context of a phony "war" that's an actual real war on average people (especially during an economic breakdown), harmless pot smokers, and various anti-war orgs/groups.

[boppers]

34. A populace's primary enemy, by counterpoint, is it's government.

That doesn't mean that the goal is that either party should destroy the other, but that both parties need to keep the other in check.

[Echo In Light]

51. "Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves." Herbert Marcuse

[Number23]

11. I know that the point of your OP is to point ouf the hypocricy of blaming Obama for something that's

been done for over 50 years. What I don't get is why you think that people here will give a damn.

I just saw a post in the thread you referenced that called Obama a "lightweight lying con man." Why do you think that facts will change anyone's opinion when the main people saying these things villainized him before he even took office?

[boppers]

13. Well, maybe people who lionize the Clinton brand will see that they did the same thing.

Maybe people enamored with Carter will see he did the same thing.

Mostly, I hope that people will realize that such actions have nothing to do with Obama, but are part of the society we have constructed, and Obama's just a bit player in the game.

[HipChick]

27. pretty much hit it in the head

[kenny blankenship]

12. Just because liberty is dying a death of a thousand cuts does not absolve any of its murderers

[boppers]

14. What is your solution?

Should all communication pass unrestricted?

Should airlines be forbidden from inspecting baggage?

Where would you draw the lines, if lines are to be drawn?

[kenny blankenship]

16. Restore FISA for starters

We HAD this discussion after Nixon, Watergate, COINTELPRO. FISA was the result and it had PLENTY of power to monitor real threats. Don't try to tell me FISA is just the same as splitting off the ENTIRE packet switching network of the national telecommunications network for unrestricted monitoring and filtering because I will just have to laugh in your face. BTW: the pre-9/11 FBI & CIA had all the intelligence they needed to stop the 9-11 attacks, as we know from Colleen Rowley and other witnesses, they just refused to act on it. CIA thought the 9-11 terrorists were "friendlies", in their twisted evaluation of the world, because they had previously worked with/for CIA. FBI thought whatever the fuck it was that they thought about the cell - that they were connected to CIA official business or whatever and turned a blind eye. We'll probably never know exactly why they refused to follow up since the adding on of layer upon layer of police state secrecy as we have since 9/11 helps ensure that they never have to tell us. Bush's pan-surveillance state is neither necessary , since pre 9-11 measures like FISA warrants would have sufficed a counter intelligence community that institutionally recognized the potential threat of blowback; nor in any remotely sane calculation is it Constitutional. Now if you just want to declare the official founding of a post Constitutional police state go ahead, but please be honest enough to do so by declaring the 1787 Constitution null and void. That would let we the people know where we really stand.

[boppers]

28. FISA legal monitoring of international messages is tricky.

For example, you posted the above message...

Which can be read globally...

Therefore, it can be monitored...

See the problem?

The whole FISA system was pre-public internet.

[kenny blankenship]

35. I know they can read this.

I'm sure they also have my late '90s web postings on Carnivore in a drawer somewhere too. The problem remains one of treating every citizen as though they are criminals or suspects to crimes unknown in the past or not yet committed. That is what the Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent and it was designed by men who knew very well the implications of what they were up to.

[boppers]

40. Carnivore was a crappy selective intercept system.

It focused on port 25/110/143, not port 80, so it's doubtful web postings are in it.

That being said, your point about information gathering, without a crime, is well taken... and the crux of the discussion, about whether or not a constable is allowed to look somewhere *before* a crime is reported.

[vaberella]

18. Thanks boppers for starting the thread. n/t

[EFerrari]

29. Whew! I feel so much better now!

[boppers]

31. Reasons to not freak out:

1. Okay, so we know Fred Whoever in Oklahoma has a thing for goat porn. Whatever, not an international crime.
2. Bill is arguing about housework with his girlfriend while she's in Cancun. Who cares?
3. Andre is complaining about the government. Again. To a friend in another country. Again. Not a crime. Again.

Those who have this kind of power must be monitored for abuse of their power, but I guess one of my perspectives is that having such power is not a crime per se, but abusing the power is.

[EFerrari]

33. You don't get to make up your own rules, boppers.

And that's a shame, isn't it? I'd like to make up my own rules. lol

[boppers]

38. Congress gets to make the rules, actually.

I get to elect them. :)

[Starry Messenger]

30. If you aren't guilty you have nothing to worry about.

:patriot:

[boppers]

32. ...Until they change what "guilt" or "crime" means....

;)

Fortunately, the techs who actually run the networks in the US are mostly hardcore libertarian types, much more permissive than your average folks, usually highly educated, multi-cultural, and fairly worldly.

[Starry Messenger]

36. I always trust total strangers.

Eagles up, baby!

[boppers]

39. NANOG (TINC)

Get to know them. Fun bunch. They're also the people who control the 'net, much to the annoyance of politicians who thought that they had control.

[Starry Messenger]

41. I think we should start a prayer circle for these blessed men.

They protect our freedoms.

[boppers]

42. Men? They're not that kind of a group.

As far as prayer goes, there's the BOFH group. Not sure they want prayer so much as forgiveness.

Maybe. For giggles.

Seriously, these are the folks in control. Not the governments, or corporations, these are the folks who actually make the end-execution decisions.

It's an odd thing.

[Starry Messenger]

43. Are you questioning my patriotism, sir?

Please let your friends know everything is a-ok over here.

[boppers]

44. No patriots in NANOG.

The only (ultimate) nation they believe in is the internet.

[Starry Messenger]

45. That sounds pretty unAmerican if you ask me.

Do they know they are supposed to be supporting the Patriot Act? As in, the good old USA?

[boppers]

47. Like I said, they're mostly liberal, libertarian, folks.

The goals of nations are secondary to goals of liberty.

[boppers]

50. Shameless self-kick to get more thoughts.

More ideas?