NSA's Trailblazer...

[iago]

Robert Lemos, over on SecurityFocus (note the bold):

[snip]

A program intended to mine the Internet and telecommunications for bits of data related to terrorism is still on the drawing board, despite costing an estimate $1.2 billion over the past six years, according to a Baltimore Sun investigation.

The National Security Agency (NSA) has spearheaded the initiative, known as Trailblazer, aimed at connecting the dots between various information sources, such as e-mail, cell phone calls and instant messages. After spending almost $1.2 billion on the project since 1999, only a "few isolated analytical and technical tools have been produced," the article stated.

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed lawsuits against the Bush Administration for conducting wiretaps of American citizens without judicial oversight. President Bush secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without obtaining a warrant through a secret court system designed to allow foreign surveillance.

[snip]

http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/121

Baltimore Sun article:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.trailblazer29jan29,1,1444424.story

[Hitmen]

mmm, tax dollars hard at work.

[Blaze]

I could find more terroism in six years then they could.  Give me 1.2 Billion Dollars.

[GameSnake]

President Bush secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without obtaining a warrant through a secret court system designed to allow foreign surveillance.

I don't get it, if the president is doing this than shouldn't he be prosecuted, isn't what he is doing illegal?

[iago]

President Bush secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without obtaining a warrant through a secret court system designed to allow foreign surveillance.

I don't get it, if the president is doing this than shouldn't he be prosecuted, isn't what he is doing illegal?

As far as I understand, it is, but he's doing it to save you from terrorism.  It's because of him breaking the law that you haven't been attacked by a terrorist.  And this rock keeps lions away .

[Hitmen]

President Bush secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without obtaining a warrant through a secret court system designed to allow foreign surveillance.

I don't get it, if the president is doing this than shouldn't he be prosecuted, isn't what he is doing illegal?

As far as I understand, it is, but he's doing it to save you from terrorism.  It's because of him breaking the law that you haven't been attacked by a terrorist.  And this rock keeps lions away .

I would like to purchase your rock.

[MyndFyre]

President Bush secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without obtaining a warrant through a secret court system designed to allow foreign surveillance.

I don't get it, if the president is doing this than shouldn't he be prosecuted, isn't what he is doing illegal?

To my knowledge, the FISA court has authorized this activity, and in fact has said that if he did not, he would be not following constitutional directive.

I have been searching for the ruling or news about this.

As far as I understand, it is, but he's doing it to save you from terrorism.  It's because of him breaking the law that you haven't been attacked by a terrorist.  And this rock keeps lions away .

Well, not attempting to make a personal attack in an extremely cynical way, but next time I need an expert on American constitutional law, I'll call you, and we'll work out a fee.

[iago]

As far as I understand, it is, but he's doing it to save you from terrorism.  It's because of him breaking the law that you haven't been attacked by a terrorist.  And this rock keeps lions away .

Well, not attempting to make a personal attack in an extremely cynical way, but next time I need an expert on American constitutional law, I'll call you, and we'll work out a fee.

Sweet!   Deal!

You'll find I work for cheap. 

[zorm]

$1.2 billion over the past six years

$200 million a year really isn't that bad. Consider something like the F/A-22 which has a price tag in the $200 million range per plane.

[iago]

$1.2 billion over the past six years

$200 million a year really isn't that bad. Consider something like the F/A-22 which has a price tag in the $200 million range per plane.

You missed the second half, a "few isolated analytical and technical tools have been produced," -- a plane is something, a "few [....] tools[/url] isn't

[Newby]

You missed the second half, a "few isolated analytical and technical tools have been produced," -- a plane is something, a "few [....] tools[/url] isn't

For $1.2 billion, 6 planes if a few.

I didn't read the article, but did they mention what was produced? Or are they going to assume the tools produced are junk and give the topic merit?

EDIT --

A major failure leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, involved communications intelligence, investigators found.More than 30 hints of the impending attack had been collected in the previous three years but had sat, unnoted, in the NSA's databases, according to a joint congressional inquiry into pre-Sept. 11 intelligence operations.

30? That's pretty fucking good if you ask me.

Wow, if you start a bunch of tags you can end them all by closing the outside most tag.

EDIT2 -- Ahh, the tool was designed to analyze those notes.

[Super_X]

President Bush secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without obtaining a warrant through a secret court system designed to allow foreign surveillance.

I don't get it, if the president is doing this than shouldn't he be prosecuted, isn't what he is doing illegal?

If I remember correctally, the "Patriot Act" makes him able to do that. He just profiles the people. But of corce since he's thre president, it's not illegal, or bad! .. The whole patriot thing is stupid, it's like the spy hunts Soviet Russia had the KGB do.  Say five names, then they don't arrest you and hold you for spying (terrorism, in this case). And since we can hold suspected terrorists for as long as we want, for no reason at all, we will.

[Blaze]

As far as I understand, it is, but he's doing it to save you from terrorism.  It's because of him breaking the law that you haven't been attacked by a terrorist.  And this rock keeps lions away .

"Lisa, I would like to buy your rock." --  I loved that quote.


If theres a chance it could stop a terrorist attack, it would be worth it.  I still don't understand why he did it secretley, its for National sercurity.

[GameSnake]

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS, if he [bush] can by pass amendants and privacy laws, that is break a law on this serious of a scale, than how come people got thier panties in a bunch when Clinton got his dick sucked, which is might I add not nescarlly illegal? Clinton was a 2-time elected president too, you know.

[MyndFyre]

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS, if he [bush] can by pass amendants and privacy laws, that is break a law on this serious of a scale, than how come people got thier panties in a bunch when Clinton got his dick sucked, which is might I add not nescarlly illegal? Clinton was a 2-time elected president too, you know.

He did not pass an amendment.  That requires 33 of the 50 states.

People didn't get their panties in a bunch because Clinton got a blow job.

People got their panties in a bunch because Clinton got a blow job, then he went on national television and proclaimed he didn't get a blow job directly to the American people explicitly about that incident, then he went to court and lied under oath (committed perjury) about getting a blow job.

Bush has not given me reason to doubt his honesty, nor has anyone else provided sufficient evidence that Bush has ever lied to me directly on national TV or while under oath.

Furthermore, as I said, it's been said that the FISA court (the court that would have jurisdiction in this matter) not only said that Bush legally did this surveillance, but also to not do so would have been a serious breach of his constitutional responsibility.

[Joe]

President Bush secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without obtaining a warrant through a secret court system designed to allow foreign surveillance.

I don't get it, if the president is doing this than shouldn't he be prosecuted, isn't what he is doing illegal?

As far as I understand, it is, but he's doing it to save you from terrorism.  It's because of him breaking the law that you haven't been attacked by a terrorist.  And this rock keeps lions away .

If I understand correctly, the patriot act allows that.

[iago]

He did not pass an amendment.  That requires 33 of the 50 states.

He said (poorly) "bypass", not "pass". 

[GameSnake]

I see MyndFyre's point, Clinton did lie to us all and for that he was bad, but that isn't really a big deal when you compare in comparision to the injustice Bush maybe doing to us by "secretly" and without "warrants" eavesdrop on americans. Now seriously MyndFyre, I know your partisan-Bush and that's fine, but wouldn't you admit you feel just a little uncomfortable with all the privacy issues being invaded here? I do not find Bush to be all that bad of a president. I feel though however, that if our privacy is comprimised for liberty (and vice-versa), we deserve niether (to paraphrase Ben Franklin), and that does make Bush a bad president and something should be done about it for the sake of our rights, which have been slipping away ever so pacely since 2000.

[deadly7]

I see MyndFyre's point, Clinton did lie to us all and for that he was bad, but that isn't really a big deal when you compare in comparision to the injustice Bush maybe doing to us by "secretly" and without "warrants" eavesdrop on americans. Now seriously MyndFyre, I know your partisan-Bush and that's fine, but wouldn't you admit you feel just a little uncomfortable with all the privacy issues being invaded here? I do not find Bush to be all that bad of a president. I feel though however, that if our privacy is comprimised for liberty (and vice-versa), we deserve niether (to paraphrase Ben Franklin), and that does make Bush a bad president and something should be done about it for the sake of our rights, which have been slipping away ever so pacely since 2000.

To semi-quote Stealth:
"If they feel like tapping my phone lines, I'm not worried.  I shouldn't be because I'm not doing anything wrong."

[MyndFyre]

I see MyndFyre's point, Clinton did lie to us all and for that he was bad, but that isn't really a big deal when you compare in comparision to the injustice Bush maybe doing to us by "secretly" and without "warrants" eavesdrop on americans. Now seriously MyndFyre, I know your partisan-Bush and that's fine, but wouldn't you admit you feel just a little uncomfortable with all the privacy issues being invaded here?

No.  I do not see that my privacy is being invaded.  I'm not talking to an al Qaeda terrorist, nor am I even placing out-of-country calls (except that one time I called Ron).  And even then we didn't discuss plans to blow anything up.

As I said, Bush has not given me a reason to doubt his honesty, and so if he is going to tell me as the President that he is only authorizing this to monitor people making calls to terrorists, I'm going to believe him.  I've seen lots of accusations of lying, but I've never seen any that sufficiently discount all alternative rival hypotheses.  My favorite lie accusation is when people tell us Bush lied about the Iraq war and WMDs: I can think of at least two ARHs -- that the weapons were removed in the great length of time we gave them, or that the intelligence was faulty.

I do not find Bush to be all that bad of a president. I feel though however, that if our privacy is comprimised for liberty (and vice-versa), we deserve niether (to paraphrase Ben Franklin), and that does make Bush a bad president and something should be done about it for the sake of our rights, which have been slipping away ever so pacely since 2000.

This statement seems a little....  unclear.  But what can you not do now that you did legally before Bush was President?  I never have had a habit of calling terrorists and conspiring to blow shit up.  I don't know about you, but that just seems....  well, stupid, for one, and wrong, for another.

Bush pulled us out of a recession that he inherited from the former president with flying colors. 

There are lots of things that I don't agree with Bush on, particularly education and immigration.  But I think that people are missing the facts of the matter because of misinformation from biased media combined with the typical citizen's lack of education.

[iago]

To semi-quote Stealth:
"If they feel like tapping my phone lines, I'm not worried.  I shouldn't be because I'm not doing anything wrong."

I wouldn't worry about doing anything wrong, I'd worry that my basic rights are being violated.  If they can take away some rights, what's next?  Will they be able to slowly erode your personal freedoms until suddenly there aren't any left?

That's my biggest concern.  If Bush really wasn't violating basic freedoms, then there's no problem.  As somebody here kindly pointed out, I'm no expert on American law.  I'm not sure how you discovered that

[MyndFyre]

I wouldn't worry about doing anything wrong, I'd worry that my basic rights are being violated.  If they can take away some rights, what's next?  Will they be able to slowly erode your personal freedoms until suddenly there aren't any left?

That's my biggest concern.  If Bush really wasn't violating basic freedoms, then there's no problem.  As somebody here kindly pointed out, I'm no expert on American law.  I'm not sure how you discovered that

To be perfectly honest, at the uproar that came out of the discovery of the monitoring (that, as I said, does not make me feel as if my personal freedoms are being eroded) of int'l phone calls to suspected terrorists, I am fairly confident that further and deeper intrusions will also be made public.  So no, my acceptance of this program is not simply complacency.  I want my personal freedoms as well.  I just don't think that it's affecting me in this instance.

[iago]

I wouldn't worry about doing anything wrong, I'd worry that my basic rights are being violated.  If they can take away some rights, what's next?  Will they be able to slowly erode your personal freedoms until suddenly there aren't any left?

That's my biggest concern.  If Bush really wasn't violating basic freedoms, then there's no problem.  As somebody here kindly pointed out, I'm no expert on American law.  I'm not sure how you discovered that

To be perfectly honest, at the uproar that came out of the discovery of the monitoring (that, as I said, does not make me feel as if my personal freedoms are being eroded) of int'l phone calls to suspected terrorists, I am fairly confident that further and deeper intrusions will also be made public.  So no, my acceptance of this program is not simply complacency.  I want my personal freedoms as well.  I just don't think that it's affecting me in this instance.

Although it's not affecting you in this instance, it IS affecting other American citizens.  What happens if the next group they target as a threat is whatever ethnicity you're from?  If they cross the line with a group of American citizens, I'd think it would be a warning to all other American citizens that they could be targetted next. 

[MyndFyre]

Although it's not affecting you in this instance, it IS affecting other American citizens.  What happens if the next group they target as a threat is whatever ethnicity you're from?  If they cross the line with a group of American citizens, I'd think it would be a warning to all other American citizens that they could be targetted next. 

I don't have any relatives who are terrorists, either, and if I did, I would already be sending the authorities to their doors.

[igimo1]

So what if they eavesdrop on you? If they find out that you haven't done anything wrong, they'll move on. You have nothing to hide unless you're in cohorts with terrorists, or plan on doing something illegal. Even if they specifically targeted Asian Americans because of a possibility we're in contact with terrorists, it wouldn't matter. Because why? Because I know that I'm innocent. The government is there to protect you and your rights, remember that.

[GameSnake]

Ok seriously, if you really feel 100% comfortable with what a politician says and believe that is what he really does, than you are really not up to par with this discussion!

[iago]

So what if they eavesdrop on you? If they find out that you haven't done anything wrong, they'll move on. You have nothing to hide unless you're in cohorts with terrorists, or plan on doing something illegal. Even if they specifically targeted Asian Americans because of a possibility we're in contact with terrorists, it wouldn't matter. Because why? Because I know that I'm innocent. The government is there to protect you and your rights, remember that.

Can't the government use this to suppress freedom of speech, and eventually freedom of thought?  What happens if you give a speech about how everybody should rise up and overthrow the Government of the USA (which is a perfectly valid scenario; in fact, it's how your government was FORMED) -- would you still not need your privacy from the government? 

[igimo1]

How can they use it to suppress freedom of speech? You have to understand that the NSA does not have teams of staffers sorting through your emails; it's done electronically, in most cases.

[MyndFyre]

So what if they eavesdrop on you? If they find out that you haven't done anything wrong, they'll move on. You have nothing to hide unless you're in cohorts with terrorists, or plan on doing something illegal. Even if they specifically targeted Asian Americans because of a possibility we're in contact with terrorists, it wouldn't matter. Because why? Because I know that I'm innocent. The government is there to protect you and your rights, remember that.

Can't the government use this to suppress freedom of speech, and eventually freedom of thought?  What happens if you give a speech about how everybody should rise up and overthrow the Government of the USA (which is a perfectly valid scenario; in fact, it's how your government was FORMED) -- would you still not need your privacy from the government? 

It was determined to be illegal to secede from the US in the 1865 following the Civil War -- which was the real reason it was fought.

Ok seriously, if you really feel 100% comfortable with what a politician says and believe that is what he really does, than you are really not up to par with this discussion!

This is precisely the kind of attitude that makes me not want to have a discussion about anything with you.  It is my opinion.  It is educated.  Fine if you don't agree.  Fuck off if you're going to say that I'm incompetent because my opinion is different.

[GameSnake]

This is precisely the kind of attitude that makes me not want to have a discussion about anything with you.  It is my opinion.  It is educated.  Fine if you don't agree.  Fuck off if you're going to say that I'm incompetent because my opinion is different.

Well okay if it's fair to say that, than it's by far more fair to say you cannot trust political leaders to thier word, you couldn't with Clinton, Nixon and many others, and you know that for goodness sake it is an educated pre-disposistion.

[MyndFyre]

Well okay if it's fair to say that, than it's by far more fair to say you cannot trust political leaders to thier word, you couldn't with Clinton, Nixon and many others, and you know that for goodness sake it is an educated pre-disposistion.

No.  I have never taken a political science class in which the professor has encouraged me to base an analysis in fact determined as the opposite of what a leader has said.  It is reckless and irresponsible.

Nor do I simply take a politician at his or her word.  I do, however, give them the benefit of the doubt, when they are in high offices (such as Senate or President), until they give me reason to believe otherwise.  Sometimes this is incompetent policy, but that doesn't necessarily direct me to distrust what they say; disagree is not the same as distrust.

Perhaps it is unfettered optimism that I have that there are good men and women who are trying to be or who are in power (I believe AZ Senator Kyl and Congressmen Hayworth are two such men, for instance; Condi Rice is another), but that is simply an optimistic and hopeful opinion.

[GameSnake]

I guess your signature rains true than (both ways).

Well okay if it's fair to say that, than it's by far more fair to say you cannot trust political leaders to thier word, you couldn't with Clinton, Nixon and many others, and you know that for goodness sake it is an educated pre-disposistion.

No.  I have never taken a political science class in which the professor has encouraged me to base an analysis in fact determined as the opposite of what a leader has said.  It is reckless and irresponsible.

Nor do I simply take a politician at his or her word.  I do, however, give them the benefit of the doubt, when they are in high offices (such as Senate or President), until they give me reason to believe otherwise.  Sometimes this is incompetent policy, but that doesn't necessarily direct me to distrust what they say; disagree is not the same as distrust.

Perhaps it is unfettered optimism that I have that there are good men and women who are trying to be or who are in power (I believe AZ Senator Kyl and Congressmen Hayworth are two such men, for instance; Condi Rice is another), but that is simply an optimistic and hopeful opinion.

[iago]

So what if they eavesdrop on you? If they find out that you haven't done anything wrong, they'll move on. You have nothing to hide unless you're in cohorts with terrorists, or plan on doing something illegal. Even if they specifically targeted Asian Americans because of a possibility we're in contact with terrorists, it wouldn't matter. Because why? Because I know that I'm innocent. The government is there to protect you and your rights, remember that.

Can't the government use this to suppress freedom of speech, and eventually freedom of thought?  What happens if you give a speech about how everybody should rise up and overthrow the Government of the USA (which is a perfectly valid scenario; in fact, it's how your government was FORMED) -- would you still not need your privacy from the government? 

It was determined to be illegal to secede from the US in the 1865 following the Civil War -- which was the real reason it was fought.

Do you consider that a good thing or a bad thing?  I'm rather curious, I always assumed that your country supported (and was based on) the idea that, if the government sucked/was corrupt, you get rid of them. 

How can they use it to suppress freedom of speech? You have to understand that the NSA does not have teams of staffers sorting through your emails; it's done electronically, in most cases.

It can very easily be used that way.  Change the word "Al Quada" to "George Bush sucks", then start making people who say "George Bush sucks" silently disappear.  It can happen, the technology exists to do it, and apparently it's acceptable to spy on American citizens if they have a good reason.  All you need now is a president who's willing to take it to the next level, and you can't tell me that it's impossible to have a president like that. 

[GameSnake]

Oh shit the scary stuff is coming true.. So, uhh.. like, iago.. whats a hot field of work in Canada at the moment?

[igimo1]

It can very easily be used that way.  Change the word "Al Quada" to "George Bush sucks", then start making people who say "George Bush sucks" silently disappear.  It can happen, the technology exists to do it, and apparently it's acceptable to spy on American citizens if they have a good reason.  All you need now is a president who's willing to take it to the next level, and you can't tell me that it's impossible to have a president like that. 

If you recall, the US federal gov't is comprised of three branches - no one branch has total control. If Bush were to be found to have done this, he'd probably be impeached and jailed. The 'next level', as you call it, would violate the Constitution. Americans tend to be very protective of their base rights, and making people who disagree with the government disappear is more or less unconstitutional. Also, I don't believe Bush is that sort of person - he's demonstrated that he's willing to break a few laws here and there, but they've always been in the interest of the US.

[GameSnake]

he'd probably be impeached and jailed.

[/quote]I don't believe Bush is that sort of person - he's demonstrated that he's willing to break a few laws here and there[/quote]
LMAO

[iago]

If you recall, the US federal gov't is comprised of three branches - no one branch has total control. If Bush were to be found to have done this, he'd probably be impeached and jailed. The 'next level', as you call it, would violate the Constitution. Americans tend to be very protective of their base rights, and making people who disagree with the government disappear is more or less unconstitutional. Also, I don't believe Bush is that sort of person - he's demonstrated that he's willing to break a few laws here and there, but they've always been in the interest of the US.

A wiretap is a wiretap.  If they can do it to find terrorists, why can't they do it to find other groups of people?  Is it any less constitutional to use it for other reasons than terrorists?  I don't see the word "terrorist" in the constitution...

[igimo1]

What sort of people in particular? It's getting difficult to second-guess your posts, and it's not like he'd need wiretaps to find specific persons - the President has a lot of access.

[iago]

In the example I was using (sorry for going crazy and spanning it across 2 posts...), I was talking about the possibility of a president who changes the keywords that they are searching for from "Al Queda" to "<his name> sucks", then having anybody who says that silently rounded up and killed. 

Now, for the first part: it's been shown that the president (or somebody close, whatever) can order wiretaps on people if they suspect they are a threat to the country (currently, terrorists).  What if you had a president who decided that anybody who doesn't like him is a threat to the country?  Because there's no court order involved, he can get the wiretaps for it. 

For the second part, as you said, he has a lot of power.  I'm sure it would be possible to pull it off.  Or, if anything, have them arrested, tried, and hanged for being a traitor.  If they use propoganda properly (like with terrorists), people will think that the people being hanged are scum, non-human, etc. and won't care.  But that's neither here nor there. 

So what worries me about the wiretaps is that it's giving the president (not just the current one, ANY president) the excuse to remove freedom of speech/invoke 1984-style "thought police."

[igimo1]

In the example I was using (sorry for going crazy and spanning it across 2 posts...), I was talking about the possibility of a president who changes the keywords that they are searching for from "Al Queda" to "<his name> sucks", then having anybody who says that silently rounded up and killed. 

Now, for the first part: it's been shown that the president (or somebody close, whatever) can order wiretaps on people if they suspect they are a threat to the country (currently, terrorists).  What if you had a president who decided that anybody who doesn't like him is a threat to the country?  Because there's no court order involved, he can get the wiretaps for it. 

For the second part, as you said, he has a lot of power.  I'm sure it would be possible to pull it off.  Or, if anything, have them arrested, tried, and hanged for being a traitor.  If they use propoganda properly (like with terrorists), people will think that the people being hanged are scum, non-human, etc. and won't care.  But that's neither here nor there. 

So what worries me about the wiretaps is that it's giving the president (not just the current one, ANY president) the excuse to remove freedom of speech/invoke 1984-style "thought police."

'silently rounded up and killed', kind of extreme. If you've been paying attention to the news, there are investigations into the nature of the wiretaps, and it's nearly impossible to conceal something like you're suggesting completely. There ARE court orders involved in charging someone with treason, and even then, I've never seen a case (post-civil war) where the defendant ended up being hung or executed. Don't forget, us Americans are very zealous when it comes to issues like abortion and killing criminals. The wiretaps are VERY unlikely to bring about the removal of freedom of speech (which is entitled to everyone, even aliens in our territory).

Making up such ridiculous scenarios is lame, iago, even for the sake of debate.

[iago]

'silently rounded up and killed', kind of extreme. If you've been paying attention to the news, there are investigations into the nature of the wiretaps, and it's nearly impossible to conceal something like you're suggesting completely. There ARE court orders involved in charging someone with treason, and even then, I've never seen a case (post-civil war) where the defendant ended up being hung or executed. Don't forget, us Americans are very zealous when it comes to issues like abortion and killing criminals. The wiretaps are VERY unlikely to bring about the removal of freedom of speech (which is entitled to everyone, even aliens in our territory).

Making up such ridiculous scenarios is lame, iago, even for the sake of debate.

You're taking one minor part that I took to the extreme for the sake of making it interesting and using that against my whole argument.  As I said, it could be as small as a black mark on your record, or maybe they will incorporate a "secret police" that's in charge of taking care of the safety of your nation by locking up traitors.  Who knows how it can be implemented?  The point is, the president/government has been given the opportunity to spy on citizens without being penalized, as long as it's for the sake of, in his/their eyes, safety.  Who knows what a corrupt president might do?

Plus, if they really wanted to, do you realize how easily they could turn people against each other?  There have been studies done that, if you take a large group of people and single out a smaller group within them, no matter what reason you choose the smaller group, the bigger group will go along with hating them.  I remember in a documentary they had a large room and they started talking about how blue-eyed people are dumber, and everybody who didn't have blue eyes teamed up against them.  People will naturally turn against each other if they think it benefits them.  But again, that's neither here nor there.  What they DO to the people isn't the issue, it's the fact that they CAN do SOMETHING to them. 

[CrAz3D]

So what if they eavesdrop on you? If they find out that you haven't done anything wrong, they'll move on. You have nothing to hide unless you're in cohorts with terrorists, or plan on doing something illegal. Even if they specifically targeted Asian Americans because of a possibility we're in contact with terrorists, it wouldn't matter. Because why? Because I know that I'm innocent. The government is there to protect you and your rights, remember that.

Can't the government use this to suppress freedom of speech, and eventually freedom of thought?  What happens if you give a speech about how everybody should rise up and overthrow the Government of the USA (which is a perfectly valid scenario; in fact, it's how your government was FORMED) -- would you still not need your privacy from the government? 

It was determined to be illegal to secede from the US in the 1865 following the Civil War -- which was the real reason it was fought.

Do you consider that a good thing or a bad thing?  I'm rather curious, I always assumed that your country supported (and was based on) the idea that, if the government sucked/was corrupt, you get rid of them. 

If the government sucks, then you change it.
I believe that secession was 'illegal' because there were no grounds for it. 
"whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, . . ."
You'd have to decide whether or not the government was really being destructive in a manner so that the South would 'have' to secede.

[iago]

"whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, . . ."

Ok, so my original thought was correct.  I wasn't talking about succession, I was talking about overthrowing it.  So, what if a lot of people want to do that, and the president/government considers that to be enough of a threat that they get phonetaps and use that to track the people?  It seems that that situation is extremely close to the terrorist situation currently. 

[igimo1]

Secession is so unlikely in the post-Civil War era.

You're taking one minor part that I took to the extreme for the sake of making it interesting and using that against my whole argument.  As I said, it could be as small as a black mark on your record, or maybe they will incorporate a "secret police" that's in charge of taking care of the safety of your nation by locking up traitors.  Who knows how it can be implemented?  The point is, the president/government has been given the opportunity to spy on citizens without being penalized, as long as it's for the sake of, in his/their eyes, safety.  Who knows what a corrupt president might do?

There would have to be some grounds for being a traitor, and traitors usually generate publicity. If you noticed, the President/gov't has to do it spy on citizens under specific laws, notably the Patriot Act.

Who knows what a corrupt president might do?

What a joke. He's not in office long enough to do anything serious enough - and spying on citizens and quietly murdering them tends to be a long term thing.

Plus, if they really wanted to, do you realize how easily they could turn people against each other?  There have been studies done that, if you take a large group of people and single out a smaller group within them, no matter what reason you choose the smaller group, the bigger group will go along with hating them.  I remember in a documentary they had a large room and they started talking about how blue-eyed people are dumber, and everybody who didn't have blue eyes teamed up against them.  People will naturally turn against each other if they think it benefits them.  But again, that's neither here nor there.  What they DO to the people isn't the issue, it's the fact that they CAN do SOMETHING to them.

Where the fuck do you come up with this kind of stuff? We're not exactly brainless morons following the alpha male. We're not a secluded society, anymore; something like that is pretty unlikely to happen.

[iago]

Who knows what a corrupt president might do?

What a joke. He's not in office long enough to do anything serious enough - and spying on citizens and quietly murdering them tends to be a long term thing.

What makes you say that?  Politicians don't get to where they are by being transparent.  It is a distinct possibility that it could happen, and the entire basis for your government/constitution is the possibility that the government CAN become corrupt.  That's why they are NOT supposed to have the power to spy on citizens without a court order because of the POSSIBILITY that they aren't acting in your best interest. 

Where the fuck do you come up with this kind of stuff? We're not exactly brainless morons following the alpha male. We're not a secluded society, anymore; something like that is pretty unlikely to happen.

Sorry to say it, but modern people are very gullable.  As one example (there are many), whenever I even MENTION the idea that terrorists might be real people who think and care and love their family and are smart, people scoff at me.  People have been so brainwashed to think of terrorists as monsters that they can't even admit to the possibility that they might be rational human beings. 

Actually, that's a lot like the Romans.  They always assumed that the Barbarians were irrational, didn't learn, and they didn't even consider Barbarians to be real people.  There was plenty of propoganda supporting that in the first century BC.  Then in 9AD, the Barbarians led 3 Roman legions into an ambush, killing over 20,000 roman troops.  And do you know why?  Because the Romans totally underestimated the intelligence of the Barbarians, and assumed that they knew everything about them.  Do Americans feel the same way about terrorists?  Is the spying that your government is doing a false comfort?  Do you think they're really so dumb that they wouldn't encrypt all of their communications?  Again, that's way off topic, but it's a thought I just had

The point is: politics is like computer security.  You have to always think in the worst case, "If this [program|law] gets abused, what is the worst thing that can happen?"  In the case of the wire-tapping, the worst case seems to be the loss of the freedom of speech. 

[igimo1]

Are communications generally encrypted? It would be unwise to encrypt it, since it would be a dead giveaway that they were doing something they wanted to hide from the government; there's also little doubt in my mind that the NSA has some very skilled cryptoanalysts.

[iago]

Are communications generally encrypted? It would be unwise to encrypt it, since it would be a dead giveaway that they were doing something they wanted to hide from the government; there's also little doubt in my mind that the NSA has some very skilled cryptoanalysts.

Yes, there is a great deal (TONS) of encrypted traffic flying around.  Not so much through phones, but email and instant messengers are quite frequently encrypted. 

Obviously the NSA has some skilled cryptoanalysts, but it's still infeasible to break good encryptions.  It's not likely that they have a secret way.