{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Uncle Putin:
12/31/2013 3:44:46 AM
8
I think that there has been a huge misconception of what the NSA's cell phone record spying actually does. What the NSA DOES see is everything that known terrorists do, the information of anyone who calls those terrorists, and the metadata (which includes zero personal information) of phone records. The only thing that metadata tells you is the phone number, the number it called, the date that it called, and various other technical information. That's it. The NSA CANNOT listen in on phone conversations without a court order.
If people freak out over their phone numbers being collected, I'll just let you know that there are multiple businesses out there whose sole purpose it is to collect all home and cell phone numbers. Why is this legal? Because your phone number is actually in public domain. Don't believe me? Well so is your home address. And your PO box. Those are all public domain. I mean what the hell do you think a phone book is? Now there are certain privacy issues that can arise because not just anyone can go to your house or call your phone, but nonetheless anyone can look them up. Why is the NSA so different?
English
-
Edited by The Great DanTej: 12/31/2013 4:09:06 AMYou don't seem to have the full picture. [url]http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/you-may-already-be-a-winner-in-nsas-three-degrees-surveillance-sweepstakes/[/url] It's not just "terrorists", it's anyone who has some form of contact with suspects, and anyone who has contact with those people,m that are being spied on - spying on three degrees of separation means far more than just terrorists are going to get spied on. [url]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/in-aclu-lawsuit-scientist-demolishes-nsa-its-just-metadata-excuse/[/url] A LOT of information can be gleamed about a person from simple metadata - I think the most worrying fact, is that if you know the location of a cellphone at night, and the location the next morning, then through metadata alone you know where somebody sleeps. [url]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/judge-nsa-exceeded-the-scope-of-authorized-acquisition-continuously/[/url] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/court-ruling-that-nsa-spying-violated-4th-amendment-remains-secret/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/ny-district-judge-rules-that-nsa-phone-surveillance-is-legal/ The NSA does not give a single -blam!- about any law. [quote]Why is the NSA so different?[/quote]Why don't you do just the tiniest bit of research?
-
I will address a few points separately. 1. The 3 degrees of surveillance. First of all, I can't fathom why you'd be so outraged by this. The amount of terrorists out there is outstanding and we can't possibly have all of their names in a database. Consequently, the hierarchy of Al Qaeda (for instance) can be fully traced if we use 3 lines of connection towards the known terrorist. This is not unreasonable. If you take out the 3 lines of connection, then you effectively take out maybe a quarter or more of Al Qaeda. 2. I am totally against the NSA going beyond the scope of authorized acquisition. I'm not really going to argue with you there because that is something that needs to be taken care of. 3. As for the ALCU lawsuit thing, the dissection and dissemination of personal data SHOULD be illegal. I acknowledge the potential for the metadata to be abused, but the example that the article gave is complete bull crap. First of all, it should be illegal from the start to spy on a woman (or any person for that matter) without probable cause. The only way that the NSA should be allowed to spy is through a COURT ORDER. That's actually what they're doing now, and if they are spying outside of a court order, that's illegal. Second, it is a complete waste of time for the NSA to spy on random individuals. Even though I absolutely believe that it should be illegal to do that, realistically speaking, it is a waste of time, money and numerous other resources to just spy on your random Joe Shmoe. What that article is trying to do is to appeal to your sense of fear, of the "big brother" government. I hate to burst your bubble but that's not what's happening. The only way that you could possibly be spied on is if you are connected to a terrorist, and you probably aren't. If you are, you deserve to be spied on. I understand what you're trying to do and I respect the fact that you hold your privacy in high regard (and so do I) but your efforts are being completely wasted on something that is very beneficial to our country at large. This program has been proven to stop many terrorist attempts and it has lead to more insight on how Al Qaeda runs, which in turn allows us to kill more of them.
-
[quote]1. The 3 degrees of surveillance. First of all, I can't fathom why you'd be so outraged by this. The amount of terrorists out there is outstanding and we can't possibly have all of their names in a database. Consequently, the hierarchy of Al Qaeda (for instance) can be fully traced if we use 3 lines of connection towards the known terrorist. This is not unreasonable. If you take out the 3 lines of connection, then you effectively take out maybe a quarter or more of Al Qaeda.[/quote] I'm outraged because their justification is literally "you know a guy who knows a guy". The thing about 3 degrees is how rapidly you can net a wide population - for instance, you can more or less net the entire population of New Zealand with just two degrees (even if you only net every 1/2 people that's still 2 million being spied on); now with 3 degrees in America, you could feasibly net the entire country - I highly doubt there are hundreds of millions of terrorists out there, I highly doubt that there are hundreds of millions of terrorists in the USA... ...And by going off of IchEsseKinder's links, I highly doubt the NSA's spying is doing anything. [quote]3.[/quote]And that's the kicker, they're breaking the law for the sole purpose of "wasting time spying on random individuals". I'm sorry but there's just no way you can look at that and not think "this is what Orwell warned us about" If they followed court orders, respected the constitution, scaled back their reach, and actually made use of whatever data they find (and also stop undermining global security/encryption protocols)...then i'd be fine with NSA spying. But they're not so I'm not.
-
It's sad to see how many people don't care. I don't mean to be a downer, but what can we do to stop it?
-
Spread the word, educate the uneducated, keep the flames alive! Politicians remain in power, and these systems stay in place because the general public allows it - if we change public opinion, make this kind of thing undesirable to keep around, then change will happen - whether it's politicians changing the laws or mass public protests, it'll only happen if we work for it. Keep fighting the good fight.
-
I've tried, but nobody seems to care. It's always "i haven't done anything illegal" and when I press the point they just tune me out. What can we do when even the educated sit back and do nothing?
-
Rome wasn't built in a day. For people like us who don't have much individual power on own, we have to work together and be persistent - find the people who will listen and tell them the same thing, heck, call your state representatives or shoot them an email. Think of it like the gay rights movement, or the civil rights movement, it seemed impossible, and most people didn't listen, but they were persistent and more or less won in the end.
-
We need more people like you around. Mabye then the government will stop giving it to us right up the ass.
