OT: CIA Poker and Prostitutes Scandal

[Ginger]

Evan, coming from the intel sector I'd expect you to remember Carnivore.

... and the reason it's plug was pulled.

[WRXtranceformed]

Lee for Governor of Virginia 2020

I vow to abolish all front license plates and exhaust note laws!!!

WHAT SAY YE?!?!

[G.Irish]

Lee for Governor of Virginia 2020

I vow to abolish all front license plates and exhaust note laws!!!

WHAT SAY YE?!?!

Do that and revamp DMV and I'll be your biggest campaign supporter.

[Sijray21]

Lee for Governor of Virginia 2020

I vow to abolish all front license plates and exhaust note laws!!!

WHAT SAY YE?!?!

Do that and revamp DMV and I'll be your biggest campaign supporter.

it would also save the state half the cost of providing registration plates :wink: (thinking of cost-saving argument b/c money and numbers have a strong influence)

[Evan]

Something that has kinda been bothering me lately though is that on paper a conservative should be all about smaller government and adhering to the constitution. Yet it seems like we're going the opposite direction?

Bush also ran under a campaign of isolationism (well, relatively anyway) back in 2000, and he obviously hasnt held true to that. A few other things too that he hasnt even pretended to follow through with. In fact a big reason his approval rating is so low right now is because he is loosing support with the conservative base.
Had the democrats been smart enough to nominate a conservative democrat in 04 they could have eaten bush's lunch. But I wont complain, the Dem's can send up all the Michael Dukakises they want to get shot down.

Andrew why dont you enlighten me on Carnivore and "the reason its plug was pulled" (which actually, it wasnt, it was just renamed to DCS1000)
Ironically, Carnivore was more benign than the NSA stuff we are hearing about now, but similarly it was hyped to doom and gloom in the media.

[G.Irish]

Something that has kinda been bothering me lately though is that on paper a conservative should be all about smaller government and adhering to the constitution. Yet it seems like we're going the opposite direction?

Bush also ran under a campaign of isolationism (well, relatively anyway) back in 2000, and he obviously hasnt held true to that. A few other things too that he hasnt even pretended to follow through with. In fact a big reason his approval rating is so low right now is because he is loosing support with the conservative base.

Had the democrats been smart enough to nominate a conservative democrat in 04 they could have eaten bush's lunch. But I wont complain, the Dem's can send up all the Michael Dukakises they want to get shot down.

Well there were several factors at work there. For one, no war time president has ever lost (although technically we never declared war). However, the Bush administration's performance in the war was nothing to brag about so conceivably a challenger could've beaten him on that and other issues. Kerry however turned out to be only slightly stronger than a wet noodle.

Had Wesley Clark's campaign been more effective I think he could've easily beaten Bush because an Army general would have been the perfect guy to formulate our military policy.

Similarly, I think John McCain's military service will help him a lot in the upcoming election. If Hillary comes forth from the Democratic party I don't think she'll win against that (among other reasons).

[Ginger]

Andrew why dont you enlighten me on Carnivore and "the reason its plug was pulled" (which actually, it wasnt, it was just renamed to DCS1000)
Ironically, Carnivore was more benign than the NSA stuff we are hearing about now, but similarly it was hyped to doom and gloom in the media.

I was under the impression that it was pulled. My mistake.

I did mean to represent it as a rather lame tool when compared to todays projects, though. As it garnered so much controversy for so much less gray material then I think this looks that much more problematic.

I lean towards a very minimilast-state view and I see the growing terrorism argument as a very big loophole. I agree that fighting terrorism does have very real implications that require very serious attention. The kind of mass mining that's being more and more publicized represents a very different type of law enforcement than America has generally publically endorsed before. Rather than "why shouldn't the NSA have your phone records?" the question needs to be "why does the NSA need my phone records?" Even if that's somehow justifiable, though, it's a pretty inefficient way to go about developing leads. I don't imagine that all that information is stored in thin air, either (though storage is incredibly cheap).

In criminal cases this type of information needs explicit judicial approval for collection (I think). Why does the exact same information, directed at people who are not charged with anything, become freely accessable when it's arbitrarily named a matter of national security? I'm not hiding anything, but that doesn't mean I don't value my privacy. When I haven't broken any laws, especially none that would make my phone records relevant, why should the government have the option of telling me how much privacy I am allowed to have? Will my porn browsing habits eventually be publicized? I'd agree if you said my concerns weren't high on the serious, or priority list. We're not dealing with the general will, though.

Just because you could save a life by declaring a certain liberty void because of a time of crisis doesn't mean that you should. Sacrifice one thing here, another thing there, and the deterioration of values could become a downward spiral... get far enough and you're losing a lot more than one person's life. I guess that might sound extremist...

[Maengelito]

[

I lean towards a very minimilast-state view and I see the growing terrorism argument as a very big loophole. I agree that fighting terrorism does have very real implications that require very serious attention. The kind of mass mining that's being more and more publicized represents a very different type of law enforcement than America has generally publically endorsed before. Rather than "why shouldn't the NSA have your phone records?" the question needs to be "why does the NSA need my phone records?" Even if that's somehow justifiable, though, it's a pretty inefficient way to go about developing leads. I don't imagine that all that information is stored in thin air, either (though storage is incredibly cheap).

i understand people's concerns over their privacy and understand the slippery slope of such a situation but i think people have to see through the media hype of it all and understand that the federal govt wouldnt give two shits if your wife called and asked you to pick up a gallon of milk on your way home from work or if you called your buddy to tell him which bar to meet up at. with all the information that already comes in from intel sources, its damn near impossible as it is right now with current manpower to take everything into account and sort idle threats from legitimate crimes. can you imagine how much more shit you'd have to sort through with every phone call? domestic terrorism would be investigated just like any other law enforcement or police agency by gathering evidence around suspects, not everyone.

[Evan]

Rather than "why shouldn't the NSA have your phone records?" the question needs to be "why does the NSA need my phone records?" Even if that's somehow justifiable, though, it's a pretty inefficient way to go about developing leads. I don't imagine that all that information is stored in thin air, either (though storage is incredibly cheap).

In criminal cases this type of information needs explicit judicial approval for collection (I think). Why does the exact same information, directed at people who are not charged with anything, become freely accessable when it's arbitrarily named a matter of national security? I'm not hiding anything, but that doesn't mean I don't value my privacy. When I haven't broken any laws, especially none that would make my phone records relevant, why should the government have the option of telling me how much privacy I am allowed to have? Will my porn browsing habits eventually be publicized? I'd agree if you said my concerns weren't high on the serious, or priority list. We're not dealing with the general will, though.

Just because you could save a life by declaring a certain liberty void because of a time of crisis doesn't mean that you should. Sacrifice one thing here, another thing there, and the deterioration of values could become a downward spiral... get far enough and you're losing a lot more than one person's life. I guess that might sound extremist...

Andrew you should sit down and analyze the situation and think about what is really happening instead of buying into the media line of "your rights/privacy/civil liberties/freedoms are being VIOLATED" media tagline here.
The most important concept in this whole thing is that the NSA is not spying on you, they are gathering data (as opposed to information) on communication transactions. When that data is processed, turned into information, certain patterns are flagged, which creates probable cause and at that point whoever is doing illegal/suspect shit is linked back to that information and identified. So unless you're building bombs in your basement no-one is violating your privacy, and if you are, then fuck you i hope you get caught :lol:
This is no different from a police officer watching you go about your business during the day. There is nothing wrong with him observing you, and if he sees you engage in suspicious activity he has probably cause to identify you, and even question you.
The problem is that as more of our lives are spent on the huge data networks of the information age, we are for some reason feel that any and all presence on that network is completely private, which I disagree with. Just like you cant put on an invisible coat in real life.

one pet peeve in this issue (and something that sets off my personal bullshit detector on an issue) is exaggerating the issue into an emotionally charged phrase such as "civil liberties"
This has to do with privacy, not civil liberties (and even that is debatable). No one is pointing a gun to your head, telling you what you can and can't do, there are no laws regarding your freedoms. Pretty damn rediculous, but hey, I guess it sounds real dramatic. :roll:

[Andy]

I look at recent history and come up with CoIntelOp. Our government not too long ago wiretapped MLK, Malcolm, Abbie Hoffman and even academics such as Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky.

These guys were only nonviolent protesters.

The idea of the unitary executive is a scary premise. If you guys are interested in the underlining theory, check out Neustadt's Presidential Power and the modern President. It's essentially the history and argument for a strong executive. Both Reagan & Clinton cited this book as essential reading.

I don't trust the government whether it's Democrat or Republican run.
The question I ask is would either side of the divide think differently if it was a Democratic White House that was pushing for this and the Republicans were in the minority.

[Evan]

I don't trust the government whether it's Democrat or Republican run.

Im curious why Andy.
Ive heard that a lot recently, and its probably the prevailing attitude, and I held the same feelings not too long ago (but without any real concrete reason why)
but the more I thought about it, and the closer I got to the government the more i trust it.
(and dont forget "the government" does not mean "politicians" Most of the government is not elected or appointed)
I dont trust politicians not to get hookers and gamble. I dont trust them not to be greedy. I dont trust them to not spend way over budget. I dont trust the government not to waste money.
But I trust the government to do what it takes to keep me and everyone else safe, and I trust the government not to give a shit about the conversations with my girlfriend (even fun conversations...) or any other inane communication or business of mine that the tin foil hat party seems to be convinced the gubment is out to get

[Andy]

Evan,

The issue for me isn't between terrorists plotting suicide bombing and you begging for head from your girlfriend. It has more to do with non violent citizens protesting the government. If I could be assured that the NSA data mining is the ceiling and not the floor, I may be more open to the idea.

Research CoIntelOp if anyone gets the chance. The government invaded the private lives of citizens even Muhammed Ali was wiretapped. If we want evidence of the government going overboard, we only need to look at the 60s.

With regard to the protecting ourselves, that's a hard question. I don't know how to address that but if we're going to allow government surveillance, we must have oversight and controls.

Lastly, I read this awesome article in the New Yorker. The author argued that what we have to worry about now in the new century is not the military industrial complex, it's the information-intelligence complex. He argues that the private information sector will continue to come up with ne gadgets and services to feed the intelligence sector. It will play up fears and threats in order to secure more gov't contracts and lobby our congressmen to buy their wares.
Essentially, the thesis is that instead of Boeing selling fighter planes, the computer sector will attempt to selling new ways of gathering info on the modern threat whatever that my be.

[G.Irish]

I don't trust the government whether it's Democrat or Republican run.

Im curious why Andy.

Because the government is made up of people and I do not trust people with power to always do the right thing, especially when there is no oversight of said power. That's the reason our government was built with a system of checks and balances in the first place.

The era we live in with an increasing amount of our lives being totally conducted in cyberspace means there are new questions as to what amount of privacy can be expected and what rules still apply (if any). But let the discussion about what the rules are be out in the open so that we know what choices we're making and we can be sure they're the right choice. By trying to circumvent judicial review the executive branch is tacitly admitting that it thinks what its doing would not stand up to scrutiny or debate.

I don't care if what I do is of no concern to the government. There are certain rights that are not their's for the taking. Just because something doesn't affect me personally today doesn't mean that its okay or that it won't affect me tomorrow. Thank god during the civil rights movement white Americans didn't just sit back and say, "Well Jim Crow doesn't affect me".

Objectively speaking the call logging program may not be a bad thing depending on how its implemented. I'm more concerned with programs we may not know about yet and the illegal wiretapping that the White House 'claims' was only used against suspected Al Qaeda operatives. There is a court expressely for that type of thing but they chose to ignore it for some reason. That indicates that they were either doing something that even the Foreign Intelligence Security Court would have disapproved of, or that they were just ignorant. I doubt they were just ignorant.

[G.Irish]

with all the information that already comes in from intel sources, its damn near impossible as it is right now with current manpower to take everything into account and sort idle threats from legitimate crimes. can you imagine how much more shit you'd have to sort through with every phone call?

Actually from what I've read the early data-mining efforts from post 9/11 generated an enormous amount of false leads, basically rendering them useless compared to normal human intelligence techniques. Not to say that they won't get better with time though.

domestic terrorism would be investigated just like any other law enforcement or police agency by gathering evidence around suspects, not everyone.

So why not get warrants like everything else? It can't possibly be that they believe that Al Qaeda has infiltrated the US Judiciary, so why sidestep something that law enforcement has relied on for the entire history of this country, even when we were afraid of nuclear conflict during the Cold War?