Why I Care About The NSA Spying

[Hyena Dandy]

Let me try to explain why I so strongly oppose the NSA spying, even though I accept a lot of the justification offered or it. I do think that there's no "Too far" when it comes to protecting people's lives and wellbeing. And yet I don't like that program one bit.

It's quite simple.

I'm not THAT good at Tarot Reading. I mean, I'm good, don't get me wrong. Name a card, I'll give you the meaning, reversed, and in various contexts. No problem. I'm a good reader. Hell, I'm a GREAT reader. There are a few things in my life I'm truly proud of and my ability with Tarot is one of them.

Buuut... I'm not THAT good. Not so good that I'm fine with a spying program that isn't public, transparent, and extremely limited in scope. One that the people don't have an easy way to get rid of. Because, while I don't always like him, I trust President Obama. At least I trust him not to be as bad as his enemies say he is. I look around and see a lot of bullshit, but I also don't think I'd fairly call us a police state the way some do. We're generally alright, when it comes to government abuse of power. Could be better, but really, mostly fne as it stands.

But right now, there's someone who's not even able to talk yet, and one day, that little boy or little girl (or gender-noncomforming-youth) is going to be the President of the United States of America. And I don't trust them. I don't know who they are. I don't know why they're elected. But I'm fairly certain I'll be alive when it happens. I certainly hope I am. And when that person comes to power, I don't want to be the one standing in their way when they cite precedents from 2013. THAT is what my problem with these things is. If they save my life at the expense of the fact that I spend most of my time searching for gay furry porn, I don't give a damn. If there was an extraordinary situation, I want extraordinary measures taken.

But I want to be able to know they were taken at the very least the minute after they were taken. I want to be able to have the ability, as a citizen of the country, as part of "The People" who this is supposed be of-the-for-the-by-the, to have a voice in taking control of that. That's what has me pissed off. Not that I was spied on. But that I might be spied on again in 40 years. Not that an overseas American citizen who was a terrorist was assassinated, but that an American might be assassinated for worse reasons in the future. It's not the acts that bother me, it's the precedent.

We have Self-Defense laws that allow us to kill if we reasonably feel our lives depend on it. I don't mind our government having the same. What I mind is our government not having to prove we were threatened to do it.

[s_stabeler]

I agree. Extraordinary measures CAN be taken, but you need to prove WHY those measures are necessary. ( and also, I would suggest incorporating a sunset clause into laws allowing extraordinary measures, so that (say) every 6 months, the government has to defend the continued use of such measures)

The issue is that the government should NOT be able to take actions in breach of the constitution while concealing they are doing it. Do I trust the current US government? more or less. I certainly believe that they are not about to start "disappearing" their opponents. Do I trust future governments? No. They should not, therefore, have the option of disallowing oversight of their actions on the grounds of convenience.

[crashhelmet]

I really don't know how, where, or even IF I stand on this.

The US Government has a file on me already, and has probably had one on me from the day I was born.

I've had to get or update my security clearance a few times in my life. I've worked multiple contracts for NASA, Lockheed Martin, and the Navy.

My grandfather (my mom's dad) fought with the United States Marine Corps 4th Division in WWII. His initial MOS was intelligence. He was responsible for translating foreign documents found as they fought across Roi-Namur, Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima. When the war ended, he stayed active duty for a few more years before going to work for the FBI.

My Godmother was, by trade, a bookie (sp?). She was also paid by the FBI to assist in investigations related to illegal sports betting. I guess you could call her an informant.

My dad is a retired USMC Drill Instructor and my Godfather is a retired Navy Seal, Both specialize in guerrilla warfare and both have been called back to duty (To train others, not fight) several times since these new wars have begun. In fact, my Godfather went straight from active duty to defensive contractor without any time off.

For the work I've done and the things I know, plus the potential of what I could know, there is a file on me.

I don't mind.

It makes it easier for me to get contract jobs, easier for me to get training and certifications to get other jobs, and I don't do anything to be nervous about, like surf for kitty pr0n, how to revolt, or openly call for the assassination of people that don't share my viewpoint.

However... There's always a however.

I'm not worried about me. I'm worried about you.

I absolutely detest the idea that all of this is being done in confliction with the US Constitution after so many people in my family have fought and died to protect it. That's what bothers me the most about it.

I've accepted and profited off of giving the government access to my personal life. Most of you haven't.

And another however...

Then there's social media. People put so much personal information out there that even without tapping into governmental databases, I can find out a lot about them. Where they went to school, where they went for lunch, who they've dated, who they work for, how much money they make, etc. Outside of reading your email or listening to a phone call, there isn't much that isn't made public information.

[TheHuckster]

The huge difference between your circumstances, crashhelmet, and a civilian without security access is you knew for a fact that with your clearance came a necessary loss of privacy. In fact, I'm sure it was even in the very paperwork you were signing to attain that clearance.

People can opt out of that clearance if they value their privacy. People can opt out of social media for the same reason. If the government goes on my news feed and finds out what I had for breakfast, that's my problem. However, if I pick up the phone and tell my friend I was so happy about how well my waffles came out, there is an expectation that only myself and my friend is privvy to that info.

As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with the government or anyone else finding out what I explicitly said in public. However, unless there is a search warrant out or I actually told the Feds to bug my house and phone, I would be pissed if they breached that layer of privacy.

[Greenday]

Maybe it's because of my work but I back the NSA. Do I think it's right that they spy on everyone? Not particularly. But it IS a matter of vital importance. The government keeps us safe and the public doesn't even know about it the majority of the time. Who really has been hurt by this program? The NSA doesn't care who you are sleeping with. The NSA doesn't care if you do drugs. The NSA doesn't care about the average person's mundane life. They care about one thing: terrorism.

It's old news that was just re-reported to grab headlines. Did people think movies made up all that spy stuff out of the blue? Come on. There's no reason to be shocked by the existence of such a program.

Again: Is it right? Not entirely. Does it work? Well, look at that huge list of terrorist attacks inside America since 9/11.

[HYHYBT]

They don't care *right now.* They (not, of course, necessarily the NSA itself) have cared in the past, when that information was harder to get, and they almost certainly will again eventually. What's so horrible about having to get a warrant, and from a court that might possibly even decide there aren't grounds to grant one?

[Andara Bledin]

Again: Is it right? Not entirely. Does it work? Well, look at that huge list of terrorist attacks inside America since 9/11.

So, our tiger-repelling rock is working, then?

[Racket_Man]

So, our tiger-repelling rock is working, then?

and do not forget the Bear Patrol and the related tax....

[Hyena Dandy]

Maybe it's because of my work but I back the NSA. Do I think it's right that they spy on everyone? Not particularly. But it IS a matter of vital importance. The government keeps us safe and the public doesn't even know about it the majority of the time. Who really has been hurt by this program? The NSA doesn't care who you are sleeping with. The NSA doesn't care if you do drugs. The NSA doesn't care about the average person's mundane life. They care about one thing: terrorism.

It's old news that was just re-reported to grab headlines. Did people think movies made up all that spy stuff out of the blue? Come on. There's no reason to be shocked by the existence of such a program.

Again: Is it right? Not entirely. Does it work? Well, look at that huge list of terrorist attacks inside America since 9/11.

Absolutely nothing you posted has anything to do with my argument, and since you're not quoting someone else I kind of am assuming you were going to say something relevant to my post, forgive me if I was wrong on that.

My point being that it's not TODAY'S NSA I'm worried about. It's tomorrow's. Today they seem to only be worried about terrorists who are actually terrorists. But I don't know about come 2030. Or what my kids will have to deal with. Or their kids. I don't know what the NSA of 2039, or 2064 will look like, and I don't even have a THOUGHT on what 2114 will be like. And I don't want to have the precedent that this can be done without the full knowledge of the people.

The NSA will probably not do anything horrible to anyone today, or tomorrow, or next week, ornext month, or next year. And the Roman Dictators all resigned when the crisis was over, until the time that one of them didn't. And I don't want to have to wait for Augustus for us to say "Oh, shoulda closed that loophole..."

So, our tiger-repelling rock is working, then?

To be fair to the NSA, they did, according to their own reports, stop one or two attacks with the PRISM program. I don't believe they've said any for MUSCULAR.

They don't care *right now.* They (not, of course, necessarily the NSA itself) have cared in the past, when that information was harder to get, and they almost certainly will again eventually. What's so horrible about having to get a warrant, and from a court that might possibly even decide there aren't grounds to grant one?

They at least require permission from the companies that they're accessing data from for PRISM. MUSCULAR just intercepts stuff as it passes through fiber-optic cables, and is far less targetted, happens without the company's permission, and is pretty scattershot.

[SkullKing]

The NSA doesn't care who you are sleeping with. The NSA doesn't care about the average person's mundane life.

Actually, considering that the NSA is made of people, and some of those people used their position to spy on romantic interests.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ex-girlfriend/

I believe you are wrong.

[s_stabeler]

Maybe it's because of my work but I back the NSA. Do I think it's right that they spy on everyone? Not particularly. But it IS a matter of vital importance. The government keeps us safe and the public doesn't even know about it the majority of the time. Who really has been hurt by this program? The NSA doesn't care who you are sleeping with. The NSA doesn't care if you do drugs. The NSA doesn't care about the average person's mundane life. They care about one thing: terrorism.

It's old news that was just re-reported to grab headlines. Did people think movies made up all that spy stuff out of the blue? Come on. There's no reason to be shocked by the existence of such a program.

Again: Is it right? Not entirely. Does it work? Well, look at that huge list of terrorist attacks inside America since 9/11.

again, THIS government isn't abusing the power. does that mean that ANY government will not misuse the power? NO. The issue is there is no oversight, no way for people to say "this is going too far"- THAT is the problem.

also, there is another point- in the UK, anti-terror legislation (specifically, the ability to authorize surveillance w/o a warrant) has been used for such trivial purposes as making sure nobody puts out their trash on the wrong day. therefore, I'm not particularly inclined to believe that the Government will avoid misusing any other anti-terror tools.

[Greenday]

Actually, considering that the NSA is made of people, and some of those people used their position to spy on romantic interests.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ex-girlfriend/

I believe you are wrong.

So one single person = the organization?

Sorry, I'm not the one who is wrong.

As I said, the NSA doesn't care who you are sleeping with. A few corrupt individuals breaking the rules and not correctly using the system does not mean the organization gives a crap.

[Hyena Dandy]

So one single person = the organization?

Sorry, I'm not the one who is wrong.

As I said, the NSA doesn't care who you are sleeping with. A few corrupt individuals breaking the rules and not correctly using the system does not mean the organization gives a crap.

And had that not been an option to do without a proper warrant, that couldn't have happened.

Also, you seem totally intent on ignoring the entire point of the thread... The one I made in my OP, and both Stabeler and myself repeated.

[Greenday]

And had that not been an option to do without a proper warrant, that couldn't have happened.

Also, you seem totally intent on ignoring the entire point of the thread... The one I made in my OP, and both Stabeler and myself repeated.

Am I not allowed to comment on why I care or don't care about the NSA spying? It doesn't make sense to me for all of us to have to post our own threads on the exact same subject.

[s_stabeler]

the point is that we have said that we don't disagree with the spying as such. What we disagree with is the lack of oversight.

to put it bluntly:

Now

random NSA officer: I want to look at what Greenday is doing on the internet
then they can get access to everything

what we want it to be
random NSA officer: I want to look at what Greenday is doig on the internet
Court: what evidence do you have that he is doing anything wrong?

what evidence it requires should depend on what the NSA wants to do. If thye can prove that a site is encouraging violence against the united states? then that is sufficient justification to find out who is visiting those sites. If one person is visiting several extremist websites? then you can look into them closer. What you CANNOT do is grab all the information everybody is sending over the net.