NSA found to be collecting details on all phone calls in the United States

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Krash661 - please note that even in the Politics sub-forum, that this is a Science based web-site not a conspiracy-theory website. If you make controversial - purportedly factual - claims you must back them up.

 

Krash and Iota whilst we realise this is an emotive and important topic, we would ask that you please keep the debate both polite and respectful.

 

[krash661]

hilarious.

this site is so obvious.

 

ahh, i now understand,

the majority of users here on this site,

are nothing more than 20 year olds, with a kid mentalities.

no wonder why they have no clue about anything.

now it makes sense.

 

hilarious.

Edited July 17, 2013 by krash661

[Phi for All]

There are all kinds of reasons why someone who has done nothing wrong should fear the federal authorities. Even on a local level, most people don't understand how the legal system works.

 

Do you know why a cop always asks you if you know how fast you were going when he pulls you over for speeding? Because most of your answers will help him build a case against you. If you tell him the truth and you were speeding, you just confessed. If you lie and tell him a lower speed, lying gives him probable cause to search your car if he wants to, and it can be brought up later to show a judge how untrustworthy you are.

 

If you're being questioned about an open police case, your testimony is admissible in court only for the prosecution. If the case turns on you, and you try to bring the police onto the stand to confirm what you told them, it will get thrown out as hearsay. What you tell the police can never be used to help you, it can only be used against you. It really sucks but trying to help because you have nothing to hide often ends badly.

[krash661]

There are all kinds of reasons why someone who has done nothing wrong should fear the federal authorities. Even on a local level, most people don't understand how the legal system works.

 

Do you know why a cop always asks you if you know how fast you were going when he pulls you over for speeding? Because most of your answers will help him build a case against you. If you tell him the truth and you were speeding, you just confessed. If you lie and tell him a lower speed, lying gives him probable cause to search your car if he wants to, and it can be brought up later to show a judge how untrustworthy you are.

 

If you're being questioned about an open police case, your testimony is admissible in court only for the prosecution. If the case turns on you, and you try to bring the police onto the stand to confirm what you told them, it will get thrown out as hearsay. What you tell the police can never be used to help you, it can only be used against you. It really sucks but trying to help because you have nothing to hide often ends badly.

well the problem here, is maybe you should have followed the law and not speed,

and why would you be involved in a case ?

unless once again you were not following law.

simple.

[Phi for All]

well the problem here, is maybe you should have followed the law and not speed,

and why would you be involved in a case ?

unless once again you were not following law.

 

It's tough to be as perfect as you, I guess. But I'll still bet even you are guilty of breaking one of the unknown number of laws on the books, whether it was connecting to an unsecured wi-fi network or singing "Happy Birthday" at a restaurant or having a permanent marker on your person while walking in public.

 

As for being involved in a case, you might have been at the scene of a crime just before it happened. By admitting to the police you were there but didn't witness the crime, even though you're innocent, you may be their only suspect. The police are allowed to lie to you and tell you your testimony will help catch the real criminal, only to turn around in court and pin the circumstantial evidence on you instead.

 

simple.

 

No, law, the exact opposite of simple.

[krash661]

lol

yes i have broke the law, and received my punishment for it,

but the difference is,

i accepted it, not whined or complain how my actions were wrong but not.

lol at that witness gibberish.

simple.

 

clarity only comes to those who accept it.

Edited July 17, 2013 by krash661

[Phi for All]

This is long, but fast-paced, with a lawyer's argument and a police rebuttal. It shows how information can be used against you in a court of law. Thank the Founders for the 5th Amendment.

 

Don't Talk To Police!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[krash661]

lol

that whole video is nothing more than ,

 

" how my actions were wrong but not. "

it's just a fancy lawyer talk basically saying you do not have to be responsible for your law breaking actions,

and this video never states a witness went to jail, just for being a witness.

hilarious.

if you notice the key words on this video are, " clients " " confessions " " lies " jury found " guilty " ect.

" this is the way the human mind works " start at 18:00

 

nice attempt tho.

 

all in all, all this video basically says is, if your an idiot, then do not talk to police.

all you are doing is just saying do not talk to police,

and trying to find a justified reason for why an individuals action that was wrong is not wrong.

funny this has been stated for decades.

again, nothing new,

ever hear of a saying it's your own mouth that got you in trouble ?

 

clarity only comes to those who accept it.

[Iota]

This isn't about trying to avoid being held accountable for breaking the law, it's the preservation of basic human rights. The right to privacy, the right to be able to voice an opinion, the right to fair trial. These basic human rights are being walked all over, and it's worsening. I recognise the inevitable power balance between security and freedom, but it's not as simple as that. In a perfect world, secret intelligence invades freedoms to provide security, with only the protection of its country's people in mind. But in reality, government, secret services are fighting the public, ignoring the law, and generally covering their own ass at every cost. They're there for the peoples' interest, not their own. When they murder a citizen of their own country, unjustly, whom holds them accountable? In the power balance struggle between freedom and 'security', we need to push back, or else they'll happily take down all your freedoms overnight. And once the balance becomes strongly in favour of security over freedom, with no way to reverse the occurrence, it's probably time to click the reset button, and start again.

 

Unless, of course, you value living as a prisoner in your own state. I feel more and more like you should go live in North Korea, Krash.

[krash661]

 

clarity only comes to those who accept it.

 

if your mind set is in a

humanity as one,

and not individualized,

it would lead to and also help with clarity

 

and also, cherry picking scenarios or issues

does not help with clarity.

Edited July 17, 2013 by krash661

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

lol

yes i have broke the law, and received my punishment for it,

but the difference is,

i accepted it, not whined or complain how my actions were wrong but not.

lol at that witness gibberish.

simple.

 

clarity only comes to those who accept it.

If nobody could ever break the law, social change would never happen. Interracial relationships would never have happened, because they broke the law, and nobody would ever have thought to allow them, because nobody would ever try. Same-sex marriage would never have happened, since nobody would ever have tried a same-sex marriage to find out if it's worth it.

 

A bit of freedom is necessary for society to advance. We should all have something to hide.

 

Then, of course, there's the ability of the police to find a crime when you may not have done anything morally objectionable. Perhaps you've used an unlicensed rabbit in a magic act. Or the police can invent a crime -- after all, the surveillance programs are top secret, so you're not allowed to use them to defend yourself in court. You can be placed on a no-fly list for a made-up reason and you have essentially no recourse. You can be assassinated by a drone strike without the government being forced to present its evidence, if there is any.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

krash661,

 

You were warned once in this thread and numerous times in other threads to keep discussion polite. You seem to be utterly incapable of doing that or following any staff instruction, but it is nevertheless prudent to remind you that continuation of this behavior will lead to your account being suspended.

[Eddie @ 10kOxygen]

Sooner or later new international legislation should arrive in this aspect. To spy on private communications is enough for being imprisoned in a large number of locations and no government should be allowed to focus surveillance programs toward presumably innocent population. To say that the collected information is not used from a business viewpoint is easy, but who knows what's really happening out there. Meanwhile you can take actions to not being tracked.

Spying private communications is also a shame!

[imatfaal]

With respect - what exactly is international law in this case? Who will enforce, who will judge, how will offenders be punished. There is no real international law; of course there are voluntary pacts, there is the comity of nations, there is trade agreement, and there is victor's justice - but until someone has a big enough stick to enforce law on everybody else (and is that a logical paradox) there is no international law

[Eddie @ 10kOxygen]

Right now there are several international agreements and specific justice courts for nations and this makes a good example of how could be in the future. It's nice to see how the world is evolving in this aspect, far from ancient times without human rights or governments with constitutions.

 

In fact, we should not forget what democracy means because any society can elect and even create its own political parties. This scandal shouldn't be good for the current US government.

 

There are other methods to apply sanctions.

[overtone]

International law has had great influence and force, despite (or prehaps because of) an apparent lack of authoritative enforcement.

 

As with social custom, which governs most people's lives much more intrusively and continually than the letter of whatever governmental law they live under, it cannot be violated with impunity. For starters, by violating agreements one risks losing the benefits of being able to make agreements - human beings are farsighted enough, much of the time, to foresee the general consequences of that.

 

One famous example would be the international law of the sea. Another more specific would be the great variety of treaties nations have made between themselves, which one can examine both in general and in particular. The disarmament treaty between the United States and Canada currently governing the establishment of military power on the Great Lakes makes an interesting and long-standing example - both countries have incurred real expense and real risk in adhering to it, but it stands and we are much better off in consequence.

[imatfaal]

Right now there are several international agreements and specific justice courts for nations and this makes a good example of how could be in the future. It's nice to see how the world is evolving in this aspect, far from ancient times without human rights or governments with constitutions.

 

In fact, we should not forget what democracy means because any society can elect and even create its own political parties. This scandal shouldn't be good for the current US government.

 

There are other methods to apply sanctions.

The courts tend to be either voluntary or only imposed on the citizens of those states who cannot or will not prevent their citizens from appearing before them (Tonnes of US and UK soldiers before the ICC aren't there?). Other courts that deal with nations as defendants tend to be on a voluntary basis for the settlement of trade disputes - even that basis is very strict almost to the extent of complete compulsion such as the ECJ.

 

I agree that this scandal is terrible for the USA - and it puts to the sword many of the old notions of "government by the...."

 

Indeed there are other methods to apply sanctions - and outside the international regime these would be thought of as extra-legal / extra-judicial; and whilst society works on mores and taboos, on social norms and cultural respectability when these processes take on the guise, the effect, and the activity of the courts then they tend to be thought of as bullying, vigilantism, and mob-justice

 

 

International law has had great influence and force, despite (or prehaps because of) an apparent lack of authoritative enforcement.

 

As with social custom, which governs most people's lives much more intrusively and continually than the letter of whatever governmental law they live under, it cannot be violated with impunity. For starters, by violating agreements one risks losing the benefits of being able to make agreements - human beings are farsighted enough, much of the time, to foresee the general consequences of that.

 

One famous example would be the international law of the sea. Another more specific would be the great variety of treaties nations have made between themselves, which one can examine both in general and in particular. The disarmament treaty between the United States and Canada currently governing the establishment of military power on the Great Lakes makes an interesting and long-standing example - both countries have incurred real expense and real risk in adhering to it, but it stands and we are much better off in consequence.

 

It has great force when we want it to - but we ignore it if it is inconvenient; this is not the nature of a law. SCOTUS has said that much of the bush administrations actions to do with captured and kidnapped detainees was contrary to the Geneva Conventions.

 

International Law of the Sea - if you mean UNCLOS then you have chosen the worse sort of example - USA hasn't even ratified it though it drafted it. Wanted to codify what other nations should do, and will comply most of the time but still isn't willing to be bound - even in the loosest nature of this convention. Again all the examples you give do not have the nature of laws - they are customs and international norms.

 

Norms, customs, reliable held expections of a neighbours future behaviour etc. all these things are very important, they quite literally are the basis of society ; but they are not laws by most definitions. Laws are what enforce compliance when societal norms no longer seem to wield even the slightest power; no one kills in cold blood, no one would ever rape another, no one steals or destroys another's property just for the hell of it...

 

No country would deliberately risk the most important conventions protecting front line soldiers against mistreatment by the opposition merely to avoid having to treat a few thousand enemy soldiers correctly - but that is exactly what the USA (and UK) did in the last 13 years ... and so the most famous piece of "international law" was flouted with impunity by the two countries most involved in its drafting and implementation.

[overtone]

 

 

It has great force when we want it to - but we ignore it if it is inconvenient; this is not the nature of a law.

People routinely ignore - or more likely deflect - laws they find inconvenient. Everything from speed limits to construction permits and burning regulations are treated with "common sense" in daily life. Even more serious violations of law are so common as to be almost customary - date rape, toxic household waste disposal, impaired driving, etc, This does not invalidate the laws involved, or render them nullities.

 

 

 

... and so the most famous piece of "international law" was flouted with impunity by the two countries most involved in its drafting and implementation.

That is unlikely. There is little evidence of impunity here.

 

The consequences of what was by physical measure a comparatively minor violation of treaty (as you said, a few thousand people not even representing a country or treaty-bound organization) are still coming around, the chickens are still coming home, and the consequences of US foolishness there are still in the process of being recognized (and, by the perps, vigorously denied - because of their seriousness).

 

 

 

No country would deliberately risk the most important conventions protecting front line soldiers against mistreatment by the opposition merely to avoid having to treat a few thousand enemy soldiers correctly

Possibly no "country" would (pace 1935 Germany), but foolish and incompetent and venal and power-crazed fuckwits would. . As with providing firearms to one's psychiatrically disturbed teenage son, elections - giving the keys to the army to such people - have consequences.

 

 

 

Norms, customs, reliable held expections of a neighbours future behaviour etc. all these things are very important, they quite literally are the basis of society ; but they are not laws by most definitions

So we recognize what we are now calling "international law" as being the basis of an international "society", as having the role of custom? I would have given it somewhat less power than that, but OK.

 

That is progress, but the other aspect of law remains: its function in regulating the otherwise free reign of custom and social will. We have a law against theft not only to discourage theft, but also to discourage the formation of a mob and lynching of thieves. And here we find - the international law of the sea, or the US/Canadian disarmament treaties, again examples - international law functioning as real law, slowing and regulating and curbing the responses of nations to being victims of offense. Fishing rights violations used to lead to war, or at least small military battles.

[Tridimity]

An interesting TED talk related to the actions of the NSA, presented by Mikko Hypponen:

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/mikko_hypponen_how_the_nsa_betrayed_the_world_s_trust_time_to_act.html

[turionx2]

Big deal. If any of you had anything to hide, then you would be smart enough to store the valuable information on an encrypted key.

Edited November 10, 2013 by turionx2

[Moontanman]

Gee and here I was worried about the gov monitoring the web sites i visit... that must be one boring job...

[iNow]

Big deal. If any of you had anything to hide, then you would be smart enough to store the valuable information on an encrypted key.

 

Sort of like the Jews should have been smart enough not to be Jewish so as to avoid those perfectly legitimate actions of the Nazi's, right?

[turionx2]

Sort of like the Jews should have been smart enough not to be Jewish so as to avoid those perfectly legitimate actions of the Nazi's, right?

 

What does killing have to do with spying on worthless phone calls?

 

You should ask yourself what the jews did that made nazi germany hate their guts before writing another presumption.

[Tridimity]

Big deal. If any of you had anything to hide, then you would be smart enough to store the valuable information on an encrypted key.

 

 

It's a matter of privacy for the innocents. Do we really want the authorities to have unlimited access to our personal lives: what we had for lunch, who we fancy, what we are doing at the weekend, that embarrassing mistake we made recently, what we are planning to buy for our nephew for Christmas.

 

These details may seem trivial, and in a sense they are, but they are still private and - it seems to me - if we cannot live day-to-day safe in the knowledge that the capability for such mass surveillance is not likely to be exercised inappropriately, then that substantially impacts upon quality of life. If there is not one bit of your life that you can call your own, then what is the point in living?

Edited November 10, 2013 by Tridimity

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Big deal. If any of you had anything to hide, then you would be smart enough to store the valuable information on an encrypted key.

Nitpicking: the NSA has also intentionally weakened encryption software, so this is not always a good option.

 

More broadly: Privacy is not about having anything to hide. To quote myself:

 

Privacy's point is not to hide things. It's a protection against government power.

 

Giving the government the power to read your email, tap your phone, and record your porn usage isn't bad simply because it's embarrassing. After all, the data will likely only be seen by a computer. But it gives the government enormous power to make decisions about you -- decisions about whether you may take a commercial airline flight, get a security clearance, or even get a job -- without your knowledge or consent, and without you knowing how they make the decisions. If they reach the wrong conclusion or take data out of context, there is no recourse.

 

Pervasive surveillance also means that the little crimes we commit every day -- pirating a movie, forgetting to report something on our taxes, smoking marijuana (and posting about it on reddit) -- are revealed to the government. They won't bother prosecuting most of them, but they can always choose to prosecute, and if a government official decides to abuse their powers they have a ready-made list of trumped-up reasons to arrest or harass you.

 

In short, a lack of privacy gives the government the power to be even less transparent in its decision-making, and gives it yet more power over its citizens. It's not a question of discovering your fetishes or being embarrassed, and we shouldn't act as though only those with something to hide have reason to fear the government.

 

Read this: https://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/