Skip to main content

View Diary: Meta Data Mining Explained (19 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The "could" doesn't mean they ARE (5+ / 0-)

    without a FISA warrant...

    •  They don't need a warrant to create a profile on (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DRo, alice kleeman, happymisanthropy

      every American using the meta data they've been collecting.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 04:57:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  they don't...if they do it illegally...but if we (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GDbot, blueyedace2, gerrilea

        are to consider all illegal possibilities...they could hack my iPhone...find my exact location and kill me with a drone.

        don't get me wrong...I am and always have been concerned about the government over stepping their authority...infringing upon my privacy...the most troubling thing about this whole situation should be the 'privatizing' of our intelligence work...smells like fascism to me.

        I trust my government more than I trust corporations.


        We are not broke, we are being robbed.

        by Glen The Plumber on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:27:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is no need to do anything "illegal", they've (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, GDbot

          granted themselves the authority to shred the constitution as they see fit and claim it's "legal".

          Why do you bring up "being killed with a drone"?  Are you that far into CT that you can't understand the difference here?

          Compiling our Meta Data and creating profiles on every American without probable cause is the issue.  It's not all innocent, loving and protective, it's unconstitutional and criminal.

          It's Hoover on steroids.  

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 07:37:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and any of this is new..??..the Patriot Act was (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GDbot, gerrilea

            passed when..??..the government has always had profiles on citizens of interest...some times rightfully...some times not.

            we are on the same side...except the difference this time is...it is private contractors sniffing thru our stuff (see above link)...I've yet to see any evidence of the government using this info without a warrant.

            Compiling our Meta Data and creating profiles on every American without probable cause is the issue.
            exactly...f**k google...and facebook, twitter, my bank, phone co., etc...heck they even make me store some of it on my own computer...take your cookies and stick them. ;7)

            it is nice that some in congress are asking to reconsider the Patriot Act...unlike Mr. Greenwald...I've always been against it.

            really...I'm still waiting for more info before I dig in into a position.


            We are not broke, we are being robbed.

            by Glen The Plumber on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 08:12:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This isn't about the Patriot Act, it's been going (0+ / 0-)

              on far longer. since 1994 (and even before) and what is called CALEA.

              EFF has an article on it.

              Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1994 to make it easier for law enforcement to wiretap digital telephone networks. CALEA forced telephone companies to redesign their network architectures to make wiretapping easier. It expressly did not regulate data traveling over the Internet.

              But now federal law enforcement agencies want to change that.

              -cut-

              Broadband providers would be required to rebuild their networks to make it easier for law enforcement to tap Internet "phone calls" that use VOIP applications such as Vonage as well as online "conversations" using various kinds of instant messaging (IM) programs like AOL Instant Messenger (AIM).

              Please understand these private contractors are being told to do it by our government.  The ACLU reported on this back in 2004.

              Here's the link for the PDF Report

              The Surveillance-Industrial Complex:How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society

              It's a 47 page expose of the dirty little games our government plays to avoid the 4th Amendment, such as this on page 8:

              The Western Goals Foundation. In Los Angeles, thousands of files on activists of all kinds were ordered destroyed in the wake of the revelations of domestic spying in the 1970s. But in 1983 these raw intelligence files were discovered hidden away in the garage of an LAPD detective, who had been sharing them with the Western Goals Foundation, a Cold War anti-communist group that used the files to build private dossiers on progressive political activists around the nation.
              We have entered into a Total Information Awareness Society that threatens everything we hold dear as Americans.

              It's about time people are finally understanding the extent and scope of these things.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 02:06:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, it does mean they are (3+ / 0-)

      because they can.

      Have they said that they are not, yet?

      Obama simply justified the program, he did not deny that large databases were being created on the activities of al Americans, in America.

      If they are not doing this ... If they are simply targeting terrorism suspects, then how hard is it to be clear about that, and allow some oversight?

      They can start with de-classifying the interpretation of the law that supposedly makes all this legal.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:21:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site