Skip to main content

View Diary: FISA Fight: Here We Go Again (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So what you're saying is (6+ / 0-)

    The only way to safeguard our liberties is to let the executive listen in to any communication at any time without any judicial oversight.

    Am I reading you right?

    •  Accept that not everyone is against wiretaps on (0+ / 0-)

      dKos.

      Have you forgotten about jesus? Don't you think it's time that you did?

      by uc booker on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 05:53:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not at all. Not in the least. (0+ / 0-)

      I'm saying that I don't think its unreasonable, due to the nature of the technology, that we make updates in what "liberties" means.

      For example, I know that when I use Gmail that Google is reading my email. In return for the free email service, I relinquish some of my privacy rights. This seems fair and I don't feel it to be needlessly intrusive. If I don't want them reading my email, I'll deliver my message in person. You didn't need such waivers in the age of snail mail, but you do now.

      Similarly, conversations over cell phones could be similarly waived.

      The nature of digital communication changes the game in terms of privacy and I think its high time we come to grips with it.

      If I see you on the subway, I can record you with my cellphone, broadcast you to the world...hell even set up a website and make million dollars. Just of you sleeping on the subway. No broadcast waivers or anything. Such is the nature of life when everyone has a camera.

      So, with respect to security, I think the NSA makes a very good case as to why it is impossible for it to distingish foriegn and domestic data packets. I can totally understand how inadvertently the word "al-anbar" being spoken by a marine in mosul could set off a red flag at the NSA's computers, even if he is just telling his wife "I'm in mosul baby." Because at the NSA, its "in" "baby" "mosul" "babe" all of wich may arrive at different intervals. And so, to see whats going on, they zero in on that data stream.

      BAM. right there. privacy violation. Could be a marine. Could be al qaeda. Dont know.

      Should they stop and go get a FISA warrant? Could happen 1000 times a day. Practical or no?

      Personally, I don't feel privacy any more. I know my name is on millions of databases, bouncing all around the world all the time.

      So, we need some sort of international digital rights convention or something to sort through these issues. All I'm saying is, i'm not going to have a knee-jerk the black helicopters are out to get me and ive been damaged by the fact that someone heard me having phone sex with my wife moment. I see where the NSA is coming from.

      Thats all. Maybe this is a software issue that could be solved with better algorithms. But if a computer is listening and not a person...are you still private?

      With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

      by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 06:16:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  your text contradicts your title /nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        brooklynbadboy, Guest from EU
      •  PGP encryption will protect your mail (0+ / 0-)

        from being read by google. I'm pretty sure, they aren't going to do the effort it costs them to break the encryption. I think the 64 bit version is illegal in the US, but who will sue you to use illegal encryption on mails, he is legally not allowed to read?

        •  128-bit is illegal but 64-bit is fine. (0+ / 0-)

          I don't worry about Google reading my email because I don't expect privacy for messages that may pass all around the world.

          Besides, the NSA computers unravel 64-bit with ease.

          With him from the beginning, with him until the end.

          by brooklynbadboy on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 06:49:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Seldom have heard such malarky spelled out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        so well.

        For example, I know that when I use Gmail that Google is reading my email. In return for the free email service, I relinquish some of my privacy rights. This seems fair and I don't feel it to be needlessly intrusive.

        Google doesn't have the power to destroy you, without recourse, like the government does. You can make such a bargain with Google; but no such bargain with the government is possible. The government WILL use that information against you, and you will find yourself imprisoned (or worse) without recourse.

        If I see you on the subway, I can record you with my cellphone, broadcast you to the world...hell even set up a website and make million dollars. Just of you sleeping on the subway. No broadcast waivers or anything. Such is the nature of life when everyone has a camera.

        Same thing; only the government can use that photo to incriminate you and imprison you without recourse. It matters not if a 12 year old snaps my picture. It matters a great deal if is an FBI agent on a fishing expedition because he has to fill an arrest quota.

        So, with respect to security, I think the NSA makes a very good case as to why it is impossible for it to distingish foriegn and domestic data packets. I can totally understand how inadvertently the word "al-anbar" being spoken by a marine in mosul could set off a red flag at the NSA's computers, even if he is just telling his wife "I'm in mosul baby." Because at the NSA, its "in" "baby" "mosul" "babe" all of wich may arrive at different intervals. And so, to see whats going on, they zero in on that data stream.

        IF it is intercepted because it is routed through a foreign country, once the source is identified as a citizen, the information should be destroyed. THAT is technologically possible.

        Personally, I don't feel privacy any more. I know my name is on millions of databases, bouncing all around the world all the time.

        It's not privacy per se' that is at issue here; it is privacy FROM THE GOVERNMENT. The constitution doesn't pretend to provide privacy from private parties, but most assuredly makes it a point to provide privacy from the government.

        Again, the government has unique powers for the destruction of individuals and society. That is why the government must be restrained.

      •  You're quite the idealist, (0+ / 0-)

        happily living in a fantasy world, where government overreach and casual abuse of surveillance power is a rare outlier, never likely to affect anyone. I guess you've never read up on J. Edgar Hoover or the early FBI. Anything that makes the next J. Edgar Hoover's job easier should give any student of effective and humane government a nice, long pause.

        - A fried California Roll sounds stupidly good. I mean, it's fried. It's automatically good. - aclockworkprple

        by James Kresnik on Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 02:58:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site