With the news that the NSA is gathering data from Verizon...

[Rocker Ute]

Well said. Mr. Reynolds did a good job of summarizing my thoughts and feelings on it. What is sad to me is how apathetic many of the left are to the encroachments into personal liberties and government abuse when their guy is in power. If all the scandals outlined in the beginning were done under Bush they would be screaming...and the Republicans could then be just as apathetic. Time for people to wake up and realize what the common problem is with abuses under Bush (Warrantless wire tapping, Patriot Act, etc.) and abuses under Obama (NSA, IRS, Sebelius, DOJ, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, etc.): too much government.

I think the left's apathy was matched by the right's before when the right's guys were in power. In fact I have seen a near perfect correlation on this stuff and have been shocked by people who I was certain would be upset who are now making the same excuses the right made when the Patriot Act was first passed. "I have nothing to hide... it keeps us safe..."

I'm harping on this now like I did before because people are paying attention once again, but I need to shut up because my fanaticism about it is just becoming noise.

I think my first paranoia came in about 2002. I was working for an ad agency and we had bought a high end digital printing machine and it was having some color registration problems. We had the guy from the company come and repair and when it was recalibrated one of the graphic designers pulled out a loop to look at it and says, "Hey, I think it still has a problem, it is putting a yellow pattern over everything." Sure enough as we all looked through the loop there was a pattern you couldn't see with the naked eye, but was definitely there. He tinkered around for a while and couldn't get it to go away and finally called in for some help. He finally got someone who told him that the company would not comment on why there was a pattern being printed invisible to the eye.

Every other high end color digital printer (I haven't tried it on home versions of these) has done the same thing. We speculated it was so that the government could track for counterfeit money, but even when they got more sophisticated and wouldn't even let you scan money, the pattern remained.

Queue the dramatic music: Duhnn duhn duhnnnnnnnn.

But my point is this... whatever side of the aisle you favor, and even if you believe that these things are being used properly you should be concerned about the checks and balances managing these things. I personally don't believe they are adequate.

Framed another way, suppose you woke up one morning to find unmanned drones dotting the sky above you and the government said, "Don't worry, we are watching everybody equally with these, and if they see something suspicious then it gets put in front of a person who then will determine if it is a threat and then pursue warrants for more information.." Would you be alarmed or upset? Is what they are doing now really any different from that, and is our apathy because we can't see it?

[Ma'ake]

Washington Post did a survey on the NSA revelations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...287_story.html

Sure enough, political orientation had a lot to do with how strong the support of NSA activities, relative to who is in the Presidency.

I can relate to GOP citizen concerns, because I had the same distrust when Bush was president. (Actually, it was Cheney who concerned me more. I could definitely see him deciding to "suspend the Constitution to save the Constitution" and engaging in a cleansing campaign, not unlike what we've seen in Latin America in the past.)

Republicans simply don't trust Obama, and don't like him. The reverse is true for Democrats and any given Republican. If the roles were reversed and Romney was at the helm when Snowden decided to let everyone know what's up, Democrats would be going bananas right now.

The difference between Republicans & Democrats on these issues is Republicans are more likely to have guns and feel like they could/should engage in an overthrow of the government.

[LA Ute]

For those who (like me) still don't know what to make of all this, here's an interesting and informative article that pretty much tells us what we don't know yet.

5 Basic Unknowns about the NSA "Black Hole"


It's still unclear if the National Security Agency has been collecting all Americans' phone and other records, and for how long

[pangloss]

Framed another way, suppose you woke up one morning to find unmanned drones dotting the sky above you and the government said, "Don't worry, we are watching everybody equally with these, and if they see something suspicious then it gets put in front of a person who then will determine if it is a threat and then pursue warrants for more information.." Would you be alarmed or upset? Is what they are doing now really any different from that, and is our apathy because we can't see it?

How do you feel about surveillance cameras and speed cameras? Is it the surveillance in and of itself or the technology? As long as they don't put missiles or little bombs on the drones I'm not sure I care. Besides, they fly so high and are so quiet you can't see or hear the small ones, like this http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history...scaneagle.page What I don't know, hear or see can't hurt me, right?

[Dawminator]

How do you feel about surveillance cameras and speed cameras? Is it the surveillance in and of itself or the technology? As long as they don't put missiles or little bombs on the drones I'm not sure I care. Besides, they fly so high and are so quiet you can't see or hear the small ones, like this http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history...scaneagle.page What I don't know, hear or see can't hurt me, right?

False.

[Rocker Ute]

How do you feel about surveillance cameras and speed cameras? Is it the surveillance in and of itself or the technology? As long as they don't put missiles or little bombs on the drones I'm not sure I care. Besides, they fly so high and are so quiet you can't see or hear the small ones, like this http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history...scaneagle.page What I don't know can't hurt me, right?

For me it's the surveillance, and my point was because we don't see it, we don't care as much.

What if the little bombs they were carrying was info they could use to destroy your career?

What if they were used to track commie sympathizers? You get my drift.

[LA Ute]

For me it's the surveillance, and my point was because we don't see it, we don't care as much.

What if the little bombs they were carrying was info they could use to destroy your career?

What if they were used to track commie sympathizers? You get my drift.

1984-movie-bb2_a.jpg

[Dawminator]

For me it's the surveillance, and my point was because we don't see it, we don't care as much.

What if the little bombs they were carrying was info they could use to destroy your career?

What if they were used to track commie sympathizers? You get my drift.

+10

[LA Ute]

295515_558153144228375_819240494_n.jpg

[GarthUte]

For me it's the surveillance, and my point was because we don't see it, we don't care as much.

What if the little bombs they were carrying was info they could use to destroy your career?

What if they were used to track commie sympathizers? You get my drift.

[Jarid in Cedar]

295515_558153144228375_819240494_n.jpg

[LA Ute]

This is a pretty persuasive piece.

EDWARD SNOWDEN IS NO HERO

POSTED BY JEFFREY TOOBIN

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/...s-no-hero.html

You don't have to like what the NSA is doing to despise what Snowden did.

[GarthUte]

013.jpg

[GarthUte]

[pangloss]

Framed another way, suppose you woke up one morning to find unmanned drones dotting the sky above you and the government said, "Don't worry, we are watching everybody equally with these, and if they see something suspicious then it gets put in front of a person who then will determine if it is a threat and then pursue warrants for more information.." Would you be alarmed or upset? Is what they are doing now really any different from that, and is our apathy because we can't see it?

I don't accept the inevitability of a slippery slope that what has been disclosed about the NSA will lead to drones watching over us all or the government filtering data for anything suspicious. Collecting telephone meta-data and not analyzing it unless there is a specific warrant is not the same thing as you fear. Collecting, listening and analyzing communications outside the US is not the same thing as you fear. And neither of those violates the law.

This stuff needs oversight and periodic re-calibration. With accelerating technology the re-calibration ought to happen more often. But that's the way the system works. And my support of the NSA programs (as described so far) and condemnation of Snowden is not due to apathy.

[LA Ute]

I am leery of the NSA program but still trust our oversight processes. Snowden, IMO, has made himself an enemy of the United States and should be prosecuted and if convicted, imprisoned for a loooong time.

In short, I pretty much agree with Pangloss. Maybe it's because we both grew up during the Cold War.

[Scratch]

I am leery of the NSA program but still trust our oversight processes. Snowden, IMO, has made himself an enemy of the United States and should be prosecuted and if convicted, imprisoned for a loooong time.

In short, I pretty much agree with Pangloss. Maybe it's because we both grew up during the Cold War.

I'm with you guys. Can I be Italy in your little Axis alliance?

[LA Ute]

I'm with you guys. Can I be Italy in your little Axis alliance?

Yes. We may call you "grasshopper" from time to time, however.

[Rocker Ute]

I don't accept the inevitability of a slippery slope that what has been disclosed about the NSA will lead to drones watching over us all or the government filtering data for anything suspicious. Collecting telephone meta-data and not analyzing it unless there is a specific warrant is not the same thing as you fear. Collecting, listening and analyzing communications outside the US is not the same thing as you fear. And neither of those violates the law.

This stuff needs oversight and periodic re-calibration. With accelerating technology the re-calibration ought to happen more often. But that's the way the system works. And my support of the NSA programs (as described so far) and condemnation of Snowden is not due to apathy.

My drones example is obviously an absurd one and was never meant to be a 'slippery slope' inevitability. It was an analogy to help people visualize what is happening on the web. There is no physical drone sitting above your head, it is happening in cyberspace.

As far as the government filtering data for anything suspicious, isn't that what they are doing right now with these programs. Isn't the whole center in Bluffdale to process and filter intelligence. Isn't this what they refer to when they speak of noise and chatter leading to terrorist attacks?

And I am not saying this isn't necessary, and that no good comes from it. It does. I am just saying that I personally DON'T believe the checks and balances are in place to fully protect citizens, I guess I'm always suspicious of our government. That probably comes from years of seeing them fall short on promises.

Perhaps my perspective comes from the fact that I am on the private/commercial side of tracking and analyzing and know exactly what you can learn about a person from their device usage and web surfing habits, you don't need to know the deep specifics, you can figure that out from the pattern of behavior.

[USS Utah]

I think the left's apathy was matched by the right's before when the right's guys were in power. In fact I have seen a near perfect correlation on this stuff and have been shocked by people who I was certain would be upset who are now making the same excuses the right made when the Patriot Act was first passed. "I have nothing to hide... it keeps us safe..."

I actually found it to be completely predictable. There are exceptions, of course, but most people seem to fall into a pattern I've noticed since at least Clinton's impeachment.

Something else that is completely predictable, when there is a hint of scandal, is that the media will trot someone out to proclaim that "this is worse than Watergate" if a Republican is in the White House, or "This is nothing compared to Watergate" if the president is a Democrat.

[GarthUte]

I am leery of the NSA program but still trust our oversight processes. Snowden, IMO, has made himself an enemy of the United States and should be prosecuted and if convicted, imprisoned for a loooong time.

In short, I pretty much agree with Pangloss. Maybe it's because we both grew up during the Cold War.

I grew up during the Cold War too and I remember how Americans felt about the government of the Soviet Union protecting the citizens by spying on them, having access to their phone calls etc.

Why should anyone trust that the government won't abuse this?

[Dawminator]

I am not on the side of LA, Pangloss, and Scratch apparently. I actually applaud Snowden for bringing this to light. If I had any say I would pardon him immediately. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don't buy into most, if any, of the crap you can find. Human history teaches us, however, that governments are corrupt. I don't see any evidence that shows me ours is any less likely to abuse its power and overstep its bounds. If it hasn't already (and the IRS scandal is proof that it has), it will. Count on it. I think citizens should always show a healthy measure of distrust towards their governments as the ultimate check on its power. This little rule applies to Russia just as it does to the USA.

I think there are some who are more likely to trust the government when their man is in charge, but when that letter changes before the President's name the government just got a whole lot scarier. That is sad. The government has the potential to be scary all the time. This is only more true with the crazy technology we have available.

There is so much information out there on all of us via Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook alone. I have an Android phone, tablet, two Gmail based email accounts, and use Chrome as my default browser. I am pretty clean when it comes to how I use each of them, but all it would take is one "rogue" NSA agent (just like those "rogue" IRS agents...I am calling bull on that by the way) to filter for certain things. Or let's say I become very successful in the business world. I am very outspoken against certain types of government intrusion, but otherwise I am a tax paying and law abiding citizen. What if, due to my success and position I have a lot of influence and people listen to what I say (or because of the nature of my business I can help/hurt certain political agendas). Are you telling me it would be hard for the government to look at all of my Google information, try to find something that could harm my reputation, and either blackmail me or let it leak? And what if I prove that the government had done that to me and misused the information? If the damage is done there is not much else I can do, and the government may have accomplished what it wanted out of making me an example. Given what we know now, and what has happened in the recent history of our government I don't think this scenario is all that crazy.

I am sure there are some of you who think I am crazy for believing the safeguards we have in place could be violated, that our check and balances are paper thin, and that people in our government are capable of such sinister plotting, but I think you are more crazy if you don't.

End.

[Dawminator]

Snowden, IMO, has made himself an enemy of the United States GOVERNMENT and WILL be prosecuted and WHEN convicted, imprisoned for a loooong time.

Fixed it for you.

[concerned]

I'm with you guys. Can I be Italy in your little Axis alliance?

So, Mussolini--which of the other two is Hitler and which is Tojo?

BTW, this is why Snowden may not have committed treason:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...den-92687.html

[LA Ute]

I grew up during the Cold War too and I remember how Americans felt about the government of the Soviet Union protecting the citizens by spying on them, having access to their phone calls etc.

Why should anyone trust that the government won't abuse this?

I trust our security apparatus until it gives me a reason not to trust it. Example: I trust the police until an officer gives me a reason not to. (I still dislike getting traffic tickets.) In the NSA's case I am leery of how much data they have and what can be done with it. I think they need to be watched carefully and it looks like that's happening. If there are abuses those responsible need to be stomped on.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. I acknowledge that responsible, thoughtful and intelligent persons whom I like a lot may have differing opinions!

[Rocker Ute]

I am not on the side of LA, Pangloss, and Scratch apparently. I actually applaud Snowden for bringing this to light. If I had any say I would pardon him immediately. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don't buy into most, if any, of the crap you can find. Human history teaches us, however, that governments are corrupt. I don't see any evidence that shows me ours is any less likely to abuse its power and overstep its bounds. If it hasn't already (and the IRS scandal is proof that it has), it will. Count on it. I think citizens should always show a healthy measure of distrust towards their governments as the ultimate check on its power. This little rule applies to Russia just as it does to the USA.

I think there are some who are more likely to trust the government when their man is in charge, but when that letter changes before the President's name the government just got a whole lot scarier. That is sad. The government has the potential to be scary all the time. This is only more true with the crazy technology we have available.

There is so much information out there on all of us via Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook alone. I have an Android phone, tablet, two Gmail based email accounts, and use Chrome as my default browser. I am pretty clean when it comes to how I use each of them, but all it would take is one "rogue" NSA agent (just like those "rogue" IRS agents...I am calling bull on that by the way) to filter for certain things. Or let's say I become very successful in the business world. I am very outspoken against certain types of government intrusion, but otherwise I am a tax paying and law abiding citizen. What if, due to my success and position I have a lot of influence and people listen to what I say (or because of the nature of my business I can help/hurt certain political agendas). Are you telling me it would be hard for the government to look at all of my Google information, try to find something that could harm my reputation, and either blackmail me or let it leak? And what if I prove that the government had done that to me and misused the information? If the damage is done there is not much else I can do, and the government may have accomplished what it wanted out of making me an example. Given what we know now, and what has happened in the recent history of our government I don't think this scenario is all that crazy.

I am sure there are some of you who think I am crazy for believing the safeguards we have in place could be violated, that our check and balances are paper thin, and that people in our government are capable of such sinister plotting, but I think you are more crazy if you don't.

End.

Snowden is an enemy to our country and to you. He could have blown the whistle without attempting to compromise the security and safety, as well as undermine the good things that do come from this program, and yes there are many good things that likely come from all of this. Yet he sits in Hong Kong with reportedly a couple of laptops filled with classified info that he could hand over to enemies.

For others watching me debate this, please don't mistake things I've said in the past into thinking that I believe that these programs and what they are doing shouldn't be classified. There is good reason for this info to be classified, and good reasons for everyone to not know the extent and ability of what they are doing.

It is why I call for different/better oversight vs transparency.

To illustrate with an oversimplified example. On the web security certificates get issued to provide encryption, a standardized 'handshake' and also to say, "As a third party, we have vetted this site, and they are who they say they are." Part of the encryption is a public key and a private key. These asymmetrical keys ensure that things are basically on the up and up publicly and you are connecting to who you think you are, but also are what keep the conversation private.

It is much more complex than that, but the point is this, we can mimic that same security in real life. A third party to say, "yes, this is legit" while keeping things secret as they need to be.

It is possible to have the best of both worlds, and that is all I am calling for.

[GarthUte]

Snowden is an enemy to our country and to you. He could have blown the whistle without attempting to compromise the security and safety, as well as undermine the good things that do come from this program, and yes there are many good things that likely come from all of this. Yet he sits in Hong Kong with reportedly a couple of laptops filled with classified info that he could hand over to enemies.

For others watching me debate this, please don't mistake things I've said in the past into thinking that I believe that these programs and what they are doing shouldn't be classified. There is good reason for this info to be classified, and good reasons for everyone to not know the extent and ability of what they are doing.

It is why I call for different/better oversight vs transparency.

To illustrate with an oversimplified example. On the web security certificates get issued to provide encryption, a standardized 'handshake' and also to say, "As a third party, we have vetted this site, and they are who they say they are." Part of the encryption is a public key and a private key. These asymmetrical keys ensure that things are basically on the up and up publicly and you are connecting to who you think you are, but also are what keep the conversation private.

It is much more complex than that, but the point is this, we can mimic that same security in real life. A third party to say, "yes, this is legit" while keeping things secret as they need to be.

It is possible to have the best of both worlds, and that is all I am calling for.

Until he actually hands sensitive information to enemies, is he an enemy of the US? I've not heard of anything like this, unless letting the world know that the NSA is gathering info on everyone makes somebody an enemy. I don't think he's an enemy at all. He let us know about how much the government is digging into our lives and exposing this is a good thing.

I don't trust the government to not be abusive. I can't think of anything done in secret that was good for the country, particularly if it's been keeping track of all citizens in order to find those who really are enemies.

[Solon]

Until he actually hands sensitive information to enemies, is he an enemy of the US? I've not heard of anything like this, unless letting the world know that the NSA is gathering info on everyone makes somebody an enemy. I don't think he's an enemy at all. He let us know about how much the government is digging into our lives and exposing this is a good thing.

I don't trust the government to not be abusive. I can't think of anything done in secret that was good for the country, particularly if it's been keeping track of all citizens in order to find those who really are enemies.

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, NSA surveillance of international communications (telephone) has yielded information to block terrorism attempts. In addition, it's a machine/computer program reading your e-mail, not a person. This somehow makes it less invasive in my mind.

On the other hand, it's always dicey to spy on US citizens (this is essentially what's going on). I know that the internet age has spawned some new ethical concerns, since it's hard to show decisively that e-mail correspondence is truly international (and therefore free-game for NSA scrutiny). At the very least, I think there should be some additional transparency about how much information these private companies are harvesting.

Besides, any decent terrorist knows better than to send sensitive information via e-mail. They just share a single e-mail account and convey all of their communication via saved drafts (often in white font that won't show up on screen-shots). This way, nothing is ever "sent" and is less likely to be intercepted.

Duh.

[pangloss]

Until he actually hands sensitive information to enemies, is he an enemy of the US? I've not heard of anything like this, unless letting the world know that the NSA is gathering info on everyone makes somebody an enemy. I don't think he's an enemy at all. He let us know about how much the government is digging into our lives and exposing this is a good thing.

I don't trust the government to not be abusive. I can't think of anything done in secret that was good for the country, particularly if it's been keeping track of all citizens in order to find those who really are enemies.

After the abuses of the 50's, 60's and 70's, open ended trust would be silly. What I trust is the rule of law and the checks and balances built into the system -- plus the periodic review of laws like the Patriot Act.

You write "Until he actually hands sensitive information to enemies, is he an enemy of the US?" When he provided highly classified materials to people without a 'need to know' he met your criteria. It was not up to him to judge whether the materials were properly classified. If he believed laws were being violated he should have run it up the agency organization flag poles. Reporting the violation of law is whistle-blowing -- an honorable course of action. If he thought the rule of law process was inadequate to salve his conscience he should have quit, and if grave enough, gone to a US press outlet publicly, turned himself in to the FBI and accept the consequences. What he did was despicable.

[pangloss]

You write,

... I don't see any evidence that shows me ours is any less likely to abuse its power and overstep its bounds. If it hasn't already (and the IRS scandal is proof that it has), it will.

End.

I do not think the IRS scandal proves anything of the sort. This seems to be a fairly concise account of what happened http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...arted/2411515/

Assuming it is an accurate description (which needs to be investigated to confirm) it is an example of stupid actions and not nefarious, evil government run amok.

The NSA stuff is more difficult. Transparency in the spy business is self defeating. But to assume the government employees in the CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, ATF, NRO or the other three letter agencies are un-patriotic, evil and part of some vast conspiracy to surveil US citizens in violation of the law seems very far fetched to me. And I have heard nothing reported that is even vaguely similar to your scenario.

So yes, I believe in the rule of law the checks and balances in our system. It's the bedrock of the Constitution. I believe.