Go Back   Fighting Illini Forums > General > Track 5 Chat

NSA spying on ....everyone

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 1, 2012, 06:00 PM   #1
illini80
Location: Forgottonia
Posts: 2,946
I didn't really want to start a new thread, but didn't see that this fit anywhere else.

The NSA (National Security Agency) is building a huge spy center in Utah. This is not really new since it has been under construction for a while now, but the scope of what they plan is beyond anything I could have imagined.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...tacenter/all/1

It's a long article, but things like this certainly get your attention.

Quote:
In secret listening rooms nationwide, NSA software examines every email, phone call, and tweet as they zip by.
Quote:
Once the communications are intercepted and stored, the data-mining begins. “You can watch everybody all the time with data- mining,” Binney says. Everything a person does becomes charted on a graph, “financial transactions or travel or anything,” he says.
Quote:
The former NSA official held his thumb and forefinger close together: “We are that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.”
illini80 is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 07:19 PM   #2
IlliniKat91
IlliniKat91's Avatar
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by illini80 View Post
I didn't really want to start a new thread, but didn't see that this fit anywhere else.

The NSA (National Security Agency) is building a huge spy center in Utah. This is not really new since it has been under construction for a while now, but the scope of what they plan is beyond anything I could have imagined.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...tacenter/all/1

It's a long article, but things like this certainly get your attention.
Creepy as sh!t. Makes me want to go totally off grid.
IlliniKat91 is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 08:57 AM   #3
visithwy61
Posts: 25
I am not completely surprised, and this is certainly creepy. It sometimes seems 1984 isn't too far away. I am surprised at the legality of this idea. I hope there is an uproar, but there doesn't seem to be.

Whoops; probably shouldn't have responded to this.
visithwy61 is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 08:59 AM   #4
Holdemall
Posts: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by IlliniKat91 View Post
Creepy as sh!t. Makes me want to go totally off grid.
I think the interest level in my communications would be minimal.
Holdemall is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 09:17 AM   #5
visithwy61
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdemall View Post
I think the interest level in my communications would be minimal.
I hear that argument all the time, and it always seems to miss the point. To me, the great thing is that it mostly seems to come from republicans. You know, those that espouse limited government, "freedom", etc. Don't know your political leanings, and I am not trying to put anything on you. Just making a general point.
visithwy61 is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 09:27 AM   #6
IntenselyOrange
Banned
Posts: 6,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by visithwy61 View Post
I hear that argument all the time, and it always seems to miss the point. To me, the great thing is that it mostly seems to come from republicans. You know, those that espouse limited government, "freedom", etc. Don't know your political leanings, and I am not trying to put anything on you. Just making a general point.
I'm not a traditional conservative. I hate the intrusion on my personal liberties, and wish nonsense like this would stop.

That being said, you are missing the real double standard. The Dems destroyed the previous administration repeatedly for messes like the Patriot Act, yet say nothing today. I think most conservatives don't dislike these measures because in their mind it falls under the umbrella of national security - one of the true roles of government. I don't see it that way, but it's not exactly the hypocrisy that it is in your mind.
IntenselyOrange is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 09:31 AM   #7
Holdemall
Posts: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by visithwy61 View Post
I hear that argument all the time, and it always seems to miss the point. To me, the great thing is that it mostly seems to come from republicans. You know, those that espouse limited government, "freedom", etc. Don't know your political leanings, and I am not trying to put anything on you. Just making a general point.
I'm actually somewhat to the left, but I am willing to make tradeoffs to diminish the likelihood of a major terrorist attack. Don't really feel like the folks who operate our government have nefarious motives in this instance. I don't talk about bombs or overthrowing the government, so the data-mining would presumably gloss over my boring life.
Holdemall is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 09:34 AM   #8
visithwy61
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange View Post
I'm not a traditional conservative. I hate the intrusion on my personal liberties, and wish nonsense like this would stop.

That being said, you are missing the real double standard. The Dems destroyed the previous administration repeatedly for messes like the Patriot Act, yet say nothing today. I think most conservatives don't dislike these measures because in their mind it falls under the umbrella of national security - one of the true roles of government. I don't see it that way, but it's not exactly the hypocrisy that it is in your mind.

I understand your point. I don't consider myself a Democrat. Liberal in most ways for sure, but I think the Democratic Party has it's issues. I'll vote for Obama this election given the alternatives, but I do have issues with the man and the party (Those not being the typical republican talking points). I agree that the Democrats have suddenly become quiet in this regard and in other instances as well. It is a shame. The two parties are too close for comfort.
visithwy61 is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 09:39 AM   #9
Holdemall
Posts: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by visithwy61 View Post
I agree that the Democrats have suddenly become quiet in this regard and in other instances as well. It is a shame. The two parties are too close for comfort.
I agree, but that's the nature of the way our politics are structured. Rather have a more parlimentary system than the first past the post system our politics are predicated on. Rewarding the guy who's able to appeal to slightly more people leads to minimal differences in policy.
Holdemall is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 09:44 AM   #10
visithwy61
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdemall View Post
I'm actually somewhat to the left, but I am willing to make tradeoffs to diminish the likelihood of a major terrorist attack. Don't really feel like the folks who operate our government have nefarious motives in this instance. I don't talk about bombs or overthrowing the government, so the data-mining would presumably gloss over my boring life.

I am not necessarily worried about my personal communications, but I don't think it will always be used to such ends as terrorism. There has been a been a history of monitoring people for thoughts, and this seems like an evolution of that. If not obvious, I am not referring to thoughts of the terrorism variety. Laws change, and people in power like their power. I'm also not a trusting person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdemall View Post
I agree, but that's the nature of the way our politics are structured. Rather have a more parlimentary system than the first past the post system our politics are predicated on. Rewarding the guy who's able to appeal to slightly more people leads to minimal differences in policy.
That I agree with. I would also hope for more parties, but that's a whole other conversation.
visithwy61 is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 04:31 PM   #11
IlliniKat91
IlliniKat91's Avatar
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdemall View Post
I think the interest level in my communications would be minimal.
You'd be surprised. My grandfather, after WWII, was black listed for fleeing Tito. Because the US had worked with Tito in the early 1940s, my mother was followed and had her apartment randomly tossed by by the FBI while she was studying in Europe in the 1970s. My grandfather was never an activist; he ran for his life. My mother has never been an activist and her most interesting communications were probably with the guys she was dating. Her stuff still got tossed around and searched.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdemall View Post
I'm actually somewhat to the left, but I am willing to make tradeoffs to diminish the likelihood of a major terrorist attack. Don't really feel like the folks who operate our government have nefarious motives in this instance. I don't talk about bombs or overthrowing the government, so the data-mining would presumably gloss over my boring life.
Because no conversation about this is complete without the following quote:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I'm okay with the security checks and baggage screenings at airports and I'm good with building up our military. But stay out of my private stuff. (And no, I do not consider Twitter or even Facebook private, but my texts to friends and family are totally off limits.)
IlliniKat91 is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 06:59 PM   #12
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 18,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdemall View Post
I think the interest level in my communications would be minimal.

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 07:03 PM   #13
uiba99
Tiny Illini
uiba99's Avatar
Location: The basement of the Alamo
Posts: 1,715
The federal government has a tremendous amount of power. Many people in positions of trust are there because (hopefully) they CAN be trusted and have been thoroughly vetted and put through a rigorous background check....but our elected officials in particular are not held to those high standards. (I've often joked that if members of Congress had to undergo an SF-86 background check their ranks would probably decrease by about 75%. It's quite intensive.)

They're the ones I worry about. Because they're the ones who gave us the USA PATRIOT Act, one of my least favorite pieces of legislation. Too bad they don't think before they act.

__________________
"The danger is all around us now. Hatred is rising, yet all sides feel more virtuous. We’re asleep to the threat. We can have the most sophisticated Constitution, a brilliant system of checks and balances and a Bill of Rights to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority — yet none of it can stand against the power of hatred."
Fr. John I. Jenkins, President, University of Notre Dame
uiba99 is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 07:14 PM   #14
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 18,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by IlliniKat91 View Post
Because no conversation about this is complete without the following quote:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I'm okay with the security checks and baggage screenings at airports and I'm good with building up our military. But stay out of my private stuff. (And no, I do not consider Twitter or even Facebook private, but my texts to friends and family are totally off limits.)
Great quote. I'd suggest that security checks make us far less safe and are unable to stop even the most imbecilic of terrorists. They are simply a job program for Democrats and a boondoggle for Republican businessmen selling scanners.

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 07:22 PM   #15
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 18,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiba99 View Post
The federal government has a tremendous amount of power. Many people in positions of trust are there because (hopefully) they CAN be trusted and have been thoroughly vetted and put through a rigorous background check....but our elected officials in particular are not held to those high standards. (I've often joked that if members of Congress had to undergo an SF-86 background check their ranks would probably decrease by about 75%. It's quite intensive.)

They're the ones I worry about. Because they're the ones who gave us the USA PATRIOT Act, one of my least favorite pieces of legislation. Too bad they don't think before they act.
Repeated for truth.

I trust what they are doing with surveillance TODAY. It's TOMORROW's jackwad that gets elected that I don't trust.

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 07:38 PM   #16
illini80
Location: Forgottonia
Posts: 2,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaytonIllini View Post
Repeated for truth.

I trust what they are doing with surveillance TODAY. It's TOMORROW's jackwad that gets elected that I don't trust.
Thought I commented about that very thing earlier today, but something must have happened.

The problem is exactly what you stated. Who has access to the information and at what price will they violate that trust? It will happen someday to someone. The only question is whether it will be for national security, political payback, or maybe an insider trading / blackmail scheme.

There is no reason for the government to have this much information on the average persons life. None. And it is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue as suggested above.
illini80 is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 09:20 PM   #17
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 18,252
Quote:
(Reuters) - The U.S. Congress should pass a law to give investigators freer access to certain cellphone records, an Obama administration official said on Thursday, in remarks that raised concern among advocates of civil liberties and privacy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84215620120503

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2012, 09:42 PM   #18
OlivetNaz
OlivetNaz's Avatar
Location: East Central IL
Posts: 4,114
The feds need to back off in a major way. I don't mind the intrusive baggage checks and security checks at the airport, and I can even live with a strong military and a government with a complex that somehow requires them to be the world's police force. I don't even mind them monitoring IP hits to certain sites that are hostile to the United States.

However, they have no reason to be listening in to my phone conversations (though an automated scanner designed to listen for certain keywords and only record conversations that trigger some mathematically derived value based on those keywords I could live with).

They also have no business shoving their greedy noses up my butt trying to sniff out my banking records, e-mails, and text messages. What's next - they going to send an agent to follow me around at home and to work and listen to all my conversations and take notes, while I "pretend" they aren't there?

The feds take my money for Social Security (or some other similar plan), won't even give me some of that to invest and save for myself, and in about 20 years are going to give me a giant middle finger when the public pension systems and social security go belly-up. They take MORE of my money for taxes, and NOW they want to catalogue every single detail about my life. NO THANKS.

If this is the position of the Obama administration, then there is ZERO chance of my voting for him in November (he was already pretty close to zero, anyway).

__________________

"If life were logical, men would ride side-saddle."
OlivetNaz is offline Reply With Quote
Reply


« Previous Thread | General Chat | Next Thread »
Thread Tools

Forum Jump