| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
From Ramirez:
#1
#2The phone call tracking and message monitoring systems that are currently in use by the United States intelligence agencies have capabilities far beyond what the public wants to know. In the year or two after the 9-11 attacks I assisted in the installation and testing of some of those systems as a telecommunications company employee.
One key thing that I will share is that phone companies are no longer notified when surveillance is under way thus making all legal requests for phone company records merely a government smoke screen. That is why I never discuss any crucial or critical information over the phone or online even though I have nothing to hide from the government.
Also this is the full extent of what I am willing to discuss, and I will not be more specific on details.
As for the root concern of privacy invasion of the public my question to the public is "What level of privacy do you really think you had prior to 9-11?".
#3Otto, I'm curious what your point is. Do you think the NSA is only pretending to spy on Al Qaeda?
#4My point is that pointing to Al Qaeda's crimes does not excuse the Bush administration's crimes.
I think the NSA is spying on a lot more than Al Qaeda.
#5Otto,
I have a few questions.
Do you consider a computer driven monitoring system looking for suspicious information patterns to be spying?
Do you limit the term "spying" to the human element of direct surveillance?
Do both areas represent spying to you?
My final two part question for consideration is this:
What value do you place on the way of life that we enjoy here in the United States? What are you willing to sacrifice to ensure our way of life?
That includes the facts that we are free to move within our national and state borders without traffic blockades searching for suicide bombers. We do not face the complete militarization of our society that so many others have endured. No Christian here faces the mandated death penalty of Sharia law, and our children are free to travel without imminent danger to and from school.
We have no stories of terrorists taking hostages and barricading themselves inside a mosque/church here on our soil. We have not endured a bus bombing designed to maime and kill migrant Jewish and Christian workers.
Sincerely I repeat my questions "What value do you place on our way of life in the United States?" and "What are you willing to sacrifice to ensure our way of life?".
These questions are stated by a true Independent voter that voted for Bill Clinton in his first term, voted against Bill Clinton's second term, changed registered parties because Al Gore IS a walking woody among many other reasons, and then voted for G W Bush for both terms.
#6[Comment deleted, since David's is so much better. -- Vik]
#7I would consider both of those examples to constitute spying. But I'm not really interested in arguing semantics. Note that Vik brought the word "spying" into the conversation, and I used it in response to his question.
The way of life that we enjoy in the U.S. includes our civil liberties. Or at least it did until recently. It is precisely because I value our way of life that I oppose the Bush administration's tactics.
#8Privacy? What privacy?
Citizens lose their privacy when they are issued a social security number; and that started with FDR.
Why shouldn't the government have the same advantage as all the other hackers, miners, spammers, and telemarketers that existed before September 11th and continue to thrive? There should be a level playing field and the government is just catching up.
At least these government 'intrusions' might actually be for the greater good.
Those of you who were upset that our intelligence might have been faulty concerning WMD in Iraq or 9-11 are the same ones who are balking at the government wire-tapping citizens; you can't have it both ways!
This self-righteous indignation at the prospect of governmental agencies 'spying' is ridiculous.
We're in the information age, deal with it!
#9That's perfectly fine Otto. I wasn't trying to argue semantics with you and was only looking for a clearer definition of your point of view.
Any of the above stances are valid within a reasonable arguement as long as we aren't donning a tin foil hat to keep those pesky mind control waves at bay.
Now that we all know that the concerns are based on the reality of todays world situation we can discuss them.
Our civil liberties are still today being actively guarded by the process of democracy within the boundaries of our constitution and legislation. This administration will be treated accordingly for its actions. Whether those, as yet undefined, actions were legally justifiable or not is still being determined.
Personally I have comfort in seeing the process working as it was designed through "checks and balance" so it is of little concern to me if a few questionable wiretaps may have been placed.
I'm certain that one part of what concerns you in finger pointing is a little surveillance unit known as "DCS1000" or previously "Carnivore" http://news.com.com/2100-1023-272941.html that was initially created in 1996 and commissioned during the Clinton era.
This is a tool that has not been abused in my personal opinion due to the persistence of cyber crimes that are committed globally. That is without any consideration of terrorists or even pediphile stalkers. For me it is a non-issue and an expected part of a naturally evolving defense system.
Additionally, since you do not have a telecommunications background, here is some history about the phone surveillance mandates created in 1994 (Clinton adminstration) regarding the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2002/06/18/wiretap/print.html
Are we supposed to be suddenly caught off guard by this response of false shock and outrage by the entire party of Democrats about something endorsed well over a decade ago? I think not. This is only a political distraction to the real work of national security.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011201-attack04.htm
What I really find ironic is that some of these same concerns are what drove me away from the Clinton White House, and made me absolutely refuse to support Gore.
In retrospect I now view these systems as having not been implemented quickly enough.
#10Why shouldn’t the government have the same advantage as all the other hackers, miners, spammers, and telemarketers that existed before September 11th and continue to thrive? There should be a level playing field and the government is just catching up.
Interesting, You think that telemarketers are tapping phone calls? Actually, you seem to be implying they're doing something more extreme, since "the government is just catching up" to them. Tell me more.
Those of you who were upset that our intelligence might have been faulty concerning WMD in Iraq or 9-11 are the same ones who are balking at the government wire-tapping citizens; you can’t have it both ways!
Frankly, I'm not sure how wire-tapping American citizens is supposed to produce better intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. In light of the fact that the wire-tapping began long before the invasion of Iraq, you are making a truly bizarre argument.
This self-righteous indignation at the prospect of governmental agencies ‘spying’ is ridiculous.
To be perfectly clear, I do not object in principle to government agencies spying. I object to government agencies spying without court orders or in violation of the law. The Bush administration's constantly changing stories on the subject are not encouraging.
I'm disappointed that nobody wants to defend the Ramirez cartoon.
#11I'm a bit cynical.
No matter how many firewalls I install, there is always a way to infiltrate my system. While there is uncertainty that my phone is accessed by any of those I had already mentioned, I don't think it is an impossiblilty; it's just a matter of time.
Don't be naive, there is no longer anything that is really secure.
Because of our checks and balance system, we have not hitherto had the same intelligence gathering capabilities as other nations. The telephone seems to be one of the most secure modes for conversation and conveyance of information; criminals and terrorists know that. While I am distressed that we have to resort to this, the benefits to the safety and general welfare might well justify the tapping and monitoring.
Benjamin Franklin once said that if we give up essential liberty for temporary safety, we deserve neither liberty nor safety. Fine words and noble sentiment which we have tried to follow; but he could not have envisioned the how the world is now connected, the current velocity of communication, and the insidiousness/treacherousness of our nation's enemies.
Clandestine spying and intelligence gathering has always been implemented by our nation, and all nations, throughout history. The citizenry of the United States have been protected by such activity from attack by both domestic and foreign enemies. When it fails, we become vulnerable.
Unfortunately, nothing seems to be secret anymore! If there is something to be profited by leaking information, then it will be exploited to the detriment of our national security. And that would include judges and some members of the government.
The current administration is vigilant and doesn't discount how dangerous the current world situation is. I believe they are earnestly trying to get a handle on US citizens whose loyalties are not with this nation.
And I thank God for that.
#12Because of our checks and balance system, we have not hitherto had the same intelligence gathering capabilities as other nations.
Which other nations do you have in mind?
Benjamin Franklin once said that if we give up essential liberty for temporary safety, we deserve neither liberty nor safety. Fine words and noble sentiment which we have tried to follow; but he could not have envisioned the how the world is now connected, the current velocity of communication, and the insidiousness/treacherousness of our nation’s enemies.
Wow. Quoting Benjamin Franklin for the sake of dismissing him as old hat? I didn't expect that even from a Bush apologist. As far as I'm concerned Franklin's words ring as true as ever.
The current administration is vigilant and doesn’t discount how dangerous the current world situation is. I believe they are earnestly trying to get a handle on US citizens whose loyalties are not with this nation. And I thank God for that.
Would you be equally willing to grant the same powers to the Hillary Clinton administration? And would you be equally willing to accept their definition of "US citizens whose loyalties are not with this nation"?
#13What Hillary Clinton administration?
#14I think you understand the question.
#15One of the points A.M. is making is that Liberals criticize the administration for not having enough intelligence on WMD's or in advance of 911 - yet then criticize the administration for doing what needs to be done to gather such info and prevent terrorist attacks. The NSA's efforts are necessary to gather such info.
#16The NSA’s efforts are necessary to gather such info.
Stating that does not make it so.
And as I wrote earlier: "Frankly, I’m not sure how wire-tapping American citizens is supposed to produce better intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. In light of the fact that the wire-tapping began long before the invasion of Iraq, you are making a truly bizarre argument."
#17Stating that does not make it so.
You already agreed that you "do not object in principle to government agencies spying." It appears that you already agree with me that the government spying is necessary.
Frankly, I’m not sure how wire-tapping American citizens is supposed to produce better intelligence on WMDs in Iraq.
I referenced future terrorist attacks, such as 911. Your quote is not responsive to my post.
You say you "do not object in principle to government agencies spying," but you appear to object to everything our government is doing to prevent terrorist attacks. By obstructing efforts to prevent another 911, you are behaving in a way that makes things easier for the terrorists.
#18Again, I object to government agencies spying without court orders or in violation of the law.
You are making assertions without any evidence to back them up. The NSA's efforts are not "necessary" simply because you say they are. Criticizing their programs does not "make things easier for the terrorists" simply because you say so.
#19Try responding to what I really said:
You appear to object to everything our government is doing to prevent terrorist attacks. By obstructing efforts to prevent another 911, you are behaving in a way that makes things easier for the terrorists.
#20I did respond to what you said. The NSA’s efforts are not “necessary” simply because you say they are. Criticizing their programs does not “make things easier for the terrorists” simply because you say so.
What else is there to respond to? You are simply making unsupportable assertions.
#21Do you support anything our government is doing to prevent future terrorist attacks?
#22Sure. I support surveillance of suspected terrorists in accordance with the law and with court oversight.
#23Sure. I support surveillance of suspected terrorists in accordance with the law and with court oversight.
According to you, that's something our government is not doing.
I asked you if you support anything our government is doing.
#24No, that is not according to me.
The government is involved in some surveillance which is in accordance with the law and with court oversight. The government is also involved in some surveillance which is not in accordance with the law and lacks court oversight.
I would appreciate it if you could stick to the facts and stop accusing me of saying things I never said.
#25Guys I'm glad that I missed out on the two-step this evening.
As a side observation here I believe that the irritant to this subject is the criminalization of ALL activities undertaken by the Bush administration based on an assumed guilt.
Simply because one does not support a stance of "assumed guilt" it does not make them a "Bush appologist", but the assertion of "assumed guilt" likely makes Otto and others a Bush persecutionist.
With those positions in conflict I doubt that any party here will change their point of view and as indicated it will only create a downward spiral in the debate.
As stated before our "checks and balances" are working correctly and the actions taken will either be justified or reprimanded accordingly. That is the one thing that I believe that we can all agree on.
I have one last thought on this. Why are so many people acting like this practice of surveillance and phone call logging just began? I would guess that all phone call records have been handed over to the NSA since the early 1980's when the majority of our phone systems began to be digitized.
FYI- In one more blink of an eye 100% of our nations phone network will at some point of connection be converted into Internet traffic prior to the completion of every call. If you doubt that just check you Wal-mart electronics shelves now already selling SIP phones that can literally allow you to place a call from any wireless network hot spot. That process is almost complete and some companies have already introduced television programming on demand through the same network.
How much privacy do you foresee in your future?
#26Otto, what else about what our government is doing to prevent another 911, do you support?
#27Off the top of my head: expansion of the Federal Air Marshal Service, heightened security at airports, and offering rewards for the arrest of the 22 most wanted terrorists.
I can't say I'm motivated to attempt a comprehensive list in light of the one-sided nature of this conversation. Do you have anything to offer besides baseless assertions and distortions of what I've said?
#28...expansion of the Federal Air Marshal Service, heightened security at airports, and offering rewards for the arrest of the 22 most wanted terrorists.
Is that really all you're willing to do to protect our way of life in this country against terrorists who want to kill us? This is astonishing. Surely there must be more than that.
#29This is the last time that I will ask that you stop distorting what I said.
You asked specifically that I limit my answer to what the government is currently doing, not what I'm willing to do. And as you are well aware I was merely giving a few examples off the top of my head.
In light of your constant distortions and obvious disinterest in an honest exchange of ideas, I will not be posting further until I get an answer to my question about James Byrd.
And yes, I realize that that driving me away is precisely what you want. Fair enough, it's your website. But what's the point of having a comments section when you don't want to hear a dissenting point of view?
#30Ah, the old hurling insults tactic, used by Liberals everywhere to avoid debate.
I am very happy to rephrase the question as you have indicated:
Of the things our government is currently doing, is that really all you support, to protect our way of life in this country against terrorists who want to kill us? This is astonishing. Surely there must be more than that.
If you don't want to answer the question, that suggests, that you may not have a good answer.
This appears to be evidence that what I speculated may be correct:
By obstructing efforts to prevent another 911, you are behaving in a way that makes things easier for the terrorists.
I'm giving you every chance to show that you support many things that our government is doing to prevent another 911, and so far you have consistently refused to do so.
#31Otto,
you have assumed that the terrorists will, yet again, use aircraft for their next attack; far from it.
I am more concerned about dirty bombs, chemical warfare tactics, suicide bombers, and sabotage of our public transportation system.
You have assumed that by capturing the 22 top terrorists, everything will stop; far from it.
Local cells of Islamists are cropping up wherever there is a radical Imam. Many of them are bona fide US citizens whether by birth or by naturalization. The cell in Buffalo is a prime example. And there are problems in Brooklyn and in many parts of New Jersey. Money will not sway Muslims to inform on these Islamists as fear and ideology is the guiding principal.
These people are unlike many of our judges and government officials who are leaking information to the media (for a variety of reasons) which makes any lawful intelligence gathering ineffective.
We need to find out what is going on in this community (and I would also venture to say in some other communities i.e. Survivalists and Neo-Nazi's) in order to protect our citizens.
If we don't, then you can take your complaint to your local Imam and see what Sharia law says.
A.M.
#32This appears to be evidence that what I speculated may be correct:
By obstructing efforts to prevent another 911, you are behaving in a way that makes things easier for the terrorists.
Yep.
I'm not playing this game anymore.
My hunch is that even with this debate over, I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to acknowledge that James Byrd was the victim of racism.
#33Otto,
Your comment concerning James Byrd is not only outrageous, tasteless, and unworthy of this discussion, but it is grossly inaccurate.
It is simply a provocative red herring because you seem to be unable to discuss this on a civilized plane.
If you truly cared how that unfortunate human being was tortured and murdered, you would not be so cavalier with him.
The FBI and other agencies are also monitoring domestic hate groups - two of which I mentioned in my last response to you. The Timothy McVeighs of this country are also a great threat to our society.
Please refer back to the cartoon you so graciously included in your last reply - it actually illustrates the folly of your argument.
#34A.M.: The James Byrd comment is a reference to this thread. Vik has thus far refused to answer my straightforward question about James Byrd’s tragic death on the dubious grounds that he was already debating me elsewhere.
Do you think he will keep his word and answer the question now that this debate is over?
#35Otto,
I can only answer for myself; but that remark in this particular thread offended me.
If you have a debate on one thread, please do not bring it over into another - it becomes convoluted and confusing.
#36Do you think he will keep his word and answer the question now that this debate is over?
The debate isn't over; in comment #29 you stated that you were refusing to participate further in it, unless I complied with a demand you were making.
You have refused consistently to answer the question I have been asking. In comment #5 you were asked a question: "What are you willing to sacrifice to ensure our way of life?" You never answered. I've repeatedly asked you to respond to a similar question, as recently as #30, in which I asked, "Of the things our government is currently doing, is that really all you support, to protect our way of life in this country against terrorists who want to kill us? This is astonishing. Surely there must be more than that."
You have consistently refused to answer. Instead you have issued insults and stated flatly that you refuse to debate further. All of this suggests that you have no good answer.
Be advised that it is the stated policy of this forum that comments which are trolls may be deleted. Any further insults you issue in this thread, or in the other thread you have referenced, will be deleted.
#37The debate is over. I forfeited. You are the winner by default. Congratulations.
I eagerly await your answer to the James Byrd question.
#38Very good.
Yup.