Majority of Americans Say NSA Phone Tracking Is OK To Fight Terrorism 584
An anonymous reader writes "While the tech media has gone wild the past few days with the reports of the NSA tracking Verizon cell usage and creating the PRISM system to peer into our online lives, a new study by Pew Research suggests that most U.S. citizens think it's okay. 62 percent of Americans say losing some personal privacy is acceptable as long as its used to fight terrorism, and 56 percent are okay with the NSA tracking phone calls. Online tracking is fair less popular however, with only 45 percent approving of the practice. The data also shows that the youth are far more opposed to curtailing privacy to fight terror, which could mean trouble for politicians planning to continue these programs in the coming years."
Bull Shit! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the poll results, but only for one reason. Because the responses were framed in the context of "to fight terrorism." Most mindless sheep would say that it is ok to sacrifice anything, to prevent terrorism.
That's not the problem. The problem is what the government can/will do with the information when the political climate is favorable to the party in charge. Say for example, pull every phone call and e-mail from a political opponent to conduct opposition research. Or find out who has a gun in their house, and enact nationwide confiscation. Or scan their e-mails for keywords to indicate someone's political beliefs, and investigating or auditing those people because they disagree with the political party in charge.
That is the danger. Not terrorism from outside, from terrorism conducted by our own government.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
"I have nothing to hide" needs to die. And goverment actions are exactly the reason:
Did judes have anything to hide from goverment before Nazis came to power?
Nope. Yet they suffered greatly because of goverment knowledge of their ethnicity.
Was being communist or friend of one crime in US before red scare?
Nope. But then red scare came and whowledge of who is fiend with who destroyed careers and lives.
Was Alan Turing doing anything wrong?
Nope. But he was still brutalized and died as a result after nature of his sexuality was revealed.
Was ownership of land of factories crime?
Nope. But then commies came to power on many countries and people were shited to prisons, prison colonies or executed outright.
In history, many people thought that their religion, political orientiation, sexual orientation, friendships and relationships, ownerships or opinions. ... that none of it would ever be issue because they are not doing anything wrong or illegal or even mean.
And they were wrong. And died because of it.
Laws change. Society changes. Rules change. People in power change. Things can be taken out of context, or put into another.
You might be completelly fine one day, and monster another.
And if list of "monsters" can be gotten as easily as simple database querry, it is best not to be part of it. And to not have any such database.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Was Alan Turing doing anything wrong? Nope.
Actually legally he was doing something wrong. By the standards of the day, I suspect most people would have considered his sexual activies/sexuality morally unacceptable as well. The rest of your examples have a "before" to compare them to, but that one doesn't quite fit.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
He was doing something illegal, which isn't the same thing as wrong. No amount of moral relativism will ever convince me that the actions of 2 consenting adults is "wrong" in an ethical sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Congratulations on missing the point of both the OP's post and mine.
Alan Turing is the odd one out because what he was doing was illegal at the time. The others weren't "illegal" (for the admittedly broad definition of word that the OP was using to demonstrate his point) until society - and subsequently the law - changed around them, and suddenly they had everything to fear, when previously they didn't.
And that's the OP's point. Right now it's not illegal to watch wrestling, but what if one day wrestlin
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Funny)
Hope you don't 'look' gay...
I look fabulous, thank you very much.
Re: (Score:3)
Hope you don't 'look' gay...
That would be a compliment by today's standards.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
People are slow to learn from History, a government spying on its people if allowed will be abused, governments will use patriotism against you and even get your children to spy for them as was done by Germany during WWII. Researching and storing information on people is dangerous too as Germany used their own and captured census data in invaded countries with IBM Hollerith machines to sort the Jews from the general population, round them up and send them to the death camps. These are far from the only examples.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Why do you think they called it the "Patriot Act" and congress voted for it unread? Almost unaminously at that.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Interesting)
-- If you track the phone calls of the CEO of BigOlCorp and he is talking to the CEO of NewButGrowingInc a lot then purchasing NewButGrowing stock will probably be a good deal when the buyout happens.
-- If you are, say, Walmart and you don't want to be unionized. Just have the NSA tell you which employees are calling the AFL/CIO and quietly let them go.
-- If rival companies were working to get a contract that was at bid, knowing who called whom and when would give a competitive advantage.
-- Hate gays. You could out every phone number that called a gay chat line.
-- Hate porn. You could publish a list of porn watchers. (OK that would be everybody but...)
Everyone who says that if you have done nothing illegal have nothing to fear has not thought the issue through. And as has been said here before we ALL have something to hide.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the poll results, but only for one reason. Because the responses were framed in the context of "to fight terrorism."
I suspect you're right. Poll results are notoriously sensitive to exactly how the questions are phrased. The other problem is that those polled might not understand the entire scope of the program, or have considered how it can be misused and how little protection against misuse there might be (or might not be - that's the charming thing about a secret court). Nevertheless I find the overall results very depressing. IIRC there have been polls from time to time asking people if they believed in the principle
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:4, Informative)
Poll results are notoriously sensitive to exactly how the questions are phrased. The other problem is that those polled might not understand the entire scope of the program, or have considered how it can be misused and how little protection against misuse there might be (or might not be - that's the charming thing about a secret court)
I wonder if the polls would have the same result if they were asked if their information were used in a presidential campaign?
“Earlier this year, in an interview with TV One, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) praised President Barack Obama for putting together a campaign database that "will have information about everything on every individual."
“And that database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it’s never been done before,” Waters told “Washington Watch” host Roland, referring to Obama’s “Organizing for America,” which was changed from a campaign organization to a 501(c)(4) called Organizing for Action. ...
Martin asked if Waters if she was referring to “Organizing for America.”
“That’s right, that’s right,” Waters said. “And that database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it’s never been done before.”
Waters said the database would also serve future Democratic candidates seeking the presidency.
“He’s been very smart,” Waters said of Obama. “I mean it’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/waters-obama-campaign-database-has-information-about-everything-every-individual [cnsnews.com]
Remember, winning means everything. It's not about getting more voters. It's about getting more of YOUR voters to vote (or at least make it appear that way). The first step in getting your own voters out is to know who they are, where they live, what they are doing, etc. The other half of this is what is going to happen to use who do not vote for the (D) candidate?
Re: (Score:3)
However, it would be too radical (not to mention ironic) to disqualify sections of the electorate on the basis of stupidity or lack of values.
No Joke! I would love to see voters required to pass a basic test before being allowed to vote. And I mean something very basic like "Name one right protected by the Bill of Rights", or "True or False, The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed""
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe the poll results, but only for one reason. Because the responses were framed in the context of "to fight terrorism."
I suspect you're right. Poll results are notoriously sensitive to exactly how the questions are phrased. The other problem is that those polled might not understand the entire scope of the program, or have considered how it can be misused and how little protection against misuse there might be (or might not be - that's the charming thing about a secret court). Nevertheless I find the overall results very depressing. IIRC there have been polls from time to time asking people if they believed in the principles of the Bill of Rights (but phrased in such a way that it wasn't obvious they were talking about the Bill of Rights). Unfortunately what many (including me) consider the most important part of American law didn't fare well. Thank goodness the 1st Congress was filled with radicals.
Make no mistake, this poll was engineered to show the end result. The goal of this is to make people who feel disgusted with PRISM to question why they feel disgusted. If no one else does, perhaps they should just let go and consent.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
"I believe the poll results"
Well I don't. The kleptocracy that can invade everyone's privacy at will can easily sway statistics as well.
Eisenhower's nightmare has come true. The monster that was created against the foes of both World Wars has turned against the society that created it. It's become the reason for its own existence.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
The monster that was created against the foes of both World Wars has turned against the society that created it. It's become the reason for its own existence.
As Orwell put it, "The object of power is power."
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
That isn't even the immediate problem. Those are simply potential problems that will occur when the system is inevitably misused.
The immediate and very real problem is the Steve Jackson Games problem. Since they are using the overly broad data that they collect to look for connections that may or may not exist, everyone is in danger of being violated in the name of fighting terrorism just because someone they have had contact with has had contact with someone that is on a list.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since they are using the overly broad data that they collect to look for connections that may or may not exist, everyone is in danger of being violated in the name of fighting terrorism just because someone they have had contact with has had contact with someone that is on a list.
"And that's a small price to pay, as long as it it's them, not me. And it'll never be me. I'm a good American."
It's never "me" until suddenly it is.
The sad lesson of the past: the sad lessons of the past apply to everyone, but no one will believe it applies to them until reality proves it to them. People (rightly) complain about American exceptionalism, but exceptionalism applies to individuals and small self-identifying groups (e.g., "right-thinking patriots") as well.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Politician A: We need to fix the budget. We are spending a ridiculous amount of money on national defense, way too much for how much we're raising in tax revenue...
Politician B: OMG DID YOU HEAR THAT?!?! He wants to RAISE TAXES and CUT THE MILITARY! At a time when terrorists are threatening your children!!!
Politician A should win, but politician B will. That's already going on on a massive scale, while the possibility you present doesn't seem to be happening as much right now. And our grandchildren will be paying it off.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Informative)
The question in the story asks, "Are you willing to give up some personal privacy," and that question is too broad. I am willing to give up some personal privacy if it saves lives, for example, I am more than happy to tell you the color of my carpet is red and my walls are white, and my carpet is blue. I am annoyed, but willing to have my bags searched at airports if it helps. So saying 'some privacy'.......well that doesn't tell you anything about the NSA listening to phone calls.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
. I do have a problem with the government publishing how many firearms I have in my house because that puts me and my neighbors at risk of home burglary or getting into the situation where I need to defend myself with said firearms.
Sorry to derail the thread a bit, but this is truly delusional.
Why is it only the people WITH firearms are up in arms that "criminals might know that you have guns"?
The people without firearms are the ones who are relatively defenseless if they get robbed. But they aren't complaining. They aren't worried about it. Why aren't they worried?
But you, the one with a bunch of guns, is worried? Why are you worried? You have a house full of guns, and presumably know how to use them. Why exactly would you be at increased risk of burglary? Particularly relative to those who don't have firearms?
Why would criminals target you if they knew you had guns? Because they want to dramatically increase their odds of getting shot? Because they crave the adrenalin rush of a shootout?
Or is it because they want your guns? Why wouldn't they just rob softer targets and use the cash to buy guns? They could buy them legally, or even black market... its not like the black market for guns is primarily supplied by robbing random firearms from gun owners one or two at a time. You do know all this right?
So what exactly is your fear predicated on here?
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect it is. But, that's why we have a Constitution which (ostensibly) grants only limited powers to government, and guarantees rights - to avoid a tyranny of the majority. Being a democracy however, politicians are inclined to ignore the Constitution in favor of votes from the majority, as the case at hand demonstrates.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm wondering if the poll would have had different results if the questions were framed more like is it acceptable to ignore constitutionally protected privacy rights like being secure in your person, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures as long as its used to fight terrorism.
Like you said, losing some personal privacy means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Narrowing it down a bit might display a more accurate sentiment of what is acceptable.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
-- philosopher George Carlin
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:4, Interesting)
When they want mean they say mean. This was a big surprise to me because in grade school it was the opposite.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:4, Funny)
When it comes to groups with normal "bell curve" distribution, there isn't much difference between average and median. Also - given how stupid the median person is, I don't think George expected them to know what median means. Take you, for example :)
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think George expected them to know what median means. Take you, for example :)
But I clearly do know what median means. My stupidity lies elsewhere.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Interesting)
Carlin was right: intelligence is a left-bounded Gaussian distribution (there is a hard minimum, but no hard maximum). The mean of such a distribution is always higher than the median, so more than half of the population will have below average intelligence.
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things: First, George Carlin was not a philosopher, but rather a profane leftist comedian,
Have you ever actually listened to George Carlin? He was a philsopher. Not many qualifications are actually required to be one, and he was one. He was also a comedian, and a profane one at that (imagine that, a popular comedian who uses profanity, unheard of). Describing his as leftist is ridiculous pigeonholing, however
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
According to that PewResearch article [people-press.org], 56% are in favor ofr un-Constitutional, unwarranted and illegal spying, and 41% against*.
That initially sounds pretty damning, but in triuth it is a pretty slim majority, considering how these polls are typically rigged. [youtube.com] It's a useful number that politicians can point to, but I'd wager that it doesn't accurately reflect what most people feel about the situation. Those polls have leading questions that almost force you to agree with whatever the pollsters (or their employers) are supporting, and leave no room for dissenting opinions (for example, sure somebody might support telephone monitoring if it were used to stop a terrorist attack, but do the pollsters ask if the querents mind if that information is used for /anything else/?)
If there were a single-question poll made of the US public ("Are you in favor of the US government monitoring every communication you and every other American makes?") I think the results would be quite different.
* presumably the remaining 3% want monitoring for some, miniature American flags for others [imdb.com]).
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:4, Interesting)
Or in three words:
Kevin. Bacon. Game.
We can tie you to a terrorist in just 7 links. Good enough for a nice stern interrogation?
Re:Bull Shit! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If that survey had been phrased a bit more honestly, we should expect a totally different statistic.
I doubt it.
Remember.
If you can save just one childs life then chipping away at the second amendment is fine.
3000 dead made the Patriot Act loved.
For another 150 dead I bet we can get the fourth amendment completely removed.
For another 500 I am thinking they can make a case to the American People that the first amendment is "A Tool of the Terrorist and Pedo."
Americans used to be strong and independent people they wanted freedom and were willing "To pay the iron price" for it.
Today freedoms are good but the illusion of safety trumps it every time.
Did anyone need reminding? (Score:5, Insightful)
That the majority of the public are short term thinking morons?
It doesn't matter whether or not all that has been claimed of PRISM is true, they are happy to give up privacy and freedoms if it "helps fight terrorism"
Re:Did anyone need reminding? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Did anyone need reminding? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Did anyone need reminding? (Score:4, Insightful)
50% of the country is happy to give up privacy and freedom if it hurts the other party. That the 50% who were against it when Bush was doing it are suddenly for it now, and the 50% that were all for it when Bush was doing it but are suddenly against it now just shows how nearsighted the whole lot are.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think they "thinking" at all, just morons and sheep...
I'm surprised that the younger generation is so against it, given the lax attitude schools have in teaching rational thought and logic and instead focusing on "zero tolerance", and mindless memorization...
Maybe there is some hope for the future after all...
Re:Did anyone need reminding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did anyone need reminding? (Score:4, Interesting)
The German government has stated that collecting connection information beyond 1 week is unreasonable and unjustified to fight crime and terrorism. If you have reasonable suspicion, convince a judge and get a warrant, then you can wiretap as you wish, and you have the recent history. If not, don't store the data.
The German government has a guideline for all IT projects promoting the principle of collecting the least data ("Datensparsamkeit" ~= "data frugality").
Data tends to be illegally used for other things then intended. And it is not effective. It costs the government and companies real money. And it costs people their privacy without seeing something in return besides promises.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Did anyone need reminding? (Score:5, Insightful)
And we're not going to find out, because the program is classified. It could be wildly successful and thwarting a dozen bomb plots a day. It could be a total failure, resulting in dozens of arrests of innocent people a day.
The thing that baffles me is not that people are willing to give up freedom if it "helps fight terrorism," it's that they believe what the government does in the name of fighting terrorism is working, when they don't believe anything else the federal government does is working.
I wonder how different the poll results would have been if Snowden had released the documents six months after the Boston bombing instead of six weeks after.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was talking to my co-workers yesterday about the ben franklin quote (they had never heard of it; but they were not from here, they were from india and china and other asian countries). I was the only one at our table who knew of the franklin quote (trading liberty for security, etc).
they were ALL FOR the spying if it 'saved any lives'.
I could not convince them that this is not what america was all about.
thing is: in the bay area, at least, native born US citizens are the minority now! those who KNOW wha
Re:Did anyone need reminding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did anyone need reminding? (Score:5, Insightful)
1960
Government Agent 1, "Let's get everyone to wear a radio transceiver so that we can track their every move."
Government Agent 2, "That will never work. People would never agree to such a thing"
2010 Customer, "Can I get my second iPhone please?"
Re:Did anyone need reminding? (Score:5, Insightful)
your quote reminded me of this quote:
two wolves are up on a hill, looking down at the bunch of sheep. one says to the other, lets run down there and get us a sheep! the other says, no lets WALK down there and have them all.
for some reason, it seemed appropos.
Re:Did anyone need reminding? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you basing your statement on what the people around you were saying at the time or some actual study?
I'm not sure how many people "accepted" the TSA and Patriot Act. If by "accepted" you mean, "didn't riot in the streets and attack law enforcement" then you're right, but if you mean, "thought it was just fine", then I'm not so sure. I remember most everyone I knew at the time was pretty clear on the "Patriot Act" being a bullshit power grab and gift to the private industry contractors who were to implement it.
There are wealthy suburbs in many parts of the US where the major industry fueling these extravagant lifestyles is Intelligence/Homeland Security. It's a bigger cesspool of graft and corruption than defense contractors. In fact, a lot of the big defense outfits have gone into cyber-spying because that's where the big money is, and you don't even need to really build anything.
Those of you who run IT departments know what I'm talking about. There are certain words you can use to get the CFO to cut loose with money. Imagine how much easier it would be if you could accompany your funding requests with a fat check in an envelope as a "contribution", or host an expensive "retreat" for the bean-counters in some luxurious place. And, if it was all somebody else's money. It would make those budget requests a lot easier, no?
That's what the Security/Industrial Complex multi-nationals have going on. And they can do it over and over in every country on Earth.
The sampling is robust. (Score:5, Insightful)
1004 people gives an error in determining the percentage response for the larger pool of "everyone in the USA" of 3.2%. Therefore a gap of more than 9.6% is statistically significant and reliable to indicate that there IS a gap and the majority accept tracking.
You would need to show that the sampling was biased toward those liable to accept or the wording was partisan and leading if you wish to call this study bullshit.
Re:The sampling is robust. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are other factors in determining the "robustness" of a poll besides how the questions are worded and how many people were surveyed. For example, what people were surveyed, and what population they represent. Pew surveys homes (not individuals) with landline phones (which younger people don't bother with) that are listed in the phone book. That is not even a representative sampling of households, nevertheless of individuals.
Re:The sampling is robust. (Score:4, Informative)
The sampling is only valid for the question posed. If you change the question, you can also change the results. Sometimes even changing the order of the question can ALSO change the results.
To imply that only potential problem with this study is sample bias, you would be wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Did anyone need reminding? (Score:5, Interesting)
Incorrect, sir. Those who are "fine with it" are called the Baby Boomers. The Worst Generation. The Bootlicker Generation. They who looted the empire, shipped the jobs overseas, voted themselevs every entitlement and paid for none of it. They who will take everything but responsibility.
Clinton, who can't define "is."
Bush, whose idea of sacrifice during a war of choice is "go shopping."
Obama and McCain, who "welcome a debate" about which rights we'd like to trade away.
They who will label a young man of conscience who has traded his life, his fortune and his sacred honor in the name of liberty for his countrymen a "traitor."
They who will enslave their children and their grandchildren to their debts to make sure the Social Security checks keep coming. They who will enslave their children and their grandchildren to their corporations to keep their stock values high.
They who stood athwart history and yelled "meh." They will always go along to get along.
The creed of the Boomer:
"First we came for my parents, and I did not speak up because I'm sure those World War II vets will love the nursing home.
Then we came for my children, and I did not speak up because of course they'll need two jobs to pay for my entitlements.
Then we came for my grandchildren, because I need a barista."
Majority don't understand the extent & issues (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of Americans (1) don't understand the extent of the surveillance, and (2) don't understand why privacy is so important.
I totally believe this poll.
This article says that 70% of Americans don't know what the constitution is: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368482/How-ignorant-Americans-An-alarming-number-U-S-citizens-dont-know-basic-facts-country.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Majority don't understand the extent & issu (Score:5, Insightful)
The article that you link to in the Daily Mail panders to a peculiar kind of 'stupid american' stereotype that we Brits cling to when we want to feel better about the end of empire and the decline of our military and industrial might. You could replace the questions with ones of similar obscurity from British history and get a similar set of responses from a random selection of British folk. Try going out onto any street in the UK and asking the yokels about the 1689 Bill of Rights. Or get them to point to the location of the Battle of Trafalgar / Waterloo / Balaclava on a map.
The average guy on the street is just as ignorant everywhere in the world.
Re:Majority don't understand the extent & issu (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A population is easy to control if you keep them poor and ignorant. Mix in some government controlled media to tell the plebes what to think and how to vote and now you have full control without anyone really knowing or caring. The dissidents can be silenced and shunned by the majority as the nationalistic ideals emerge that true patriotism is doing what uncle sam tells you to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people are weak and prefer not to think... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people are weak and prefer not to think about "bad things", and prefer security with freedom, they would not know what to do with it if they would have some...
This said it would be interesting to ask the same questions in the following way:
Assuming that of the two leading parties the one you like least has the majority in senat and house of representative, and presidential powers.
Would you agree to warrent-less investigations of phones calls, emails, instant messages, social network posting, microblogging posting, private forum messages in order to fight terrorism is:
- a good thing
- necessary
- undecided
- useless
- bad for the society
- where is my second amendment demonstrator !
'Leading' questions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Opinion poll can be easily be 'lead' into a specific conclusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
It's all about the questions... (Score:3)
You can strongly influence the result of questionnaire by using leading questions.
For example:
o Do you believe it's OK for the government to track and monitor private citizens email and phone calls so they can fight terrorism?
vs.
o Do you believe it's OK for the government to track and monitor private citizens email and phone calls?
The general population has been more or less brainwashed to give up their rights as soon as the phrase "fight terrorism" or "war on terror" is used.
The majority of Americans (Score:3, Interesting)
Know nothing of history.
I was shocked... (Score:4, Insightful)
... the first time someone commented re: PRISM and other NSA directives, along the lines of, "Whatever, as long as it prevents another 9/11!" Now that it's been a few more days, I'm starting to break the habit of facepalming. We as a nation are affirming our commitment to the implementation of a police state, in the name of preventing something that was already about as statistically impossible as getting hit by lightning while claiming your Powerball jackpot.
Inasmuch as this is the will of the majority and of the representatives in our Republic, you can bet I'll be claiming my winnings from within the safe confines of an OSHA-approved rubber suit.
Give up freedom to fight terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fer christ sake, more people die from nose hair complications than terrorism, what have we come to?
The War on Nose Hair (Score:4, Funny)
A majority want to blame someone else (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people fear things that are very unlikely to happen:
-Death from terrorism
-Death from oppressive government
We rant and shout with each other over which one is the bigger threat.
Meanwhile, most of us die from lack of proper personal health (diet, exercise, etc) or automobile wrecks, all of which are 100% within our ability to control.
Hi cousins! British 'subject' here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just calling to see how that new-fangled "liberty" thing is working out for you?
Oh, you don't give a shit anymore?
I call BS (Score:4, Insightful)
The government has been running a full-court press on the media and everyone else to get them to shut up and get in line. Yesterday there was a poll saying the exact opposite, like 59% saying the opposite across the partisan divide, and now magically it's the other way. I've been monitoring the blogs Left & Right and even Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are tamping down since calling it a "coup d'etat" last week.
The government is scared at how nonpartisan the outrage has been. The Whitehouse and Congress are complicit in this all-out assault on the Constitution and the American Republic. They know that if they can cow the American people into swallowing this that they will then have carte blanche. But whether the people do swallow this or not, things go rapidly downhill from here.
And note, which party is in office is totally irrelevant here. The Republicans and Democrats have both been in on it.
I hug my family very close these days, because it's about to get very ugly and we all could lose everything.
Re: (Score:3)
When Glenn Beck, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Arianna Huffington, Al Gore and Van Jones [washingtonpost.com] all agree on something, you can definitely say that the issue is non-partisan and actually transcends politics. That should tell the American people all they need to know.
land of the free, my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
It's official then, it's not the land of the free anymore. Because if you don't want your freedom, you don't deserve it.
Oppressed people at least know that things should be different. They might lack the resources or resolve to fight the system right here and now, but they know things aren't right and just might stand up any moment.
The US, on the other hand - and to be honest, lots of the west - has become the worst kind of oppressive system, worse than 1984. The kind where the oppressed believe the lies they are told. Russians knew that Prawda wasn't telling them the truth. Way too many americans believe Fox does.
Congratulations! (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DID THIS SPYING PREVENT BOSTON? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, did it?
If you'll recall, several much lower-tech warning signs were already there, even without having to snoop personally into the lives of everyone on the planet.
And they dropped the ball anyway.
Re:DID THIS SPYING PREVENT BOSTON? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, did it?
You have no idea what it has or has not prevented, which is the fact of the matter. For all you know the government thwarted several more 9/11s
Except I know it was really my anti-terror rock that stopped them.
Re: (Score:3)
We can be fairly confident it hasn't. The public relations victory that would be achieved if something like that had been prevented would all but assure reelection for the sitting president at the time. Hell, if no one would leak, there would be lots of incentive to manufacture a prevented attack. We're creating the conditions with secret courts and swaths of classified information that we have little way to verify what we're told. Bigger picture, it's becoming increasingly prudent not to trust the governme
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no, if they did...they would brag about it. And nearly everything they thwarted, they also fanned the flames of and provided the means.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Protect the minority from the majority (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they don't keep porn on their phones (Score:3)
U.S. of A = United Stasi of America (Score:4, Insightful)
For the younger people: Stasi (Staatssicherheit) archived "information" on *everybody* in former DDR.
1 on 50 in former DDR was linked to Stasi as one of 90000 employees or 200000 informants.
Poll taker (Score:4, Insightful)
Another question that should have been asked (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Another question that should have been asked (Score:5, Insightful)
And followed by "Are you aware that the Russians called both the FBI and CIA to inform them the Boston terrorist was a threat. And both times regardless of the Russians concern, the U.S. agencies failed to conduct a thorough investigation.
Here is my proof, why Americans should basically burn PRISM to the ground.
***
FBI/CIA informed of a signficant potential threat. But apparently cannot be bothered to track or monitor threat. But want threat as an excuse to monitor EVERYONE in the U.S.
Worded all wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm reading these questions and they are completely misleading:
"Should the government be able to monitor emails if it prevents future terrorist attacks?"
How much more misleading could it get? At the very least it should read:
"Should the government be able to read YOUR emails in an attempt to find terrorist activity?"
or better yet:
"Would you give up your constitutional rights and the rights of your children and grandchildren to change your chances of dieing in terrorist attack from 1 in 20 million to 1 in 20.1 million?"
It's all in how you ask the question (Score:3)
These people are just not thinking through the issue. If you asked the question, "Should the president be given the power to track all of the phone calls of his political rivals?" you would get a different response from these people. Yet, that is precisely the power that the president wields now that this program is in place.
I'm Agreeing With Bill O'Reilly (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought I'd never type the above words, but on this morning's Today Show, Bill O'Reilly was on and talking about Snowden and the NSA spying. He said that if Snowden is right and the NSA is spying on everyone then Snowden is a hero and the NSA is wrong. If Snowden is lying, then, then what he did was very wrong. O'Reilly went on to say that it is not acceptable to spy on everyone just to catch a few terrorists (if this is even effective... there's no transparency at all so we don't know) and there should be measures in place to ensure that they only collect data on people they need to spy on (e.g. suspects).
Do you see what you've done, Obama and NSA? You've got me agreeing with Bill O'Reilly! Surely, this is one of the signs of the apocalypse!
(In all seriousness, I'm sure O'Reilly supported programs like this under Bush and is only opposed to them now because Obama's doing it. I'm also sure that, had I listened to the interview a bit more I'd have disagreed with him on something - or he toned down his rhetoric for the Today Show audience. Still agreeing with him for as long as I did was scary.)
Time to call it (Score:3)
There's no America left to defend.
How would say the rest of the world? (Score:3)
Americans seem to be unaware of History (Score:4, Insightful)
This type of snooping is only practiced in states like the 3rd Reich, the DDR and Northern Korea. US Americans seems to be unaware what extreme risks come with it.
Also, this does not help against terrorism at all. No, not one bit.
Re: (Score:3)
Risks? But it's for our own good!. They said so.
Seriously, Do Something (Score:4, Informative)
ACLU Petition to Stop Massive Government Spying Program [aclu.org]
Please sign that petition. Or Write your Representative [house.gov] or Write your Senators [myrepresentatives.com]. They are easy enough to find [usa.gov]. Seriously. If you aren't telling the people that represent you how wrong, awful, and downright unacceptable the NSA actions are they have no reason to stick their neck out to change it.
Nobody is asking you to fight a war, like previous generations of Americans have. Just sign a petition. Write a letter. It is that easy to improve this country. Whether you think that is true or not, remember that an outcry from a small group of people have altered politics before and it can happen again. The only thing preventing this country from getting better is silence.
Doublethink (Score:4, Insightful)
"We must sacrifice our freedoms, in order to secure our freedoms."
Maybe they should first define... (Score:3)
Maybe they should first define terrorism before polling people about tracking phone use to prevent it. Terrorism used to be things like blowing up subways or flying planes into buildings for a political purpose. Now it has been expanded to all sorts of domestic violence (meaning on our homeland, not in our homes), to get around things like existing laws on surveillance, wiretapping, etc. Just like the RICO laws have been abused by using them against other groups than organized crime, so have the terrorism laws.
Another issue is how are the questions phrased? If asked if tracking people's phone use to prevent another 9/11 is okay, you will probably get a different response than asked if it is okay for the government to monitor your phone conversations to make sure you are not a terrorist. The first is in regards to generic people out there. The second is about you, yourself and implies if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to worry about. But that isn't a sign of a free people, but instead a controlled people.
It was James Madison who said "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
Phone Survey about Phone Spying? (Score:4, Funny)
The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted June 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States (501 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 503 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 247 who had no landline telephone).
Is it really reasonable to survey the public's opinion of telephone spying via telephone?
Anonymous eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anonymous my ass, this was planted by some government drone specifically to make the justifiably worried sheeple think its ok.
Well, this is one of those sheeple who doesn't think its ok. Not on this planet,not even in this universe.
When our, and other governments are carrying on such activities in the name of safety, go back to a traitor named Benjamin Franklin, who once said that those who would give up a little liberty for safety, will have neither. Ben wasn't exactly a dummy. As for the traitor part, I expect the King of England considered him a traitor, to be hung where ever he could be found. So were a lot of the other names on our Declaration of Independence.
We have already apparently given up, because it seemed convenient and less hassle to the sheeple to let it happen than to go find somebody (or be that somebody) who would actually do something about what has become in my lifetime, a nearly complete dictatorship simply because it was too much trouble to call the trouble makers out and remove them from public office by whatever means that reduced them to standing on the corner shouting about some subject they aren't qualified to pronounce. If they still sucked air enough to do that.
We now have all these 3 letter agencies that don't have to answer to anybody, not even the president, costing us untold billions, even trillions in productivity interference of the public at large, each justifying their existence on selling this magic thing called safety.
What has this so-called safety got us? Because we are disarmed for the most part (in the name of safety of course), we get the Columbines and Sandy Hook scenes simply because somebody who needed to be contained or stopped long before their thinking became that errant, wasn't stopped with a busted butt or nose when it would have done some good, but today some idiots can't be stopped until they actually DO something, at which point its too late.
I can imagine that 100 years ago, these similar personalities likely would have not made it past their first drink in a bar as they would have been 'educated' right then and there by somebody who did know the difference between right and wrong. But we can't do that today because we'd spend 20 to life in a lock-up for removing such a person from the gene pool before he/she went on a rampage, taking 10 + other lives before somebody decides its time to stop them by whatever means is hanging on the belt, or on the back window gun rack of the pick-up truck.
As for the terrorists, lets all agree that the 2nd amendment says exactly what it says. And let nature take its course, get the law the hell out of judging who's right or wrong in such cases. I'll help them meet those 72 Virginians they are so hell bent on meeting, its absolutely not a problem to me.
So lets hear it from those who do give a shit about freedoms. Pew Research indeed. Figures lie, and liars figure out the stats they way they want them to be, every time. And I think this is one of those times.
The terrorists have won. (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone who hates the US is loving this news, just like they cheered when they heard we all have to take off our shoes and have our nuts inspected at airports.
Re:Well played, Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Click bait for the countless 14-yo libertarians who infest these boards.
What about the 14-yo non-libertarians who whine that there are countless 14-yo libertarians on Slashdot?
And who be just OUTRAGED, that somebody dared to point out that the government is the collective will of the people, and may actually have our interests and safety as their core mission
Collective will or no, the government isn't supposed to violate the constitution; the majority do not and should not have absolute power, and neither should the government. Individual rights need to be protected, and I probably couldn't even be considered a libertarian.
Re:Phone tracking (Score:4, Informative)
The government can have access ... IF they have probable cause that you are involved in criminal activity AND they obtain a warrant precisely describing what information they want to seize.
They CANNOT just copy all of your personal data and save it for future use.
We fought a revolution partly because we didn't want the government to be able to arbitrarily spy on innocent people and the Fourth Amendment clearly elaborates this prohibitions on government.
Re:What is this thing you call "privacy"? (Score:4, Insightful)