Citizenfour : Terror vs. Privacy

Few,except for the extreme narcissists, want to be spied upon by the government or anyone else. What Snowden and other libertarians fail to realize is that a small group of terrorists can destroy our economy and civilization in seconds. I'll be concerned about domestic surveilance when a pot dealer is busted due to NSA spying.

I am not sure your thinking is very deep on this subject.

Why do you think you would ever hear about pot dealers being busted by the government.
It would be 10-20 years before this might ever get out, and meanwhile who is really being
busted or disappearing?

I get your concern, I think the government needs the power to snoop when the occasion
arises because individuals, small groups of people and even countries indeed do perform
operations that can destroy whole nations and take away liberties and freedom and life
for millions, but no power should be given to government that cannot be checked and
regulated unless it is temporary and a response to an existential threat.

One major problem is that so few Americans and people in the world know about or can
conceive of what is going on at these high levels and the technology behind it. It is
science fiction for most people, it would never occur to them.

So, it also falls on a government to keep people informed and educated, and we are
doing the exact opposite on that. We may be setting the entire planet up for a kind of
tyranny that might never be overthrown and could go on virtually forever.

And, when we talk about the government there really is no government as we used to
think of if before the government is simply an institution where powerful wealthy people
administer the people lands and resources of the world. I don't like the idea of being
reduced to a cattle from birth to death.

If you are working on something all your life and someone happens to surveil it in an NSA
intrusion, and take your idea give it to the corporations another way to oppress and
dehumanize.

---

What makes you think you would ever hear about pot dealers being busted by the government.

---

Because criminal courts are public record. Because every prosecutor has to present his evidence, and include witnesses who provide the prosecutor with that evidence. If the NSA provides that evidence, a defense attorney always has a right to challenge the foundation of that evidence. With all due respect, as someone who works in the criminal courts, you don't seem like someone who's familiar with terms like "legal standing" and "fruit of the poisonous tree".

With the exception of DEA operations on an international level (South America, for example), the NSA has never assisted any domestic city or state law enforcement agency in prosecuting anyone for violating state statutes. That's the FBI's job.

But we have laws now that allow the FBI and criminal courts to be circumvented:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/ndaa.asp

There is no "thinking", he (mrdfolsom) is a "social engineer". There are more and more such professional posters here on IMDB, and they can be recognized by their exclusive focus on topics that further their agenda.
Big brother is tired of watching, he is now actively participating.

What do you think will happen to your freedoms when the next terrorist attack kills 10,000?

which terrorists? and which freedoms? Just to clarify. A suggestion, Google project northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods. wake up


Cheers.

Surprise Surprise! The wikipedia page doesn't open. Other pages work fine though! :O

http://korovamilkbar.b1.jcink.com/You are my wife now!

---

I'll be concerned about domestic surveilance when a pot dealer is busted due to NSA spying.

---

That's the funny part about the outrage. There's not a single example of of this kind of stuff actually happening.

I'm an Independent. I side with the libs on some things, conservatives on others. Sometimes, I side with neither. When it comes to thinks like safety and national security, liberals (or libertarians) are almost always wrong. They have no concept of public safety. They are paranoid and would rather be killed by a terrorist or even common mugger than be safe.

For my latest movie reviews and news: http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com

What the OP fails to realize is that information gathered by the NSA has already been shared with and used by the DEA to catch people like "pot dealers", in a process known as "Parallel Construction". This process gives tips to law enforcement about which person to nab at what time, while instructing law enforcement to conceal the original source of the tip (NSA) by having them find an alternative justification to arrest and search someone.

https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/dea-policies- on-parallel-construction-6434/

Furthermore, it's been shown that all this NSA surveillance has had little effect on making America safer, even worse, some ex-NSA experts, William Binney among them have argued it's made us less safe since there is more information than ever to sift through.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-phone-record -collection-does-little-to-prevent-terrorist-attacks-group-says/2014/0 1/12/8aa860aa-77dd-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html

Just look at the 9/11 commission report it wasn't a failure to gather intelligence that was the problem, it was the inability of our intelligence organizations to cooperate and analyze what they were already gathering that allowed 9/11 to go down.

So what you're saying is that the NSA found out illegal stuff that was happening and passed it along to the appropriate authorities (since they don't and shouldn't be dealing in pot-level crimes)? Oh dear, the horror.

For my latest movie reviews and news: http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com

The NSA found out about illegal stuff illegally. Do you think the authors of the Patriot Act intended for law enforcement to interpret the legislation in such a way that drug dealers are those commonly targeted by NSA surveillance? Republican Rep. Sensenbrenner (one of the authors of Patriot Act) has gone on record saying that never in their wildest imagination did they ever intend for it's powers to be used so much by so many different people.

Let's not forget what's happening here. The government is concealing the source of a criminal investigation (a violation of a persons constitutional rights to confront their accuser) so that their massive electronic surveillance infrastructure isn't maligned in the process all for what, to catch a couple drug dealers?

What is this technique akin to? Imagine if the government could go into your home, rummage through your belongings and if they happen to find a joint, arrest you. It doesn't matter they didn't have the evidence to search your home in the first place, the existence of drugs validates the search on their end. That's what's going on in a nutshell here.


If tossing out the constitution is fine for you because now the victims are "drug dealers", then I'm sure you'd find any one of the worlds totalitarian police states quite accommodating.

In a nutshell my ass. The slippery slope argument is not a valid defense of one's position on an issue. It's a logical fallacy based on paranoia. You can't compare something to something considerably worse that has not even happened yet.

If the government starts invading people's homes, then we have a problem. But reading my emails and browsing through my internet history is not an invasion on our rights.

For my latest movie reviews and news: http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com

You don't have to wait for abusive power to incarnate it's most vile firm in order to recognize it for what it is and state a need for curtailment. Furthermore, once it has reached that point, it is very difficult to enact any meaningful curtailment.

I don't understand the defense of these illegal steps anyway. It is not the job of a government to relentlessly and exhaustively monitor its citizens.

There is a degree of probation and parole that certain felons must abide by where they give a schedule of their movements and activities and wear a monitoring bracelet to verify their adherence to that schedule. The NSA had rendered that moot and and tracks ever movement, conversation, interaction, and transaction of us all. It's indefensible and had nothing to do with defending liberty.

Kuato_and_George, this is your original reply:

---

That's the funny part about the outrage. There's not a single example of of this kind of stuff actually happening.

---

When it was refuted with information about "Parallel Construction", you posted:

---

So what you're saying is that the NSA found out illegal stuff that was happening and passed it along to the appropriate authorities (since they don't and shouldn't be dealing in pot-level crimes)? Oh dear, the horror.

---

When it was brought up that the NSA found out about illegal stuff illegally, you posted:

---

The slippery slope argument is not a valid defense of one's position on an issue. It's a logical fallacy based on paranoia.

---

Which logical fallacy is that?

---

You can't compare something to something considerably worse that has not even happened yet.

---

The point is that it has already happened.

---

If the government starts invading people's homes, then we have a problem.

---

The government invades people's home every day - both physically and electronically and often without oversight. Again, that is the point.

---

But reading my emails and browsing through my internet history is not an invasion on our rights.

---

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", believed differently. The Bill of Rights was created to protect the citizenry from these types of government intrusions.

Are you paying any attention to what you're writing? Your first post basically states, "don't be paranoid, what you're worried about has never ever happened." Then someone gives you evidence that it happens regularly and your response is, "stop whining, that's what they're supposed to do." This is what is referred to as a boat with no mooring.

Oh, Tobias - you blow hard!

"liberals (or libertarians) are almost always wrong. They have no concept of public safety. They are paranoid and would rather be killed by a terrorist or even common mugger than be safe."

First of all, NO ONE IS EVER SAFE. If you decide to venture out into the world away from your home when you wake up tomorrow your safety is not guaranteed. Second, "There's not a single example of of this kind of stuff actually happening." Oh yes there is, just watch this http://www.imdb.com/board/12084953/?ref_=nv_sr_2 for some shining examples of how much your precious government cares for your privacy. There are many more examples of this basic right being trampled upon if you simply look for them. Good day.

The shadows betray you because they belong to me. - Bane

Trading liberty for security is dangerous, which is why protections against an overreaching government are built into our constitution.

Anything that the government can do, it eventually will do. Reasons will be found for "anti-terror" spying to be used in regular law enforcement.

Furthermore, anyone old enough to remember the Nixon administration should not find it a stretch to imagine a president using this same intelligence data to damage his opponents.

At an even more basic level, as citizens we should have a right not have our conversations and internet activities spied upon by the government without due process. It doesn't matter what we're doing - even illegal activities must require proper court authorization to be spied upon. Otherwise we are no better than those countries we periodically invade in order to "restore democracy" - just richer and smarter.

Yes, that might mean a higher risk of terrorist attacks. Security at any price is not compatible with historic American values and freedom. What's the point of defending our country against terrorism if it's not our country anymore?

Very well stated essex, I appreciate your logic. Sadly I don't think it's been our country since 1913. There was a year when it seemed that could change, 1968, now I don't know if it can.

The shadows betray you because they belong to me. - Bane

"Furthermore, anyone old enough to remember the Nixon administration should not find it a stretch to imagine a president using this same intelligence data to damage his opponents."

How did that work out for Nixon? He lost his job. Any chance of having a good/great legacy was thrown away due to his paranoia.

Although weakened by the economy,there's still investigative reporting going on. Memories of Watergate, Iran-Contra & Monica Lewinski have helped keep politicians in line.

There's also whistleblowers /witnesses. What president can completely trust their under-paid staff when there's millions in book/movie deals out there to expose the next Watergate.

I'll continue to be concerned about the US government spying on its citizensjust not paranoid.

---

Although weakened by the economy,there's still investigative reporting going on. Memories of Watergate, Iran-Contra & Monica Lewinski have helped keep politicians in line.

---

Yet the modern day reporters are called traitors and have to hide in russia instead.




Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

---

When it comes to thinks like safety and national security, liberals (or libertarians) are almost always wrong.

---

There you just showed you are not independent. There is no greater illusion than that of a "free mind"

To be truly independent you have to see beyond the "parties". They all serve same masters, only in different ways: liberals may under-react on purpose, to rouse anger (as in showing dead children but saying "we can't do anything about that"), with the goal being public support for aggression on some innocent people, while conservatives may over-react (by showing same dead children and saying "we cannot allow this!") to also garner support for "this can't go on!".

In the end, they achieve same things, and since most people cannot see beyond those two factions, the rest is easy.

Im all for catching terrorists and keeping our countries safe. However I do not like it that you are flagged just because you utter the word bomb online. Also I think they use the NSA not just for security. I bet they have deals with the movie and music inustry to spy on people doing illegal downloads. I also do not like the fact that soon any message I send via social media or messaging apps will be stored. Also the UK goverment is paranoid about adult content. I mean why should adults have to register as if they are sex offenders just so they can see to adult content. If a kid "stumbles" onto it it should be up to the parent to sort their kids out not some chineese software program.

The world is a scary place and 90% of what the governments tell us they want to pass laws on, they probably allready do it ilegaly. If spying on ordinary people stops terrosim then why couldn't they stop the horrible attacks in paris.


That would male a good Sci Fi film.

All technology is monitered and if certain keywords are used the secret police come around and arresst you. Then you have to argue your case in court as to why you mentioned the words nuclear laser guided atomic solar energy gravity bomb.

I worry for the next generation of humans who will emerge into this life with little to no freedoms. Would also not be sulrised if soon you have to het your babies electronicaly tagged as if they are allready criminals.

Yeah, terrorists could do a lot of stunning and horrifying damage. But I don't think collecting all this info is going to stop that. I don't think it has, so far, but I don't know.

The US government is spying on everyone, more or less. It's spying on its own people. For US citizens who are upset at the idea of their country becoming more Socialist, worry more about Stalinist. I think the truth that the government spying on its citizens' communications is creeping up to Stasi levels (I realize that Stasi are East Germans; I'm making a general point here). The US even has it's own gulags, only the largest of which (Guantanamo Bay) I can find on a map.

I see terrorists doing damage. I think they will continue to do so. I think the world has given up way too much to US government in return for the idea, the hope, that they might stop terrorism before it happens. And only if they have something to gain by it. We've all given up way too much for these mostly empty promises.

Complete non sequitur; how exactly could a small group of terrorists destroy the US economy and civilization in seconds?? Israel is a well-functioning democracy (the West Bank aside) and lives with a much bigger and less-imaginary spectre of terrorism. You are underestimating a society's ability to absorb terrorist events and still function just fine.

Reading between the lines, your argument appears to be *beep* the Constitution" because of a threat that is miniscule compared to the amount of shooting deaths per day in the US, or car accidents. Are you seriously advocating a totalitarian state as the solution? Do you want an American version of the Stasi? *shakes head in disbelief and contempt*

> when a pot dealer is busted due to NSA spying

That already happens. Look up parallel construction.

And following your logic, if I don't bust you, it's OK for me to have access to all your password, nude pictures et cetera, right?

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5447903/ratings

How about instead of worrying that you might have an e-mail of yours accidentally read, you worry about private prisons and the repeal of laws that land far too many harmless individuals in prison in the first place?

That seems like a logical first step. Fix that, then worry about the NSA. It's not like wire-tapping is a new concept ffs.

Or alternatively, speak out that there are other people in places right now outside of the country that could desperately use our help and alleviate their much more daunting concerns. There's a dozen Kurds in cages today who are going to be melted alive with flamethrowers. Their problems make your problems look infinitely petty. Or just pretend what's happening in the middle east isn't your problem until it is.

It's really cute that some people still think the government cares about them, but ultimately it is completely delusional.

Terrorism is just a distraction for the ultimate goal of total control. The fact that some people can not see that is testimony to how numbed out of their brains they are.

I'm more worried about the Government's ability to protect this information against an aggressive enemy.

If this data didn't exist, the greater threat would not be there.

They are welcome to spy on me all they want, but as a collective, this information could be used to destroy the economy of an entire nation or worse.

"It's a logical fallacy based on paranoia. You can't compare something to something considerably worse that has not even happened yet."

But that's just the point, it's happening now.

All the data, phone, internet searches, radio, street capture video, credit card purchases, etc..is collected and saved at their repository in Utah and elsewhere. At that point It is mined for certain traits and patterns they are looking for. "Predictive Analytics," that predicts future behavior, and creates profiles of people's behavior and patterns and so forth, whatever that might happen to be in whatever administration or government in the years to come. If someone disagrees with that particular political or military power in charge, whenever the winds blow this way or that, they just key in certain political affiliations, or whatever the disagreeable behavior, or thought is, and that creates a RED FLAG. All this information on you and me is created, compiled, analyzed and saved by machines for future use on any citizen.

Predictive ANALYTICS is currently being implemented in the world of Human Resources. Right now, the larger companies are the ones who could afford it. But I imagine its price will come down, and most jobs will have it. See if you like that one. They request an employee's, or applicant's info from the right database, (sharing the meta data from all the digital sites and sources) and will profile people right at work, comparing your profile with those they deem appropriate for their company, or flag you to be watched so they don't have to give you a raise, or to fire you. Or, as you fill out applications for jobs, they'll see if they like your searching habits, your opinions, the stuff you read or watch. You won't even get a job, if they don't like your profile, your ideas, your opinions. If your profile doesn't "fit" with their ideal model employee, whatever that is, you're not going to be employable.

That's what all this is. Saving and sharing metadata for future use.
I presume the data will be sold, at some point.
That's why the police on the local level are militarizing. The all share the data.

My sister was at work that morning in the Hancock building on 9/11. A block or two away? She had recently discovered she had pancreatic cancer (like Steve Jobs). When the towers were hit, and all the chaos going on, they evacuated and her only means of getting home to Queens out of the city was to walk out. Which she did with so many others, she crossed the bridge (59th st bridge?). She survived for another year or so, but then passed away. But not for one minute would she agree on this blatant violation of our constitutional rights.

Some of the things said in the film:

"What people used to call Liberty, people equate with privacy in the same breath. Something concerns me about my generation, 'nothing surprises me,'" the notion that the younger generation expects to be watched, spied on) we loose liberty when we don't have the freedom of speech to say what we think." If we are guarded about what we say in writing or on phones, or what we search for on the internet, because we know we're being watched, spied on, we are more guarded about our opinions and thoughts. That's scarythat's loosing a liberty, the freedom of speech, the freedom to protest, to borrow a library book, to research something, to say what you feel on the telephone, to write on a blog. It limits the power of intellectual freedom and intellectual exploration, which is not good for a representative democracy.
They also said "What is passive surveillance (on innocent citizens) except control?"

If people think this is good, or okay, then God Help us all.

You really ought to think first before you post, otherwise you come across as laughable.

Considering the new generation of youth growing up will be the first to whom saying the word "bomb" on a plane, or "gun" in a classroom will result in arrest, I'd say the terrorists have already won.

Please, explain which small group of terrorists will be able to destroy civilization in seconds. The only existential threat posed to North America comes from a very small group of foreign governments who are only feeling more intimated as and increasingly paranoid USA government begins to assert their influence and indirectly destabilize said countries.

Through history of mankind, the only real threat to any one thing and any one person is - that person or thing itself!

Roman Empire was destroyed from within.

So was the Egyptian one.

OK, Greece, we could argue was attacked from outside, but their internal disagreements did not help. To this day, one can observe drastic differences in opinion between those from the south vs. those from the north

Even the great Germany, country which was the most advanced in entire world until the 20th century, was ruined from inside. If they did not have Hitler, we would be communicating in German.

Same goes for people - most people suffer due to their own stupidity, not due to attacks from outside. If they all stopped drinking, taking drugs, lying, manipulating, overeating, driving dangerously and looking for a splinter in their neighbor's eye, they would live much better and happier lives.

We can look for an 'external enemy' all we want, but real enemy is the very person who refuses to look at themselves in the mirror and make an honest evaluation.

Greece fell because they prefered religiuos traditions to actually defending themselves, so it still applies.


Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

Does the NSA pay well? Writing online posts is not a bad job at all.

Does the NSA pay well? Writing online posts is not a bad job at all.

Yes, and that small group of terrorists are called NSA.


Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.