New USATODAY report shows NSA had collected Tens of Millions of Phone Calls - Page 4




View Poll Results :Does the NSA have the right to collect Millions of Conversations without a warrent?
Yes, this ability is vital in the war against Terror 10 41.67%
No, this a violation of Privacy. The Govornment must obtain a Warrent. 14 58.33%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
New USATODAY report shows NSA had collected Tens of Millions of Phone Calls
 
May 14th, 2006  
phoenix80
 
 
New USATODAY report shows NSA had collected Tens of Millions of Phone Calls
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
For Americans a very important part of our culture is our sense of "privacy". What is a normal question about a person to an Asian is seen as an invasion of privacy by most Americans. We even stand further apart from each other when talking than any other group of people on the planet. I have done nothing wrong and I am VERY uncomfortable with this current program.

Second, unless anyone here works for the NSA and is willing to violate OPSEC then not any of us knows exactly what is or is not done with those calls and the information gleaned from them.

I would hope everyone here is well versed enough in American history to know of Hoover and his abuses of intelligence gathered by the FBI. How much more could be done at an agency like the NSA? Further removed from scrutiny and greater in capacity and ability than the FBI or CIA in this regard.

Ben Franklin once uttered the words, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security". I believe that privacy is a component of liberty. Liberty is freedom and privacy is the freedom to be free from scrutiny. You may not agree but this is what I believe and because of this I will never be comfortable with a government listening to my phone calls or reading my email regardless of my innocence or their motives.
Well, you are in CHINA now. Ain't you?
May 14th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
What is that comment meant to imply?
May 14th, 2006  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
For Americans a very important part of our culture is our sense of "privacy". What is a normal question about a person to an Asian is seen as an invasion of privacy by most Americans. We even stand further apart from each other when talking than any other group of people on the planet. I have done nothing wrong and I am VERY uncomfortable with this current program.
Sense of privacy is extremely important to us Italians too and it's becoming being incorporated into bodies of law to protect the right of citizens to be protected from the abuse/curiosity/intrusiveness of the public. And I truly believe this is a big conquer of our culture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
Second, unless anyone here works for the NSA and is willing to violate OPSEC then not any of us knows exactly what is or is not done with those calls and the information gleaned from them.
Agreed. Until we know something more precise (which isn't likely to happen at least for the next 30 years) this is a blurred and vague discussion based on subjective arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
I would hope everyone here is well versed enough in American history to know of Hoover and his abuses of intelligence gathered by the FBI. How much more could be done at an agency like the NSA? Further removed from scrutiny and greater in capacity and ability than the FBI or CIA in this regard.
This is a very good point indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
Ben Franklin once uttered the words, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security". I believe that privacy is a component of liberty. Liberty is freedom and privacy is the freedom to be free from scrutiny. You may not agree but this is what I believe and because of this I will never be comfortable with a government listening to my phone calls or reading my email regardless of my innocence or their motives.
No-one would ever be "comfortable" with that. I am not saying this violation of the privacy by the NSA is just or justified. Never did I say that, mind you. All I wonder is: I am perfectly aware how privacy is part of nowaday's freedom and it is recognized as such, guaranteed by law and so on. It is something precious and the American citizens have the duty to guard themselves from any abuse on the part of government (that's something truly American), but I mean how could Franklin think of privacy when he said the words "Essential liberty", as the concept of privacy itself didn't even exist back in his times? He specified "essential" liberty, he didn't say "all types and aspects of liberty".
In time of war when an enemy is trying to defeat a country by killing thousands or millions of innocents and uses technology as his main weapon and when he overtly relies on our democratic "weaknesses", I'm simply not that sure Franklin was referring to it.
After all, Bulldog, you are saying that Franklin meant that privacy was part of essential freedom just like freedom of speech, of information, of religion, of movement, or the right to private property. On the other hand you said that the US was right when it seized thousands of American citizens' properties and interned them with no trial and only on the basis of their race/nationality (I'm referring to the American-Japanese during WW2). That was a time of war and internment is a bit more essential a liberty than uhm privacy on phone-calls.
--
New USATODAY report shows NSA had collected Tens of Millions of Phone Calls
May 14th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Touche'. I shall ponder this for a while.

I have been thinking and I am going to be brutally honest.

There is no moral high ground in this for me and I will not try to dance around it. I have come to the bitter realization that at least in this matter I am a selfish bastard. I don't agree with this because it bothers me and it directly affects me.
May 14th, 2006  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
I don't agree with this because it bothers me and it directly affects me.
It is not a stupid answer, really. I have always thought 95% of the world's problems derive from people trying to solve other people's problems. If everyone peacefully and quietly pursued his own interests I believe the world would be a better place.
Unfortunately, there is that 5% too (for which that poem by Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor, is very fit:
They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Jew;
Then they came for me - And there was no one left to object).
May 14th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
2nd amendment.
May 14th, 2006  
phoenix80
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
What is that comment meant to imply?
That why are you worrying if you aren't really in America
May 14th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Why are you worried when you are not American and don't live in the United States?

I am an American citizen and regardless of where I live this is my concern and hardly any of yours.

How about the soldiers in Iraq? By your logic they shouldn't give a damn either.

Did you honestly think about this before you said it?
May 14th, 2006  
mmarsh
 
 
Lt. Henderson

Ben Franklin worried about British Redcoats who were a greater threat to American Security than abunch of muslim fanatics. Whats more worrying,? Being frightened to death that you might be involved in a terror attack (about 10 Million to 1 odds) or fighting against the full military occupation of an enemy thats far better equipped, far better trained, far more numerous than you. Franklins statement rings even more true.

But, we arn't in Iraq. Nobody has declared Martial law, There arnt any car bombs going off daily, or random bursts of indiscrimate small arms fire. You are letting yourself be governed by your fear, and the government for us to sacrifice democracy because of it (thats what terrorists want). By sacrificing our freedoms by allowing fear to take control you are letting the terrorists win.

Would limiting the civil liberties of all 280 Million Americans just because al-Qaeda (less than 18000 members) might do something. Thats like bringing your own parachaute on a airliner just in case the plane might crash. Again, thats fear, if not paranoia talking (no insult intended). You cannot live your life on what *MIGHT* happen. If you do, then al Qaeda wins. Remember what Winston Churchill said "We have Nothing to fear but fear itself". Fear is the most potent weapon the terrorists have.

We can hardly compare Star Wars to President Bush...[/quote]

Oh but you can. For example, use Fear in order to control the masses and silence dissent. Ring any bells? How about the DHS color coded threat level system? Usefulness to stop terrorists = 0, usefulness to scare Mom and Dad = priceless. Or how about Cheney stating in the 2004 election that the only way to stop another 9/11 attack is to vote for Bush.

IG

I think you are misinterpreting Franklin. Franklin is saying all liberty in and of itself is essential, not specific parts of liberty. All of it is essential.

Phoenix

You shouldnt be worried if you are not doing any thing wrong.

Ever read George Orwells '1984'? That was just the justification of 'Big Brother' and of all dictators everywhere. Just because you might not be doing anything illegal doesnt mean 'Big Brother' is not going to collect data on you. Remember Tom Delay? He used the FAA communication systems to track the personal aircraft of several prominent Texas Democrats. A prime example of how easy it is to abuse power.
May 14th, 2006  
achinese
 
 
Double Standard