| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2013 09:43:32 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by The Atlantic Wire:
The National Security Agency and the FBI don't bear all the responsibility for the revelation that Verizon is turning phone records over to the government. That responsibility lies with the members of Congress who voted for the PATRIOT Act, as well as extensions of it and the provisions related to collecting those records. Over 100 people currently serving in the House and Senate voted for the original Act in 2001. Last year, over 300 voted to extend a key provision.
We looked at seven Congressional actions generally and five in particular to assess how the government's power to collect data has evolved. From October 2001 to last December, Congress continually voted to expand or continue the government's power to collect private data, ostensibly to bolster efforts to stop terrorist activity. In addition to the PATRIOT Act, Congress has also renewed provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA — the law that established the court which issued the Verizon order.
The seven votes were:
The PATRIOT Act, October 2001.
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, March 2006
FISA Amendments Act of 2008, July 2008
Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009, February 2010
FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, February 2011
PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, May 2011
FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, December 2012
(The "Medicare" bill, above, was gutted and re-written to accommodate three PATRIOT-related measures.) |
Here's the source article. Each of the line items above is linked to its own source in the actual article.
Message edited by author 2013-06-06 21:45:44. |
|
|
|
06/06/2013 09:49:56 PM · #202 |
|
|
|
06/06/2013 10:10:13 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by The Atlantic Wire:
The National Security Agency and the FBI don't bear all the responsibility for the revelation that Verizon is turning phone records over to the government. That responsibility lies with the members of Congress who voted for the PATRIOT Act, as well as extensions of it and the provisions related to collecting those records. Over 100 people currently serving in the House and Senate voted for the original Act in 2001. Last year, over 300 voted to extend a key provision.
We looked at seven Congressional actions generally and five in particular to assess how the government's power to collect data has evolved. From October 2001 to last December, Congress continually voted to expand or continue the government's power to collect private data, ostensibly to bolster efforts to stop terrorist activity. In addition to the PATRIOT Act, Congress has also renewed provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA — the law that established the court which issued the Verizon order.
The seven votes were:
The PATRIOT Act, October 2001.
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, March 2006
FISA Amendments Act of 2008, July 2008
Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009, February 2010
FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, February 2011
PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, May 2011
FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, December 2012
(The "Medicare" bill, above, was gutted and re-written to accommodate three PATRIOT-related measures.) |
Here's the source article. Each of the line items above is linked to its own source in the actual article. |
What year did they pass the Antonym Naming Convention Act? |
|
|
|
06/06/2013 11:50:19 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
In reality, they would get more from monitoring facebook accounts. |
I'm sure they are ... |
Actually, not having a Facebook account is seen as an indication of potential terrorist behaviors. |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 01:41:56 AM · #205 |
Here's a good article on the whole thing.
What's that NSA place up to anyway? |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 05:23:17 AM · #206 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh, well, duh. Wiretapping has been around for a long time. "Wiretapping" a hundred million people at once? Not so much... |
quotation on the hundred million please.
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-06-07 05:33:13. |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 11:14:57 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh, well, duh. Wiretapping has been around for a long time. "Wiretapping" a hundred million people at once? Not so much... |
quotation on the hundred million please.
Ray |
Verzion has 70.8 million customers. I am making a small leap to assume similar FISA agreements exist with the other major carriers. |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 02:38:55 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh, well, duh. Wiretapping has been around for a long time. "Wiretapping" a hundred million people at once? Not so much... |
quotation on the hundred million please.
Ray |
Verzion has 70.8 million customers. I am making a small leap to assume similar FISA agreements exist with the other major carriers. |
...so what, are you suggesting that they intercepted every customer for each of the service providers.
And that my friend is a small leap??? really. You might want to check up on the FISA agreement you refer to.. the last I heard is that all the key players absolutely deny ever entering into such an agreement. I do also believe that FISA deals exclusively with information dealing with foreign powers and agents of these foreign entities.
I do also find it interesting that you poo-poo my previous response and then use the very same legislation to support your argument... but hey, if it works for you I understand.
Have a great day,
Ray |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 02:46:24 PM · #209 |
Maybe we're talking at cross purposes. You noted that behavior like this has been going on for a long time and while I agree on one hand, on the other I point out that the scope of the data collection is unprecedented before 2001 (and thus before GWB). So, we're both right. People have been intercepting communications for a long time. We haven't done it on such a massive scale prior to GWB.
And, yes, by my reading they are data scraping all phone calls made by verizon customers. They aren't listening to them, but they are collecting information about each call. One can easily assume the same things are going on with the other carriers.
Message edited by author 2013-06-07 14:56:06. |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 03:03:58 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Cory:
The simple fact that this is even news baffles me.
We've known about this for a long time, it's not like it was some big secret - you can be quite certain they're up to far more interesting things in certain sectors - this is just SOP. |
It's only news because the "Liberals" feel betrayed right now. Which is why you see liberal/democratic sites currently trashing him. I've been saying from the get go that Obama is not a Liberal. He's a middle of the road type guy who actually leans to the right. He's not fighting for people's rights. He's not fighting for the poor or the elderly. I would go as far as to classify him as a closet Republican. He's as out of touch with the average American as Bush was (or any politician for that matter). What makes it kind of funny is when he proposes something that's Republican in nature, and "Joe Republican" starts screaming "LIBERAL". I don't think people have a clue anymore. I voted for him because the alternative was way worse. I know a lot of people who would tell you the same. |
I think you need to be careful about declaring something like this data surveillance "Republican in nature". Although GWB was president when the Patriot Act came around we could potentially say he was a "closet Democrat" (no crazier than calling Obama a closet Republican). The group that might be most against surveillance and invasions of privacy are probably those who skew Libertarian. There are both left wing and right wing libertarians, but they probably align more commonly with right wing.
Perhaps it's just best to understand that on an issue like "national security" the two major parties are very similar to each other. We are used to painting Dems and Reps as polar opposites, but it just doesn't seem to hold on this issue. |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 04:15:59 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Cory:
The simple fact that this is even news baffles me.
We've known about this for a long time, it's not like it was some big secret - you can be quite certain they're up to far more interesting things in certain sectors - this is just SOP. |
It's only news because the "Liberals" feel betrayed right now. Which is why you see liberal/democratic sites currently trashing him. I've been saying from the get go that Obama is not a Liberal. He's a middle of the road type guy who actually leans to the right. He's not fighting for people's rights. He's not fighting for the poor or the elderly. I would go as far as to classify him as a closet Republican. He's as out of touch with the average American as Bush was (or any politician for that matter). What makes it kind of funny is when he proposes something that's Republican in nature, and "Joe Republican" starts screaming "LIBERAL". I don't think people have a clue anymore. I voted for him because the alternative was way worse. I know a lot of people who would tell you the same. |
I think you need to be careful about declaring something like this data surveillance "Republican in nature". Although GWB was president when the Patriot Act came around we could potentially say he was a "closet Democrat" (no crazier than calling Obama a closet Republican). The group that might be most against surveillance and invasions of privacy are probably those who skew Libertarian. There are both left wing and right wing libertarians, but they probably align more commonly with right wing.
Perhaps it's just best to understand that on an issue like "national security" the two major parties are very similar to each other. We are used to painting Dems and Reps as polar opposites, but it just doesn't seem to hold on this issue. |
My "republican in nature" comment wasn't actually referring to national security. It was just an in general statement. Kind of like the whole healthcare thing. When Romney did it in his state, it was fine. When Obama did it for the country, it was fascism. I agree, when it comes to the security thing it's both parties. |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 07:17:23 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Cory:
The simple fact that this is even news baffles me.
We've known about this for a long time, it's not like it was some big secret - you can be quite certain they're up to far more interesting things in certain sectors - this is just SOP. |
It's only news because the "Liberals" feel betrayed right now. Which is why you see liberal/democratic sites currently trashing him. I've been saying from the get go that Obama is not a Liberal. He's a middle of the road type guy who actually leans to the right. He's not fighting for people's rights. He's not fighting for the poor or the elderly. I would go as far as to classify him as a closet Republican. He's as out of touch with the average American as Bush was (or any politician for that matter). What makes it kind of funny is when he proposes something that's Republican in nature, and "Joe Republican" starts screaming "LIBERAL". I don't think people have a clue anymore. I voted for him because the alternative was way worse. I know a lot of people who would tell you the same. |
I think you need to be careful about declaring something like this data surveillance "Republican in nature". Although GWB was president when the Patriot Act came around we could potentially say he was a "closet Democrat" (no crazier than calling Obama a closet Republican). The group that might be most against surveillance and invasions of privacy are probably those who skew Libertarian. There are both left wing and right wing libertarians, but they probably align more commonly with right wing.
Perhaps it's just best to understand that on an issue like "national security" the two major parties are very similar to each other. We are used to painting Dems and Reps as polar opposites, but it just doesn't seem to hold on this issue. |
if you keep throwing in self-serving lines disparaging Democrats, defending W, etc. you are going to give away your position has less than neutral.
you have to ask yourself how many cell phones were actually in use in the year 2001 compared to now. Then you have to ask yourself if W had used wire taps to stop 911from occurring on his watch...
and finally have to ask yourself about the hypocrisy of loving how Boston shut down the city and went into each individual's house, yet feigning some Ludicrous concern about meaningless Verizon Wireless call log. don't get me wrong I understand the big brother slippery slope argument, but I think people are too naive to think soldiers in Afghanistan are the ones that are keeping them free from terrorism. ironically if Obama wasn't doing this, the position from Republicans would be that he is not keeping America safe. in that situation you can't win for losing. |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 08:06:28 PM · #213 |
I think you are making the big mistake of assuming you know if I support or reject such invasions of privacy.
Quote me a line where I "defend W". I'm curious what you are going to come up with. |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 08:17:31 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you are making the big mistake of assuming you know if I support or reject such invasions of privacy.
Quote me a line where I "defend W". I'm curious what you are going to come up with. |
I realize I lumped in calling out hypocrites who supported home searches to the "wireless taps." I didnt mean to lump you into that group.
There is implied false equivalency all over the place, and certainly the whole spice of the thread is to somehow convince Obama supporters that they are hypocritically not calling out the potus for acts that are as egregious as those of "W." Of course on some level you are correct, yet the circumstances, motives, effectiveness, intent, profit, etc. are all non-analogous. |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 08:46:30 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you are making the big mistake of assuming you know if I support or reject such invasions of privacy. |
I am expecting that one of these days you'll admit you've made a mistake, and actually stated your opinion on something ... I also expect a rash of 911 calls as people think they are having a heart attack.
I think your polished technique of implying a position without clearly stating it for others to support or refute is disingenuous and almost deceitful, and does not serve to advance the actual debate.
I suggest that, just once, as a refreshing change, you answer a question yes or no: do you support or reject such invasions of privacy? |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 08:55:16 PM · #216 |
Definitely maybe!
I think it was pretty clear I am against drone strikes in Pakistan. Doesn't that count for having a position?
Message edited by author 2013-06-07 20:56:32. |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 09:04:45 PM · #217 |
I think what BJ is missing is that I'm not defending either president in all this. I'm pointing out their surprising similarities. It's surprising because they are often portrayed as devil and savior.
Imagine we put one of them behind the classic "dating game" wall and the narrator starts off:
"Welcome to pick a president! During his tenure, the president behind our wall: operated Guantanamo prison, killed innocent people in Pakistan with drones, carried out large dragnet operations where millions of phone records were scraped and kept as a data-mining database! Name your president!
And, of course, you can't because it fits both W and O.
Would it surprise BJ that I voed for Obama twice and W zero times?
Message edited by author 2013-06-07 21:05:55. |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 10:54:16 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Although GWB was president when the Patriot Act came around we could potentially say he was a "closet Democrat" (no crazier than calling Obama a closet Republican). |
That gives you away right there. Bush was handpicked by republican leaders as their puppet. He broke new ground in rightwing insanity. He made torture cool again.
Obama is a clinton democrat, which is by definition a closet republican, and which you have demonstrated by showing the similarities to bush. You left out his wall street financial policy.
So there is the evidence of you defending bush. Or are you just perverse?
This isnt bipartisan. The conservatives have won. |
|
|
|
06/07/2013 11:03:35 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
That gives you away right there. Bush was handpicked by republican leaders as their puppet. He broke new ground in rightwing insanity. He made torture cool again.
Obama is a Clinton democrat, which is by definition a closet republican, and which you have demonstrated by showing the similarities to bush. You left out his wall street financial policy. |
Bingo! Well-stated! |
|
|
|
06/08/2013 12:56:18 AM · #220 |
If Obama is the republican in disguise, Clinton democrat, give me three examples of how he pulled congress to the right in the ten months he owned both houses in Congress.
Edit: let's save ourselves the hassle of some argument I never meant to make. Obama is closer to the middle than Bush. I don't disagree at all. I mainly object to how vociferously you all are trying to pin me as some great Bush supporter just because I don't march lockstep with Obama. The world does not need to be so polarized and I reject it. I voted Obama twice. I think he has been a good president. BUT, that doesn't mean I feel any compulsion to agree with everything he has done AND I don't have some party loyalty that forces me to say that when I DO disagree with Obama that he is just "acting like the other party" and that if he'd only see the error of his ways we'd welcome him back to the fold of the truly enlightened! (How's that for a long sentence BJ?)
Message edited by author 2013-06-08 01:41:12. |
|
|
|
06/08/2013 04:19:20 AM · #221 |
The axis of evil. Politics, Religion and Money. Anything goes in order to get, keep and maintain power. War a good example. Bullshit the tool. Fools the fodder.
So what if they do not Prism you, the Americans, yet? Why and by what power rape individual privacy AND individual security of "OTHER" countries? My friends, you are obviously next if not already violated. "Other" governments, you'r gonna stand for this shit? Then you deserve the Bush-Obama power play and should just surrender all to them, the powerhouse, the makers of gods and truths. You are them too. Boshbama Rules the world.
Any American believing in the two party system, wake up and smell the fire and brimstone. Your hell is about to begin. We the people are brain dead. The outspoken ones could just as well have spoken out in the eye of the last big tornado. Nobody hears. There is nobody to listen. Except Prism and her likes. The brain dead Axis of Evil continues and rotates with time. DrAchoo, the world must be polarized, how else can they divide and rule? You honestly think there is that much of a fundamental difference between the symbol "Bush-Obama"? There is none. Both drives one agenda; power, ultimate and unconditional and everlasting POWER.
Let me challenge you, beast called Prism, am I on your radar? Is your fascist light beaming in my direction? Just maybe I should be. Yip, I plan to die in the most spectacular way before you can touch me. I am going to die in peace, with a smile on my face. F_ck you and your creators, defenders, suppliers and users. May you rot in your hell. And rot, you will. Please, please, let me know through my cyber footprint if you think you can intimidate or bullshit me. How about doing it publicly here, on DPC? Oh, I know you can not; that would be stupid to acknowledge you do read what Americans have to say. |
|
|
|
06/08/2013 11:46:42 AM · #222 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The world does not need to be so polarized and I reject it. |
Conservatives think people are either good or evil, and problems can be fixed by punishment applied to evil people.
Liberals think people are neither good nor evil, and problems are systemic, and therefore require fixes to systems.
These two views don't seem compatible to me.
I'll give you an example. I saw a conservative cartoon against laws that ban 20-bullet magazines. It showed a man who switched from a 10-bullet magazine to a 20-bullet magazine, and that turned him into an evil maniac, "exposing" the absurdity of the law. It's a great example of how conservatives don't understand the liberal solution because they perceive the problem differently. |
|
|
|
06/08/2013 12:38:13 PM · #223 |
Is docpjv secretly a member of Anonymous?
Don, I think that is dangerously simplistic thinking. I don't agree with it at all.
Message edited by author 2013-06-08 12:38:30. |
|
|
|
06/08/2013 03:26:44 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The world does not need to be so polarized and I reject it. |
Conservatives think people are either good or evil, and problems can be fixed by punishment applied to evil people.
Liberals think people are neither good nor evil, and problems are systemic, and therefore require fixes to systems.
These two views don't seem compatible to me.
I'll give you an example. I saw a conservative cartoon against laws that ban 20-bullet magazines. It showed a man who switched from a 10-bullet magazine to a 20-bullet magazine, and that turned him into an evil maniac, "exposing" the absurdity of the law. It's a great example of how conservatives don't understand the liberal solution because they perceive the problem differently. |
Conservatives also believe in good and evil systems too. Your post earlier about religion just filling the container and not building it was poetic but probably not all that accurate. Some of that water does fuse into the solid preventing it from becoming anything else. |
|
|
|
06/08/2013 04:45:17 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The world does not need to be so polarized and I reject it. |
Conservatives think people are either good or evil, and problems can be fixed by punishment applied to evil people.
Liberals think people are neither good nor evil, and problems are systemic, and therefore require fixes to systems.
These two views don't seem compatible to me.
I'll give you an example. I saw a conservative cartoon against laws that ban 20-bullet magazines. It showed a man who switched from a 10-bullet magazine to a 20-bullet magazine, and that turned him into an evil maniac, "exposing" the absurdity of the law. It's a great example of how conservatives don't understand the liberal solution because they perceive the problem differently. |
Well stated, but conservatives love to "fix the system" especially financially...
when the whole raison d'etre of the Conservative Party is to prove that government is inefficient and can't fix anything, it would seem absurd to vote them in and let them prove it. In that sense "W" was not a conservative in that once in power he didn't simply prove government was inefficient and sloppy, he proved it could be outrageously awful and damaging.
but of course now we have a Republican run Congress, ham strung by tea party extremists forcing primaries, so you have to query how much the absolute worst Congress in history is affecting Obama's performance. |
|
