A Snippet From Paul Phillips

[copernicus 0]

There has to be a line somewhere. It's not paranoia to recognize that granting the government the right to invade privacy without warrant is a huge shift in power. Good thing there is no such right for domestic communications. Any extension of FISA that claims a real dimunition in personal freedom is exactly what I said. slippery slope = paranoid fantasies.Every organization wants power for itself. Don't you think the federal government is capable of using the terrorist justification to gain as much power as it can? Don't you think there should be some checks on that? Slippery slope fallacy again.Surely many of our friends and relatives who died on 9/11 would not want their deaths used a justification for a federal power grab? No one with half a brain. When youve felt the consequences you dont worry about Orwellian conjecture.

[vbnautilus 48]

Good thing there is no such right for domestic communications. Any extension of FISA that claims a real dimunition in personal freedom is exactly what I said. slippery slope = paranoid fantasies.

You don't really buy the "domestic communications" loophole do you? If I have a conversation with my friend in Germany, NSA is able to monitor that without warrant by executive order of the president. I consider that an invasion of my privacy. They are calling this 'foreign intelligence' as a way to get around the law. There's no "slippery slope fallacy" since they have already granted themselves this power.

[copernicus 0]

You don't really buy the "domestic communications" loophole do you? If I have a conversation with my friend in Germany, NSA is able to monitor that without warrant by executive order of the president. I consider that an invasion of my privacy. They are calling this 'foreign intelligence' as a way to get around the law. There's no "slippery slope fallacy" since they have already granted themselves this power.

the slippery slope is that it will be used for other than intelligence purposes. And if youre on the NSA radar for some reason and talking to someone in Germany, I dont give a damn about your privacy, and you should be more concerned about why youre on their radar. NSA can listen to my overseas and domestic communications for all I care. If youre so bad at phone sex that youd be embarassed, theres probably a "Lewd Calls for Dummies" book to help.

[CaneBrain 95]

Ben Franklin is a smart guy.Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. The idea that our way of life has no value is ridiculous. America was founded on certain principles and I disagree we should change them because one terrorist organization got lucky one time. Cop, if there is any paranoia here it is how you and the rest of the GOP vastly overrates the threat of terrorism to attempt to scare people into letting the government do whatever it wants.I do agree with Balloon Guy and Copernicus that Paul Phillips is kind of a douche-nozzel and I doubt that the email he responded to there was representative of all his email from conservatives.I love how yesterday we were hearing from conservatives how if the Dems win the election and get 60 in the Senate that we all have to look out because "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely". However, if we give absolute power to our government on national security issues....no big deal.

[vbnautilus 48]

the slippery slope is that it will be used for other than intelligence purposes. And if youre on the NSA radar for some reason and talking to someone in Germany, I dont give a damn about your privacy, and you should be more concerned about why youre on their radar. NSA can listen to my overseas and domestic communications for all I care. If youre so bad at phone sex that youd be embarassed, theres probably a "Lewd Calls for Dummies" book to help.

So you are saying that even though they have the power to monitor my conversation, I should just "trust" that they won't out of their own sense of my privacy? And if they do monitor me I must be doing something wrong? Thats ludicrous. Any power the government has will be used whenever they feel the need to use it. That's why we put legal limits on their power. This is not a slippery slope argument.

[copernicus 0]

Ben Franklin is a smart guy.Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

the next time BF or TJ write something that takes into account 21st century terrorism, be sure to link me to it.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ben Franklin is a smart guy.Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. I love how yesterday we were hearing from conservatives how if the Dems win the election and get 60 in the Senate that we all have to look out because "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely". However, if we give absolute power to our government on national security issues....no big deal.

Come on, you know that absolute power corrupts absolutely only applies to 'them' whomever 'them' is. 'Our side' would do good things with the power.And Ben Franklin wasn't talking about the right to privacy extending to people who use cell phones. Those can be picked out of the air by radio shack recievers, so you either acknowledge that you're right to privacy comes a distant second to convience when it comes to cell phones, or you are denying that the government has the right to do what anyone with $200 and an internet access can do.If we are so calvalier about our 'privacy' with regards to telephone calls, we would actually take steps to prevent people from listening, yet there is little to no market for security for telephone conversation. By default that means most people don't care.Actually the best way to hide anything you don't want the governmnet to know about is to make them listen to everything, that way they would get deluged with data and end up missing things like the USSR collapsing or something.BTW didn't Obama vote for FISA last time around?

[copernicus 0]

So you are saying that even though they have the power to monitor my conversation, I should just "trust" that they won't out of their own sense of my privacy? And if they do monitor me I must be doing something wrong? Thats ludicrous. Any power the government has will be used whenever they feel the need to use it. That's why we put legal limits on their power. This is not a slippery slope argument.

Until it happens that is exactly what it is. And there are legal limits on it.

[vbnautilus 48]

Until it happens that is exactly what it is. And there are legal limits on it.

One of the main problems is that we won't know if it's happening or not since they don't need a warrant. There's no oversight in place and no way for us to know if we've been unfairly tapped.

[copernicus 0]

One of the main problems is that we won't know if it's happening or not since they don't need a warrant. There's no oversight in place and no way for us to know if we've been unfairly tapped.

I guess you mean other than the requirement for FISA court judicial review of any wiretaps.

[vbnautilus 48]

I guess you mean other than the requirement for FISA court judicial review of any wiretaps.

You mean the requirement that the Bush administration does not believe applies to them? Their stance is that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists allows them to bypass the FISC. The NSA surveillance program is entirely warrantless.(not to mention that even if they had gone through FISC it's a secret court and we still wouldn't know what was authorized. but its a formality the bush administration did not feel the need to bother with. )Read more at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

[Avaron 0]

Until it happens that is exactly what it is.

come on. you know how that can work. special agent joe public works in the nsa, where all this phone calls are being tapped. maybe he's just selling your phone number to some companies. maybe he listens to the newest trade talk between manhattan moguls and is able to use this information for his benefit at the stock market. or maybe he's selling other information to criminal organisations...conspiracy theories ftw!

[strategy 4]

BTW didn't Obama vote for FISA last time around?

yeah, and it fucking pissed off a bunch of people on the left. I linked that in the OP, believe it or not.

[CaneBrain 95]

BTW didn't Obama vote for FISA last time around?

for the last time, I dont agree with everything Obama does just because I vote for him. I would not have voted for the current FISA bill until it added more oversight from the judiciary.

[strategy 4]

the next time BF or TJ write something that takes into account 21st century terrorism, be sure to link me to it.

the issue is whether or not gov't can be trusted with that kind of power. we're no different now than we were when franklin wrote that, human nature-wise. I'm not saying I don't believe in terrorism prevention measures, just that it's possible to overdo it and open ourselves up to abuse.the cell phone argument is completely bogus. the telcos already proved that they couldn't be trusted on the first go-around when they tapped hubs that were not handling any international calls. this included both cell phone and land line calls. I'm aware that the future will bring much less privacy, but it isn't necessary to treat it that way just yet.

[strategy 4]

for the last time, I dont agree with everything Obama does just because I vote for him. I would not have voted for the current FISA bill until it added more oversight from the judiciary.

obama only voted for it move more to the center. I think it was a good move for him, even though it was a huge sellout...

[copernicus 0]

You mean the requirement that the Bush administration does not believe applies to them? Their stance is that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists allows them to bypass the FISC. The NSA surveillance program is entirely warrantless.(not to mention that even if they had gone through FISC it's a secret court and we still wouldn't know what was authorized. but its a formality the bush administration did not feel the need to bother with. )Read more at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Its warrantless but still has judicial review, and signing statements are just that...statements. Dont like em, test em. And obviously if "we" know whats authorized "they" know or methods.

[vbnautilus 48]

Its warrantless but still has judicial review, and signing statements are just that...statements. Dont like em, test em. And obviously if "we" know whats authorized "they" know or methods.

There is absolutely no way for me to know if I have had my phone conversations monitored by my government under this program. They have unilaterally claimed an unchecked power to monitor whomever they want to without warrant or having to prove any kind of cause or reason. This is an increase in the power of the federal government that we didn't grant them; they took it. And it is not a power I am willing to give them. Once it came out that they were doing this (secretly and illegally), it has raised the attention of groups like the EFF which are raising legal challenges. The surveillance program as it stands is not acceptable.

[copernicus 0]

There is absolutely no way for me to know if I have had my phone conversations monitored by my government under this program. They have unilaterally claimed an unchecked power to monitor whomever they want to without warrant or having to prove any kind of cause or reason. This is an increase in the power of the federal government that we didn't grant them; they took it. And it is not a power I am willing to give them. Once it came out that they were doing this (secretly and illegally), it has raised the attention of groups like the EFF which are raising legal challenges. The surveillance program as it stands is not acceptable.

unacceptable to you...it doesnt go far enough, imo

[strategy 4]

unacceptable to you...it doesnt go far enough, imo

yeah, I really just don't understand the level of trust here. if it isn't scaled back, I really hope I'm wrong about this.

[Balloon guy 158]

obama only voted for it move more to the center. I think it was a good move for him, even though it was a huge sellout...

It's almost like he's a typical politician, not a breath of fresh air after all.Sorry I didn't see your link regarding Obama's support of FISA, I generally don't click links.

[vbnautilus 48]

I generally don't click links.

Then how did you get here?

[LadyGrey 6]

Then how did you get here?

Very nice, I snickered.

[Sal Paradise 57]

I think BigD and copernicus should have a contest to see who can disagree with the most people in a certain period of time. that would be exciting.

[AmScray 355]

the slippery slope is that it will be used for other than intelligence purposes. And if youre on the NSA radar for some reason and talking to someone in Germany, I dont give a damn about your privacy, and you should be more concerned about why youre on their radar. NSA can listen to my overseas and domestic communications for all I care. If youre so bad at phone sex that youd be embarassed, theres probably a "Lewd Calls for Dummies" book to help.

I do. I care. I don't want the NSA listening to my phone calls. That I have nothing to hide doesn't mean that my government should be allowed to listen to my calls. I don't want the government 'keeping tabs' on me, mine or anyone I care about in any way. Your faith in the legitimacy of the governments 'radar' - as far as who they are likely to spy on- is horribly misplaced (as history has shown, and is currently showing us).I want them listening in on the phone calls of terrorists, but I want the listeners to be liable to an external authority before being given permission to do so- so that we can know the person ibeing subjected to investigation is REALLY A TERRORIST, rather than a bunch of agents with ulterior motives calling anyone 'a terrorist' whenever they want (or are being directed) to effect an unfavorable action against them.It's OK to trust the government, but it is NEVER OK to trust them blindly. The people who do so are very naive about government, the types of people who are involved in government and the potential downward implications of giving these people a 'blank check' to invade basic civil liberties under one high-minded precept or another; be it terrorism, the war on drugs, or whatever cause-de-jour they adopt in their never-ending efforts to erode the ability of the people to live freely, away from their control.You have to understand that cops- and their associated personality types- care nothing about you or your freedoms. I would wager my entire net worth leveraged 100X that if you were to take an anonymous survey of law enforcement officers- from lowly beat cops to high level federal agents- they would overwhelmingly support the removal of huge swaths of civil liberties that we consider essential. We err gravely when we allow law enforcement to be a self-managing entity. We fail when we seek their council on matters of civil liberties- of course, they will always be in favor of removing them under the guise of "providing them the tools they need to do their job". Law Enforcement is an entity that must be managed by the people, but sadly, they've taken on a role as 'managers of the people', which is a huge mistake and in my lifetime, I will see the outcome of this, one way or the other.