[Drlee]

There are always two sides. It is also true those who most fear surveillance are those we need to surveil.

Nonsense. As I said, we individual citizens are not even aware of what data is being collected on us. Let me give you an example.

The Trump administration wants to repeal Obamacare. One of the provisions of Obamacare is the protection against preexisting conditions. Google's massive database of YOUR searches could give insurers clues about who they want to insure and who they don't. Even if they did not make a decision based upon these data insurers could tailor their offers based upon it. Or exclude certain people from being solicited for the best offers or even coverage at all. I google information to help my patients all of the time. I do not want an employer to have my searches.

Another example. What of the lawful gun owner who searches stuff like the completely legal bump-stock which essentially converts their AR-15 into an automatic weapon? Should they be on a potential terror watch list or singled out for action in a civil emergency?

How about the kid next door who hacks your internet? Should you be saddled with his nefarious searches and views?

Perhaps, to respond to one of your anti-immigrant posts, I google "how to get fake ID" for illegal immigrants. That will forever be tied to my IP address and in Google's database about me.

I would maintain OD that non-selective monitoring might even clutter more than it discovers.

Of course, after your 'shoot them at the border' comments you may be on one list or another.

Privacy is essential to free speech. There is a very good reason that the founders included "private papers" in the constitution.

[Rancid]

People want to turn the US in China.

[One Degree]

@Drlee
What is with this quoting me without tagging me and ignoring my actual position to criticize one you made up for me?
Please see my follow up post to the one you cited...

To me, it is certainly more beneficial in public areas. Electronic communications is a different story.

Do you see the problem with your criticism?

[Sivad]

... But wouldn't I want to know if my elected representatives do have something that is worthy of hiding? Shouldn't they be the most transparent of them all?

You won't know it anyway, it'll just be used to own the people that have power and influence over your life. And not all dirt is illegal or even unethical, a lot of it is just shit that can easily be taken out of context and used to damage someone socially or politically.

[Drlee]

To me, it is certainly more beneficial in public areas. Electronic communications is a different story.

I see little difference. If the government, for example, is monitoring identified individuals attending a political rally or having lunch with a friend it is unnecessarily intrusive. I reject that my movements are not subject to some privacy protections simply because I am in a public place. That should not be maintained without a court order and certainly should not be for sale privately. I should not be permitted to buy a map of your goings about just because I want to.

[One Degree]

I see little difference. If the government, for example, is monitoring identified individuals attending a political rally or having lunch with a friend it is unnecessarily intrusive. I reject that my movements are not subject to some privacy protections simply because I am in a public place. That should not be maintained without a court order and certainly should not be for sale privately. I should not be permitted to buy a map of your goings about just because I want to.

I would like to agree with you but when the local news has surveillance video of armed robbers every day, I am glad the odds of them being caught is greatly increased.

[Verv]

You won't know it anyway, it'll just be used to own the people that have power and influence over your life. And not all dirt is illegal or even unethical, a lot of it is just shit that can easily be taken out of context and used to damage someone socially or politically.

Those are honestly very good points.

Especially the first one: I can totally see how there are double standards. If you have enough money, you can make anything go away and not see the light of day through an intricate series of bribes, while normal people do not have that option, so the surveillance state, particularly in corrupt nations, is incredibly powerful.

I would emphasize, though, that whether you are liberal or conservative, the most recent election may make you think twice about concluding that your nation is not particularly corrupt.

The second part is also a good point. It also does something that I kind of like as a theme: undercuts the ability of the masses to come to rational conclusions.

We just saw this in the James Fields thread: The mainstream left is unable to compartmentalize their feelings towards duh Nazis. The result is 30 pages of rants about duh Nazis. This makes it so any sort of remark which smells vaguely sympathetic towards duh Nazis, no matter how innocent in nature, will result in massive & retarded push back, and no amount of reasoning can really make a difference.

[Drlee]

I would like to agree with you but when the local news has surveillance video of armed robbers every day, I am glad the odds of them being caught is greatly increased.

I have no problem with private people photographing what happens on their own property. That is fine. I do have a problem with what they might do with it.

For example. I have no problem with the drug store recording all of the time to identify someone who has robbed them. I have a big problem, given face recognition today, with their recording me and my purchases and selling the information to others. Or using it for marketing to me for that matter.

I am extremely annoyed that every time I search something on google I get an ad on facebook. I am annoyed because in the US we really have no control over this and it represents a database profile of me that is both inaccurate and potentially damaging.

There was a survey a couple of years ago that asked, "Would you rather have a nude picture of you posted online or have your google searches posted". The overwhelming majority of people preferred the nude picture.

The EU is taking on the big tech companies and levying very large fines for a variety of offenses, including privacy issues. This will never happen in the US where our government is wholly owned by big business. Very sad. So now we have a President who rules (he does not believe in democracy at all) through twitter. We have large corporations collecting and selling a massive amount of information about us without proper security not to mention our real permission.

I have security cameras on my home. They are part of the alarm system. The films are collected at a central location and kept for a certain number of days. I also keep them on a SSD in the sending unit. This is not the kind of thing about which I am concerned.

[One Degree]

I have no problem with private people photographing what happens on their own property. That is fine. I do have a problem with what they might do with it.

For example. I have no problem with the drug store recording all of the time to identify someone who has robbed them. I have a big problem, given face recognition today, with their recording me and my purchases and selling the information to others. Or using it for marketing to me for that matter.

I am extremely annoyed that every time I search something on google I get an ad on facebook. I am annoyed because in the US we really have no control over this and it represents a database profile of me that is both inaccurate and potentially damaging.

There was a survey a couple of years ago that asked, "Would you rather have a nude picture of you posted online or have your google searches posted". The overwhelming majority of people preferred the nude picture.

The EU is taking on the big tech companies and levying very large fines for a variety of offenses, including privacy issues. This will never happen in the US where our government is wholly owned by big business. Very sad. So now we have a President who rules (he does not believe in democracy at all) through twitter. We have large corporations collecting and selling a massive amount of information about us without proper security not to mention our real permission.

I have security cameras on my home. They are part of the alarm system. The films are collected at a central location and kept for a certain number of days. I also keep them on a SSD in the sending unit. This is not the kind of thing about which I am concerned.

I object to them selling and misusing my information and I also have no reason to believe our government will stop it. This is actually an old problem that many people are just now noticing. I don’t know if they still do, but the DMV and other government agencies always sold our information long before the internet.
I have been getting very realistic emails from Apple and PayPal saying I needed to respond to stop charges. I canceled my PayPal account years ago and I don’t have a credit card listed with Apple anymore, so I don’t respond. The problem is they are getting my information from somewhere and if these emails are legitimate, the security of these companies should realize they can’t charge my account. So yes, the system needs some serious monitoring.

[Sivad]

If you have enough money, you can make anything go away and not see the light of day through an intricate series of bribes

It doesn't ever go away, it's held over you as blackmail.

So the spy agencies potentially own legislators, legislative staffers, judges, prosecutors, federal and state regulators, corporate executives, hedge fund managers, media pundits, top brass in law enforcement and the military, cabinet secretaries, state governors and mayors, heads of state of other countries, celebrities, intellectuals, labor leaders, activists, scientists and academics, university administrators, religious leaders, organized crime bosses, etc etc etc

With the US surveillance apparatus the spy agencies could own the world. If people were smart they'd get to dismantling that monstrosity ASAP.

[Sivad]

These are the people and agencies you are trusting with every detail of your private life:

[Sivad]

They went after–and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things–they went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of Congress, both Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committees and on the armed services committees and some of the–and judicial. But they went after other ones, too. They went after lawyers and law firms. All kinds of–heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after State Department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House–their own people. They went after antiwar groups. They went after U.S. international–U.S. companies that that do international business, you know, business around the world. They went after U.S. banking firms and financial firms that do international business. They went after NGOs that–like the Red Cross, people like that that go overseas and do humanitarian work. They went after a few antiwar civil rights groups. So, you know, don’t tell me that there’s no abuse, because I’ve had this stuff in my hand and looked at it. And in some cases, I literally was involved in the technology that was going after this stuff.

- Russell D. Tice (born 1961), whistle-blower and former intelligence analyst for the United States Air Force, Office of Naval Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and National Security Agency (NSA). - As told to Peter B. Collins on Boiling Frog Post News

[Rancid]

I have nothing to hide, I love being watched.

[Sivad]

Top-Secret Document Reveals NSA Spied On Porn Habits As Part Of Plan To Discredit ‘Radicalizers’
By Glenn Greenwald, Ryan Grim, and Ryan Gallagher

WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency has been gathering records of online sexual activity and evidence of visits to pornographic websites as part of a proposed plan to harm the reputations of those whom the agency believes are radicalizing others through incendiary speeches, according to a top-secret NSA document. The document, provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, identifies six targets, all Muslims, as “exemplars” of how “personal vulnerabilities” can be learned through electronic surveillance, and then exploited to undermine a target’s credibility, reputation and authority.

The NSA document, dated Oct. 3, 2012, repeatedly refers to the power of charges of hypocrisy to undermine such a messenger. “A previous SIGINT” — or signals intelligence, the interception of communications — “assessment report on radicalization indicated that radicalizers appear to be particularly vulnerable in the area of authority when their private and public behaviors are not consistent,” the document argues.

Among the vulnerabilities listed by the NSA that can be effectively exploited are “viewing sexually explicit material online” and “using sexually explicit persuasive language when communicating with inexperienced young girls.”

The Director of the National Security Agency — described as “DIRNSA” — is listed as the “originator” of the document. Beyond the NSA itself, the listed recipients include officials with the Departments of Justice and Commerce and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“Without discussing specific individuals, it should not be surprising that the US Government uses all of the lawful tools at our disposal to impede the efforts of valid terrorist targets who seek to harm the nation and radicalize others to violence,” Shawn Turner, director of public affairs for National Intelligence, told The Huffington Post in an email Tuesday.

Yet Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said these revelations give rise to serious concerns about abuse. “It’s important to remember that the NSA’s surveillance activities are anything but narrowly focused — the agency is collecting massive amounts of sensitive information about virtually everyone,” he said.

“Wherever you are, the NSA’s databases store information about your political views, your medical history, your intimate relationships and your activities online,” he added. “The NSA says this personal information won’t be abused, but these documents show that the NSA probably defines ‘abuse’ very narrowly.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/ ... 46128.html

[Sivad]

Former National Security Agency officer Russell Tice in a lengthy interview on boiling frogs show June 19, 2013, names categories of the top echelons of the power elite spied on by NSA, including their nominal overseers the FISA court and the Congressional Intelligence Committees. In 2004 they targeted Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, who was preparing to run for U.S. Senate.

The full interview: