PRISM: NSA/FBI Mining Internet Data since 2007

[kallipolis]

You guys have a hard time with reasoned responses, which is why I stopped a long time ago.

He said a massive system was set up because America is 6% of the world and the rest of you #@$% @#%^%^@ can be spied upon. (I added #@$% @#%^%^@ in referring to non-americans just because it sounds shitty)

When warrants are presented as in the cases with Facebook and Microsoft then they can use the system to look at that persons history IF the warrant specifies and IF the search requires it. Incidently Microsoft and Facebook released the "targets" they were required to release to the government and it amounts to a tenth of a percent of their customer base.... lol. So obviously we are spying on ALL Americans.

The fact remains that PRISM is used to monitor the communications of United States citizens - the numbers of persons targeted are not relevant - living in the United States for, the NSA understands very well that a terrorist suspect is just as likely to be a home grown, white skinned, blue eyed American such as Timothy McVeigh as he or she could be an Asian, and attempts by you or anyone else posting here to obfuscate this reality by resorting to poorly constructed Sophistic argumentation will not change the well publicised tactics of the NSA.

 

[JayHawk]

Right, as compelled by warrants and a need to search. They collect metadata and then use it to narrow out known acquaintances.

What I find compelling is that Snowden is turning out to be a regular, everyday traitor and providng a nation he used to spy on with what they are gathering to gain favor with that country.

You and others like you are claiming, sans any evidence, that the USA is the evil empire. But you forget you have no evidence. Stand by, like I said once the congress is read in they will shut the fuck up and be calling for Snowden's head on a stick. I wouldn't be surprised when Hong Kong hands him to us since we have an extradition treaty with Hong Kong. Even with the Chinese influence on foreign matters because Snowden is a tiny cog in a giant and deep relationship between this country and China.

But hey... stop back in and tell me I am wrong after it plays out, oh and please, keep telling us the sky is falling in the meantime. Plenty of chicken littles will ride your bandwagon.

 

[kallipolis]

Right, as compelled by warrants and a need to search. They collect metadata and then use it to narrow out known acquaintances.

What I find compelling is that Snowden is turning out to be a regular, everyday traitor and providng a nation he used to spy on with what they are gathering to gain favor with that country.

You and others like you are claiming, sans any evidence, that the USA is the evil empire. But you forget you have no evidence. Stand by, like I said once the congress is read in they will shut the fuck up and be calling for Snowden's head on a stick. I wouldn't be surprised when Hong Kong hands him to us since we have an extradition treaty with Hong Kong. Even with the Chinese influence on foreign matters because Snowden is a tiny cog in a giant and deep relationship between this country and China.

But hey... stop back in and tell me I am wrong after it plays out, oh and please, keep telling us the sky is falling in the meantime. Plenty of chicken littles will ride your bandwagon.

Keep on speculating...for it's entertaining...meantime, I'll keep focusing on the facts while you provide us with entertainment value.

 

[JayHawk]

The facts::

"You can't expect a president to not use a legal tool that Congress has given him to protect the country," he said. "So, Congress has given him the tool. The president's using it. And the courts are saying 'The way you're using it is OK.' That's checks and balances at work."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/prism-is-just-the-start-of-nsa-spying-2013-6#ixzz2WOZ8UxQ7

feel free to read the article above. It is quite illuminating. While the world focuses on PRISM the reality is that we are recording the real feed, that is what the storage in Utah is for and people should actually thank PRISM for narrowing the data analyzed.

Kallipolis you have no idea how much of the facts I knew long before everyone's panties were in a wad. I deal in reality land, sorry to bust your bubble. ALL three tiers of our government have agreed it is necessary and protects constitutional rights. In other words our entire government is either 100% corrupted or this is legal.... This isn't like different politicians showing up in Greece, figuring out everyone is lying about the debt and then choosing to lie as well. These are all independent agencies and legs of government who in many cases have good reason to chop the legs off of the next tier.

But like I said we will continue down the path of what is released and the NSA collection will continue. What I find astonishing is that all of this was out there and has been for years. People a truly fucking cattle.

 

[kallipolis]

Kallipolis you have no idea how much of the facts I knew long before everyone's panties were in a wad.

That you say so....keep whistling Yankee, doodle, dandy ..better still I prefer this version, to your's:

 

[JayHawk]

Well if you have no other response to the conversation... enjoy tooting your horn.

 

[T-Rexx]

They have not denied the existence of the system, but they have repeatedly denied that it is not used to target Americans. You, and everyone else, seem to forget that the US isn't the only country in the world. The United States makes up about 6% of the world's population. The NSA is responsible for making sure the other 94% aren't out to harm America, whether it be terrorists, state actors, foreign businesses, etc. Presumably, all of the capabilities that PRISM has would be of use against the targets NSA can go after everyday without needing a warrant at all (i.e. non-Americans not in America.)

In other words, it is your contention that the NSA has set up a massive data mining system within the USA, in order to spy on foreigners, exclusively.

I would suggest to the NSA that if it was interested in foreigners and not Americans, it might monitor foreign internet traffic, not American.

Again, you are cramming the limited facts available (that a system exists that has x, y, and z capability) into your narrative that you want people to believe (the government hates Americans) in order to make a half-truth (the government must be using this system to spy on Americans because why else would the system exist?) That's the argument that's not very credible.

No, of course, it's ridiculous to suppose that the NSA would set up a massive system designed to spy on Americans, and then use it to spy on Americans. What was I thinking?

If this system is capable of spying on all Americans and Snowden had the ability, as he claimed, to be able to tap into anyone's information at the push of a button, why didn't he provide an example?

Snowden did not claim that, and he did provide evidence of what PRISM is doing.

Why not get a phone call the President had made and release it showing that this capability was being used to target Americans? Why not show some e-mails that Pelosi or Boehner sent on their Gmail? Why not show Rand Paul Skyping with Ron Paul? It's because this information doesn't exist and he didn't have the capability to access any of it.

Why do you assume that a 29 year old low-level IT guy at the NSA in Hawaii had comprehensive access to everything the NSA collects nationwide, and the ability to smuggle this information out?

Why do you regard Snowden as some kind of IT god?

All he has done is show that the NSA has a program in place where it can access information it needs to execute its mission. He didn't provide any evidence that it was being used against Americans at all.

And why do you assume that a system designed from the ground up to spy on all Americans is not being used to spy on Americans?

So yes, the NSA could be using this infrastructure everyday and still not be targeting Americans because there are 6 billion other people out there who aren't Americans and who don't get Fourth Amendment protections.

PRISM was set up within the USA to spy on American internet traffic. I guess if you want to know what is going on in Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran, you check in with Milwaukee, Burbank, and Tallahassee.

And, by the way, $20 million a year is not "phenomenally expensive" when you're talking about a government who spends trillions a year.

How do you know that PRISM and multiple similar programs cost only $20 million per year?

You could have read the first paragraph and then commented on it, which is what I am thinking, because nowhere in that article did he claim Franklin meant the opposite of what he said. The entire article is written about and targeted to those who interpret Franklin's quote as being absolute. But if you provide a quote from the article showing where he made the point Franklin actually meant the opposite of what he said, we'll talk further. Reading more into something than what is there seems to be a strong point of your's.

Fine.

I want to know what "essential liberty" anyone has lost via any measure to heighten security in the wake of 9-11?

Notice also, that Franklin talks of "a little temporary safety." The measures we are employing are designed to avert future terrorist attacks, and have already proven successful in catching terrorists before they can cause mayhem. Is that considered "a little temporary safety?"

Exactly as I described, Meyer claims that Franklin did not mean to caution us about trading liberty for security in our current circumstance, apparently because the liberties now compromised are somehow not essential, and the safety achieved is somehow not temporary. What a staggeringly stupid argument.



http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/meyer/060911

 

[Sausy]

Meyers seemed also to support the Sedition Act, which was John Adam's biggest mistake and regret in an otherwise distinguished public career, and accept the internment of Japanese-Americans throughout our involvement against Japan in WWII. While the Constitution may not reject the suspension of Habeus Corpus in a civil rebellion as Lincoln acted during the Civil War, using today's concern over international terrorism to basically say Franklin would even be fine with the exponentially expansive national security state.... I believe especially in times like this he would urge that we don't destroy the values we hold dear JUST to be secure.

 

[T-Rexx]

Meyers seemed also to support the Sedition Act, which was John Adam's biggest mistake and regret in an otherwise distinguished public career, and accept the internment of Japanese-Americans throughout our involvement against Japan in WWII.

Yes, exactly.

Meyer's mantra is that security is more important than liberty, especially in times of distress. As if interning Japanese Americans made us safer during WWII! So much safer that it was worth suspending the civil and human rights of 150,000 American citizens.

While the Constitution may not reject the suspension of Habeus Corpus in a civil rebellion as Lincoln acted during the Civil War, using today's concern over international terrorism to basically say Franklin would even be fine with the exponentially expansive national security state.... I believe especially in times like this he would urge that we don't destroy the values we hold dear JUST to be secure.

Thank you. You get it, Sausy.

It is in times of distress that our liberties are most threatened. It is during these times that we must act most emphatically to protect our rights - not suspend them because we feel threatened by trying times.

Franklin was not trying to tell us that it is okay to suspend civil rights when times get tough. He was trying to warn us of the danger of succumbing to fear when people would try to frighten us.

 

[Sausy]

Yes, exactly.

Meyer's mantra is that security is more important than liberty, especially in times of distress. As if interning Japanese Americans made us safer during WWII! So much safer that it was worth suspending the civil and human rights of 150,000 American citizens.




Thank you. You get it, Sausy.

It is in times of distress that our liberties are most threatened. It is during these times that we must act most emphatically to protect our rights - not suspend them because we feel threatened by trying times.

Franklin was not trying to tell us that it is okay to suspend civil rights when times get tough. He was trying to warn us of the danger of succumbing to fear when people are trying to frighten us.

Also even if we can feel comfortable that the intentions of those behind these programs are noble we cannot afford to trust infinitely everyone's motives. We allow this now, we may well lose our country as we have known it... or wished in our most positive thoughts what it could be.

 

[kallipolis]

It is in times of distress that our liberties are most threatened. It is during these times that we must act most emphatically to protect our rights - not suspend them because we feel threatened by trying times.

This...............

 

[opinterph]

Meyer's mantra is that security is more important than liberty, especially in times of distress. As if interning Japanese Americans made us safer during WWII! So much safer that it was worth suspending the civil and human rights of 150,000 American citizens.

Finding all those people must have posed a difficult challenge. I reckon the task would have been much easier if they’d had a database back then.

Confirmed: The U.S. Census Bureau Gave Up Names of Japanese-Americans in WW II​

 

[Sausy]

Were German- Americans or Italian-Americans similarly given up and mistreated like the Japanese-Americans were? Probably one of the most disgraceful moments of destruction of individual liberties in our history, and to liberal icon FDR's eternal discredit. And lol, we had as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces a German-American, Dwight Eisenhower. What were we thinking?( being totally sarcastic and cynical here)

 

[tigerfan482]

In other words, it is your contention that the NSA has set up a massive data mining system within the USA, in order to spy on foreigners, exclusively.

I would suggest to the NSA that if it was interested in foreigners and not Americans, it might monitor foreign internet traffic, not American.

First off, yes they did set up a massive data mining system in the US. Other countries generally would not let the United States set up data mining systems in their countries. Also, most of the world's data flows through the United States, especially when foreigners are using international providers like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. Please learn about how data flows around the world before you attempt to pull a conspiracy out of nothing.

No, of course, it's ridiculous to suppose that the NSA would set up a massive system designed to spy on Americans, and then use it to spy on Americans. What was I thinking?

Again, you make the assumption that NSA has set up a system designed to spy on Americans and then run with it as truth. You have not provided one shred of evidence that this surveillance system was set up to spy on Americans. Not one single piece. Until you do, your arguments are nothing but your opinion with no backing.

Snowden did not claim that, and he did provide evidence of what PRISM is doing.

Wow. Are you serious? Please go back and read the interview with Snowden because he said it clear as day. You're obviously arguing points from articles you haven't even read.

Why do you assume that a 29 year old low-level IT guy at the NSA in Hawaii had comprehensive access to everything the NSA collects nationwide, and the ability to smuggle this information out?

Why do you regard Snowden as some kind of IT god?

Because he said he could do it. He said it himself. I'm not assuming. I'm going by what he claimed.

And why do you assume that a system designed from the ground up to spy on all Americans is not being used to spy on Americans?

Because you or anyone else has not presented ANY evidence supporting the idea the system was designed to spy on Americans. Please take an introductory to logic course at your local community college and learn how to form reasoned arguments. You have to be able to present factual premises to support your conclusion and nothing you have presented in this thread is fact.

PRISM was set up within the USA to spy on American internet traffic. I guess if you want to know what is going on in Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran, you check in with Milwaukee, Burbank, and Tallahassee.

It's funny how many times you can make an unsubstantiated claim in one post. You obviously don't understand a) how data flows around the globe and b) how the NSA works at all. As I stated above, if you want to know what people in Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran are doing on the internet, you don't (and can't) walk into those places and set up shop.

How do you know that PRISM and multiple similar programs cost only $20 million per year?

This is getting to the point of absurdity. The ONLY piece of evidence on the PRISM program that was released (the select PowerPoint slides that the Guardian released) showed that the program cost $20 million a year. You're being selective with the selective facts that have been released. You say we must trust the slides in order to prove that the system exists yet we can't trust the slides when they say it costs $20 million a year.

Exactly as I described, Meyer claims that Franklin did not mean to caution us about trading liberty for security in our current circumstance, apparently because the liberties now compromised are somehow not essential, and the safety achieved is somehow not temporary. What a staggeringly stupid argument.

So are you then arguing that Franklin used extra words that he didn't really mean? He said "essential liberties" instead of "liberties" and "temporary security" instead of "security" for a reason. I have noticed in your understanding of the quote that you omit those words, but he clearly used them and he clearly knew what they meant. Besides, that quote does not at all convey the message that Ben Franklin actually meant the opposite of what he said. That quote demonstrates that the author of the article has an understanding of the quote that says certain liberties may be able to be sacrificed for longer term security. It is a viewpoint many Americans have. But nowhere in that quote did he say it was what Ben Franklin really meant.

 

[JayHawk]

Interesting piece on HOW untied congress is on this issue. I wonder how many folks here agree with any other item that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz put out??

Congress' Love fest with Spying

Finally, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a persistent critic of the PATRIOT Act, declined to criticize Obama or high-tech intrusion in general and has now called for Snowden’s prosecution. Pelosi may have internalized the fact that she has been on the receiving end of over $185,000 in campaign contributions from the computer and internet industries over the last three election cycles, with names like Eric Schmidt of Google and Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook gracing her donor roster, or maybe that we are under a threat, albeit one markedly different and more diffuse from that posed by the Soviet Union back in the day.

Still, Pelosi’s newfound vigilance is noteworthy. In 2005 she had opposed blanket renewal of the PATRIOT Act, and invoked the Founding Fathers in so doing, because they “knew that you cannot have security without liberty, or liberty without security in a democracy.” Two years ago, Pelosi criticized the Republican-led Congress for failing “to seize the opportunity to enact measures and improvements needed to preserve Americans’ privacy and to incorporate oversight and compliance with the law.”

Golly gee willickers I wonder why it is that Nancy Pelosi changed her tune?

 

[T-Rexx]

First off, yes they did set up a massive data mining system in the US. Other countries generally would not let the United States set up data mining systems in their countries. Also, most of the world's data flows through the United States, especially when foreigners are using international providers like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. Please learn about how data flows around the world before you attempt to pull a conspiracy out of nothing.

I am well aware of the flow of data around the globe. And I know that it is not necessary to listen in on the communications of every American in order to spy on foreigners.

I also know that it is no longer true that most of the world's electronic communications flow through the USA. That was true a few years ago, when most of the internet's infrastructure resided within the USA.

So, why is the NSA spying on Americans?

Again, you make the assumption that NSA has set up a system designed to spy on Americans and then run with it as truth. You have not provided one shred of evidence that this surveillance system was set up to spy on Americans. Not one single piece. Until you do, your arguments are nothing but your opinion with no backing.

That's not my claim. That is the claim of one Edward Snowden, an NSA IT systems administrator.

The evidence I have is Snowden's claim, backed by documents he presented to The Guardian and The South China Morning Post. Of course, Snowden may be lying. But what he presents is evience, nevertheless.

You, on the other hand, keep insisting that Americans are not being spied upon indiscriminately, and the only "evidence" you present is your impression that the NSA just wouldn't do that.

Wow. Are you serious? Please go back and read the interview with Snowden because he said it clear as day. You're obviously arguing points from articles you haven't even read.

Snowden said that an analyst with the proper authority could target anyone. Technologically speaking, he could target anyone. That does not mean that analysts have permission to spy on old girlfriends, get insider stock tips from Warren Buffet, or spy on the president. Do you really think these people are given a terminal and just allowed to do whatever they want?

IT people who work in banks, for example, often have the ability to look up the finances of any account holder at the bank, including celebrities. That does not mean that they are permitted to do so. Such employees are routinely monitored, and routinely fired if they stray outside of their assigned work at hand. Snowden emphasized several times that he was not special at the NSA. I have no reason to dispute his claim.

There is a more important point here, however. Snowden says it is possible to target anybody. If that's true, why is the NSA targeting everybody? The civil rights issue here is not that people are being spied upon because some court has granted permission on the basis of some suspicion of wrongdoing. It is that people are being spied upon without suspicion and without court supervision.

Because he said he could do it. He said it himself. I'm not assuming. I'm going by what he claimed.

Yes, he said he could do that. He did not say that he would or that he had permission to do so.

Because you or anyone else has not presented ANY evidence supporting the idea the system was designed to spy on Americans. Please take an introductory to logic course at your local community college and learn how to form reasoned arguments. You have to be able to present factual premises to support your conclusion and nothing you have presented in this thread is fact.

The evidence we have is Snowden's claims, and the documents he has produced to corroborate his claims.

You, on the other hand, keep insisting that unauthorized spying is surely not occurring (despite Snowden's evidence to the contrary), and your own "evidence" is your belief that the NSA are fine people who surely would not do such a thing.

It's funny how many times you can make an unsubstantiated claim in one post. You obviously don't understand a) how data flows around the globe and b) how the NSA works at all. As I stated above, if you want to know what people in Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran are doing on the internet, you don't (and can't) walk into those places and set up shop.

The point is that if the NSA wants to spy on foreigners, why are they spying on Americans?

I appreciate the difficulty they face in attempting to monitor communications activity on foreign soil. My heart bleeds for them. That does not make it okay to spy on Americans.

This is getting to the point of absurdity. The ONLY piece of evidence on the PRISM program that was released (the select PowerPoint slides that the Guardian released) showed that the program cost $20 million a year. You're being selective with the selective facts that have been released. You say we must trust the slides in order to prove that the system exists yet we can't trust the slides when they say it costs $20 million a year.

PRISM is one part of a spectrum of programs which seem to be targeting Americans indiscriminately. How do you know what they cost?

So are you then arguing that Franklin used extra words that he didn't really mean?

No, I am arguing that Franklin meant exactly what he said.

Robert Meyer's argument that Franklin was trying to warn us of the need to surrender liberty for security when times get tough is not very convincing. In fact, it's ridiculous.

 

[JayHawk]

It would be nice if you could actually understand what PRISM is if you are going to argue about it "targeting". PRISM actually works opposite of what a standard PRISM does... that being "separating white light into a spectrum..." PRISM specifically targets information meeting a guideline input by the user.

I did find the last meaning rather amusing.... in this context...

prism (przm)
n.
1. A solid figure whose bases or ends have the same size and shape and are parallel to one another, and each of whose sides is a parallelogram.
2. A transparent body of this form, often of glass and usually with triangular ends, used for separating white light passed through it into a spectrum or for reflecting beams of light.
3. A cut-glass object, such as a pendant of a chandelier.
4. A crystal form consisting of three or more similar faces parallel to a single axis.
5. A medium that misrepresents whatever is seen through it.

 

[T-Rexx]

It would be nice if you could actually understand what PRISM is if you are going to argue about it "targeting". PRISM actually works opposite of what a standard PRISM does... that being "separating white light into a spectrum..." PRISM specifically targets information meeting a guideline input by the user.

That is precisely the problem.

All of our communications are being monitored indiscriminately. And, if we say the wrong things in our private communications, our government may take action against us.

Is that the kind of America in which we want to live? One where we must always be careful of what we say, even in our most private moments, lest the government inspectors take exception?

Is it really necessary to destroy liberty in order to "protect" it?

 

[tigerfan482]

I am well aware of the flow of data around the globe. And I know that it is not necessary to listen in on the communications of every American in order to spy on foreigners.

I also know that it is no longer true that most of the world's electronic communications flow through the USA. That was true a few years ago, when most of the internet's infrastructure resided within the USA.

So, why is the NSA spying on Americans?

Again, you are assuming that spying on Americans is going on and you're using it as a truth to base your argument on. There is nothing at all that substantiates any claim you make that the NSA is spying on Americans. None whatsoever. You haven't presented a single thing to back up your claim.

That's not my claim. That is the claim of one Edward Snowden, an NSA IT systems administrator.

The evidence I have is Snowden's claim, backed by documents he presented to The Guardian and The South China Morning Post. Of course, Snowden may be lying. But what he presents is evience, nevertheless.

You, on the other hand, keep insisting that Americans are not being spied upon indiscriminately, and the only "evidence" you present is your impression that the NSA just wouldn't do that.

Snowden has not given any evidence that Americans are or were being spied on. He even stated that he was showing that using the PRISM system someone could possibly spy on Americans, and that he didn't have any evidence that Americans were being targeted for spy operations. However, in order to give yourself a chance to vindicate your argument, please post the links to those articles showing the proof that Americans are being spied on, keeping in mind that saying that "well they could use this system to spy on Americans" is not the same as "they have used this system to spy on Americans."

Snowden said that an analyst with the proper authority could target anyone. Technologically speaking, he could target anyone. That does not mean that analysts have permission to spy on old girlfriends, get insider stock tips from Warren Buffet, or spy on the president. Do you really think these people are given a terminal and just allowed to do whatever they want?

IT people who work in banks, for example, often have the ability to look up the finances of any account holder at the bank, including celebrities. That does not mean that they are permitted to do so. Such employees are routinely monitored, and routinely fired if they stray outside of their assigned work at hand. Snowden emphasized several times that he was not special at the NSA. I have no reason to dispute his claim.

There is a more important point here, however. Snowden says it is possible to target anybody. If that's true, why is the NSA targeting everybody? The civil rights issue here is not that people are being spied upon because some court has granted permission on the basis of some suspicion of wrongdoing. It is that people are being spied upon without suspicion and without court supervision.

Sounds like you're getting caught up in your doublespeak. Let's review how this conversation went down:

If this system is capable of spying on all Americans and Snowden had the ability, as he claimed, to be able to tap into anyone's information at the push of a button, why didn't he provide an example?

Snowden did not claim that, and he did provide evidence of what PRISM is doing.

Wow. Are you serious? Please go back and read the interview with Snowden because he said it clear as day. You're obviously arguing points from articles you haven't even read.

Snowden said that an analyst with the proper authority could target anyone. Technologically speaking, he could target anyone. That does not mean that analysts have permission to spy on old girlfriends, get insider stock tips from Warren Buffet, or spy on the president. Do you really think these people are given a terminal and just allowed to do whatever they want?

Looks to me like you completely changed your stance. And besides, Snowden claimed that "I sitting at my desk certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone...". For your reference, this occurs in the interview found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-interview-video at around the 3:30 mark.

It also appears here that you are not only arguing against yourself, but supporting my stance as well. You argue that just because someone has the technical or physical ability to possibly do something doesn't mean they ever have, currently are, or will ever do it. However, you turn right around and say that (minus any evidence to support it) NSA must be spying on Americans because they have a technological capability to do so. You're going to have to choose one side or the other in this argument.

And what sense does your last paragraph there make at all? First off, the NSA is not targeting everybody. Snowden has said this himself. We'll assume for the moment that the PRISM program works as you claim and that every bit of data on earth is stored by NSA. It's still not spying or targeting unless someone specifically goes into and extracts/reviews the information about someone. So it would be impossible for the NSA to target everybody. I don't expect you to get this because you're hell bent on the idea that the government is spending all of its time spying on Americans, but it's just a logical conclusion at this point given what has been put out there.

Yes, he said he could do that. He did not say that he would or that he had permission to do so.

First off, he claimed he had the authorities to do it. I take that as him saying he has the permission to do it. Second, so this is an acceptable argument when giving Snowden a free pass, but it's not okay if it applies to the government? The comparison of "could" and "is doing" occurred earlier in this thread, so please go back and read that. Bottom line is that the government may possess an ability that, when specifically set to target an American, could technically collect communications. That doesn't mean they're doing it. The government is technically and physically capable of kicking in the door of every house in America and searching for drugs, but they're not doing that. You're rights/liberties are only violated when an action happens against you, not when you fear having a capability may one day lead to an action being taken against you.

The evidence we have is Snowden's claims, and the documents he has produced to corroborate his claims.

You, on the other hand, keep insisting that unauthorized spying is surely not occurring (despite Snowden's evidence to the contrary), and your own "evidence" is your belief that the NSA are fine people who surely would not do such a thing.

Technically, you're right. Snowden never claimed that any Americans were being targeted or spied on. He was claiming the capability to do so was there. But you're wrong in that there has been no evidence at all provided showing that any Americans have been spied on or had their Fourth Amendment protections violated. Again, produce some hard evidence and then we'll start talking about you losing your liberties.

The point is that if the NSA wants to spy on foreigners, why are they spying on Americans?

I appreciate the difficulty they face in attempting to monitor communications activity on foreign soil. My heart bleeds for them. That does not make it okay to spy on Americans.

The point is that you obviously don't grasp the concept that there is no proof that NSA is spying on Americans. That statement you made is complete conjecture coming from you. Don't blame Snowden for this one. Americans are not being spied on. I will maintain that stance until some evidence is provided that they are being spied on. Currently, my evidence that they are not being spied on includes courts reviewing the program and approving it, Congress reviewing the program and approving it, and the Executive Branch/Department of Justice reviewing the program and approving it. Every one of those parties has given the okay to the program and has verified it is not spying on Americans. They are the Constitutionally appointed branches of government and arbiters of what does and does not constitute violation of rights/liberties. You can't stand behind the Constitution when arguing about your rights and liberties and then throw it out the window when the process it sets up for establishing, executing, and reviewing these types of situations doesn't yield the result you want.

PRISM is one part of a spectrum of programs which seem to be targeting Americans indiscriminately. How do you know what they cost?

Again, I am talking about the PRISM program which had a cost associated with it on the evidence provided. Sure, I can claim that since NSA is part of the Department of Defense, that it costs $700+ billion a year. Or I could claim that since the US Government runs the NSA that it costs over $1 trillion a year. But what we are talking about is the PRISM program and the information that we've been given on the PRISM program (the same information you and everyone else is basing their flawed arguments on) states that the program is $20 million a year. So again, until you can show evidence that the program is more than that, it's the evidence we have to go on and the current facts that are out there.

No, I am arguing that Franklin meant exactly what he said.

Robert Meyer's argument that Franklin was trying to warn us of the need to surrender liberty for security when times get tough is not very convincing. In fact, it's ridiculous.

HE DOESN'T MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. He was saying that Franklin wasn't speaking in absolutes, which is why he used the terms "essential" and "temporary" and didn't omit them to make an absolute like you have been trying so hard to do.

That is precisely the problem.

All of our communications are being monitored indiscriminately. And, if we say the wrong things in our private communications, our government may take action against us.

Is that the kind of America in which we want to live? One where we must always be careful of what we say, even in our most private moments, lest the government inspectors take exception?

Is it really necessary to destroy liberty in order to "protect" it?

Now you're just getting into a paranoid panic. According to the slides, this program has been in place since 2007. Assuming that your (completely unsubstantiated) claim that all of our communications are being monitored indiscriminately, how many Americans have had any adverse action taken against them because someone didn't like what they were saying? Show me some evidence, any at all, that substantiates anything you have said here. You're being nothing but a complete bag of hot air. You make post after post without producing any evidence (or links to anyone else's evidence) of the vast majority of claims you are making and then come out with some tin-foil hat craziness like this? You're either purposely trolling to get a rise out of people or you are so seriously under-informed and paranoid that you can't even make a reasoned argument anymore.

 

[T-Rexx]

^ Clearly, you don't like Snowden and regard him as a traitor. You don't believe any of his statements, you don't accept the documents he has provided to various newspapers, and you think the PowerPoint presentation was a fake. Because he did not give us one of the president's emails, he's obviously a liar.

Fine.

You are entitled to weigh the evidence for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

But, the rest of us deluded people think there may be some truth in what he says, and in the evidence he has provided. If you want to persuade us of the veracity of your position, you need to give us something other than your personal certainty that the NSA would never spy on Americans without warrants. You need to provide evidence to refute Snowden's evidence. We respect your opinions, but opinion does not outweigh evidence in a debate.

As for Ben Franklin, I give up. You are correct. Franklin disdained liberty and urged us to surrender it to totalitarianism whenever we were gripped by fear. Freedom is just too difficult to protect, and not really worth it when you realize how safe you can be without it. Robert Meyer is a genius for finally pointing out to us, after 250 years of misunderstanding, what Franklin really meant.