Project INDECT: European Surveillance

[kallipolis]

Their tune will change once they have had the classified briefing that is scheduled next week.

EVERY SINGLE SENATOR no matter the political bent or their previous statements agrees with PRISM once they are read in.... that will not change. Everyone is not corrupt. I am pretty sure if you go back and look I stated very clearly that once BHO has a clue in office MOST of what he was bitching about for GWB will be saved and increased.

Meanwhile Europe records every waking moment in the public sphere of a peeking camera but that is no biggy. lol

That you say so.

I'll wait for the media reports.

 

[bankside]

We abhor and place massive restrictions on video surveillance while Europeans embrace Orwellian monitoring. Same stew, different cooks.

This is probably where the difference is made and why it isn't the same stew.

A police officer without much to do could spend his days standing on the street corner watching my to-ing and fro-ing. A video camera would accomplish the same. But if he sets foot on my doorstep or opens my mail, he is answerable to the courts to produce a very good reason why. That's as it should be. There is no reason why people's privacy expectations with respect to postal mail should be watered down for other forms of communication.

 

[JayHawk]

This is probably where the difference is made and why it isn't the same stew.

A police officer without much to do could spend his days standing on the street corner watching my to-ing and fro-ing. A video camera would accomplish the same. But if he sets foot on my doorstep or opens my mail, he is answerable to the courts to produce a very good reason why. That's as it should be. There is no reason why people's privacy expectations with respect to postal mail should be watered down for other forms of communication.

However... since there is no proof they open mail without warrants that analogy is not accurate.

- - - Updated - - -

That you say so.

I'll wait for the media reports.

I do, wait and learn.

 

[Corny]

BECAUSE you agreed to the terms of use and folks like CORNY allow google to take data from JUB servers so they can be found and increase profits.

So many issues in one post.

a) I am not the one "allowing" google to do it, IF at all, it's the owners.
b) what you post here is public, google collects public data.
c) it is possible to expose not public data (like PMs, registered e-mail address, etc..) to google - JUB does not do that.
d) it's easy to say that being on google is only to increase profit. but how many people would know JUB if it weren't for google or some other search engine?

 

[JayHawk]

So many issues in one post.

a) I am not the one "allowing" google to do it, IF at all, it's the owners.
b) what you post here is public, google collects public data.
c) it is possible to expose not public data (like PMs, registered e-mail address, etc..) to google - JUB does not do that.
d) it's easy to say that being on google is only to increase profit. but how many people would know JUB if it weren't for google or some other search engine?

Do you write the code? Then you allow it... the owners may instruct you to do so but that's about it. I agree everything here is public. Just like the sender, receiver and address of internet mail. I have no problem with JUB or any other entity doing so for profit. Perhaps you singled out a single statement and decided you had gold.

But nothing you say (defensively, I might add) contradicts what I believe. <Shrug> The folks whining with bitter tears in their eyes that "just look, just look, you can find what you write on JUB on Google" were the target audience. I am sorry if you felt warm in your shorts over it. But perhaps you're a bit sensitive?

 

[bankside]

However... since there is no proof they open mail without warrants that analogy is not accurate.

I do, wait and learn.

That wasn't my point, but thank you for supporting my actual point.

If law enforcement officials are content to wait for a warrant before opening my postal mail, what reason do they have that would be acceptable to free people in an open society, for fishing around in our electronic mail?

 

[JayHawk]

They aren't fishing around in your electronic mail. They copy down origination and destination address and times data is sent. then when a person is under investigation data can be filtered to view the traffic of that person. The "their reading all your content" is mass hysteria with no proof. Which is the length and breadth of most all of the 'journalism' on this subject. The folks put suppositions out there and those with a proclivity to believe such tripe eat it up and repeat it.

 

[JayHawk]

And before you point to articles like this, which use astonishing headlines then contradict themselves if people do what most don't and that is read the whole article.

NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

Which it means to say "NSA CAN but doesnt listen and obtains a warrant when data collection STARTS inside the US."

Which revolves around the idea that an analyst looks at the data to see where it came from....

AT&T and other telecommunications companies that allow the NSA to tap into their fiber links receive absolute immunity from civil liability or criminal prosecution, thanks to a law that Congress enacted in 2008 and renewed in 2012. It's a series of amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as the FISA Amendments Act.
That law says surveillance may be authorized by the attorney general and director of national intelligence without prior approval by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as long as minimization requirements and general procedures blessed by the court are followed.
A requirement of the 2008 law is that the NSA "may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States." A possible interpretation of that language, some legal experts said, is that the agency may vacuum up everything it can domestically -- on the theory that indiscriminate data acquisition was not intended to "target" a specific American citizen.

So essentially... yes they are collecting everything but that doesn't mean they listen to everything. There isn't enough NSA staff or agents on earth to do that.

 

[JayHawk]

Hafta go back and look and see where Europeans defending their surveillance programmes became lets start another NSA thread. I see Europeans are fine with the eavesdropping done in their countries. Hell there is no fun poking yourself.

 

[Corny]

Perhaps you singled out a single statement and decided you had gold.

Yep, I specifically took that statement because you used my name and wrote some bullshit after it. And your reply is equally oblivious to the tech behind it. And that's a huge problem in the whole discussion. But not just since now, it always has been a big obstacle in the privacy discussion. And the main reason why people use to dismiss privacy concerns so easily.

 

[JayHawk]

Yep, I specifically took that statement because you used my name and wrote some bullshit after it. And your reply is equally oblivious to the tech behind it. And that's a huge problem in the whole discussion. But not just since now, it always has been a big obstacle in the privacy discussion. And the main reason why people use to dismiss privacy concerns so easily.

You cause it to occur, which is all I meant. Nevermind, I forgot you get so uptight about things.

JUB allows data from JUB to be collected outside of JUB and the user agreement reflects such an allowance by the users. Never mind the wizard behind the curtain.

Which again gets into the argument that people are free to not agree and not use those services. Last i checked earth existed for eons without cell phones or the internet.

So tell me Corny, how does the German government determine what is foreign and what is German national correspondence while they collect signals?

 

[bankside]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/surveillance-0?fb_ref=activity

This article pretty much sums it up:

We need to think coherently about what we find scary here. The problem isn't so much that we haven't set up a legal architecture to preserve our online privacy from the government; it's that we haven't set up a legal architecture to preserve our online privacy from anyone at all. If we don't have laws and regulations that create meaningful zones of online privacy from corporations, the attempt to create online privacy from the government will be an absurdity.

I don't use ad-suppported free email myself. And I'd welcome stronger regulation of commercial and government intrusion. Strange that we seem to be descending into a pissing contest about which continent or which corporation is most nosy, rather than discussing whether we should allow any of them to behave that way.

 

[Vitamin]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/surveillance-0?fb_ref=activity

This article pretty much sums it up:


I don't use ad-suppported free email myself. And I'd welcome stronger regulation of commercial and government intrusion. Strange that we seem to be descending into a pissing contest about which continent or which corporation is most nosy, rather than discussing whether we should allow any of them to behave that way.

While a debate would be healthy for us in North America it would seem to only frustrate our European friends whose INDECT program will inevitably fall under the mandates of the EU authority, which has no democratic process whatsoever. It would be most unfair to them if said debate resulted in the futile effort of requestioning the wisdom of their Union, considering Europe doesn't appear anymore stable than it did in the years before the authority's creation, and membership came at the cost of the democratic process most of its states had been enjoying since at least the Marshall Plan.

My message to my fellow Americans in this thread: LEAVE EUROPE ALONE. They know with INDECT their voice in their privacy laws will be abolished and are merely looking for someone to lash out at. Those poor things. Perhaps we could be nice and let them have just one little thread on here that they can vent in, maybe?

 

[Kulindahr]

BECAUSE you agreed to the terms of use and folks like CORNY allow google to take data from JUB servers so they can be found and increase profits.

Data from JUB allowing them to be found does not need to reveal our posts.

In a just society, every word we type would be our property, and anyone wishing to use them would have to pay, by the word, for that use.

LOL... stop making my argument for me. ANYTIME you agree to a user agreement to utilize a service provided by someone else you do so on THEIR terms.

So you approve of coercion.

Not surprising, I guess, for someone in the military.

 

[Kulindahr]

Their tune will change once they have had the classified briefing that is scheduled next week.

EVERY SINGLE SENATOR no matter the political bent or their previous statements agrees with PRISM once they are read in.... that will not change. Everyone is not corrupt. I am pretty sure if you go back and look I stated very clearly that once BHO has a clue in office MOST of what he was bitching about for GWB will be saved and increased.

Meanwhile Europe records every waking moment in the public sphere of a peeking camera but that is no biggy. lol

Thanks for illustrating the fact that power corrupts.

 

[Lostlover]

While a debate would be healthy for us in North America it would seem to only frustrate our European friends whose INDECT program will inevitably fall under the mandates of the EU authority, which has no democratic process whatsoever. It would be most unfair to them if said debate resulted in the futile effort of requestioning the wisdom of their Union, considering Europe doesn't appear anymore stable than it did in the years before the authority's creation, and membership came at the cost of the democratic process most of its states had been enjoying since at least the Marshall Plan.

My message to my fellow Americans in this thread: LEAVE EUROPE ALONE. They know with INDECT their voice in their privacy laws will be abolished and are merely looking for someone to lash out at. Those poor things. Perhaps we could be nice and let them have just one little thread on here that they can vent in, maybe?

Part of me doesn't know if it's the gay in them talking or what, but on mainstream forums the responses are definitely more cautious, mainstream and less hypocritical. The British people writing in seem to be more or equally concerned about their government giving us information. The people writing in here haven't made a peep about any of that. (From looking at the charts, it's fair to conclude that Germany and the UK are police states, but nobody seemed to give a damn on that side of the Atlantic.)

Just put it in perspective: if you talk to the average British person, this nonsense you're reading here isn't a factor, such as telling someone you're communicating with what they can't say. How effective are your talking points if you're creating imaginary boundaries in discussions?

Also, didn't Snowden's supporters in Hong Kong just march for the right of "freedom of speech"?

I remember way back when General Alfie used to post on here. He'd often say, "Buy a one-way ticket to North Korea," as a rebuttal to people he disagreed with. Well, with the surveillance requests the UK does, maybe I should tell Americans to buy a one-way ticket to London.

 

[kallipolis]

^There is a vital difference for neither Germany or the United Kingdom pretend to be the epitome of the Utopian democratic state, preaching liberty, democracy etc. to the rest of the world here lies the dilemma for those American "patriots" unable to grasp that their own government is as intrusive as other governments in the affairs of their citizens.

Hypocrisy might well be the headline for those Americans who naively believe that their own government is as white as snow in its adherence to the laws that appear to govern the NSA's activities.

We here in Greece managed to create a form of basic democracy some 2500 years ago with The Constitution of Athens under a noble politician, Pericles who nevertheless was sufficiently wise to realise that the power of the people was as self serving as their political elite. We've mislaid our democratic values, many times over the centuries but, keep trying to redeem our selves by pursuing our goals to construct a more democratic system of governance...but we don't attempt to teach the rest of the world how to govern.

 

[Kulindahr]

^There is a vital difference for neither Germany or the United Kingdom pretend to be the epitome of the Utopian democratic state, preaching liberty, democracy etc. to the rest of the world here lies the dilemma for those American "patriots" unable to grasp that their own government is as intrusive as other governments in the affairs of their citizens.

Hypocrisy might well be the headline for those Americans who naively believe that their own government is as white as snow in its adherence to the laws that appear to govern the NSA's activities.

It baffles me that anyone living here now can think we're any better off -- in many ways, we're worse.

We here in Greece managed to create a form of basic democracy some 2500 years ago with The Constitution of Athens under a noble politician, Pericles who nevertheless was sufficiently wise to realise that the power of the people was as self serving as their political elite. We've mislaid our democratic values, many times over the centuries but, keep trying to redeem our selves by pursuing our goals to construct a more democratic system of governance...but we don't attempt to teach the rest of the world how to govern.

Of course that demos kratia was built upon slavery.


... a condition the giant corporations are taking America toward.

 

[cm98059]

One of the things that I keep seeing in this thread is the assumption that Americans condone spying on Americans. I have only seen in all of these threads one report offered up that might claim to make that claim, but that survey only talked to 1000 people. I hate to tell you this, but there are more than 1000 people in America. That touted survey suffers from insufficient data. If you want to claim that Americans approve of this show us some proof. I have stated repeatedly, that I do not condone the wholesale trampling of the constitution and the bill of rights. I am sure that there are many other Americans that feel the same way.

Another problem with some of the arguments in these threads is the notion that public information and private information are the same thing. The agreement with social networking sites gives them permission to collect public information about you and use it to market items that you may have an interest in. The agreement stipulates public information, I really don't give a damn if google or anyone else sends me advertisements for cars or other things that I tell them I am interested in. I do care that the government is trying to force them to collect my private information, my private correspondence, or my private telephone calls so that the government can download and store them in their entirety so that they can use them at a later date if they see fit, without due process.

A third inaccuracy in some of the arguments in this thread is the comparison of wholesale downloading and storage of entire phone conversations, entire blocks of emails, banking data, and other private information with cameras in public areas. Do you honestly believe that you are not on camera when you walk into your local Macy's? Do you think that there are no cameras monitoring the streets of the United States? These are PUBLIC AREAS. This is not an invasion of PRIVACY, you have no expectation of privacy when you are walking down a public street. Obviously, no idiot in their right mind is going to talk about criminal activity while walking down the street in any country, cameras are everywhere. The only invasion of privacy regarding cameras, is if the camera is pointed in the windows of my home. Outside the confines of my home, I have no expectation of privacy. The information that I post on a public forum like this, or facebook or google or any other site has no expectation of privacy. My personal phone calls, my personal emails, my personal snail mail, my banking records, my health records, and other things that I have an expectation of privacy are protected by due process. This thread concerns a blanket collection of private data without due process. I am provided the right to due process under the constitution, and the collection of data without my permission, is a violation of my constitutional rights.

 

[JayHawk]

Data from JUB allowing them to be found does not need to reveal our posts.

In a just society, every word we type would be our property, and anyone wishing to use them would have to pay, by the word, for that use.



So you approve of coercion.

Not surprising, I guess, for someone in the military.

No in your mental perception of society.

Since we are talking about the equivalent of being on the air then I suppose you think people should be allowed to say anything on the air in a radio broadcast.

You are free to think what you wish, you are free to discuss what you wish in the privacy of your life. You are not free to broadcast whatever you wish to the world. When you do that very act makes the speech public domain and subject to the rules of a civilized society.