patrick.net

SO for now on, let's be weary of politicians who's greatest attribute is they know how to use a Blackberry and are the self professed "Social Media" president.

All of our tech companies play innocent and act like the victims, but wait until Snowden drops the other shoe about that.

Dan8267 says

The US intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden has warned that entire populations, rather than just individuals, now live under constant surveillance. It's no longer based on the traditional practice of targeted taps based on some individual suspicion of wrongdoing, he said. It covers phone calls, emails, texts, search history, what you buy, who your friends are, where you go, who you love. Snowden made his comments in a short video that was played before a debate on the proposition that surveillance today is a euphemism for mass surveillance, in Toronto, Canada. The former US National Security Agency contractor is living in...

He is right, we are all under constant surveillance. You can't even go to to 7-11 without your video being taken. I heard just going to downtown London results in your picture being taken hundreds of times.
Does not bother me if it results in extra safety.

CaptainShuddup says

All of our tech companies play innocent and act like the victims, but wait until Snowden drops the other shoe about that.

Especially Facebook, everyones favorite place to inform our communist government about their whereabouts and colleagues.

Strategist says

Does not bother me if it results in extra safety.

Ah, but what if it results in LESS safety because the state can selectively prosecute anyone they want with the over-criminalization of everything.

The average American -- that includes you -- commits three felonies a day. You are only as free as some faceless bureaucrat wants you to be. At any time, you can get arrested and put in a prison cell with a murderer that doesn't like your race. Still feel safe?

If so, continue reading
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/three-felonies-a-day-how-the-feds-target-the-innocent
http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/19/were-all-felons-now

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/you-break-the-law-every-day-without-even-knowing-it.html

For instance, did you know that it is a federal crime to be in possession of a lobster under a certain size? It doesn’t matter if you bought it at a grocery store, if someone else gave it to you, if it’s dead or alive, if you found it after it died of natural causes, or even if you killed it while acting in self defense. You can go to jail because of a lobster.

If the federal government had access to every email you’ve ever written and every phone call you’ve ever made, it’s almost certain that they could find something you’ve done which violates a provision in the 27,000 pages of federal statues or 10,000 administrative regulations. You probably do have something to hide, you just don’t know it yet.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19450_6-laws-youve-broken-without-even-realizing-it.html
You can get arrested for
- Connecting to Unsecure Wi-Fi Networks
- Singing "Happy Birthday to You" in Public
- Using Fake Names on the Internet [I hope for your sake, Strategist is your real name].
- Betting With Friends
- Writing "Disturbing" Material [even in your diary or journal]
- Owning a Permanent Marker [fuck yeah, even this]

And if that's not fucked up enough, take a gander at this from The Economist,

Mr Norris was 65 years old at the time, and a collector of orchids. He eventually discovered that he was suspected of smuggling the flowers into America, an offence under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. This came as a shock. He did indeed import flowers and sell them to other orchid-lovers. And it was true that his suppliers in Latin America were sometimes sloppy about their paperwork. In a shipment of many similar-looking plants, it was rare for each permit to match each orchid precisely.

In March 2004, five months after the raid, Mr Norris was indicted, handcuffed and thrown into a cell with a suspected murderer and two suspected drug-dealers. When told why he was there, “they thought it hilarious.” One asked: “What do you do with these things? Smoke 'em?”

Prosecutors described Mr Norris as the “kingpin” of an international smuggling ring. He was dumbfounded: his annual profits were never more than about $20,000. When prosecutors suggested that he should inform on other smugglers in return for a lighter sentence, he refused, insisting he knew nothing beyond hearsay.

He pleaded innocent. But an undercover federal agent had ordered some orchids from him, a few of which arrived without the correct papers. For this, he was charged with making a false statement to a government official, a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison. Since he had communicated with his suppliers, he was charged with conspiracy, which also carries a potential five-year term.

As his legal bills exploded, Mr Norris reluctantly changed his plea to guilty, though he still protests his innocence. He was sentenced to 17 months in prison.

It is now the norm for the state to practice selective prosecution for crimes that are not even in principle knowable to the public and that should not be crimes. That's damn good motivation for the state to record everything and prosecute your ass if they want something completely unrelated to the three crimes a day you personally commit without even knowing it.

Check out the Bay Area (SF), south of the city. Cameras all long the roadside. I think the liberals are spying on me. :-(

Strategist says

Does not bother me if it results in extra safety.

If police went door to door and searched every house, including all electronic and paper records, in America it would result in extra safety. Are you ok with that?

Strategist says

Does not bother me if it results in extra safety.

He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. Ben Franklin

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Does not bother me if it results in extra safety.

Ah, but what if it results in LESS safety because the state can selectively prosecute anyone they want with the over-criminalization of everything.

The average American -- that includes you -- commits three felonies a day. You are only as free as some faceless bureaucrat wants you to be. At any time, you can get arrested and put in a prison cell with a murderer that doesn't like your race. Still feel safe?

The way to solve the problem is to make sure these bureaucrats don't abuse their power. Banning surveillance still leaves these bureaucrats to abuse power in other ways, while at the same time compromising our safety by making it easier for the criminal and terrorist elements to harm us.

If we all commit felonies 3 times a day, we should all be in prison. Who is gonna be outside to make sure we are guarded and fed?
Dan8267 says

You can get arrested for

- Connecting to Unsecure Wi-Fi Networks

- Singing "Happy Birthday to You" in Public

- Using Fake Names on the Internet [I hope for your sake, Strategist is your real name].

- Betting With Friends

- Writing "Disturbing" Material [even in your diary or journal]

- Owning a Permanent Marker [fuck yeah, even this]

Oh shit, hey "Strategist" sounds just like "Mark" just a typo. I swear.

Dan8267 says

Mr Norris was 65 years old at the time, and a collector of orchids.

Maybe he was guilty. Don't all criminals claim innocence?

Dan8267 says

It is now the norm for the state to practice selective prosecution for crimes that are not even in principle knowable to the public and that should not be crimes. That's damn good motivation for the state to record everything and prosecute your ass if they want something completely unrelated to the three crimes a day you personally commit without even knowing it.

So lets spend our time and energy to stop this, and solve real problems instead of compromising our safety.

smaulgld says

Strategist says

Does not bother me if it results in extra safety.

He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. Ben Franklin

How about permanent security?

Strategist says

Banning surveillance still leaves these bureaucrats to abuse power in other ways, while at the same time compromising our safety by making it easier for the criminal and terrorist elements to harm us.

Why is surveillance the logical end step? Do you really believe that the people who insisted on surveillance for "our safety" don't have more many steps in mind for "our safety"? Not having police every 500 yards checking papers and patting down every single person comprises our safety. Where do you stop?

bob2356 says

Strategist says

Banning surveillance still leaves these bureaucrats to abuse power in other ways, while at the same time compromising our safety by making it easier for the criminal and terrorist elements to harm us.

Why is surveillance the logical end step? Do you really believe that the people who insisted on surveillance for "our safety" don't have more many steps in mind for "our safety"? Not having police every 500 yards checking papers and patting down every single person comprises our safety. Where do you stop?

Not the end step, but a very important prevention step. If criminals know they are being watched they are less likely to commit crimes, and it's easier to catch them too.
Some London bombings a few years ago was captured on camera, the terrorists were identified by surveillance cameras and easily captured.
Why is that bad?

There is a profound difference between documenting information that people have chosen to show to the public, e.g. walking along the sidewalk, vs surveillance that tries to invade their privacy and capture information that they chose not to show the public. An ordinary camera showing someone walking along the sidewalk as other people would see them is not nearly as objectionable as the X-ray and millimeter wave cameras that undress you. Compiling newspaper articles is fine, but reading people's private correspondence isn't.

Strategist says

Does not bother me if it results in extra safety.

It was very safe in Berlin or Moscow circa 1938. I betcha the number of bike thefts in Pyongyang is much less than in Seoul.

Strategist says

Not the end step, but a very important prevention step. If criminals know they are being watched they are less likely to commit crimes, and it's easier to catch them too.

Whereas if people know they are being watched and recorded forever - including things they do anonymously or not in public - they won't discuss or engage things that they would normally do, which reduces freedom.

thunderlips11 says

Strategist says

Does not bother me if it results in extra safety.

It was very safe in Berlin or Moscow circa 1938. I betcha the number of bike thefts in Pyongyang is much less than in Seoul.

Strategist says

Not the end step, but a very important prevention step. If criminals know they are being watched they are less likely to commit crimes, and it's easier to catch them too.

Whereas if people know they are being watched and recorded forever - including things they do anonymously or not in public - they won't discuss or engage things that they would normally do, which reduces freedom.

I agree. So lets get together, all of us, and find a way to get both, freedom and safety.

Strategist says

The way to solve the problem is to make sure these bureaucrats don't abuse their power.

The only way to make sure bureaucrats don't abuse their power is to make sure they have none.

Strategist says

If we all commit felonies 3 times a day, we should all be in prison. Who is gonna be outside to make sure we are guarded and fed?

The point is that the state chooses to prosecute only certain people. People they have a problem with that has nothing to do with crime. People with opposing political or social positions. People a bureaucrat has a personal grudge against. And just random people caught up in a sweep to make numbers.

The rich and powerful will never be prosecuted. Nor will faithful, obedient goons like most police.

The reality is still that the state can arrest and imprison just about anyone it wants to. Being a good citizen with no criminal intent is no safeguard.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

Mr Norris was 65 years old at the time, and a collector of orchids.

Maybe he was guilty. Don't all criminals claim innocence?

He wasn't. And this is just one of a thousand such examples I could give you.

There are many people who don't give a damn if innocent people are prosecuted and convicted in the name of being tough on crime. Hell, practically all conservatives think that convicting 10 innocent people to get 1 bad guy off the streets is a good trade off.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

It is now the norm for the state to practice selective prosecution for crimes that are not even in principle knowable to the public and that should not be crimes. That's damn good motivation for the state to record everything and prosecute your ass if they want something completely unrelated to the three crimes a day you personally commit without even knowing it.

So lets spend our time and energy to stop this, and solve real problems instead of compromising our safety.

The only way to stop it is to all of the following.
1. Limit surveillance power.
2. Provide citizens the right to record everything the government or government officials do.
3. Greatly reduce the number of criminal laws.
4. Insist on proof of criminal intent for convictions.
5. Make jury nullification a Constitutional right and inform all juries of this right.
6. Prosecute cops for false arrest, prosecutors and judges for prosecution of innocent persons.
7. Make a Constitutional amendment that any information collected by the state becomes public domain. I.e., if the state records all metadata, then that metadata for everyone including politicians is public domain and readily available to anyone.

We wouldn't have to worry about surveillance if we would create more offices to elect Democrats & Republicans to fill. Everyone knows that these assholes have all the answers.

I can't believe I have to come up with all the solutions.

Strategist says

Why is that bad?

Do the words slippery slope have any meaning to you? At the very least there should be strict rules on usage and no retention of survellience records with strong penalties for misuse. You still haven't answered the question where exactly on the road to a totally facist police state does safety turn into oppression for you.

HEY YOU says

We wouldn't have to worry about surveillance if we would create more offices to elect Democrats & Republicans to fill. Everyone knows that these assholes have all the answers.

We all want to get rid of both Democrats and Republicans. The problem is that we can't do this unless we completely rewrite election law. See How voting should work

And we can't do that because the two parties won't since that will prevent them from getting re-elected. Only an outside force like a violent revolution, could possible change the system. Of course, revolution won't work given the asymmetry of power between the government and the citizenry. So we are left wondering what other outside force could cause the rewriting of election law.

bob2356 says

You still haven't answered the question where exactly on the road to a totally facist police state does safety turn into oppression for you.

Dan8267 says

The rich and powerful will never be prosecuted. Nor will faithful, obedient goons like most police.

The reality is still that the state can arrest and imprison just about anyone it wants to. Being a good citizen with no criminal intent is no safeguard.

thunderlips11 says

Whereas if people know they are being watched and recorded forever - including things they do anonymously or not in public - they won't discuss or engage things that they would normally do, which reduces freedom.

Guys, point well taken. Surveillance can give rise to more power to politicians, and corruption, leading to our freedoms being compromised. However, the points you all make does compromise our safety. When our children are away at school, the movies, or with friends, we do not worry about their privacy or their freedoms. We as parents, only worry about their SAFETY and nothing else. We as humans are genetically programmed to care about our survival and the survival of our offspring. In other words "Safety First"
So as a society we have to draw the line somewhere and keep as much of our cake as possible and still eat it. I really don't know where that line should be, it's up to society to figure it out.

Strategist says

So as a society we have to draw the line somewhere and keep as much of our cake as possible and still eat it. I really don't know where that line should be, it's up to society to figure it out.

You are society. What's your bottom line on how much you are willing to give up for safety? Don't equivocate, make a choice.

Survellance as it currently exists far goes over my tolerance. As does road blocks, asking for id with no cause, secret courts, secret detention, secret trials, the list goes on.

Strategist says

When our children are away at school, the movies, or with friends, we do not worry about their privacy or their freedoms. We as parents, only worry about their SAFETY and nothing else.

As a parent, you should be far, far more worried that your child will killed by police executing the War on Drugs. And yes, this is true even if your child has NEVER used drugs and NEVER hangs out with drug users.

A year or so ago, a police swat team conducted a "routine" drug search on a high school campus. During this search, they stormed the high school with assault rifles. A picture released by the press shows one of the commandos pointing a loaded assault riffle, safeties off at an armed student's head. The student was lying on the ground.

This student had done nothing wrong, broke no laws, and was clearly no threat to the cop. And he wasn't the only student that was threatened with death at that school that day.

Unfortunately, I don't have the link and I can't remember the high school name, but the fact is this type of shit happens all the time in our country today. Innocent children (and adults) are far more likely to be killed by cops trying to fight the War on Drugs than they are to be killed by some random crazy idiot.

Again, liberty is the best road to safety. A society without liberty is not safe. A society in which the police have vastly more power than the average citizen is not safe.

bob2356 says

What's your bottom line on how much you are willing to give up for safety?

The idea that giving up liberty increases safety is inherently and empirically wrong. Look at the various countries in the world and you will see an obvious, positive correlation between liberty and safety. The countries with the most liberty are the safest ones, and the countries with the least liberty are the most dangerous ones.

Liberty protects you from the people with the greatest power to hurt you and the longest history of hurting people: the government.

bob2356 says

Why is surveillance the logical end step?

Watching 10 millions people to catch 1 terrorist is the surveillance equivalent of nuking a city to kill a terrorist.

Dan8267 says

Unfortunately, I don't have the link and I can't remember the high school name, but the fact is this type of shit happens all the time in our country today. Innocent children (and adults) are far more likely to be killed by cops trying to fight the War on Drugs than they are to be killed by some random crazy idiot.

Many states now have a policy to execute all felony arrest warrants with a swat team, even white collar crimes.

Dan8267 says

bob2356 says

What's your bottom line on how much you are willing to give up for safety?

The idea that giving up liberty increases safety is inherently and empirically wrong.

You do understand I'm agreeing with you don't you?

Strategist says

Guys, point well taken. Surveillance can give rise to more power to politicians, and corruption, leading to our freedoms being compromised. However, the points you all make does compromise our safety.

Your problem here is that you are making an assumption that politicians out there care about your and my safety, or safety of our children. And that's a bad assumption to make.

Some (maybe most) police officers care about safety, because it's their job. And that's where safety buck stops.

NSA isn't there for safety, NSA is there to watch everyone and provide government with all the information on everything we do so they can control us better, and punish those who disagree.

Government isn't interested in your well being, all they are interested is in expanding their power so they can have more for themselves and less for everyone else! And if that power is not checked by society, it will engulf it.

Heraclitusstudent says

bob2356 says

Why is surveillance the logical end step?

Watching 10 millions people to catch 1 terrorist is the surveillance equivalent of nuking a city to kill a terrorist.

Try "watching 300 million" to catch "0 terrorists". Because they weren't watching Boston bombers, but they sure were spying on political opponents all right.

Depressing right?

FortWayne says

NSA isn't there for safety, NSA is there to watch everyone and provide government with all the information on everything we do so they can control us better, and punish those who disagree.

I would say the NSA really exists to gather economic information. As Snowden revealed, the NSA spends about 85% of their time targeting economic information - not just on foreign rivals, but on allies and even US Businesses. They spent an inordinate amount of resources on Petrobras, hardly a terrorist group.

Less than 15% of the mass surveillance programs are concentrated against terrorism or even just hostile groups.

We know that the NSA gives info to the DEA for "Parallel Construction" right now. That's basically fruit of the poison tree, except the Judge and Defence - and sometimes even the Prosecutor - don't know the original source of the data.

bob2356 says

You do understand I'm agreeing with you don't you?

Yes, but not clearly enough. I needed to clarify that liberty cannot be traded for security, and in fact, the loss of liberty is a loss of security.

thunderlips11 says

They spent an inordinate amount of resources on Petrobras

Bras made of petroleum? Exactly what is the NSA doing in that building with all the tinted windows?

thunderlips11 says

I would say the NSA really exists to gather economic information. As Snowden revealed, the NSA spends about 85% of their time targeting economic information - not just on foreign rivals, but on allies and even US Businesses

Doesn't surprise me. What better way to control people if it's not controlling their economy and the banking system?

Pretty interesting stuff though, I've been trying to follow Snowden revelations as much as I could. Not always easy since I'm not on the web all the time.

thunderlips11 says

I would say the NSA really exists to gather economic information. As Snowden revealed, the NSA spends about 85% of their time targeting economic information - not just on foreign rivals, but on allies and even US Businesses. They spent an inordinate amount of resources on Petrobras, hardly a terrorist group.

And kind of an interesting part, I just thought of it. Remember when they were screaming that this is "to make us safer" and that they are "watching terrorists".

Many of us suspected that was just a lie, but that sure adds validation to what we all suspected. This government is full of it and out of control.

Dan8267 says

As a parent, you should be far, far more worried that your child will killed by police executing the War on Drugs. And yes, this is true even if your child has NEVER used drugs and NEVER hangs out with drug users.

A year or so ago, a police swat team conducted a "routine" drug search on a high school campus. During this search, they stormed the high school with assault rifles. A picture released by the press shows one of the commandos pointing a loaded assault riffle, safeties off at an armed student's head. The student was lying on the ground.

No no no no no. The police are our friends, they are there to serve and to protect, not hurt us. You have to remove the police being the bad guys from your mind once and for all. A few bad apples in the force does not make them all bad.
If you are a victim of a home invasion robbery who are you gonna call? The street gang or the police?

Dan8267 says

This student had done nothing wrong, broke no laws, and was clearly no threat to the cop. And he wasn't the only student that was threatened with death at that school that day.

We don't know that. Let them do their job. If the kid is innocent, nothing will happen to him.

FortWayne says

Your problem here is that you are making an assumption that politicians out there care about your and my safety, or safety of our children. And that's a bad assumption to make.

Isn't that why we elected them? If they can't do the job lets get someone else. They work for us, we don't work for them.

FortWayne says

NSA isn't there for safety, NSA is there to watch everyone and provide government with all the information on everything we do so they can control us better, and punish those who disagree.

How would that benefit the government? Once the politicians are out of office they become like you and me . What is their motive to spy on everyone?

Dan8267 says

thunderlips11 says

They spent an inordinate amount of resources on Petrobras

Bras made of petroleum? Exactly what is the NSA doing in that building with all the tinted windows?

Sounds like a new secret weapon. Can someone please tell the NSA men don't wear bras.

Strategist says

Isn't that why we elected them? If they can't do the job lets get someone else. They work for us, we don't work for them.

They work for these people:
https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

(Warning PDF)

The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. Our results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

Strategist says

No no no no no. The police are our friends, they are there to serve and to protect, not hurt us. You have to remove the police being the bad guys from your mind once and for all. A few bad apples in the force does not make them all bad.

The police are not the bad guys (well some are, but most aren't). The policy of militarization of the police is the bad guy. Police charging around a high school with m-16's fully locked and loaded with the safety off is insane. There is something like 50,000 swat raids a year. No one had any idea a complete remake of police forces would happen when congress allowed the miliary to donate surplus to police forces starting in 1994. One of the worst policies in US history.

Strategist says

We don't know that. Let them do their job. If the kid is innocent, nothing will happen to him.

Either this is satire of someone doesn't ever watch the news. There are over 500 innocent people killed a year by police. For the record roughly 15 Americans a year are killed by terrorists world wide, mostly in war zones. Feel safer now?

Strategist says

Isn't that why we elected them? If they can't do the job lets get someone else. They work for us, we don't work for them

Are you really that innocent? The policitians are the tip of the iceberg. It's the entrenched permenent government workers that want ever more power and control that is the real problem. No one in government has ever said my job is done, cut my budget. Keeping the public in fear means bigger budgets and faster raises.

Bob and Dan are right about this. I would add that mandatory Obamacare with electronic medical records creates even more opportunities for surveillance and chemical management of whole populations. There were already myriad opportunities for medical information to be sold, e.g. pharmacies selling information to drug companies, but it goes much further now. With everyone mandated into that system, and with both tax dollars and off-budget mandatory insurance dollars going into electronic coding, the surveillance opportunities become vastly more disturbing. Similarly, if the government can order you, for your own good, to submit to contracts you do not want for pills and procedures you do not want, then it is only a short step to requiring you to submit to those procedures and swallow those pills. If you read the SCOTUS opinion upholding most of Obamacare, and especially the concurring opinion that would have upheld the whole thing, the 'reasoning' is chilling: they said that because a coalition of the bribed in Congress claimed some people not buying insurance supposedly raises costs for everyone else (dubious, SCOTUS concurrence claimed 2% at most, the real total is probably nothing), therefore government can require everyone to submit; the same 'reasoning' would apply more accurately in other contexts, e.g. vaccines and even some pills. Beware the day when government surveillance decides you must be medicated - and your contrarian PatNet posts where you think for yourself may be used against you, because obviously if you don't overpay for a shack the Realtors want you medicated until you do. Government is run by and for lobbyists, power is wielded by a coalition of financial interest groups, and Obamacare shows they can use government to maximize their own revenues, even penalizing you (or "taxing" you) until you submit to their sales pitch.

bob2356 says

Either this is satire of someone doesn't ever watch the news. There are over 500 innocent people killed a year by police. For the record roughly 15 Americans a year are killed by terrorists world wide, mostly in war zones. Feel safer now?

3000 died at the hands of terrorists during 911, that is 200 years worth right there. Your data is losing credibility. If the "15" reflects a more recent year, then it's a huge reduction from the 3,000, which tells me we must be doing something right out there. Nabbing Bin Laden right from the terrorists lair was pretty damn good, won't you say?