17
   

We Have No Privacy, We Are Always Being Watched.

 
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 05:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Hey, your privacy must be worth 10,000 lives, right?


How must is our bill of rights worth to you Frank?

It seems it is not worth risking one drop of blood in your opinion.

An once more I am living in the same society as you and Firefly happen to be however I am cheerfully willing to take far greater risks then either one of you are to maintain this society basic freedoms.

We assume far greater risks then the risk of being harm in a terrorist attack with or without the government spying programs on all of us by driving a few miles.

Let see 300 millions in this nation and 3,000 was killed in the 911 attack so if we had another attack with a similar death total we all would be looking at a chance of one in a hundred thousand of dying.

Or assuming a 911 every year event then your yearly risk would be 10 in a million compare to below.

It would seems that neither of you think that freedoms and the bill of right is very important as you are eleven times more likely to die in a home accident for example and six times from a fall.

An that is assume a 911 event every year!!!!!!!



Quote:

http://www.psandman.com/articles/cma-appb.htm#B-1

Cause Risk Per Million Persons
Motor vehicle accidents (total)240.0
Home accidents110.0
Falls62.0
Motor vehicle pedestrian collisions 42.0
Drowning36.0
Fires28.0
Inhalation and ingestion of objects15.0
Firearms10.0
Accidental poisoning by gases and vapors 7.7
Accidental poisoning by solids and liquids (not drugs or medicaments) 6.0
Electrocution5.3
Tornadoes0.6
Floods0.6
Lightning0.5
Tropical cyclones and hurricanes0.3
Bites and stings by venomous animals and insects0.2
Source: Adapted from Wilson, R. and Crouch, E., Risk/Benefit Analysis, Cambridge: Ballinger, 1982.


Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 05:34 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Hey, your privacy must be worth 10,000 lives, right?


How must is our bill of rights worth to you Frank?

It seems it is not worth risking one drop of blood in your opinion.

An once more I am living in the same society as you and Firefly happen to be however I am cheerfully willing to take far greater risks then either one of you are to maintain this society basic freedoms.

We assume far greater risks then the risk of being harm in a terrorist attack with or without the government spying programs on all of us by driving a few miles.

Let see 300 millions in this nation and 3,000 was killed in the 911 attack so if we had another attack with a similar death total we all would be looking at a chance of one in a hundred thousand of dying.

Or assuming a 911 every year event then your yearly risk would be 10 in a million compare to below.

It would seems that neither of you think that freedoms and the bill of right is very important as you are eleven times more likely to die in a home accident for example and six times from a fall.

An that is assume a 911 event every year!!!!!!!



Quote:

http://www.psandman.com/articles/cma-appb.htm#B-1

Cause Risk Per Million Persons
Motor vehicle accidents (total)240.0
Home accidents110.0
Falls62.0
Motor vehicle pedestrian collisions 42.0
Drowning36.0
Fires28.0
Inhalation and ingestion of objects15.0
Firearms10.0
Accidental poisoning by gases and vapors 7.7
Accidental poisoning by solids and liquids (not drugs or medicaments) 6.0
Electrocution5.3
Tornadoes0.6
Floods0.6
Lightning0.5
Tropical cyclones and hurricanes0.3
Bites and stings by venomous animals and insects0.2
Source: Adapted from Wilson, R. and Crouch, E., Risk/Benefit Analysis, Cambridge: Ballinger, 1982.





Good for you. You must be very, very brave.

You also sound to me like the kind of person who would be up in arms if another attack took place...questioning why the government didn't do more to prevent it.

Anyway...there are all sorts of people here in the country who are demanding that the government do all it can to prevent another incident like 9/11. And the government is responding by trying some things that get people like you all riled up.

What could I say?

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 05:42 pm
@BillRM,
Bugs, snakes and lightning don't have near the same propaganda value, Bill.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 05:47 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
anyway...there are all sorts of people here in the country who are demanding that the government do all it can to prevent another incident like 9/11.


Of course and you and Firefly are beating the drum to throw away the bill of right for a very low order risk.

Quote:
You must be very, very brave.


Brave for not being too concern about a risk that at it very very worst is one six the chance of dying from a fall and one twenty-four your chance of dying in a car accident?

Are you in terror every time you drive somewhere even knowing the risk is 24 times greater then dying from a 911 event?

I had always been of the opinion that part of a high school curriculum should be a short course on how to judge every day risks so you know the risks worth worrying about or throwing away the bill of rights over for that matter.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 05:53 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
anyway...there are all sorts of people here in the country who are demanding that the government do all it can to prevent another incident like 9/11.


Of course and you and Firefly are beating the drum to throw away the bill of right for a very low order risk.


Hyperbole will get you nowhere.

Quote:
You must be very, very brave.


Quote:
Brave for not to being too concern about a risk that at it very very worst is one six the chance of dying from a fall and one twenty-four your chance of dying in a car accident?


Like I said...very, very brave. Did you want me to add one more "very?"

Quote:
Are you in terror every time you drive somewhere even knowing the risk is 24 times greater then dying from a 911 event?


I am not in terror about terrorism.

I understand that what seems to be a majority of the people are demanding that the government do as much as possible to safeguard our country and its people...and I support that.

Is that really hard for you to understand?

Quote:
I had always been of the opinion that part of a high school curriculum should be a short course on how to judge every day risks so you know the risks worth worrying about or throwing away the bill of rights.



Oh, well...I've never been in favor of throwing away the Bill of Rights...so I would not back such a course. But I find it interesting that you do think it necessary.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 05:58 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Hyperbole will get you nowhere.


Hyperbole strange as what likely death total did you give for a dirty bomb?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 06:16 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Hyperbole will get you nowhere.


Hyperbole strange as what likely death total did you give for a dirty bomb?


Since you do not know what damage a dirty bomb will cause...you cannot logically call my estimate hyperbole.

I can logically call that statement of your hyperbole.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 06:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Hyperbole will get you nowhere.


You know that you're in big trouble when Frank plays his 'hyperbole' card.

Quote:
Like I said...very, very brave. Did you want me to add one more "very?"


Naaaaaa, Frank, too much hyperbole.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2013 06:30 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
From a fairly minor threat...

You didn't consider terrorism a minor threat before. You considered it such a threat that you wanted the mosques in the U.S. put under "control" and you said you didn't care about the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans because, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
You also said:
Quote:
I am all for taking away the freedoms of any group to the degree needed to stop or at least slow down the mass murders of our citizens from that group members.
http://able2know.org/topic/159601-160

So much for your noble defense of civil liberties. Laughing

And you weren't interested in viewing the potential for another attack as a "minor threat" when you said this:
Quote:
How many more deaths from plots generated inside the area mosques would it take for you to feel that we should control mosques.

Would a thousand more deaths be enough, 10,000 deaths. or a 100,000 deaths?

Is there any numbers of dead bodies lying in the New York cities streets for you to agree that there is a public safety issue here
http://able2know.org/topic/159601-160

Yup, you definitely saw the necessity for removal of civil liberties as a "public safety issue," BillRM.
Quote:
We do not need to go to a police/surveillance state to meet this threat

Nor does some surveillance, in the interests of national security, equate with a police state. I don't know anyone who wants to see a police state, so that may be the one thing that everyone can agree on. And most people do recognize, and agree with, the need for some surveillance--that's how we got the Patriot Act.

You fail to consider that, never before in our history have we faced quite such an amorphous enemy as we do now with this terrorist threat. It's not confined to one location, or under the control of a government, and the terrorists, who unpredictably strike civilians and civilian targets, as well as government targets, cannot be easily identified, and they cannot be defeated by military might alone. It's a different ball game when you're dealing with terrorism. And comparing it to previous ballgames, or trying to minimize its threat to our quality of life, and our national security, is just plain absurd.

You were actually partially right when you said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." When dealing with a threat, a significant threat, to our national security, we may not be able to conduct business as usual, we may have to put up with surveillance measures we might not like, or would even agree to, under different circumstances. That doesn't mean we give up complete control over those surveillance measures, we have to demand oversight, and effective checks and balances to prevent abuse. We do have to strike an acceptable balance between privacy and national security, and we do have to decide where we draw the line.

But to simply say that "the threat is minor", and to insist on no surveillance, to better protect personal privacy, is absurd and unrealistic. The threat isn't minor, and civil liberties and national security are equally important. We just need to get the balance right. And if we hamper our national security efforts. so they aren't able to prevent another catastrophic attack, on the order of 9/11, I think I share Friedman's concern that the subsequent consequences to our way of life, and our civil liberties, will be as devasting as the attack itself. We need to find the right balance.

We need to continue to have the national dialogue that's going on now, until we agree on that right balance, and the most effective ways of maintaining that balance, and where the lines will be drawn to best preserve both our civil liberties and our national security.



BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2013 08:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Since you do not know what damage a dirty bomb will cause...you cannot logically call my estimate hyperbole.


Oh so you do no have faith in US government studies that had look at the danger/risk of dirty bombs and had judge them to be about the same as the same size non-dirty bombs with some real life testing thrown in?

There happen to be large pdfs of those government studies that can be found with any search engine. Here is a summary from the cdc that you might wish to look at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/dirtybombs.asp

As I had said before the only seeming advantage of a dirty bomb over a non-dirty bomb is that the clean up of the areas around it can be long and costly.

Oh and that it cause a great deal of unreasonable fear in people like you minds.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2013 08:55 am
@firefly,
Quote:
U.S. put under "control"


LOL with the history of dozens of large scale attacks being plans out of a number of NYC area Mosques and some being carry out, yes indeed I did wished them to be under tight Surveillance until a handle could be gotten over the likelihood of further risks from those Mosques developing.

That did not mean that I wished all Mosques in the country with no such history placed under surveillance or that I wished for all people of the Islam faith being monitor in this nation.

PS and for the most part I was referring to human agents not electronic monitoring that by it very nature is limited by the resources needed to carry out human agents monitoring.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2013 09:08 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Since you do not know what damage a dirty bomb will cause...you cannot logically call my estimate hyperbole.


Oh so you do no have faith in US government studies that had look at the danger/risk of dirty bombs and had judge them to be about the same as the same size non-dirty bombs with some real life testing thrown in?


Are you actually asking me if I think the government can make a mistake?

Are you on drugs?

Of course I think the government could make a mistake.

And you do not know how much damage a dirty bomb will cause...so you cannot call any estimate hyperbole.

There happen to be large pdfs of those government studies that can be found with any search engine. Here is a summary from the cdc that you might wish to look at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/dirtybombs.asp

Quote:
As I had said before the only seeming advantage of a dirty bomb over a non-dirty bomb is that the clean up of the areas around it can be long and costly.

Oh and that it cause a great deal of unreasonable fear in people like you minds.


I am extremely glad you are not in charge.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2013 09:25 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Are you actually asking me if I think the government can make a mistake?


Not when it concern simple very simple devices and the government having 60 to 70 years of data concerning radiation weapons and the affects of radiation on humans and animals.

Amazing that you think your fear driven opinion is on the same level as the expert opinions back by decades of information and even some testings of such devices.

I guess you are one of those people who mind and logic shut down when it come to the word radiation.

Quote:
I am extremely glad you are not in charge.


Well the expert advisers of the people who are in charge had come to the conclusion back by science and engineering studies that dirty bombs are no greater threat as far as large scale deaths are concern then a non-dirty bomb of the same size.

PS the dirty bomb threat however does make great plot elements for books and movies.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2013 10:42 am
@BillRM,
For someone who uses paranoid-levels of "security" and concealment with his laptop and web-surfing, and who walks around carrying a gun, with several more at home, it's riotous to listen to you poo-pooing other people's "fear driven opinions" or their concerns with safety. Laughing

Don't you ever listen to yourself? Laughing
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2013 11:04 am
@firefly,
Quote:
For someone who uses paranoid-levels of "security" and concealment with his laptop and web-surfing, and who walks around carrying a gun, with several more at home, it's riotous to listen to you poo-pooing other people's "fear driven opinions" or their concerns with safety.


Unreasonable fear of the US government doing massive invasion of the privacy of not only Americans but the rest of the world?

Have not been keeping up with the news of late now have you!!!!!!!

Bet you a hundred dollars far more is going to be coming out in the next few months then had been driven into the open to date.

As far as having a weapon I had friends who have been put into hospitals for weeks due to criminal attacks. So far no one had been killed thank god for that.

Having a gun is the same as having a fire extinguisher available but I would bet you do not have even a fire extinguisher in your home as that would show an unreasonable fear of fire and a lack of trust in the fire department by your logic.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2013 11:25 am
@BillRM,
Right BillRM, your own over-blown fears concerning safety and security are justified, but everyone else's are foolish. Laughing

I've never felt the need to walk around with a gun, nor am I in any fear of what the government would find if they searched my computer.

Quote:
Have not been keeping up with the news of late now have you!!!!!!!

And that news included a terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon.

But that wasn't a high enough body count for you, was it? Rolling Eyes Not enough people injured and maimed to satisfy you? Rolling Eyes

Most people want the government to find, and stop, people like that before they act. That's more important than your nonsensical discussion of various types of bombs.

It's not that we don't need surveillance for our national security, because we do, the issue is where we draw the line between personal privacy and national security, and how we can best maintain oversight, and checks and balances, to insure that line is not crossed.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2013 11:30 am
@BillRM,
Quote:


Unreasonable fear of the US government doing massive invasion of the privacy of not only Americans but the rest of the world?


If you had bothered to pay attention 5 years ago, the US was doing surveillance on people in other countries and sharing that info with those countries intelligence services that couldn't do their own internal surveillance. The tit for tat was those foreign services could surveil US citizens and share their surveillance with US intelligence services. That allowed US intelligence to find out info on US citizens without violating the law that said they couldn't directly do so.

Your "foreign route" for sending your internet traffic only makes it possible for US services to get their intel about you from other countries.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2013 12:17 pm
I find it sad that a government which perpetrated such outrageous lies about the "war on terror" just a few years ago (invasion of Iraq) has any credibility at all when they use that same reason to justify running over our Constitutional rights.

American people are ******* STUPID!
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2013 01:31 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I find it sad that a government which perpetrated such outrageous lies about the "war on terror" just a few years ago (invasion of Iraq) has any credibility at all

Does the Bush/Cheney administration still have "any credibility at all" now? That's the "government" you're talking about.

Quote:
they use that same reason to justify running over our Constitutional rights....

No, they're using Sec. 215 of the Patriot Act to justify the phone metadata collection, as well as other surveillance.

And they got that power, and the Patriot Act, from Congress, the elected representatives of the people.
Quote:

American people are ******* STUPID!

Only because they don't turn out in larger numbers on election day. We control who sits in Congress and the White House--but only when we get involved in the electoral process and show up to vote.

firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2013 05:58 pm
Quote:
NSA: PRISM stopped NYSE attack
By: Josh Gerstein
June 18, 2013

Recently leaked communication surveillance programs have helped thwart more than 50 “potential terrorist events” around the world since the Sept. 11 attacks, National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander said Tuesday.

Alexander said at least 10 of the attacks were set to take place in the United States, suggesting that most of the terrorism disrupted by the program had been set to occur abroad.

The NSA also disclosed that counterterrorism officials targeted fewer than 300 phone numbers or other “identifiers” last year in the massive call-tracking database secretly assembled by the U.S. government.

Alexander said the programs were subject to “extraordinary oversight.”

”This isn’t some rogue operation that a group of guys up at NSA are running,” the spy agency’s chief added.

The data on use of the call-tracking data came in a fact sheet released to reporters in connection with a public House Intelligence Committee hearing exploring the recently leaked telephone data mining program and another surveillance effort focused on Web traffic generated by foreigners.

Alexander said 90 percent of the potential terrorist incidents were disrupted by the Web traffic program known as PRISM. He was less clear about how many incidents the call-tracking effort had helped to avert.

Deputy FBI Director Sean Joyce said the Web traffic program had contributed to arrests averting a plot to bomb the New York Stock Exchange that resulted in criminal charges in 2008.

Joyce also indicated that the PRISM program was essential to disrupting a plot to bomb the New York City subways in 2009. “Without the [Section] 702 tool, we would not have identified Najibullah Zazi,” Joyce said.

However, President Barack Obama acknowledged in an interview aired Monday that it is impossible to know whether the subway plot might have been foiled by other methods.

”We might have caught him some other way. We might have disrupted it because a New York cop saw he was suspicious. Maybe he turned out to be incompetent and the bomb didn’t go off. But at the margins we are increasing our chances of preventing a catastrophe like that through these programs,” Obama told Charlie Rose on PBS.

At the hearing, Alexander detailed the scope and safeguards of the programs, while Deputy Attorney General James Cole laid out the legal basis for the surveillance.

“This is not a program that’s off the books, that’s been hidden away,” Cole said of the call-tracking program, which was classified “top secret” prior to recent leaks. He noted that the Patriot Act provision found to authorize it has been twice reauthorized by Congress.

“All of us in the national security [community] are constantly trying to balance protecting public safety with protecting people’s civil liberties,” Cole said.

NSA Deputy Director Chris Inglis said a very limited number of individuals are authorized to access the call-tracking database.

“Only 20 analysts at NSA and their two managers, for a total of 22 people, are authorized to approve numbers that may be used to query this database,” Inglis said.

Inglis said judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have imposed strict limits on the ways the call information can be used.

“The court has determined that there’s a very narrow purpose for this use,” the NSA official said. “It can’t be used to do anything other than terrorism.”

Several officials said the judges on the largely-secret court rigorously examine applications for surveillance and often insist on changes, even though the court almost always approves them in the end.

“There is, from my perspective, no rubber stamp,” Alexander said.

“They will almost invariably come back with questions, concerns, problems that they see,” Director of National Intelligence General Counsel Robert Litt said. He described “rather extensive and serious judicial oversight of this process.”

“They push back a lot,” Cole added. “They have to be satisfied.”

At the outset of the hearing, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) strongly defended the programs and decried what he called “fragmentary and distorted illegal disclosures” leaks that bred misinformation about the surveillance efforts.

“People at the NSA in particular have heard a constant public drumbeat about a laundry list of nefarious things they have been alleged to have been doing to spy on Americans….All of them wrong,” the chairman said.

And he warned that misinformation could erode public faith in the programs.

“That trust can start to wane when faced with inaccuracies, half-truths and outright lies about how the intelligence aspects [of these operations] are being run,” the chairman added.

However, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) suggested some of the loss of public trust derived from the sudden disclosure of the far-reaching surveillance programs that have alarmed some Americans.

“I would argue that this conversation that we’re having now could have happened” earlier, she said. “The effort that has [been made] to convince the American public of the necessity of this program, I think, would suggest that we would have been better off having a discussion of the rigorous oversight, the legal framework, etc., up front.”

Schakowsky also said that given the numbers of people who had access to the information about the programs, she could not understand why anyone could have expected the efforts to remain secret for years.

Only one lawmaker on the panel, Rep. Jim Hines (D-Conn.), indicated that he views the surveillance as a serious intrusion on privacy.

Himes said he was troubled by “the breadth and the scope of the information collection,” which sweeps up data on nearly every telephone call made in the United States.

“The controls that you’ve laid out for us notwithstanding — that’s, I think, new for this country,” Himes said. “Where do we draw the lines?…Where is the limit as to what you can keep in the tank?”

Cole said the scope of the data collected was not the important point. “I think the real issue is what it can be used for,” he said. ”If you’re looking for a needle in a haystack, you have to get the haystack first.”

Alexander said that the system for querying the data is “100 percent auditable,” so that any rogue official who might try to use it for an improper purpose “will be caught.”

Under questioning by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), Alexander did put to rest rumors that the call-tracking database contains information on where callers are, perhaps from cell phone towers or signal strength of calls.


“We don’t have that,” Alexander said. The only geographic information is the area code associated with the numbers, the NSA chief said.

Himes asked the administration officials to specify how many terrorist attacks would have taken place “but for” the call-tracking program.

Alexander said the “vast majority” of “just over 10” thwarted domestic attacks involved use of the massive call database.

But Joyce said there was no way to know for certain, as officials connected the dots, which particular pieces of data were critical and which simply helped.

“I think you asked an impossible to question, to say how important each dot was,” Joyce said.”Every tool is essential and vital.”

Rogers told reporters after the hearing that even the modest number of terrorist attacks disrupted by use of the call-records database could have had devastating consequences and justified the collection of the information.

“If you stop one Boston-style attack or a 9/11 attacks or you stop one case as we did with the stock exchange attack…as we saw recently you’re not going to stop every single one, but if you can stop ten of the magnitude of that, that’s huge. I would not get caught up on the number of plots stopped,” the chairman said.

Some have suggested could be reorganized to require telecom companies to keep the data rather than the government. Rogers said he was open to changes to the program, but that the current arrangement offers the advantage of speed in following up terror-related leads.

“If you need it, you need it now — if you’re going to stop an attack. Technology the way it is has not necessarily allowed the intelligence community [to access this data] in any other format than what we find it,” the chairman said. “The other ways and the other suggestions — technology doesn’t allow for a quick turnaround time.”

The hearing also produced extensive discussion about the impact of the leaks carried out by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

“It was irreversible and significant damage to our nation,” Alexander said.

“It is at times like these when our enemies within become almost as damaging as the enemies on the outside. It is critically important to protect sources and methods so we aren’t giving the enemy our playbook,” Rogers said.

Asked by a lawmaker about what Snowden could expect next, the FBI’s Joyce offered a pithy one-word answer: “Justice.”

Several panel members also expressed deep concern about how safeguards that should have prevented such widespread leaks apparently broke down.

“We must figure out how this could have happened,” said the intelligence panel’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland. “How was this 29-year-old system administrator able to access such highly classified information about such highly sensitive matters? And how was he able to download it and remove it from his workplace undetected?”

Alexander said system administrators like Snowden have traditionally had wide access to networks and data, but officials are preparing a “two-person rule” that would make it more difficult for a single person to collect a vast number of top-secret documents. “We are going to implement that,” he said. He also indicated new safeguards on removable media, like memory sticks, are in the works.

Inglis said such a “two-person rule” already applies to NSA officials generating queries to the agencies databases, including the recently revealed surveillance programs.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-92971.html

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.44 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 05:55:06