NSA spying power dramatically expanded with new ability to recieve shared information - Polidicks

[QUOTE]With only days until Donald Trump takes office, the Obama administration on Thursday announced new rules that will let the NSA share vast amounts of private data gathered without warrant, court orders or congressional authorization with 16 other agencies, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security. The new rules allow employees doing intelligence work for those agencies to sift through raw data collected under a broad, Reagan-era executive order that gives the NSA virtually unlimited authority to intercept communications abroad. Previously, NSA analysts would filter out information they deemed irrelevant and mask the names of innocent Americans before passing it along. The change was in the works long before there was any expectation that someone like Trump might become president. The last-minute adoption of the procedures is one of many examples•of the Obama administration making new executive powers established by the Bush administration permanent,•on the assumption that the executive branch could be trusted to police itself. Executive Order 12333, often referred to as “twelve triple-three,” has attracted less debate than congressional wiretapping laws, but serves as authorization for the NSA’s most massive surveillance programs — far more than the NSA’s other programs combined. Under 12333, the NSA taps phone and internet backbones•throughout the world, records the phone calls of entire countries, vacuums up traffic from Google and Yahoo’s data centers overseas, and more. In 2014, The Intercept revealed that the NSA uses 12333 as a legal basis for an internal NSA search engine that spans more than 850 billion phone and internet records and contains the unfiltered private information of millions of Americans. In 2014, a•former state department official described NSA surveillance under 12333 as a “universe of collection and storage” beyond what•Congress has authorized.[/QUOTE] [url]https://theintercept.com/2017/01/13/obama-opens-nsas-vast-trove-of-warrantless-data-to-entire-intelligence-community-just-in-time-for-trump/[/url]

[quote]“This is the most transparent administration in history,” [url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/283335-obama-this-is-the-most-transparent-administration-in-history]Obama[/url][/quote] Well atleast we know get to know the increased spying is happening.

This will always be one of the greatest political mysteries to me. For all his uptalk, Obama has led quite possibly the greatest expansion of unwarranted government surveillance in history. Why do this? Is there something he knows that we don't?

[QUOTE=Chonch;51676368]This will always be one of the greatest political mysteries to me. For all his uptalk, Obama has led quite possibly the greatest expansion of unwarranted government surveillance in history. Why do this? Is there something he knows that we don't?[/QUOTE] Surveillance has bipartisan support. Only Bernie and a couple of other people don't support it, I think.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51676368]This will always be one of the greatest political mysteries to me. For all his uptalk, Obama has led quite possibly the greatest expansion of unwarranted government surveillance in history. Why do this? Is there something he knows that we don't?[/QUOTE] The way I see it, the further we go into the future the easier it gets for one person to destroy more and more lives. Technology enables people to do things evil people couldn't even dream of hundreds of years ago. How long do we have until it's trivially easy for one crazy dude in a basement without a whole lot of knowledge to create insane biological weapons capable of killing tens of thousands? Access to information, drones, 3d printing, general artificial intelligence, etc all makes that easier. What do we do? We can't lock people up for what they research/say, but we can see what they are looking at, who they're talking to, what materials they're collecting and feed it into some algorithm that flags them for surveillance. Then we can keep an eye on them and hopefully prevent them from accomplishing whatever goal they might have. Every time a mass killing happens people want to know how it could have been prevented, but they aren't willing to entertain the idea of mass surveillance. We either need to get used to the idea that the bad guys are going to win sometimes or that the government is going to be keeping an eye on all of us. That's my intuition anyway and I don't know how to feel about it.

[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;51676557] We either need to get used to the idea that the bad guys are going to win sometimes or that the government is going to be keeping an eye on all of us.[/QUOTE] Personally, I'd rather the bad guys occasionally win, because the act of infringing upon authentic human development-- which mass surveillance will more-than-likely lead to, since it will attack individual autonomy-- is an act of destruction against far more people, for far longer than any terrorist attack will ever [i]hope[/i] to reach.

[QUOTE=shotgun334;51676839]Personally, I'd rather the bad guys occasionally win, because the act of infringing upon authentic human development-- which mass surveillance will more-than-likely lead to, since it will attack individual autonomy-- is an act of destruction against far more people, for far longer than any terrorist attack will ever [i]hope[/i] to reach.[/QUOTE] Why do you think so? I'd rather senseless death prevented than some mysterious authentic development.

I'd rather have a [I]million [/I]people die of some insane guy's garage built biological weapon than have people's right to privacy infringed upon.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51676920]I'd rather have a [I]million [/I]people die of some insane guy's garage built biological weapon than have people's right to privacy infringed upon.[/QUOTE] How do you think that hypothetical million feels about it? What's the threshold; how many deaths does it take for you to change your mind?

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51676920]I'd rather have a [I]million [/I]people die of some insane guy's garage built biological weapon than have people's right to privacy infringed upon.[/QUOTE] I really hope you're being sarcastic. As bad as having your privacy infringed would be, that doesn't automatically mean the world will turn into Oceania.

[QUOTE=bitches;51676932]How do you think that hypothetical million feels about it? What's the threshold; how many deaths does it take for you to change your mind?[/QUOTE] A hypothetical million has no political opinion. They could be a million people ready to die for privacy's sake, or a million who'd trade it away, or 50-50, or whatever split you want. All I can say is I'd rather walk around all day knowing that at any moment I could be killed by some random dude turned terrorist than walk around all day knowing the government knows everything about me, my friends, my family, and everyone else. It'd take a lot more deaths than are actually possible for a guy in his basement to cause than it would take to even maybe change my mind.

[QUOTE=bitches;51676932]How do you think that hypothetical million feels about it? What's the threshold; how many deaths does it take for you to change your mind?[/QUOTE] The thing is anyone who does want to do those things honestly has to be pretty fucking smart to not get caught. Which means they will just find other ways to hide and the only one who loses are the public. If you bow to the fear they make they already have won because they turn the government against the people.

If you're talking about the internet, then there isn't any privacy. Furthermore, it should be quite obvious by now that the stated reasons for the spying are not [i]entirely[/i] true. National governments spy for "security", which is a code word for nationally-significant intellectual property spying and corporate espionage for geopolitically strategic reasons. Why wouldn't they?

[QUOTE=DELL;51676959]The thing is anyone who does want to do those things honestly has to be pretty fucking smart to not get caught. Which means they will just find other ways to hide and the only one who loses are the public. If you bow to the fear they make they already have won because they turn the government against the people.[/QUOTE] NSA uses statistical models to catch outliers (bad guys) with tools such as keywords and visiting suspicious websites. You can always create bot-net that fakes user activities such as fake forum posts or fake website visits. But still, you have to be pretty smart to do that.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51676958]A hypothetical million has no political opinion. They could be a million people ready to die for privacy's sake, or a million who'd trade it away, or 50-50, or whatever split you want. All I can say is I'd rather walk around all day knowing that at any moment I could be killed by some random dude turned terrorist than walk around all day knowing the government knows everything about me, my friends, my family, and everyone else. It'd take a lot more deaths than are actually possible for a guy in his basement to cause than it would take to even maybe change my mind.[/QUOTE] So you'd rather die than know something about things that have zero impact on any part of your life and will more than likely will never affect anything you ever do?

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51676958]A hypothetical million has no political opinion. They could be a million people ready to die for privacy's sake, or a million who'd trade it away, or 50-50, or whatever split you want. All I can say is I'd rather walk around all day knowing that at any moment I could be killed by some random dude turned terrorist than walk around all day knowing the government knows everything about me, my friends, my family, and everyone else. It'd take a lot more deaths than are actually possible for a guy in his basement to cause than it would take to even maybe change my mind.[/QUOTE] A hypothetical million do have a political opinion: the average opinion in highly populated areas of the US. You're making a very lazy argument. If [i]you[/i] would rather die than lose your electronic privacy, well that's fine and dandy, but you are not a dictator to decide such things.

[QUOTE=bitches;51676932]How do you think that hypothetical million feels about it? What's the threshold; how many deaths does it take for you to change your mind?[/QUOTE] It's not about thresholds. It's about whether or not this government, or any government, can be trusted with this kind of power. Tomorrow, they could be sifting through data searching for terrorists, cartel members and so on. Ten years down the line, they could be combing the internet for anti-government dissenters. Anything you say, even in the supposed anonymity of online forums, could be used against you. Imagine an agency with the thoroughness of the Stasi, combined with this kind of data infrastructure and technical capability. It would mean the end of free speech, the end of this golden age of idea-sharing we now live in.

[QUOTE=Fourier;51676984]NSA uses statistical models to catch outliers (bad guys) with tools such as keywords and visiting suspicious websites. You can always create bot-net that fakes user activities such as fake forum posts or fake website visits. But still, you have to be pretty smart to do that.[/QUOTE] Which pretty much sums up my point anyone actually capable of doing it and wanting to do it won't have an issue with this.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51677006]It's not about thresholds. It's about whether or not this government, or any government, can be trusted with this kind of power. Tomorrow, they could be sifting through data searching for terrorists, cartel members and so on. Ten years down the line, they could be combing the internet for anti-government dissenters. Anything you say, even in the supposed anonymity of online forums, could be used against you. Imagine an agency with the thoroughness of the Stasi, combined with this kind of data infrastructure and technical capability. It would mean the end of free speech, the end of this golden age of idea-sharing we now live in.[/QUOTE] Except that we're not living in the cold war and not under a strict communist regime. And if you really think that your government is going to stoop to that level then you've got much worse shit to worry about.

[QUOTE=simkas;51677032]Except that we're not living in the cold war and not under a strict communist regime. And if you really think that your government is going to stoop to that level then you've got much worse shit to worry about.[/QUOTE] It happened once, it's not like it couldn't happen again.

[QUOTE=bitches;51676987]If [i]you[/i] would rather die than lose your electronic privacy, well that's fine and dandy, but you are not a dictator to decide such things.[/QUOTE] And what exactly makes you a dictator to decide for everyone that they have no right to privacy because it makes them just a little bit safer? I'm not gonna trade my privacy away for a feeling of security, especially not to the fucking government of all people.

[QUOTE=Spacewolf;51677045]It happened once, it's not like it couldn't happen again.[/QUOTE] It did? I don't really remember the US ever being stuck in a strict communist regime.

[QUOTE=simkas;51677058]It did? I don't really remember the US ever being stuck in a strict communist regime.[/QUOTE] He's referencing McCarthyism, in which members of the media or local governments would find themselves "blacklisted" and harassed by authorities due to suspected socialist leanings. [editline]15th January 2017[/editline] In no way was it like the USSR where people would be disappeared, but it got dangerously close to that, and many feared the reintroduction of internment camps like we had for Japanese-Americans during WWII. Essentially, from the mid 50s to the late 60s, the US had a seriously dark period where it was a legitimate fear to openly speak out against the US government, where you could risk your job/reputation and that of your family's as well.

[QUOTE=simkas;51677032]Except that we're not living in the cold war and not under a strict communist regime.[/QUOTE] Hence the "ten years from now". You've seen the political situation here in the US. We have a populist President-elect, a large proportion of whose' supporters seem to have little regard for truth, or the democratic process. We aren't living under an authoritarian regime, no, but the political environment is growing more toxic by the day. Who knows where we'll be in ten, twenty, even thirty years? We're fortunate that Trump, while far from a supporter of the democratic process, is too incompetent to exploit his position in order to build a dictatorship. Imagine if we'd elected a modern Julius Caesar or Mussolini; someone not necessarily competent enough to hold an empire together, but with just enough intelligence and drive to A. propel them into office and B. undermine the democratic process and consolidate their personal power.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51677065]He's referencing McCarthyism, in which members of the media or local governments would find themselves "blacklisted" and harassed by authorities due to suspected socialist leanings. [editline]15th January 2017[/editline] In no way was it like the USSR where people would be disappeared, but it got dangerously close to that, and many feared the reintroduction of internment camps like we had for Japanese-Americans during WWII. Essentially, from the mid 50s to the late 60s, the US had a seriously dark period where it was a legitimate fear to openly speak out against the US government, where you could risk your job/reputation and that of your family's as well.[/QUOTE] Yeah but that was still happening during the cold war, where there was a massive scare of a massive war that could destroy half the world. That's not really the case at all now and I don't really see it getting to that anytime soon.

[QUOTE=simkas;51677058]It did? I don't really remember the US ever being stuck in a strict communist regime.[/QUOTE] We didn't hang big red banners all over the place but yeah, there were times in our country where speaking out against the government could land you in trouble. It is not impossible that this could happen again, especially with their almost unlimited surveillance capabilities.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51677081]Hence the "ten years from now". You've seen the political situation here in the US. We have a populist President-elect, a large proportion of whose' supporters seem to have little regard for truth, or the democratic process. We aren't living under an authoritarian regime, no, but the political environment is growing more toxic by the day. Who knows where we'll be in ten, twenty, even thirty years? We're fortunate that Trump, while far from a supporter of the democratic process, is too incompetent to exploit his position in order to build a dictatorship. Imagine if we'd elected a modern Julius Caesar or Mussolini; someone not necessarily competent enough to hold an empire together, but with just enough intelligence and drive to A. propel them into office and B. undermine the democratic process and consolidate their personal power.[/QUOTE] Is it really worth sacrificing your security over "maybe" and "who knows"?

[QUOTE=simkas;51677084]Yeah but that was still happening during the cold war, where there was a massive scare of a massive war that could destroy half the world. That's not really the case at all now and I don't really see it getting to that anytime soon.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying this is a now thing or even in a decade, but we need to be aware of the seeds we're planting and what they could grow into down the line, that's all I'm saying.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51676368]This will always be one of the greatest political mysteries to me. For all his uptalk, Obama has led quite possibly the greatest expansion of unwarranted government surveillance in history. Why do this? Is there something he knows that we don't?[/QUOTE] It's really not that mysterious. He knew little to nothing about intelligence or national security before becoming president and then once surrounded by a number of agencies and apparatus (apparatuses?) understood that the threats America faces both domestically and abroad are ever evolving. Similarly to closing Guantanamo Bay, it was a promise he made that realistically couldn't be kept.

[QUOTE=simkas;51677032]Except that we're not living in the cold war and not under a strict communist regime. And if you really think that your government is going to stoop to that level then you've got much worse shit to worry about.[/QUOTE] I think it's [I]very[/I] possible for all governments, if pushed in the right ways, to become communist, fascist, whatever you want. Even the US.