Eye on Americans - the FBI's Database on YOU

[JaredJames]

I wish we could get into more detail, but I don't see how it's feasible in this setting.

Agreed. I know of a number of ways that you could take me out, but I consider them above the average criminal and I actually keep tabs on certain ones to ensure 'all is well'.

P.S. Cheers to you as well, and my apologies to your cat. I'm sure he's both handsome and adorable, while maintain8ing the kind of feline dignity humans have come to expect from our fuzzy buddies.

Well he's now sporting a lovely Budweiser hair gel, I can see me not being the only slightly tipsy one in the house once he starts washing himself.

 

[nismaratwork]

Agreed. I know of a number of ways that you could take me out, but I consider them above the average criminal and I actually keep tabs on certain ones to ensure 'all is well'.

I'm sorry that more people can't do that, but I'm glad you do!

Well he's now sporting a lovely Budweiser hair gel, I can see me not being the only slightly tipsy one in the house once he starts washing himself.

Heh... the beer-drinkers equivalent of blowing pot-smoke at the cat. I kind of like this version, since we already know that virtually all higher mammals like a tip now and then.

 

[Proton Soup]

Really?

My whole basis for monitoring is that I just don't care whether they do or don't do it. If they feel there is a need to monitor my phone calls, so be it. I just don't see it as something that affects me. I'm not giving any reasons for them to do it. I'm simply saying they can if they want.

great, so your whole argument is that you don't care. in that case, you can opt in. and since you don't care, you obviously don't care that other people don't want to opt in.

 

[JaredJames]

great, so your whole argument is that you don't care. in that case, you can opt in. and since you don't care, you obviously don't care that other people don't want to opt in.

I don't believe I've ever said I do care whether or not people want to opt in. (You're right, I don't).

I simply don't understand the reasons they don't want to, they don't make sense to me and from what I've seen don't give a reasonable explanation of why the government shouldn't be allowed to.

 

[nismaratwork]

great, so your whole argument is that you don't care. in that case, you can opt in. and since you don't care, you obviously don't care that other people don't want to opt in.

For all that I disagree with him on this, I don't think it's fair to boil down a page or more of Jarednjames' views into one sentence addressing only his personal stance. His actual argument was, if I recall from mere hours ago, centered far more on the question of what the risk is in this risk/reward calculation. He's claiming very low risk, I feel otherwise, but "I don't care" seems like short shrift and a bad way to start if that's how you're trying to represent the totality of his view. I'm just going on what he's written here, so you should have access to this.

 

[JaredJames]

Just for clarity, I did say "I don't care", but purely in regards to the government monitoring me, it is my own opinion on the matter (let's keep things in context to what I said and meant and not apply them elsewhere as I feel proton did).

I'm not using this as my argument (as you have clearly noted).

 

[Proton Soup]

For all that I disagree with him on this, I don't think it's fair to boil down a page or more of Jarednjames' views into one sentence addressing only his personal stance. His actual argument was, if I recall from mere hours ago, centered far more on the question of what the risk is in this risk/reward calculation. He's claiming very low risk, I feel otherwise, but "I don't care" seems like short shrift and a bad way to start if that's how you're trying to represent the totality of his view. I'm just going on what he's written here, so you should have access to this.

i took "whole basis" at face value.

i also take issue with trying to sweep other peoples' concerns under the rug as "fearmongering". if the reasons the founding fathers had for putting in protections aren't enough, one need only look back to the beginnings of the FBI and Hoover's misuse of personal information. if Hoover's not enough, then maybe consider some of his minions like Liddy. the abuse potential is there, and historically, it has been used.

as for risk/reward... that's an interesting question to me, because it presumes one can violate the privacy rights of individuals for the sake of a right that doesn't exist: the right to be kept safe. the USSC at least doesn't seem to think you have a right to be protected by the police. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales and I'm not sure such rights of safety exist in the Constitution other than the rights to be safe from government abuses.

anyhoo, i suppose it's a bit of a dead horse beating.

 

[nismaratwork]

i took "whole basis" at face value.

i also take issue with trying to sweep other peoples' concerns under the rug as "fearmongering". if the reasons the founding fathers had for putting in protections aren't enough, one need only look back to the beginnings of the FBI and Hoover's misuse of personal information. if Hoover's not enough, then maybe consider some of his minions like Liddy. the abuse potential is there, and historically, it has been used.

as for risk/reward... that's an interesting question to me, because it presumes one can violate the privacy rights of individuals for the sake of a right that doesn't exist: the right to be kept safe. the USSC at least doesn't seem to think you have a right to be protected by the police. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales and I'm not sure such rights of safety exist in the Constitution other than the rights to be safe from government abuses.

anyhoo, i suppose it's a bit of a dead horse beating.

Regarding the portion in bold, I have the same concerns. Unfortunately we're closer to an external attack than an internal one. I think that it's safe to say we'll always be swinging between domestic and foreign paranoia.

 

[Proton Soup]

Regarding the portion in bold, I have the same concerns. Unfortunately we're closer to an external attack than an internal one. I think that it's safe to say we'll always be swinging between domestic and foreign paranoia.

there is certainly a bit of pendulum swing wrt to liberties and war. unfortunately, it seems the trend to war and peace is becoming less of a pendulum swing and more of a full tilt. and instead of interning one race of people like we did in WWII, now we'll just intern the lot of us. i see a nation that is chugging full speed into fascism, doing things that make me feel ashamed, and I'm just sick of it.

 

[Evo]

Uh, this discussion is so off base. Fact, the government is tracking us. I was sent to a security seminar a few years ago by my company because of what I do. The guy that held it was the former head of security for the Whitehouse. Former Chief of Staff. It was in my blog here which was lost in the last upgrade.

Anyone that thinks they've gone to a questionable site or said questionable things and isn't on a watchlist is nuts.

We were advised that the government watches certain websites and if you've visited, you're now on the list. Welcome to reality.

 

[Proton Soup]

you make me so depressed

 

[nismaratwork]

Uh, this discussion is so off base. Fact, the government is tracking us. I was sent to a security seminar a few years ago by my company because of what I do. The guy that held it was the former head of security for the Whitehouse. Former Chief of Staff. It was in my blog here which was lost in the last upgrade.

Anyone that thinks they've gone to a questionable site or said questionable things and isn't on a watchlist is nuts.

We were advised that the government watches certain websites and if you've visited, you're now on the list. Welcome to reality.

Indeed, but this isn't new, it's just a broader net that can be cast with modern networking. HOWEVER, there is a huge difference between a file on a person existing, and that file being used in a manner which harms them or confers an advantage. PF is probably one of the few communities that is chock-full of people with major security clearance issues outside of the industries many of you work in.

I did some work in Israel about a decade ago, and they went over me with a fine-toothed comb. The fact is that if you get certain kinds of jobs, you invite or are open to a special degree of scrutiny. If you're a great engineer who'll be working on a NMDS, knowing that you're also a compulsive gambler who could get into debt and be compromised as a result... is relevant.

Now, Hoover and others have been a little more... what's the term now... "forward leaning" in their security posture, but we saw the backlash against that information being used. These days they're just so swamped by their own paranoia... if you're at a protest you're on a list. Visit a porn site that ALSO has a section that's truly perverted... list. Say a few keyworks on a phone-call across state-lines... list.

The question advocates of these lists should be asking is: who's sifting through them? When we automate, highly published mistakes are made, and there aren't enough trained people to do it. So, you focus on the threat du jour, which these days is probably... terrorism, drugs, and child abuse through the internet. I think those are pretty good priorities, but when you don't have a good process to share lists with other agencies (oh look, paul isn't JUST on one list, but 4!...), and acting on intelligence is considered the greatest sin next to letting its usefulness lapse... well... the average criminal citizen can sleep easy.

In the end, it's very easy to gather info... sorting it, using it, keeping it up to date..
...there's a reason we usually discover warnings of major attacks, from Pearl Harbor to 9.11, AFTER they occur. The attack itself acts as the key to bring together the information... kind of an reversed Minority Report.