How far should the Dragnet reach.

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nsaspook
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of government surveillance programs targeting US citizens, particularly in the context of national security and individual rights. Participants express concerns about the secrecy, scope, and potential for abuse of these programs, as well as historical parallels to past government actions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the level of secrecy surrounding surveillance programs invites abuse and lacks public oversight.
  • Others argue that personal monitoring would reveal benign activities, suggesting a lack of concern over being surveilled.
  • There are objections to the erosion of individual rights due to laws like the Patriot Act, which some believe conflict with personal freedoms.
  • Historical comparisons are made to past government actions, such as the House Un-American Activities Committee and IRS targeting of political groups, to highlight potential risks of current surveillance practices.
  • Some participants question the effectiveness of surveillance programs, suggesting that if the NSA has extensive data, it should be used to address issues like telemarketing fraud.
  • Concerns are raised about the chilling effect of surveillance on free expression and the potential for government overreach in monitoring citizens.
  • One participant cites a quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding the right of the people to alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive to their rights, reflecting a historical perspective on government accountability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express a mix of concerns regarding government surveillance, with no clear consensus on the appropriateness or effectiveness of such programs. Multiple competing views remain regarding the balance between security and individual rights.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments depend on interpretations of legal protections and historical precedents, and there are unresolved questions about the implications of current surveillance practices on civil liberties.

  • #61
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/u...from-ruling-on-surveillance-efforts.html?_r=0


More of the status quo.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration moved late Friday to prevent a federal judge in California from ruling on the constitutionality of warrantless surveillance programs authorized during the Bush administration, telling a court that recent disclosures about National Security Agency spying were not enough to undermine its claim that litigating the case would jeopardize state secrets.
...
So, he said, he was continuing to assert the state secrets privilege, which allows the government to seek to block information from being used in court even if that means the case must be dismissed. The Justice Department wants the judge to dismiss the matter without ruling on whether the programs violated the First or Fourth Amendment.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
This thread has gotten out of hand with conspiracies and unsubstantiated personal opinions.
 
  • #63
According to dozens of previously undisclosed classified documents, among the most valuable of those unintended intelligence tools are so-called leaky apps that spew everything from the smartphone identification codes of users to where they have been that day.

The N.S.A. and Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters were working together on how to collect and store data from dozens of smartphone apps by 2007, according to the documents, provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor. Since then, the agencies have traded recipes for grabbing location and planning data when a target uses Google Maps, and for vacuuming up address books, buddy lists, telephone logs and the geographic data embedded in photographs when someone sends a post to the mobile versions of Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter and other Internet services.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/world/spy-agencies-scour-phone-apps-for-personal-data.html

Hmmm. Perhaps smart phones (or apps) are a bit too smart. One certainly has the choice of not using such technology.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 264 ·
9
Replies
264
Views
28K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K