Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Personally, I don't care if the government listens in on my phone call to my nephew about how his grades in school are, or if the government hacks into my google history and finds porn sites. What're they going to do? Threaten to email the sites to my mother?

The debate of whether or not it's okay for the government to tap into these things is different than the debate of whether or not the government should be permitted to keep the fact that they're doing it secret. Now that I know, I don't really mind. But if something this huge has been kept under wraps for years, who knows what else they could be hiding.

[DeistPaladin]

Is it weird for me to say that I'm okay with this? Because I honestly am.

I can see the logic but the problem is the government doesn't have a record of actually using this information as intended. I remember there was a controversy during the Bush administration where the CIA workers were spending their time listening in on phone sex between service personnel and their spouses/significant others here at home and not on tracking terror threats down.

And then the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if some level of government couldn't potentially use sensitive-but-not-illegal personal information as blackmail on certain citizens.

[Jackalope]

[Jackalope]

Personally, I don't care if the government listens in on my phone call to my nephew about how his grades in school are, or if the government hacks into my google history and finds porn sites. What're they going to do? Threaten to email the sites to my mother?

The debate of whether or not it's okay for the government to tap into these things is different than the debate of whether or not the government should be permitted to keep the fact that they're doing it secret. Now that I know, I don't really mind. But if something this huge has been kept under wraps for years, who knows what else they could be hiding.

You don't see the potential for abuse and the chilling effect that this sort of surveillance could have on dissent?

[CleanShavenJesus]

Personally, I don't care if the government listens in on my phone call to my nephew about how his grades in school are, or if the government hacks into my google history and finds porn sites. What're they going to do? Threaten to email the sites to my mother?

The debate of whether or not it's okay for the government to tap into these things is different than the debate of whether or not the government should be permitted to keep the fact that they're doing it secret. Now that I know, I don't really mind. But if something this huge has been kept under wraps for years, who knows what else they could be hiding.

You don't see the potential for abuse and the chilling effect that this sort of surveillance could have on dissent?

Enlighten me.

[Jackalope]

Here's a piece from Forbes, I'd suggest reading the whole thing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher...-too-much/

Emphasis added to excerpt below.

The government’s widespread collection of evidence led Justice Antonin Scalia to deliver a stinging dissent from the bench on Monday, raging against the majority’s approval of taking DNA samples from the cheeks of arrestees in Maryland v. King. Scalia described the resulting DNA database as a “genetic panopticon” that violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches.

It’s interesting Scalia used the word “panopticon,” since it’s also the term of choice for privacy experts who study the government’s collection of digital data. They fear that the warehousing of data about citizens, from who they call to the books they order on Amazon, could have the same chilling effect as the prison guards located in a central tower — the panopticon — that Jeremy Bentham described back in 1816.

[...]

The court also may eventually take up arguments based on the panopticon effect: That pervasive surveillance stifles the First Amendment rights of citizens. So far that argument hasn’t been successful, but Richards and others argue that when the government effectively can track how millions of people think, those people might think twice about engaging in social protest or even buying reading materials that would identify them as subversive.

[CleanShavenJesus]

First off, why is this such a big secret? How did nobody figure out the government was doing this the whole time? Look at the generation we live in. I'd be shocked to find out that the government WASN'T doing this. I feel weird not being bothered by it, but at the same time, why should I be?

"...when the government effectively can track how millions of people think, those people might think twice about engaging in social protest or even buying reading materials that would identify them as subversive."? No? That wouldn't happen. Where do you get that from? Honestly, you think this news will be in anyone's heads in a couple of months? Besides, half of the people engaging in the kind of social protest that people think the government is trying to track are already conspiracy theorists who think they're being watched 24/7. This news does not affect what I read, what I buy, what I search, or what I talk about on the phone. If I protest, I'll protest. If I buy a book about the Secrets of the Government, I won't be paranoid. There's no reason to be.

If this is your awful chilling abuse that you spoke of?

[Jackalope]

Look at the generation we live in. I'd be shocked to find out that the government WASN'T doing this. I feel weird not being bothered by it, but at the same time, why should I be?

Yeah, I can't imagine why someone would be bothered by your government government employing secret courts that use secret proceedings to issue warrants which are almost never denied. Furthermore, I can't imagine why anyone would be bothered by a NSA surveillance program who's stated purpose is to spy on foreign entities, that nonetheless captures a great deal of intelligence on persons within the United States - an act that the NSA has historically been forbidden to engage in. Can't imagine why anyone would be opposed to them doing that, even without the formality of a rubber-stamped FISA warrant.

I personally don't object to these actions undertaken lawfully, under warrant issued upon probable cause. I object when secret courts issue secret warrants to authorize bulk surveillance and data gathering, and when three letter agencies of the United States eavesdrop on the communications of United States residents and citizens in what appears to me to be an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress' authority.

You don't find the chilling effect convincing. I'm OK with that. I do find your attempt to paint this is as some sort of conspiracy theory to be pretty funny.

[CleanShavenJesus]

I personally don't object to these actions undertaken lawfully, under warrant issued upon probable cause. I object when secret courts issue secret warrants to authorize bulk surveillance and data gathering, and when three letter agencies of the United States eavesdrop on the communications of United States residents and citizens in what appears to me to be an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress' authority.

That's bullcrap. The term "probable cause" is so loose, every single one of these authorized survellinces could have been "probable cause". That doesn't mean crap. Whether they're authorized or not, they're still exactly what you say they are.

I've admitted that this is illegal. I've admitted that I recognize that this has been happening for years. But I'm still not disturbed or worried about it. It's a privacy issue. I personally don't give a damn how much of my activity is recorded. That's a subjective element.

I do find your attempt to paint this is as some sort of conspiracy theory to be pretty funny.

Where did I do that?

[Jackalope]

The term "probable cause" is so loose, every single one of these authorized survellinces could have been "probable cause".

How could we know? How could we know if warrants were even issued? That's one of the problems with secret courts and secret warrants.

Note that the use of the PRISM program does not even require warrants, and due to the standards used to construct queries, will gather a lot of data (including email and other personal communication) on people whom the NSA is forbidden to spy on. People who are protected by a bill of rights and laws that are intended to forbid this sort of thing from occurring.

I've admitted that this is illegal. I've admitted that I recognize that this has been happening for years. But I'm still not disturbed or worried about it. It's a privacy issue. I personally don't give a damn how much of my activity is recorded. That's a subjective element.

Well, it's certainly your right to not be bothered by it. Myself, I expect my government to not act as if they're above the law. That sort of attitude tends to undermine any legitimacy on their claim to authority in my eyes.

I do find your attempt to paint this is as some sort of conspiracy theory to be pretty funny.

Where did I do that?

Right here. Perhaps I misread your intended meaning.

Besides, half of the people engaging in the kind of social protest that people think the government is trying to track are already conspiracy theorists who think they're being watched 24/7. This news does not affect what I read, what I buy, what I search, or what I talk about on the phone. If I protest, I'll protest. If I buy a book about the Secrets of the Government, I won't be paranoid. There's no reason to be.