Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

What kind of government

June 22, 2013

What type of government employs massive data collection on its citizens? What type of government monitors its citizen's activities? What type of government uses its coercive powers to discriminat......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(118)

Premier

Jun-22-13 5:04 AM

I'm kind of on the fence on this issue. I really don't mind them recording my calls or emails as I have nothing to hide but I can see how this information could used for a number of reasons for attacks on political rivals. I think Obama said it stopped like 5 terrorist attacks, well if that's the case I don't mind giving up a little personal freedom to save American lives.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GysgtUSMC

Jun-22-13 6:01 AM

One fact people are overlooking is this data collection is not only affecting US citizens. The governments long arm also reaches out to foreign country's citizens and the EU Chief Justice is demanding answers. Whether we agree or disagree to these methods, for the US government to arbitrarily collect data in these countries without their government's consent is nothing short of espionage on a massive scale. It too affects the rights of innocent citizens and it smacks of arrogance.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Jun-22-13 7:37 AM

Let them put a drone above you and watch your daughter sunbathe in the backyard....they might stop a burglar before he breaks into your house.

If you have nothing to hide, why worry that they are collecting this information on you?

If it stops just one crime, it's worth it, right?

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jun-22-13 7:54 AM

I can't believe how many people are ok with what the government has been doing in secret. I'm so fired up I'm ready to stand on the steps of the federal courthouse holding a sign above me head.

Stand up and say no while you still can!

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jun-22-13 8:15 AM

People agreed to this in the wake of 9/11. They are now offended by the reality of it.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jun-22-13 8:16 AM

Satellites can spy on your doughter sunbathing in the backyard, heck the neighbor can from their upstairs window. You can Google a pic of your house and yard from that satellite, it is on the Internet for all to see.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaveFelem

Jun-22-13 8:17 AM

The whole attitude of "I have nothing to hide so why not" makes me sick.

Hasn't anyone forgotten about the old Soviet Bloc countries? You might not be doing anything wrong, but your neighbor might think so, and boom - your life is turned upside down while you try to prove to the Stasi that the duct tape, screws, nails, and plastic pipes in your cellar are there for their intended purposes.

This whole situation is out of control. Please read the Fourth Amendment!

Oh, and what really fries me? Where is the ACLU? They'd be the first ones lined up to defend a drug dealer busted when police searched his car without 'probable cause'. What's the difference here? At least with the drug dealer, you have a pretty good chance of busting him with drugs.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jun-22-13 8:18 AM

"If you have nothing to hide, why worry that they are collecting this information on you?

If it stops just one crime, it's worth it, right?" - eriklatranyi

*

That's what "conservatives" insisted, when Homeland Security was rolled-out!

What...they've all-of-a-sudden become fans o' CHANGE?

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Jun-22-13 8:20 AM

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a constitutional challenge to a surveillance program under which the National Security Agency vacuums up information about every phone call placed within, from, or to the United States. The lawsuit argues that the program violates the First Amendment rights of free speech and association as well as the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The complaint also charges that the dragnet program exceeds the authority that Congress provided through the Patriot Act.—ACLU(dot)org

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jun-22-13 8:21 AM

"I'm so fired up I'm ready to stand on the steps of the federal courthouse holding a sign above me head.

Stand up and say no while you still can!" - JerryfromRI

*

Wouldn't it be more prudent to hire EXPERIENCED-folks to follow-up on your effort (to say "NO!"); Republican-congressmen?????

1 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jun-22-13 8:25 AM

"People agreed to this in the wake of 9/11. They are now offended by the reality of it." - CMReeder

*

No doubt. It's "almost" as if they never (fully) thought-things-THRU...in their mob/lemming-like effort to PROVE they were American-"patriots"...right??

Imagine that.

0 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-22-13 8:27 AM

"Collecting data is no different than if a gov't agent opened my mail"

That stretches the bounds of logic. What has the govt done that is comparable to reading your mail?

Collect your email metadata? That's the "from", "to", and possibly the "subject line" of an email. That's like the govt looking at the outside of an envelope you mailed.

They collect your phone metadata, Again, so what. If a cop came up to you, and said he was trying to crack a terrorist cell, and asked who you called the day before, and who called you, because that information would help him do his job, you wouldn't volunteer that?

I have to ask erik, do you have the browser on your computer set to accept cookies? Do you have a smartphone with apps on it you've downloaded? Do you have a Facebook account?

If you answer yes to ANY of these questions, you give exponentially more "private" data away on a daily basis about yourself than the govt is collecting.

0 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jun-22-13 8:27 AM

More prudent?

Prudence does not change the world. Showing up does.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jun-22-13 8:28 AM

The President says we need to have this debate on data collection, but he did nothing to precipitate this debate. Only after they were caught did he feel the debate was needed.

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jun-22-13 8:29 AM

"Our constitution invests in us basic “inalienable” rights. “Inalienable” means that we cannot vote them away, no matter how panicked." - Clayton Cubit

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jun-22-13 8:30 AM

Women don’t “ask for it” by dressing a certain way, and citizens don’t “ask for it” by sharing themselves online. Understand consent.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jun-22-13 8:30 AM

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a constitutional challenge to a surveillance program under which the National Security Agency vacuums up information about every phone call placed within, from, or to the United States. The lawsuit argues that the program violates the First Amendment rights of free speech and association as well as the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment." - Ritty77

*

Those crafty "marxists"/"socialists"!!!!

Who didn't see THIS coming??!!!!

1 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jun-22-13 8:32 AM

And it is the "EXPERIENCED" folks that voted for the Patriot Act Extension. Marino, Casey, Toomey, they all voted for it.

THAT is what experience got us.

It's time what took Congress back from the professional politicians.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-22-13 8:35 AM

Again, it is ASTOUNDING to see people that not so many years ago were writing letters to the paper, and coming to this forum breathlessly defending surveillance programs by President Bush, that allowed the govt to listent to the actual CONTENT of a phone call, or read the CONTENT of an email, of an American citizen with absolutely no warrant so long as one end of the communication originated outside the country, come here and just go insane about the EXACT SAME PROGRAM, but with privacy protections added.

The govt cannot today legally listen to your phone calls without a warrant. They cannot read your emails without a warrant. IOW, they cannot "wiretap" you without going to a court first.

If I considered people looking at metadata of my communications to be a violation of my privacy, I certainly wouldn't be here posting this.

0 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-22-13 8:42 AM

"Women don’t “ask for it” by dressing a certain way, and citizens don’t “ask for it” by sharing themselves online."

You misunderstand my point Gavin. I'm not saying anyone is "asking for it", I'm saying if you have your browser set to accept cookies, you don't care, because there are large companies out there that are tracking your every movement online, and they actually care if you're gay, or getting divorced, or frequenting prostitutes.

If you have a Facebook account, particularly one in your own name that's tired to a primary email address you use, you don't care.

If you have a smartphone with apps on it, you don't care, because some if not all your apps are grabbing FAR more insidious data about you, and sharing it with faceless people for whom you have no idea why they want your info.

I'm not saying someone "deserves it". I'm saying they are claiming to be concerned about something, but their actions indicate the exact opposite.

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jun-22-13 8:42 AM

"The govt cannot today legally listen to your phone calls without a warrant. They cannot read your emails without a warrant."

Not true. NOT TRUE.

We learned two days ago what the previously secret rules were. In order to determine your country of origin, the NSA can and DOES read the email and listen to phone calls on anyone, ANYONE, it is trying to identify.

The law was secret, the judicial oversight was secret.

The only thing missing was the secret prison.

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jun-22-13 8:45 AM

"If you have a Facebook account, particularly one in your own name that's tired to a primary email address you use, you don't care." - CHayes

When one opens those accounts, they agree to their terms of use, which states they may collect information and use information posted there.

Nowhere did I agree to a terms of use for the Government to collect that information.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jun-22-13 8:47 AM

All of your examples in your *:42 post Chris, require a person to agree to the terms of use.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jun-22-13 8:48 AM

Off topic: I'm off to run 13.1 and won't be commenting further today.

I'll be at the Memorial Park protest rally at 6:30 tonight and will be streaming it live via ustream. I'll post a link on Twitter.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-22-13 8:51 AM

It's so hilarious to think back on the Bush years, and remembering people who supported President Bush's MUCH broader, more insidious surveillance program being told:

"you support this now, but I bet you wouldn't support this if Hillary Clinton were in the White House."

and people saying:

"NO! This is to protect the country from terrorists. There's nothing wrong going on here at all. Are you with the terrorists?"

Now here we have those EXACT SAME PEOPLE going crazy about that EXACT SAME PROGRAM, but with layers of privacy protection added to it.

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 118 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web