Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal FroMan's Journal: NSA flap 10

Journal by FroMan

It seems like 90% of \. hasn't the brains to fully understand what is happening with the currrent NSA flap. However, YRO editors are having a jolly good time forming their lynch mob anyways.

The NSA is not actually recording phone conversation, nor are they listening to them (without warrents). What they are doing is collecting phone numbers that call other phone numbers and when and how long from phone records. Then they store that data in a database and see who is calling terrorists (over simplification).

Now, I know all the "hope they didn't leak this over the phone" comments won't stop, cause the NSA is evil we don't read the freak'in article types will perpetuate this lie. But those folks are out in left field and can be safetly ignored.

The real issue here is: should the NSA be able to collect phone records (not tap lines) without a warrent? I sit on the fence here.

On one side, the NSA seems to believe this information is useful in some fashion for collecting data and the infamous "dots" they need to collect to prevent a terrorist attack. I personally do not see how this will be useful, but then I don't work in intelligence.

On the other side, they should be able to get this information after the fact of an event (read: attack) to use it in deconstructing the event. And this seems to be the most useful fashion of how to use this information. If they were looking for proactiveness, it seems they could choose a couple targets and just get their records, out to the first or second order of their contacts. It would filter out much of the noise before it ever hits the NSA's desks. I think that would be a much better way to handle this information, as otherwise they could just be trolling, which I do not think is a valid form of law enforcement (much like speed traps).

I probably lean more to the side of not liking the NSA to be collecting this information wholesale. This has the potential to be used improperly to a degree. It basically preemtively limits free assocation on the premise that one would not associate with someone who "might be a bad guy" because it could then be traced back that there was a relationship (atleast a phone call). Then the level of "bad guy" might not be a terrorist, but say a smut dealer or in the future a Christian.

And that lies at the center of the problem with collecting personal information wholesale. It has the potential to impact the liberties of those who are having data collected on them. There is a reason the burden of proof is laid on the prosecutor instead of the defendent, and a system like this I think reverses the system to assuming guilt of everyone, and only by never calling a "bad guy" are you assumed innocent. But because it is open ended innocence is never assumed until, well, you are dead.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSA flap More

NSA flap

Comments Filter:
  • It basically preemtively limits free assocation on the premise that one would not associate with someone who "might be a bad guy"...

    This is by far the most coherent, fully adjusted, well-defined reason for sensible opposition to the NSA program (presuming it's real, perhaps we've been duped by USA Today) that I've seen on the Internet so far.

    Kudos to you, sir!
  • The problem with the NSA approach is that it's just not sufficient. It's bad enough when people will trade freedom for security, worse when it's just a false sense of security.

    The proper way to defend against terrorism is not by defending based on what the terrorists might do - at least, that's not the best way...

    I think the best way is a Sword of Damocles approach. We tell them: "You sent one terrorist over here and murder one American, we nuke the holy hell out of you, and your friends, and your litt

    • Well, with the Soviet Union we were threatened with total annihilation, so doing similarly qualified as a "measured" response. But how has that been working for Israel, for example? How long have they tried the restrained tit-for-tat approach to terrorism? We see that that doesn't solve the problem, so to continue on that path of futility, out of fear of "escalating" things, or what our "friend" nations (who are foolishly weak-willed and totally unhelpful) might think, is to be as foolish as one's worthless
      • Yeah, the measured response doesn't work.

        Going so over the top as to either annihilate them completely, or make it so painful that the thought of even slightly annoying us causes them to have convulsions out of fear - that's what we need to do.

        If our message is that you can either get along with us, agree or disagree - but act like adults, or get completely and utterly crushed... chances are less and less Islamofacists are going to be so eager to pick a fight with us.

        • If our message is that you can either get along with us, agree or disagree - but act like adults, or get completely and utterly crushed... chances are less and less Islamofacists are going to be so eager to pick a fight with us.

          I think even that's slightly foolish thinking. We've allowed for plenty of time to test for rationality, and there's no sign of it. At this point, leave clinging to any chance of reasoning with these people to those who also advocate "understanding" vs. punishing the worst criminals,
          • We agree, we're just phrasing it differently. By "acting like adults" I mean peacefully resolving disagreements - pick any of our allies, and not one of them agrees with us 100% of the time - and that's fine, they also don't blow themselves up in order to kill civilians.

            Leave us alone or it will be like you never even existed.

            And if by some miracle you do survive, you'll wish you hadn't.

    • We tell them: "You sent one terrorist over here and murder one American, we nuke the holy hell out of you, and your friends, and your little holy city of Mecca, and we don't care what the consequences will be after that."

      I like what Howard Stern's co-host, Robin, said on the show on that 9/11 morning.

      "I've always considered them extremists, but I say you declare war on everybody and then whoever surrenders doesn't get killed."

      General George Patton lives.

  • It seems like 90% of \. hasn't the brains to fully understand what is happening with the currrent NSA flap.

    Confusing the issue is just a familiar left-wing tactic. Such as dropping the "illegal" part from "the illegal immigration issue", thereby paving the way for hysterical absurdities like "Republicans hate Latinos" [azstarnet.com]. If groups like journalists and politicians can use innuendo to imply that something is far more involved than it really is, without having to actually outright lie, they will. And how.

    I'm in
    • I don't know how to oppose this without hurting the party that I think we overall still need in power, and also be taken seriously.

      I think this next election is the time to let them lose power and remember who it is that elects them. Unfortunately too many will not send the signal. But hopefully enough for them to lose. If a large enough portion vote true conservative/libertarian in '06, we might be able to salvage '08 with a reasonable president. I dunno the answer though.
  • Which NSA flap are you talking about? AT&T's Implementation of NSA Spying on American Citizens [wired.com] says not phone calls, but web site visits, IM conversations, and email contents are being scanned.

    I must be confused, unless you are referring to a different NSA flap.

    Not that either is any good.

Slashdot Top Deals

You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.

Close