Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can't blame him for the continuation (renewal) and expansion of it since he left office.
I don't get it. I don't understand so many who claim to be against it but yet they are unable to blame either Bush or Obama depending on their party affiliation.
I don't get it. I don't understand so many who claim to be against it but yet they are unable to blame either Bush or Obama depending on their party affiliation.
Because it took 535 other people to pass the bill or pass the extension too. Even if Bush didn't want to sign it, it would get overturned by the congress. Maybe not so much this time by Obama but you get the idea...
Because it took 535 other people to pass the bill or pass the extension too. Even if Bush didn't want to sign it, it would get overturned by the congress. Maybe not so much this time by Obama but you get the idea...
No I don't. I have no problem with blaming those in Congress that voted for it. Bush and or Obama can/could have vetoed it.
No I don't. I have no problem with blaming those in Congress that voted for it. Bush and or Obama can/could have vetoed it.
They both pushed for it and signed it.
In the aftermath of 9/11, not many people in the Beltway were going to turn down anything that was claimed necessary to prevent another.
The fact is, it takes a bit more courage than most politicians to muster to state the bald truth: You can have privacy or you can have safety: Choose one.
The NSA is a data mining operation--the collect blanket data and mine it parameter-based meta-data queries. At this moment, the NSA is required to get a warrant before they can run a query that will output personally identified data. They aren't reading anyone's actual email without a warrant.
Whatever data is declared closed to them to mine is the data terrorists will discover safe for them to use.
In the aftermath of 9/11, not many people in the Beltway were going to turn down anything that was claimed necessary to prevent another.
The fact is, it takes a bit more courage than most politicians to muster to state the bald truth: You can have privacy or you can have safety: Choose one.
Not true. They have spied on everyone and admitted it hasn't made us safer.
Quote:
The NSA is a data mining operation--the collect blanket data and mine it parameter-based meta-data queries. At this moment, the NSA is required to get a warrant before they can run a query that will output personally identified data. They aren't reading anyone's actual email without a warrant.
Whatever data is declared closed to them to mine is the data terrorists will discover safe for them to use.
The Patriot Act allows them to know what movies you rent and what books you read. And how will that make us safer. Of course this is brought to you by the same people who thought adding "under God" to the pledge would catch communist spies because they wouldn't say that part of it.
Not true. They have spied on everyone and admitted it hasn't made us safer.
I don't know what you mean by "spied on everyone" or what you think you mean by it.
Let me put it into terms of a different intelligence discipline that might be easier to understand, because the same laws apply to reconnaissance imagery intelligence (IMINT) as to communications intelligence (COMINT).
If the government collected a mass of digital imagery of the entire US landmass--the kind of thing you see on Google Earth--and had that digital imagery sitting on the hard drives of the NGA at Ft Belvoir (I'm not saying they do--you didn't hear that from me), that's the legal equivalent of the mass collection that the NSA does.
Now, that mass of digital imagery does not create a "personal record" of anyone, even though my home and yours might be contained in it, along with 280,000,000 other people's homes. That's why it doesn't require a warrant just to collect and store the mass data--there are no personal records created.
But at some point, there might be a need to pinpoint some particular house. I'll give you a real-world example from the past: The siege of the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord in 1985. With permission granted by an executive order of President Reagan, the FBI requested and got a U-2 military mission to cover an area of Arkansas to plan action against this group. That imagery was vital for their subsequent siege.
Now, the mere collection of 500,000 square miles of imagery alone did not require a court order--that mass of imagery is essentially "metadata." But when the FBI went farther and specified the particular coordinates they were interested in getting annotated photographs of, that did require a warrant. At that point, those annotated photographs became personal records.
Quote:
How well did it do to stop the bombing in Boston?
The problem there was and remains a lack of free information flow between the foreign intelligence community and the domestic intelligence community. The "wall" between them was set up by the Intelligence Oversight Act, and that wall still exists even between foreign and domestic intelligence departments within Homeland Security.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
