NSA Surveillance

No, I promise you EVERY single thing you make note of is NOT news to me and I'm NOT missing the "bigger picture". I assure you I am very (and have been for as long as I can remember) aware of most what of my information is being shared both elective (example: credit reporting/selling buying habits) and regulated (example: certain medical to government agencies). My issue is the public sector collecting and using & therefore IMO a violation of OUR Constitutional rights.

 

Big Data and predictive analytics are here but still in their infancy. As the OP indicated, all the transactions flying around cyberspace are being logged and used by various organizations, not just the government. Hell, think about those targeted ads on web sites -- I get Toyota ads, mountain bike ads, etc., things I have shopped for online. I am being spied on in order to sell me stuff I am interested in.

In the Big Data realm, they are looking for patterns, not necessarily specifics. Looking for trends and ways to predict possible future outcomes in order to take proactive action rather than reactive action. Obviously some of the patterns found from the large sets of data may lead some organizations to look at more specific data (yours and mine) and take specific actions. Hmm, sounds a little like Minority Report, doesn't it?

It's a brave new world. It would be nice if every individual had their own security envelope to wrap around their data packets, including details around how they expect their data to be used, stored and shared. Who knows, that may eventually come -- many European nations are a little farther along regarding data ownership and privacy, although they are just laws at this point. There are stiff penalties, though.

We have come from living in caves with a big stick to having doors with locks, alarms, security cameras, etc., in order to protect what is ours. I have to think we will eventually get there with our personal data.

 

6 million ?? Shit , worse than I thought

 

With the exception of infancy, I agree.

In the past, only those with resources to own "mainframe" styles machines could afford to so this type of computation.

The speed and relatively low cost of today's multiprocessor machines have made the process faster and enables more ways in which the data can be manipulated. And they've allowed more players to participate.

 

The reason I say it is in its infancy is that the speed at which the physical capabilities have grown (and decreased in cost) has outpaced our ability to utilize it effectively. Basically, we have gunpowder in great supply, but we are still shooting civil war era rifles and have yet to invent the A-10. No doubt there are pockets of brilliance, but I think we have some time (at least a little) before we get there to figure out how to protect our information.

 

New Deal
Great Society
Health Care reform

The majority discovered that they could vote themselves resources out of the pockets of the minority.

 

Do you REALLY want to open a Constitutional Convention in 2013?

Kiss the whole thing goodbye if that happens. We'll lose the 2nd, 4th, and 5th, and the 1st will be redefined to only apply to the media.

 

Not to mention the millions of other ethnic groups, and those with political indifferences. Just remember Hitler came to power legally through the framework of the constitution, he eventually eroded away freedoms and everything that happened was legal under German law.

I know a lot of ppl laugh at gun nuts claiming the Govt will take away their guns, or make a registry. Well lets say you own a .45 caliber, a murder in your town was committed with a .45, guess what you're a suspect now.

Collecting data on everything could allow a political party to gerrymander much easier, theres a whole can of worms that could be opened by allowing this much data to be stored and collected.

 

I didn't mean a new constitutional convention I meant we need term limits on politicians and get rid of all the damage that every President since Woodrow Wilson has done to our country

 

I agree...How often do you hear about a Senator dying in his 80's/90's been in office for 40 yrs? They act like its sad...well it is, ppl in their 70's/80's should not be making decisions that future generations have to deal with. Most people that old can barely drive, let alone run the country.

 

Shit, you sounded intelligent up to that statement, spoken like someone of youth & ignorance... whatever....


I do agree on term limits for senators & congressmen

 

Byrd died on the job at 92, Thrumond at 100, Inouye 88, Spector 82, Mccain, Reid, Feinstein, Hatch, Pelosi are in their mid 70's. Not to be a dick but all of these ppl should have retired long ago. Yet they have no inclination of stepping down. Career politicians are a cancer to this country. Holding public office must not be a tough job, if so no way these ppl could hack it. They should be the hardest working ppl in the country making decisions, working together, to make this country better. It looks more like a retirement community.

 

the NSA has maybe, MAYBE 20,000 employees. there are 300 million americans. it blows my mind that people think that 20,000 people are going through the texts, calls, emails, etc of 299,980,000 other people.

combined with the fact that it is a violation of things such as USSID 18 to monitor a us person's communications without going through the proper, extremely high up channels, this entire situation is hilarious because it just shows how asspained Americans get when they feel their rights are being infringed upon.

the nsa does not give a damn about you unless you are doing bad things.

to sum it up perfectly, this is from cnn:

also, this:

these quotes aren't the government trying to cover stuff up, this is actually how it is. america needs to collectively untwist its panties and stop looking so damn retarded.

 

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but here's a link that is a read on a true patriot.

http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-why

Sorry if it's a repost.

 

they use computers to collect and organize the data but humans are the ones that do the actual analyzing of it.

 

I agree completely.

I disagree.

We have a Representative Republic. If my senator or congressman is representing what I feel is best for this country, I should have the right to vote to keep him in office until he is no longer representing those views.

As frustrating as it is to have people in office screwing things up for 40+ years, the TERM is not the problem... the problem is the district boundaries are drawn so that the incumbents are in "safe" seats.
In my area, it is rare that the incumbent is challenged by someone from his own party in the primary.
In the general, the opposing candidate rarely receives any campaign funding from their party. It is nearly impossible to unseat someone from office using the electoral process as it is.
But term limits do nothing to fix the problem. When they are termed out, they throw their endorsement behind their chosen successor, and because the district boundaries are drawn around 75% demographics, we get another person who is a carbon copy of the first.
We've had term limits in California for 20 years. Things are not getting better.

Last election, I did not vote in 3 state and national races. Due to redistricting, there was NOBODY running that I wanted in office (regardless of party), and nobody from my party running.

Oh ya... California changed the primary process again.
You can have two Democrats or two Republicans running against each other in the general. It's a 100% open primary (anyone can vote for anyone from any party), and the top two go to the general election.

 

Getting rid of the damage can be done through the SCOTUS.
Putting term limits on the Federal level would require a Constitutional convention.

 

No you don't you need to get a law passed or as Thomas Jefferson said have a revolution every 20 years or so

 

Federal election law and procedures are defined in the Constitution.
To make any changes to those procedures would require a Constitutional Amendment.

The Fed can't, AND WE DON'T WANT THEM TO be able to just "get a law passed" that would change the nature of national elections.

Federal government doesn't work the way many states work. In California, I can write a law, collect signatures, and put it on the ballot, and if it passes, it becomes law.
That doesn't exist on the Federal level. You have never, and will never, have the ability to directly vote on a Federal law or procedure.

 

We arent thinking they are being infringed upon, they are being infringed upon. Show me a law that allows them to analyze any kind of data from american citizens making contact to other citizens inside the bounds of the country? It does not.

And to think they don't have computers to recognize words or names is foolish. Hell most of the automated call centers can figure out what the hell you say to them and direct your phone call properly. Im sure the gov't has a fancier version of that.

It disgusts me how people say "If you have nothing to hide then why do you care?" Its like you are trying to guilt trip us into giving up our right to privacy. If we wanted that we would have a law saying it was ok. and we dont. So its against the law.


All should not suffer for the evil of a few people. we are a free nation. And we choose to live in some kind of danger from crazies by also choosing to be free. Hence a hell of a good reason for the 2nd amendment. but we wont get into that.