or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem - Page 15

post #561 of 573

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

 

The problem is still obviously the government not regulating, controlling and monitoring enough.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #562 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

 

The problem is still obviously the government not regulating, controlling and monitoring enough.

 

Why does the NSA require Verizon to turn over phone records when they more than likely already possess the requested material, obtained via their own blanket electronic surveillance techniques? 

 

Furthermore, as recently admitted by FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente, "bona fide" (for want of a better term), or "real" terrorist groups *never* use cellphones, landlines, satellite phones, or any other easily sourceable electronic or other mass communication means, including "tracebook", twitter or any other digital or digitized communications protocols for the very reasons also apparent in numerous official analyses and studies.

 

And how would the blanket surveillance of Americans' phone conversations help to prevent a false flag terrorist attack, perpetrated by rogue elements within the agencies that we are led to believe are protecting us? Oh of course, opportunists within big intrusive government would never do anything like that, now would they? 

 

1rolleyes.gif

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #563 of 573

I dislike this concept completely. It is imposing on our privacy completely.
 

post #564 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

Why does the NSA require Verizon to turn over phone records when they more than likely already possess the requested material, obtained via their own blanket electronic surveillance techniques? 

 

That is a very good point.  My assumption this is yet another planned leak to distract from what's really going on.  It's my contention that the government has monitored all electronic communication for at least 30 years.  Phones.  Internet.  Content...of everything.  

 

Quote:
Furthermore, as recently admitted by FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente, "bona fide" (for want of a better term), or "real" terrorist groups *never* use cellphones, landlines, satellite phones, or any other easily sourceable electronic or other mass communication means, including "tracebook", twitter or any other digital or digitized communications protocols for the very reasons also apparent in numerous official analyses and studies.

 

I doubt that's true. 

 

 

Quote:

And how would the blanket surveillance of Americans' phone conversations help to prevent a false flag terrorist attack, perpetrated by rogue elements within the agencies that we are led to believe are protecting us? Oh of course, opportunists within big intrusive government would never do anything like that, now would they? 

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

Do you have any evidence our government has done that?  You raise this issue of false flags constantly.   But "false flag" is really just code for "our government plans and carries out terrorist attacks against American citizens."   Isn't that what you really believe?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #565 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

I dislike this concept completely. It is imposing on our privacy completely.
 

 

Yes, it is.  And anyone that thinks it hasn't been going for decades (in a much bigger way) is living in a dream world.  

 

All of this is nonsense.  It's political theater.  It was political theater when the Bush warrantless wiretap story broke, and it's the same thing now.  We're all running around talking about PRISM and metadata and FISA.  It's all crap.  The monitor every bit of electronic data, all the time.  Anyone disagree?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #566 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

That is a very good point.  My assumption this is yet another planned leak to distract from what's really going on.  It's my contention that the government has monitored all electronic communication for at least 30 years.  Phones.  Internet.  Content...of everything.  

 

Obviously "the government" monitors electronic communications - but since >99.99xxxxxx% of electronic communications is unrelated to terrorism, and the (highly unlikely) "terrorism signal is constantly overwhelmed by noise, filters are employed to catch any material that might be considered 'hot'. Then human beings look at it.

 

BUT - despite the fact that it is impossible, on account of manpower limitations to analyze and act on all this data in real time, this does not prevent the storage of this vast history of digital interaction and communication between the member of the public, for further analysis if and when required.

 

 

 

 

 

This may be useful in  prosecuting a crime, where past communications reveal motive or intent, or a certain attitude, or links with others who may have also committed crimes. However, this vast database of material could become a powerful instrument of abuse in the hands of "a government" which has become even more paranoid than the current batch. And we have all heard that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

 


 

 

Quote:

I doubt that's true. 

 

 

Even before the advent of mass digital communication, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the 1970s and 1980s - for a notorious example - would employ simple and effective security measures to prevent their plans from leaking to the British authorities: they would hold operational/planning meetings out in the country, such as a farmer's barn or a picnic area; somewhere where there was no chance of their being eavesdropped. Communication by phone was forbidden to avoid conversations being tapped, and written plans were delivered via trusted couriers, to avoid being intercepted in the postal system. REAL terrorists are abundantly aware that if they use modern electronic digital or digitized protocols, their plans to stage an attack would be *severely* compromised at best. The IRA used to strike anywhere in Northern Ireland, the UK and mainland Europe with impunity. It was extremely rare (virtually unknown) for their terrorist operatives to be apprehended by the authorities while planning, or carrying out an attack. Bearing this in mind, why would genuine terrorists resort to the internet, cellphone etc. to build and plant a bomb somewhere, knowing they were being monitored, unless they were trying to deliberately get busted. The terrorist "mentality" is a mess, for sure - ie using violence against a civilian population for political gain - but surely they are not completely stupid? The IRA certainly wasn't, and neither is MEK in Iran, or al Qaeda in Syria and Libya, who use flash drives and other erasable media, and like the IRA in the 1970s/1980s use trusted couriers to transfer plans from operative to operative.

 

 

Quote:
Do you have any evidence our government has done that?  You raise this issue of false flags constantly.   But "false flag" is really just code for "our government plans and carries out terrorist attacks against American citizens."   Isn't that what you really believe?  

 

It's impossible to bust "elements within the government" for a false flag operation, even if the evidence is overwhelming. Who would bring the charges - the FBI?  lol.gif Who would prosecute the case - the DoJ? 1eek.gif Uhhhhh..... no. lol.

 

But we do know that the intent has certainly been there, for one example involving the military itself at the highest level: Operation Northwoods, which would have probably gone ahead had President Kennedy signed off on the plan - instead he nixed it. Another example involving the US intelligence community was undoubtedly carried out, and its legacy is still ongoing today: Operation Gladio. Then there was the Tonkin episode, a false flag-propaganda variant or hybrid, in which a non-existent attack was fabricated by "the government" and reported in the popular media - and public support for war in Vietnam soared.  (Mission accomplished!) Another variation on the false flag theme was foisted upon the US public after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - in which DC based PR company Hill and Knowlton manipulated a young lady named "Nariyah", who turned out to the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US - in which she tearfully recounted a bogus, fabricated story at the United Nations - in front of gathered world media, of Iraqi troops "ejecting Kuwaiti babies out of the incubators leaving them to die on the cold hospital floor". Previous to this broadcast, the US public was disinterested in going to war against Iraq. Afterwards, with our emotions played like so many violins - we were gung-ho to go in there and kick former US ally Saddam Hussein's ass... with some 90% approval! Bingo! Mission seriously accomplished with 5 stars. In that same build-up period, stories were being broadcast of Iraqi tanks lined up in the desert to invade Saudi Arabia... the US' main source of mid-east oil, also used to "justify" Operation Desert Storm. This was also a fabrication - Soviet satellite photos of the time in question revealed an empty desert - not a single Iraqi tank or troop anywhere near the Iraq-Saudi border!

 

The "false flag" spectrum covers anything from actual terror attacks resulting in death and destruction, to fabricated events for psychological/propaganda purposes;  the universal purpose being to get the public on the side of the authorities, whether its to wage war overseas, or shock and awe us into voluntarily signing away our rights and freedoms, on the pretense of being 'protected from some vague, or ill defined danger'.

 

As another thought, it is unrealistic, when discussing false flag attacks, to talk about "the government" doing it. It only takes 20 people or less to pull off an attack, and with the compartmentalization system, the operatives know only their part in the operation - nobody else's - and therefore are unlikely to blow the whistle. It is commonplace for those who are skeptical of such events to claim that "the government" is to incompetent to pull something off like a terrorist attack. This is a false premise from the start - with no more credibility than claiming "the Jews run the world's economy". As I said, it only takes, 5, 10, 20 or less, and 20 people is *not* "the government" (!!!!) but a tiny, rogue, element employed within it, with the paramilitary expertise and capability, and privileged access to succeed.

 

OK... now I've said all this, and my ISP and location, and my identity is clearly visible to the NSA. This little rant - alongside the contents of this entire bb is now stored on a server, for future collation - and in a future dystopian United States, may be used against me in some fabricated trumped-up case, if the powers that be decide they don't like what I write. Do I care? Do I hell. If I was paranoid, like "our" government appears to be becoming, I would remain below the radar and bottle up my first amendment rights of freedom of expression.... as many people now do. Screw the National Security Agency and their army of brownshirts and trolls; and the same sentiments go to "President" Obama his administration appear to be more of a national disgrace/liability than an asset. He has violated his oath to "protect the US and its Constitution"... on multiple counts. Same goes for Feinstein and company.

 

America needs to clean house, as Abraham Lincoln exhorted us to do in times like this....

 

1mad.gif

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #567 of 573

 

This is the same reason why your 5th & 4th Amendments should not be violated in any way even through scraping electronic stuff. They might use the masses of data they have on you to fabricate evidence against you, or they might take it out of context but if enough of it adds up... you don't know which of the >3000 laws (and counting) you're breaking just by typing on a keyboard.

post #568 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

Obviously "the government" monitors electronic communications - but since >99.99xxxxxx% of electronic communications is unrelated to terrorism, and the (highly unlikely) "terrorism signal is constantly overwhelmed by noise, filters are employed to catch any material that might be considered 'hot'. Then human beings look at it.

 

BUT - despite the fact that it is impossible, on account of manpower limitations to analyze and act on all this data in real time, this does not prevent the storage of this vast history of digital interaction and communication between the member of the public, for further analysis if and when required.

 

 

 

 

 

This may be useful in  prosecuting a crime, where past communications reveal motive or intent, or a certain attitude, or links with others who may have also committed crimes. However, this vast database of material could become a powerful instrument of abuse in the hands of "a government" which has become even more paranoid than the current batch. And we have all heard that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

 

1mad.gif

 

We don't disagree there.  In my opinion it's the storing of information that is the real problem.  Real-time electronic monitoring for keywords and/locales with warrants needed for further scrutiny is fine with me (well...that's a poor choice of words.  Let's just say I accept that it exists and probably has to in our modern society).

 

Quote:
Even before the advent of mass digital communication, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the 1970s and 1980s - for a notorious example - would employ simple and effective security measures to prevent their plans from leaking to the British authorities: they would hold operational/planning meetings out in the country, such as a farmer's barn or a picnic area; somewhere where there was no chance of their being eavesdropped. Communication by phone was forbidden to avoid conversations being tapped, and written plans were delivered via trusted couriers, to avoid being intercepted in the postal system. REAL terrorists are abundantly aware that if they use modern electronic digital or digitized protocols, their plans to stage an attack would be *severely* compromised at best. The IRA used to strike anywhere in Northern Ireland, the UK and mainland Europe with impunity. It was extremely rare (virtually unknown) for their terrorist operatives to be apprehended by the authorities while planning, or carrying out an attack. Bearing this in mind, why would genuine terrorists resort to the internet, cellphone etc. to build and plant a bomb somewhere, knowing they were being monitored, unless they were trying to deliberately get busted. The terrorist "mentality" is a mess, for sure - ie using violence against a civilian population for political gain - but surely they are not completely stupid? The IRA certainly wasn't, and neither is MEK in Iran, or al Qaeda in Syria and Libya, who use flash drives and other erasable media, and like the IRA in the 1970s/1980s use trusted couriers to transfer plans from operative to operative.

 

I'm not claiming terrorists fail to make plans to avoid detection.  But suggesting they don't use cell phones or the internet at all or very rarely is a difficult assertion to prove.  Hell, AQ even had its own online magazine.  It seems to me that what you're arguing is that this mass surveillance is inefficient and ineffective, which is ironically the same argument people like Sean Hannity are making (wow...I never thought I'd write that about something you've said!).  I happen to disagree.  I think there is certainly reason for electronic surveillance and data mining.  The problem I have is storing content, which I believe absolutely occurs.  This is why I referred to this whole discussion in the media as "political theater."  Everyone is running around asking "can the government do this or that"...but the reality is the "government" is doing surveillance that would make people's heads explodes if they ever found out.  

 

Quote:
It's impossible to bust "elements within the government" for a false flag operation, even if the evidence is overwhelming. Who would bring the charges - the FBI?  lol.gif Who would prosecute the case - the DoJ? 1eek.gif Uhhhhh..... no. lol.

 

I suppose that would depend on who the elements were.  

 

 

Quote:

But we do know that the intent has certainly been there, for one example involving the military itself at the highest level: Operation Northwoods, which would have probably gone ahead had President Kennedy signed off on the plan - instead he nixed it. Another example involving the US intelligence community was undoubtedly carried out, and its legacy is still ongoing today: Operation Gladio. Then there was the Tonkin episode, a false flag-propaganda variant or hybrid, in which a non-existent attack was fabricated by "the government" and reported in the popular media - and public support for war in Vietnam soared.  (Mission accomplished!) Another variation on the false flag theme was foisted upon the US public after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - in which DC based PR company Hill and Knowlton manipulated a young lady named "Nariyah", who turned out to the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US - in which she tearfully recounted a bogus, fabricated story at the United Nations - in front of gathered world media, of Iraqi troops "ejecting Kuwaiti babies out of the incubators leaving them to die on the cold hospital floor". Previous to this broadcast, the US public was disinterested in going to war against Iraq. Afterwards, with our emotions played like so many violins - we were gung-ho to go in there and kick former US ally Saddam Hussein's ass... with some 90% approval! Bingo! Mission seriously accomplished with 5 stars. In that same build-up period, stories were being broadcast of Iraqi tanks lined up in the desert to invade Saudi Arabia... the US' main source of mid-east oil, also used to "justify" Operation Desert Storm. This was also a fabrication - Soviet satellite photos of the time in question revealed an empty desert - not a single Iraqi tank or troop anywhere near the Iraq-Saudi border!

 

The "false flag" spectrum covers anything from actual terror attacks resulting in death and destruction, to fabricated events for psychological/propaganda purposes;  the universal purpose being to get the public on the side of the authorities, whether its to wage war overseas, or shock and awe us into voluntarily signing away our rights and freedoms, on the pretense of being 'protected from some vague, or ill defined danger'.

 

I'm not suggesting there have been no false flag incidents, because clearly there have been.  I understand what the term means and it includes a variety of activities.  What I'm saying is that I'm aware of no evidence that the United States government (or factions within it) have carried out terrorist attacks on American citizens.  

 

The points on the Gulf War are not exactly balanced.  Clearly, you're of the opinion that the broadcast in question was responsible for public support of the war.  That's a dubious assertion at best.  It's probably not worth getting into, as I don't disagree that there have been false flag operations in general 

 

Quote:
As another thought, it is unrealistic, when discussing false flag attacks, to talk about "the government" doing it. It only takes 20 people or less to pull off an attack, and with the compartmentalization system, the operatives know only their part in the operation - nobody else's - and therefore are unlikely to blow the whistle. It is commonplace for those who are skeptical of such events to claim that "the government" is to incompetent to pull something off like a terrorist attack. This is a false premise from the start - with no more credibility than claiming "the Jews run the world's economy". As I said, it only takes, 5, 10, 20 or less, and 20 people is *not* "the government" (!!!!) but a tiny, rogue, element employed within it, with the paramilitary expertise and capability, and privileged access to succeed.

 

Sounds logical, but it's also theoretical.  Has it actually happened? That's the question.  

 

 

 

Quote:

OK... now I've said all this, and my ISP and location, and my identity is clearly visible to the NSA. This little rant - alongside the contents of this entire bb is now stored on a server, for future collation - and in a future dystopian United States, may be used against me in some fabricated trumped-up case, if the powers that be decide they don't like what I write. Do I care? Do I hell. If I was paranoid, like "our" government appears to be becoming, I would remain below the radar and bottle up my first amendment rights of freedom of expression.... as many people now do. Screw the National Security Agency and their army of brownshirts and trolls; and the same sentiments go to "President" Obama his administration appear to be more of a national disgrace/liability than an asset. He has violated his oath to "protect the US and its Constitution"... on multiple counts. Same goes for Feinstein and company.

 

America needs to clean house, as Abraham Lincoln exhorted us to do in times like this....

 

I'm with you there. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #569 of 573

Microsoft rolled back its DRM and online restrictions today.

 

While I know it's not at the forefront of the discussion, I wonder if Americans will hit pause on always-on cameras in computers and TV consoles, given the current privacy scandal. It's certainly no longer out of the realm of possibility that they could be used to spy on people by outside agencies.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #570 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Microsoft rolled back its DRM and online restrictions today.

Just wait for Xbox One OS-2 (because three of them are loaded on the machine) Update 1.0.1. Then people have purchased the console; there's NOTHING they can do to stop it now. 1hmm.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #571 of 573

There are three operating systems loaded on the Xbox One? Isn't that just a hack-fest waiting to happen?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #572 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

There are three operating systems loaded on the Xbox One? Isn't that just a hack-fest waiting to happen?

I read that somewhere, but I'm not sure about the details. I know it leaves an "unreasonably small" amount of the internal hard drive open for the mandatory (yep) game installations (so what's the point of discs?).

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #573 of 573

Well now that the DVD has to be in the drive, you won't need to install the games.

 

I'm still wondering about the privacy aspects of this. Are there any confirmed reports of living room cameras being hijacked from the outside?

 

I'm guessing that an always-connected camera will eventually be used for a security application with an option to view from your phone.

 

Once that's in place, I think it's only a matter of time before living room hacking becomes common.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem