After the four years we just went through, you’re not concerned that the government could decide that you’re a political enemy and lock you up, maybe send you to a re-education camp for a bit to get you back in line?
Surveillance being relatively benign is only that way so long as the people in charge aren’t using it for nefarious reasons, and as we saw from TFG, that’s a pretty thin bit of ice to skate on.
We’re all much better off if the government is respecting our constitutional rights and freedoms at all times, so that if someone like TFG gains power, they don’t have the data at their fingertips to take out all enemies of the state.
And y’all thought the “birds aren’t real” parody i posted was just parody…
Birds are really drones. When they just look at you they’re really stealing your information and identity…
Has anyone been locked up because of their political stances? Well, maybe so in some isolated cases, but there has not been a ‘round-up’.
Someone like Trump, though…well, Trump failed, didn’t he? He failed utterly. He may present a future threat, but so far he is keeping true to his past…as a failure.
Bulk surveillance that simply copies shit does not concern me…as long as there are iron-clad safeguards in place that dictate no one will even browse the information unless they have a court order or some other rational ‘allowance’ to dig deeper.
Even with iron-clad dictates, there will be abuses, of course. Just as there are election-related abuses. But our strength as America depends on our adherence to…(I almost hate to say it)…bureaucracy to keep us from straying too far from Democracy.
Bureaucracy keeps us safe. I don’t take pleasure in saying that, but I think it’s true.
Holt was playing gotcha and as for Biden being flippant - pffft! BTW, I have no problem with Biden saying that he trusts and has confidence in his team of economic advisors and other economic scholars.
Can it be called ‘tracking’ if they simply scoop everything up and put it in a black box that no one can look at without justifiable authorization?
In China, the Communist Party reigns supreme. They don’t have the checks and balances we have. Our checks and balances are not perfect, but they are designed to prevent abuses. I’m okay with it, absent actual evidence to the contrary.
As I said, past behavior shows that the CIA can’t be trusted, so I am a little wary of their use of information for any purposes, unless they can demonstrate solid checks and balances.
But, again, this story springs from a 1981 Executive Order. Has anything changed since then? If not, then what is the purpose of the Senators’ announcement and this corresponding story?
We don’t have the checks and balances that we allegedly have.
You may have noted that the Senators, our own elected representatives, asked for this information 10 months ago. And the CIA has not responded. I don’t call that a check or a balance.
Happens all the time. The legal beagles even have a term for it: “parallel reconstruction”.
That’s where the spooks find out, say, that you’re moving drugs. Totally illegal surveillance, violation of the 4th amendment stuff.
So what they do is pass it off quietly to LEO, who then just “happens” to notice that your taillight is out, giving them a legal excuse to search your car.
We either have a constitution and rights and freedom, or we’re no different than China.
I hafta add that chez darr has the most plant life in our front yard than for most houses for several blocks around so… the birds tend to congregate here both for roosting and food. And coordinating the spy software.
I agree that the CIA is not exactly trustworthy. The agency has needed to be ‘fixed’ for decades, yet no one has done anything about it.
But there is no actual harm mentioned regarding this 1981 Reagan-Era Executive Order. Maybe there is harm to be uncovered, which would be good to know, and could lead to better checks and balances. I am not at all defending the CIA. I’m just wondering why we’re talking about something that was the norm 41 years ago.
Fix the system, by all means. I am not in favor of bulk surveillance, but I don’t see the harm if the proper checks and balances are in place.
I don’t either, but you and I aren’t typical voters. Saying that inflation will ease because a select group of Nobel laureates say so, is the worst kind of ivory tower defense. It makes Biden sound out of touch with what’s happening at the level of the grocery store cash register. This is not how you win elections.
As for what he should say, I mentioned that already but to recap: Point out the companies that are profiteering needlessly, and point out that many people are now getting paid better for their work, which overall is a healthy thing for society but it means there’s going to be some higher costs at the moment.
Sheesh! Anything is better than “My Nobel laureates all say it will be better eventually!” I’m not even sure that’s true, by the way. We may be headed for a long term inflationary spiral.
This surveillance system doesn’t date to 1981, it’s using authorities expressed in 1981. Big difference.
And is apparently in violation of those authorities, and the Constitution, if it’s unlawfully scooping up lots of domestic data on Americans.
Well, there goes the 4th amendment. Hope you’re okay with the police conducting random searches of your house on occasion. Surely, since you have nothing to hide, you won’t be bothered by that.
once heard someone say when it comes to legal protections your best privacy bet is written correspondence sent thru USPS.
apparently in law enforcement terms electronic communications are caveat emptor in the wild wild west
