Galt's Gulch

Reviewing the Surveillance State

Posted by khalling 8 years, 10 months ago to Government
35 comments | Share | Flag

The new changes seem to be mostly a procedural change, that does not really protect your privacy. If anything it shuffles the burden more to the private sector to be complicit in spying on its customers, which is a direct violation with most contracts you sign with a telecommunication company or social media platform. what do you think?
SOURCE URL: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21651817-america-argues-anew-over-how-much-snooping-nsa-can-do-reviewing-surveillance-state?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/reviewingsurveillancestate

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 10 months ago
    I do not know if you remember a while back where there was a government push stating that google, apple and others were not secure.

    The government backed off all but Apple. Steve Jobs stated his system was secure and showed publicly that it was. Later when it was hacked no credit card numbers were pulled out, nothing but photos and files. All of the names were missing as well as the only thing they got was the files from the system, they failed to get to the rest.

    Jobs made public the fact that the government was pressuring Apple to share their information with them, he refused and that was the reason for the pressure. He beat the fed in a Hank kind of hearing before congress. The others caved and shared their info.

    The change in the law just changes where they get the information, but not really. They all ready have Facebook and Google in their pocket, they caved years ago.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 10 months ago
    Any company you have regular dealings with is likely to treat your private information as an asset. On an innocent enough basis, they may use it to determine what products they may be able to get you to buy, keeping it in house. Unfortunately, many firms sell private information to other entities just like any other asset. Individuals are complicit in their own loss of privacy, using cloud storage (hackable), data sharing (unencrypted), and posting personal information on public social sites like Facebook. I avoid the use of cloud storage (backup to a local hard drive), only share information directly to individuals I choose, and have an absolute minimal social media presence.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 10 months ago
    from what i have read the new trade agreement furthers the states surveillance only it is world wide. I can not imagine what life will be for a person born today in 10 years. I am very sure that those of us who are alive in 20 years born from 1940 to 1970 will roll our eyes with what we have to deal with. My only question is and has been for a long time now "what is the end game"?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by starznbarz 8 years, 10 months ago
      If there is any good to be said about the state of our Nation in 20 years and of those born between 1940 and 1970, it is that we will be able to speak about freedom from a position of having lived it - that, and due to our age, life in prison will not be much of a deterrent ....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 10 months ago
    This makes it sound like Rand Paul is the real deal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 10 months ago
      well, I just got his donation request info and it says, the Federal rules request we try to get as much info on donors as possible. It included who is your employer!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 10 months ago
        The solution is to cripple all the pols by limiting the amount they can spend to a trivial amount. Eliminate some of the advantage that incumbants have, and remove one path for corruption. Then collecting information is moot, and people won't waste their assets on lying pigs in the State DemRep party.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by xthinker88 8 years, 10 months ago
          The solution is to limit the federal government to only its constitutional powers. If it weren't such ripe and juicy low hanging fruit, it would not be such a target for corruption. The more money it has to spend, the more it will attract the corrupt.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by BeenThere 8 years, 10 months ago
            "The more money it has to spend, the more it will attract the corrupt."

            I have often recalled from somewhere is the distant past (late 1950s, 60s, 70s???) the mantra
            that we must pay elected officials commensurate with the private sector so we can attract more qualified (???!!!) elected officials.

            Consequence: Instead of elected candidates earning their living in "the real world", reaching a level to be able to afford "public service", we have a majority going straight into elected office, especially the federal level (legislative and executive) with little or no "real world" experience (except how to get elected!!!).

            Does the word "schmooz" come to mind?

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by xthinker88 8 years, 10 months ago
              Their salaries are a pittance compared to their job descriptions. So one must wonder why one would spend millions to get a 2 year job that pays, for many of them, less than what they would get in the private sector.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by hattrup 8 years, 10 months ago
          Regulations on limiting donations seems to just help those in power who come up with ways to work around it anyway - such as wink, wink, nudge, nudge PACs.
          I would just as soon see no "legal" limits for contributions and put it all out in the open (at least the option for the candidate to do so).
          Leave it up to the voters to decide - and at least give other $$$$ donors the chance to fund a special interest different that Republicrat or Demican mainstream. Like a 3rd party candidate (without one having to fund themselves, ala Ross Perot).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 10 months ago
            Contributions shouldn't even have to be disclosed. When the government is willing to put you on an "enemies list" and target you for politics, the ability to engage in politics anonymously becomes all-important.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 10 months ago
            Special interests with money give it to those in power. More money spent gives advantage to incumbants who can raise more money by selling influence. This has been a big problem for 50 years, and it will only end if thye people wake up and force the issue.
            Has any state tried to limit spending for US senate and house campaigns?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by hattrup 8 years, 10 months ago
              so this would be along the lines of limited freedom for some..... vs. freedomforall
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 10 months ago
                Limited freedom for whom? I don't understand your comment.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  -
                • Posted by hattrup 8 years, 10 months ago
                  " limiting the amount they can spend"
                  it would be for "they".
                  Apparently whoever the bill/law/"decider"
                  determines is the "special" interest to be put down/limited. Or just an across the board limitation on everyone (which is likely not to be
                  enforced usefully - like what we have now).
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    -
                  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 10 months ago
                    Limited spending by all the candidates. Example, To run for US Senate the candidate can only spend $250,000. US House $100,000, POTUS $500,000. No need to waste time on raising funds because they can't spend it. Excess collected is returned to the source, not kept by the candidate. Equal opportunity corruption, everyone can afford it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      -
                    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 10 months ago
                      well, the way the system is rigged, $250 K will not get you any reach. people have to know about you in order to vote for you.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 10 months ago
                        Well since the mass media tv are whores to the government johns, they could provide limited low cost access for genuine debate to all candidates without the filtering of the major parties (as a public service.) Top it off with a one term limit and voila, a chance for the non-politicians with ethics to be electable. On the Senate and House, its only one state or district respectively to cover.
                        As for the POTUS, there is nothing in the tv ads that makes a rational decision possible anyway, so make the candidates actually work to describe the reason to vote for them.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 10 months ago
        They usually ask that. I think it's to make sure people don't avoid disclosure or exceed the limits by giving the money to their associates to donate for them. I never thought of the fact that it could be abused. What abuses of this info can you envision?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 10 months ago
          Past abuse involved companies encouraging employees to contribute to particular candidates, with the reimbursement of those contributions by the company.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 10 months ago
            Ah but we have those that champion the right to do that.... I think their motto is I have the right with out explanation to take away any of your rights without exception. In their book it's called free speech.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 10 months ago
    We need the courts to strike down the "third party doctrine" so that you can own information you've told in confidence to a vendor such as the phone company. If this requires a Constitutional amendment, I'm for it, but it shouldn't.

    After all, the Constitution does prohibit laws "impairing the obligation of contracts", even if the courts chose to forget that for political reasons during the New Deal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by waytodude 8 years, 10 months ago
    As long as the same old professional politicians run things this all we will get slide of hand. Rand Paul did a lot of talking then voted for the basic same thing only worded different. We are at a reboot stage and still might be too late. Who will throw the first stone to get things started.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago
    Fuggedaboudit!
    With the age of intrusive electronics upon us, no matter what is said, what is promised or what is proposed, it is the end of privacy. There is no sure way to keep anything sealed unless it is whispered directly from mouth to ear, and even then, I'm not all that sure. Big Brother is watching you? Hell, so is big sister, aunt, uncle, and the next door neighbor. There was a time when all you had to worry about was that nosey person who carried rumors from house to house.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 10 months ago
    if people didn't want to be spied on why do they buy cell radio phones? After all the uproar about implanted chips did they not go out and create billionaires voluntarily in the cell radio phone business? Add to that the 1933 law governing broadcast communications and the more recent law requiring zero judicial approval for monitoring conversations with not much said there no right to privacy - oh you meant secure in papers and homes etc. etc. Ha ha that's gone too. The government has been using private sector to collect it's taxes in the guise of business tax why not collect it's information in the guise of whatever? (the second law for warrantless taps applies to any conversation which passes over the borders of the country - let's see - satellite relays ring a bell? the companies do it for quality control purposes especially recordings until you remind them that gave you permission to record them - then they hang up.

    I imagine than any federal law would trump any of those contracts in any case.

    My thoughts on the subject....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo