4 ms·

How do you know? or do you mean that you hope the NSA doesn't give a fuck?

mjolk 13y ago
Because you're not dangerous or a threat. Not that I love the idea of someone awkwardly thumbing through content that my mind has created, but why would the NSA care to detain a foreign national over being smug?
- bandushrew 13y ago
  I dont know. That is rather the point though, isn't? There are many other countries whose authorities would absolutely care to detain foreign nationals over being smug. What makes you believe that some individuals within the NSA are not of that type of person?
  - mjolk 13y ago
    >What makes you believe that some individuals within the NSA are not of that type of person? Because the NSA just records the information, they don't get to make the call on detention. Gitmo isn't full of people that called the government a bunch of jerks or complained about wiretapping/taxes/etc. In my humble opinion, the greatest abuse that could come from this wiretapping is much more mundane and offensive - NSA employees cyberstalking and mining data of sexual interests/current partners.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      We have already seen a much greater abuse of this data: cooperation between the NSA and law enforcement agencies, along with a conspiracy to lie to judges, defense attorneys, and even prosecutors about how evidence was collected. If this were limited to spying on former love interests, it would be creepy; "parallel construction" is dangerous.
      - mjolk 13y ago
        >We have already seen a much greater abuse of this data: cooperation between the NSA and law enforcement agencies, along with a conspiracy to lie to judges, defense attorneys, and even prosecutors about how evidence was collected. Link to where this was abused to punish an innocent person?
        betterunix 13y ago
        The right to challenge the evidence is not limited to innocent people. That includes the right to challenge the evidence on constitutional grounds, and includes the right to prevent evidence from being presented if it was improperly or unconstitutionally collected. That includes smoking gun evidence that unambiguously demonstrates that a person committed the crime they are accused of. It makes no difference whatsoever if these tactics were ever used against an innocent person. These tactics are violations of civil rights across the board. Yes, guilty people have civil rights in this country. No, our justice system is not meant to ensure that every single guilty person is punished for their crimes.
    - bandushrew 13y ago
      So the NSA will not be the specific people to decide to detain me based on my pissing and moaning? that doesn't sound like much comfort. I dont know how you know what kinds of people are detained in Gitmo and other more secret locations? I believe that information is specifically kept secret? EDIT: I am thinking you meant that you hope that Gitmo and other similar but more secret places do not contain people who piss and moan about government surveillance?
    - x0x0 13y ago
      Do you have any idea what you talk about? gitmo is actually full of people whose crime was to piss someone in off, get handed in for a bounty, then get caught in the middle of Republicans rousing their inbred base by opposing trials. From the wiki article: "The Center for Policy and Research's 2006 report based on DOD released data, found that most detainees were low-level people who were not affiliated with organizations on U.S. terrorist lists." [1] One example: "The U.S. offered $5,000 per prisoner and distributed leaflets widely in the region. A perfect example would be Adel, a Chinese Uighur and dissident who had been sold to the US by Pakistani bounty hunters" [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Detainees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#D...
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Because you're not dangerous or a threat" Neither are most (all?) of the people who are detained at the airport, denied entry into America, or otherwise harassed by our government. What exactly is your point?
  - mjolk 13y ago
    Stop trying to link the TSA and people denied at the border (there's no inalienable right to people coming into the country) with the NSA. What is your point? The NSA might be greedy for info, but they're not stupid or act [as an agency] irrationally.
- x0x0 13y ago
  dangerous or a threat to whom exactly? Pray tell, to whom was Dr King a threat [1]? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_Surveillance_and_wiretapping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_Sur...
  - jrochkind1 13y ago
    Well, since you asked... MLK was a threat to capitalism, which many powerful people have a stake in.
Paddywack 13y ago
If it was only "being smug" that would probably be tolerable. The issue here is actively paying for them to challenge the legality of the NSA's actions - something that would really irritate the NSA, to say the least.

mjolk 13y ago

Because you're not dangerous or a threat. Not that I love the idea of someone awkwardly thumbing through content that my mind has created, but why would the NSA care to detain a foreign national over being smug?

bandushrew 13y ago
I dont know. That is rather the point though, isn't? There are many other countries whose authorities would absolutely care to detain foreign nationals over being smug. What makes you believe that some individuals within the NSA are not of that type of person?
- mjolk 13y ago
  >What makes you believe that some individuals within the NSA are not of that type of person? Because the NSA just records the information, they don't get to make the call on detention. Gitmo isn't full of people that called the government a bunch of jerks or complained about wiretapping/taxes/etc. In my humble opinion, the greatest abuse that could come from this wiretapping is much more mundane and offensive - NSA employees cyberstalking and mining data of sexual interests/current partners.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    We have already seen a much greater abuse of this data: cooperation between the NSA and law enforcement agencies, along with a conspiracy to lie to judges, defense attorneys, and even prosecutors about how evidence was collected. If this were limited to spying on former love interests, it would be creepy; "parallel construction" is dangerous.
    - mjolk 13y ago
      >We have already seen a much greater abuse of this data: cooperation between the NSA and law enforcement agencies, along with a conspiracy to lie to judges, defense attorneys, and even prosecutors about how evidence was collected. Link to where this was abused to punish an innocent person?
      - betterunix 13y ago
        The right to challenge the evidence is not limited to innocent people. That includes the right to challenge the evidence on constitutional grounds, and includes the right to prevent evidence from being presented if it was improperly or unconstitutionally collected. That includes smoking gun evidence that unambiguously demonstrates that a person committed the crime they are accused of. It makes no difference whatsoever if these tactics were ever used against an innocent person. These tactics are violations of civil rights across the board. Yes, guilty people have civil rights in this country. No, our justice system is not meant to ensure that every single guilty person is punished for their crimes.
  - bandushrew 13y ago
    So the NSA will not be the specific people to decide to detain me based on my pissing and moaning? that doesn't sound like much comfort. I dont know how you know what kinds of people are detained in Gitmo and other more secret locations? I believe that information is specifically kept secret? EDIT: I am thinking you meant that you hope that Gitmo and other similar but more secret places do not contain people who piss and moan about government surveillance?
  - x0x0 13y ago
    Do you have any idea what you talk about? gitmo is actually full of people whose crime was to piss someone in off, get handed in for a bounty, then get caught in the middle of Republicans rousing their inbred base by opposing trials. From the wiki article: "The Center for Policy and Research's 2006 report based on DOD released data, found that most detainees were low-level people who were not affiliated with organizations on U.S. terrorist lists." [1] One example: "The U.S. offered $5,000 per prisoner and distributed leaflets widely in the region. A perfect example would be Adel, a Chinese Uighur and dissident who had been sold to the US by Pakistani bounty hunters" [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Detainees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#D...
betterunix 13y ago
"Because you're not dangerous or a threat" Neither are most (all?) of the people who are detained at the airport, denied entry into America, or otherwise harassed by our government. What exactly is your point?
- mjolk 13y ago
  Stop trying to link the TSA and people denied at the border (there's no inalienable right to people coming into the country) with the NSA. What is your point? The NSA might be greedy for info, but they're not stupid or act [as an agency] irrationally.
x0x0 13y ago
dangerous or a threat to whom exactly? Pray tell, to whom was Dr King a threat [1]? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_Surveillance_and_wiretapping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_Sur...
- jrochkind1 13y ago
  Well, since you asked... MLK was a threat to capitalism, which many powerful people have a stake in.

Paddywack 13y ago

If it was only "being smug" that would probably be tolerable. The issue here is actively paying for them to challenge the legality of the NSA's actions - something that would really irritate the NSA, to say the least.