Let's say a Judge overseeing a high profile case in which a protest group ...

[Fantastic Anarchist]

Let's say a Judge overseeing a high profile case in which a protest or dissenting group has been charged with trumped up charges by the government, under the overly broad powers of the Patriot Act or other quasi-legal statute.

Then let's say, for a moment, that this Judge is not squeaky clean in his personal life. Say he beats his wife, cheats on her, or hasn't paid enough taxes, or took a small bribe way back when. Let's say he's done something a little more egregious; say he's a pedophile who's had "conversations with kids" on the internet, or you can think of anything equally or more egregious; let your imagination soar.

Say that a majority of the citizenry sympathize with the dissent group. The ideas that this group advocate are anathema to the surveillance state, and the government's powers to fight the "War on Terror." Say this group is gaining clout from the population at large.

Let's say that by all accounts, the prosecution is not making its case against this dissent group, and as a matter of private conversation with his wife, the Judge leans towards acquitting said group.

Enter some men in black suits, who have monitored any of the aforementioned activities this Judge has ever done.

They pay the Judge a little visit as the day the verdict is to be rendered is near.

The day of the verdict, the Judge reads his finding that the dissenting group is guilty, despite absence of evidence, and his own personal (secret feelings).

Having information is power. Having it can certainly influence behavior, and it can quell dissent.

Just my two cents.

[Savannahmann]

1. Sure

Just look at Hoover's FBI and the COINTELPRO program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover#COINTELPRO

The idea was to use dirty tricks, blackmail, and intimidation to get people of political opinions he did not agree with. Things that we are told would never be done by the Government, for some reason they leave out the operative word. AGAIN.

[reusrename]

58. The metadata is used for a different purpose.

It is used to create the targets for a counterinsurgency operation. Sometimes (or according to research, in most cases) the most influential person in a social network or insurgency is not the most high profile or most vocal individual in the group. With very large groups (OWS for example) this new technology identifies those individuals who's participation in the group is the most critical.

That, in a nutshell, is what the metadata is being collected and used for. Because the algorithms being used are easily handled by computers, and because no errors are introduced by trying to decode or translate any communication content, the system can create a very precise mapping of our social networks. Only actual metadata associated with each communication is logged into the software, and from that the algorithms sort out the social connections.

For some basic info about how the science is implemented, google the keywords: thesis+insurgent+social+network

[Fantastic Anarchist]

59. Thank you!

[lob1]

2. They did exactly that to someone...was it the CEO of AT&T?

He would go along with government listening, so they stuck him in jail on a trumped up charge for 6 years. He's still serving his time. The other media companies immediately fell in line with the government.

[hobbit709]

4. It was Qwest

[lob1]

7. Yes, thank you.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

5. I read that.

The point of my post was to even expand that to positions of those in authority (like the Judge in this scenario), and to put into context that there is a protest group that is dissenting, say a few hundred or more. That the information the government had on the Judge influenced a very political decision, even one that was against the Judge's better judgement.

I wanted to show, perhaps poorly, that this information data mining can have very serious consequences not for just an individuals, or a few individuals, but even a whole movement.

But yes, I read about the CEO of AT&T (and similar to the Judge in my scenario, he wasn't squeaky clean, either).

[geek tragedy]

12. That's what the convicted corporate CEO fraudster claims anyways.

Giant grain of salt on that one.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

17. But do you think my hypothetical is possible?

If not, why not?

[geek tragedy]

19. The hypothetical is certainly possible.

But Nacchio was a crook who was fired by the BoD of Qwest way before Bush's surveillance program really took off (2002).

[nineteen50]

24. Does Elliot Spitzer ring a bell?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

34. Forgot about that! n/t

[JDPriestly]

43. And John Edwards. I read that his affair was discovered from his

Verizon phone records. I always wondered how "they" found them. Of course Edwards' aide knew, but still . . . .

And then there are the infamous e-mails from Anthony Wiener.

And Ensign? How were these people all caught.

Is it any of our business?

Cheating on their wives. I know. But who is cheating in order to get private phone records? I consider that kind of snooping to be cheating too.

Of course, Clarence Thomas doesn't report his wife's income and nothing happens.

The use of personal information that is supposed to be private is quite selective. I don't believe that these are the only people who have embarrassing private lives. They are just the only ones who displease the 1% and thus must be outed and embarrassed in public.

[JI7]

44. Rielle Hunter leaked the stuff on Edwards

[JDPriestly]

46. That is not what I read.

[Catherina]

3. "Let's say"? Shoot, just put it all in the affirmative lol. Rec'd n/t

[Fantastic Anarchist]

6. Point taken. Thanks for the Rec. ;) n/t

[Laelth]

8. No doubt. The potential for abuse of all this data is immense.

It becomes more worrisome when we realize that much of this data is in the hands of powerful (and sometimes invisible) corporations. We, theoretically, have some control over our government through the ballot box. We have little or no control over corporations.

We simply lack a legal framework to hold accountable those who might abuse this data. It is a serious quandary.

-Laelth

[Fantastic Anarchist]

9. It is on both the government (NSA) and corporate spheres.

And, no doubt, the information sharing between the two is even more scary.

[Laelth]

11. On the government side, we must remember that there are multiple agencies involved.

For example, Main Core is a joint enterprise of several intelligence-gathering agencies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core

The Main Core database is believed to have originated with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1982, following Ronald Reagan's Continuity of Operations plan outlined in the National Security Directive (NSD) 69 / National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 55, entitled "Enduring National Leadership," implemented on September 14, 1982.[1][2]

As of 2008 there were reportedly eight million Americans listed in the database as possible threats, often for trivial reasons, whom the government may choose to track, question, or detain in a time of crisis.[3]

The existence of the database was first reported on in May 2008 by Christopher Ketcham[4] and in July 2008 by Tim Shorrock.[2]

-Laelth

[Fantastic Anarchist]

14. And the key is ...

... that whatever the secret agency, there's no accountability, just like on the private side.

[Laelth]

16. Quite.

The general public knew nothing about the Main Core database until 2008, and it dates back to the Reagan Administration, presumably.

-Laelth

[Fantastic Anarchist]

18. So, they say, at least.

Wow, just wow.

Interesting times.

[snooper2]

10. can Edward Norton play the evil dude in black suit?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

15. That would be my first pick.

He'd make one hell of a badass dude in a black suit.

Who's the Judge?

I'm thinking Tommy Lee Jones? What do you think?

Judge's wife?

Lead protester?

Hell, I should write a script!

[quakerboy]

25. Thats actually a good idea

a Movie making the point might actually manage to penetrate the fog protecting people from thinking about this situation.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

26. You know, I was joking, but that's not a bad concept to put out there.

Lead Prosecutor: Damien Lewis
Lead Defense Council: Sam Neill
Lead protester: Paul Giamatti
Protester's friend (who, of course, wasn't quite all in at first, but now is a zealot): Gary Oldman
Protester who betrays the group: Casey Affleck
Judge: Tommy Lee Jones
NSA Agent One: Edward Norton (he's the cyber guy)
NSA Agent Two: Ed Harris (your traditional NSA character; no emotion)

[Fantastic Anarchist]

28. Adding Two Agents Provocateur:

Barry Pepper and Giovanni Ribisi.

This shaping up to be a movie I'd love to watch!

[quakerboy]

60. I'd watch it

If I were a better writer, I'd try to write it.

[sabrina 1]

13. That's why we have a 4th Amendment, to protect us from the government ever having this kind of

power. But the Government has passed that responsibility on to Private 'Security' Organizations who have no obligation to protect anyone's rights, other than a moral one of course.

How did that happen? How did OUR Constitutional rights end up in the hands of not very reputable Private, For Profit, Multi Billion Dollar Contractors. Whose insane idea was that?

Not to mention that we now have in charge of our Intelligence, a former employee of one of those For Profit Corporations, Booz Allen. Clapper has no conflict of interest here?? He is now Director of Intelligence where he has influence over Congress to get contracts for his former and most likely future employees.

Are people seriously supporting this or is it that they just did not know? I did not know how bad it was until this week.

To see Democrats defending a mostly Republican Private Business having their personal information at their disposal, is probably one of the most insane things I have ever seen since I first went online on political forums in 2000..

[Earth_First]

21. 'party over policy' is an ugly thing...

We've seen the best and the worst of it displayed this week.

[RC]

36. And there are plenty right here on DU doing exactly that -

To see Democrats defending a mostly Republican Private Business having their personal information at their disposal, is probably one of the most insane things I have ever seen since I first went online on political forums in 2000..

[JDPriestly]

45. Maybe 16-20 years ago, whether private corporations working

under contract with the government were subject to restraints like the Fourth Amendment was still just a bit of a gray area or so I thought (hoped?).

Does anyone know what recent decisions by the Supreme Court hold on this issue? I haven't followed this at all.

[arely staircase]

20. if a majority of people agreed with the group, their lawyer would have chosen a jury trial

instead of one before a judge. such scenarios are exactly why we have a jury system. now, if the men in black had something on all the jurors - and it would have to be all of them, you got a story.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

27. Let's say it's some military commissions type trial

... that's under some obscure Patriot Act statute, whereby, a jury trial is denied. The group is labelled a "terrorist" organization. Maybe a rogue member, under his own auspices blew up a plant that killed a few people. Perhaps, an agent provocateur bombed the plant.

Damn, now I have to go to my other post and cast for the agent provocateur.

[arely staircase]

31. in that case the fix would be in without the need for blackmail

it works with the judge if the group isn't all that popular but still innocent. they go with the judge to get a fair trial because the judge has a reputation for fairness. but the government knows about whatever and puts the squeez on him.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

35. Let's say the plot backfires somewhat.

The case is semi-exposed, but nothing can be proven. The military commissions stand. The Judge still tries to be fair, and let's say that a thin majority of the public are siding with the protesters.

But, also, in an ironic twist, the government doesn't have the evidence to convict without revealing its own plot. Enter men in black suits.

[arely staircase]

37. yeah, the group should be controversial (popular w/many, not so w/many)

i wouldn't make it a military commission because you don't need the black suits. you have your tommy lee jones guy who is known for fairness but he used to (or still) has a penchant for hookers or something.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

38. Know how to write a script?

[rhett o rick]

22. Let's say a Gov of New York is a major pain in the ass to the Bush Admin. They peek into his

personal life and find out he has been a bad boy. Probably not any worse than some of the Republicans. Then all they have to do is figure out a way to quasi legally investigate him and bingo-bango they stumble on his wrong doings. I am not saying that the Gov should not be held accountable for his crimes, I am saying that the spying tool can be used for political gain.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

32. Didn't something kind of similar happen to Siegelman?

[rhett o rick]

47. Not that I am aware of but I wouldnt doubt it. I think it happens a lot that we never find out about

Let's say a Congressperson is particularly vocal. It wouldnt surprise me if he got a call from Rove explaining how he needs to back off.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

52. Yep.

But according to some, we have nothing to fear.

Yikes!

[rhett o rick]

54. You dont if you just drink the Republican Kool-aid. nm

[Fantastic Anarchist]

40. Actually, something similar happened to the RNC8 (anarchists)

Totally draconian charges complete with agents provocateur.

[rhett o rick]

48. I believe it happens a lot. nm

[Fantastic Anarchist]

51. More than we're allowed to know apparently. n/t

[rhett o rick]

53. That's because we cant handle the truth. They are out there guarding the wall. nm

[Fantastic Anarchist]

55. I see what you did there!

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to." ~ Colonel Jessup (A Few Good Men)

And this is the way the government thinks of us, I suppose.

[rhett o rick]

56. One of the best dialogs in any movie. And that's what they think of us. nm

[Fantastic Anarchist]

57. Great movie, great scene.

No doubt about it. Even at my young age watching that, I was like, "What the fuck is this guy thinking?"

Never understood that type of thinking.

[bvar22]

23. This guy sure looks like someone is holding something HEAVY over HIS head during his "testimony".

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-10-2013/good-news--you-re-not-paranoid---nsa-oversight

[Fantastic Anarchist]

30. Yeah, that guy can't play poker. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

29. Let's say we have a jury, and an appeals process..

...just as a hypothetical.....

[Fantastic Anarchist]

33. Let's say you look at this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3011455

It's not beyond the realm of possibility.

But nice little quip there, puddin'.

[Motown_Johnny]

39. Hypothetical upon hypothetical upon hypothetical

How far down the rabbit hole do we need to go to find something here?

So instead of a Judge who is being blackmailed it is now at least two of the three members of a military tribunal? And instead of a "dissenting group" it is now a group that is labeled a terrorist organization and has a rouge member out blowing stuff up and killing people?


Can't you see how far you are reaching on this one?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

41. Not a rouge member, but a rogue member, though if he dresses in red, that's fine by me.

It really isn't that much of a stretch, especially if the overall movement gains momentum.

[rhett o rick]

49. It's no use. Some here live in very carefully crafted denial bubbles and fight like hell to

keep them.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

50. It is a pity.

Party before principle. Bleh, not for me.

[Fire Walk With Me]

42. I wonder if they MIB'd John Conyers, who had gathered enough information against Bush

to fill a book (bought it), then became silent. And if Ross Perot was telling the truth about a threatening visit from government agencies.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

61. Kicking ... due to this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023213679

[Catherina]

62. they went after members of Congress, Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committee

Tice: Okay. They went after–and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things–they went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of Congress, both Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committees and on the armed services committees and some of the–and judicial. But they went after other ones, too. They went after lawyers and law firms. All kinds of–heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after State Department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House–their own people. They went after antiwar groups. They went after U.S. international–U.S. companies that that do international business, you know, business around the world. They went after U.S. banking firms and financial firms that do international business. They went after NGOs that–like the Red Cross, people like that that go overseas and do humanitarian work. They went after a few antiwar civil rights groups. So, you know, don’t tell me that there’s no abuse, because I’ve had this stuff in my hand and looked at it. And in some cases, I literally was involved in the technology that was going after this stuff. And you know, when I said to (former MSNBC show host Keith) Olbermann, I said, my particular thing is high tech and you know, what’s going on is the other thing, which is the dragnet. The dragnet is what Mark Klein is talking about, the terrestrial dragnet. Well my specialty is outer space. I deal with satellites, and everything that goes in and out of space. I did my spying via space. So that’s how I found out about this.

...

After high-level CIA officer John Kiriakou blew the whistle on illegal CIA torture, the government prosecuted him for espionage.

Even the head of the CIA was targeted with extra-constitutional spying and driven out of office. Indeed, Binney makes it very clear that the government will use information gained from its all-pervasive spying program to frame anyone it doesn’t like.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/nsa-whistleblower-nsa-spying-on-and-blackmailing-high-level-government-officials-and-military-officers.html

[Fantastic Anarchist]

63. And the Supreme Court, too. nt