Let's have a "common ground" moment on surveillance, shall we?

[Recursion]

Just curious if we can more or less as a board agree on the following statements:

1. The PATRIOT act and the 2008 FISA amendment are overly broad, and the opacity of the programs they set up is troubling.

2. The government has a legitimate interest in surveillance of foreign targets, but this must be tempered by either policies or technologies that prevent generalized surveillance of the US population.

3. The government has a legitimate interest in secrecy in certain situations, but classifies documents and programs too often and too broadly.

4. There is a legitimate role for contractors in national defense work (the Constitution even mentions it), but post 9/11 contracting has had significant problems.

5. This entire surveillance story comes in the context of growing encroachments of privacy from all fronts, but this encroachment is to some extent inseparable from the increased communications capabilities we have now, which have definitely brought good things with them.

I take a lot of flack here as allegedly being "Conservative", which I don't think I am, but I will say I'm "conservative" with a small "c", in the sense that I think rapid and massive changes to existing institutions and systems can cause more harm than they fix*. I think these are 5 broadly small "c" conservative ideas and I'm curious if there's more or less agreement on them.

1 I would hope we all agree on; those are laws that need to be changed. 2-5 are less specific and address general ideas that have both positive and negative aspects. I prefer to disagree based on acknowledged common ground when possible, and I'm hoping we can find some of that here.

* I personally like Noah Millman's two-axis system of left - right and radical - conservative; I'm a left conservative by that rubric.

[think]

1. You have laid out the common ground very well

Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to put this post together.

[DryHump]

30. I agree

thanks for spelling this out.

[dkf]

2. How can we speak of laws when it is apparent this government no longer respects laws?

Forcing down the Bolivian President's plane? We are out of control. You cannot trust this body to comply with the laws any longer. They will do what they want and what they want is to control it all, and bend all countries to our will.

Add to that secret courts, secret interpretations of laws, lying to congress!!?!?! What The Hell!!!!

This is crazy. They are crazy.

[Recursion]

3. The US somehow broke their fuel gauge?

Seriously?

ETA: wow, apparently basically that whole story was bullshit: http://news.yahoo.com/snowden-case-france-didnt-block-bolivia-plane-101339698.html

[dkf]

4. Lol. Gimme a break.

You show me when Obama has ever been denied airspace or needed to have all passports checked. You really think that is normal behavior to any other countries President at any other time?

[Recursion]

6. No, seriously. They landed in Vienna because their fuel gauge was broken

Then there was some twitter-based stuff that seems to have been more or less made up.

[dkf]

9. And it's our imagination they wanted to look for Snowden?

[Recursion]

10. Austria? Possibly. What non-aligned countries do is their business (nt)

[dkf]

15. No influence from the US you think?

[Recursion]

18. I have no idea.

My experience with Austrian-US bilateral diplomacy (and I actually have some) would lead me to think we wouldn't even bother to ask them. But, maybe we did go beyond the INTERPOL red card; then again, there's nothing wrong with that.

Morales's plane landed in Vienna because of mechanical problems. (Austria, France, and Spain all say they had clearance to fly over.)

Austria had the right to ask to inspect it, which they did.

Bolivia had the right to tell Austria to go fuck themselves, which they did.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. You've probably seen this, but: Snowden case: France apologises to Bolivia over plane row

France has apologised to Bolivia for refusing to allow President Evo Morales' jet into its airspace, blaming "conflicting information".
...
Speaking in Berlin, French President Francois Hollande said he granted permission as soon as he knew it was Mr Morales' plane.
...
Ministry spokesman Philippe Lalliot said: "The foreign minister called his Bolivian counterpart to tell him about France's regrets after the incident caused by the late confirmation of permission for President Morales' plane to fly over (French) territory."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23174874

So we know it wasn't because of mechanical problems. They really did get denied permission for French airspace, and it took the French president (who won't be hanging around at air traffic control) to finally give the access.

[villager]

5. It's a good OP, but that's the problem

It's not like we can agree the "laws need changing" and then -- "hey! We'll elect some Democrats!"

The military/corporate/surveillance state keeps metastasizing, and legislative/electoral remedies appear hopeless in the face of them.

so what does OP suggest as a way of curbing the excess reach of these "laws?"

[Recursion]

7. Hopelessness

The military/corporate/surveillance state keeps metastasizing, and legislative/electoral remedies appear hopeless in the face of them.

No, or at least not to me. We just don't get to win all at once in one big push. We can make incremental improvements, eg forcing health insurers to take all applicants in exchange for penalizing people who don't buy in. You move a mountain one rock at a time.

[villager]

28. Except that we are *losing* in both incremental (and big) steps

The mountain's coming toward us: fraying climate, restrictive elites, vanishing protections, et al.

It will take more than incrementalism to solve this.

[Recursion]

31. I don't know. I'd rather live now than in 1950 in terms of personal freedom

And, then again, if slowing the loss is what we can do right now, that's what we need to do.

[dkf]

8. What can you do when there are secret interpretations and the law is being used way outside its

Intended use? Do laws mean anything in that case?

[dkf]

11. You didn't respond to my post showing that Snowden's job as an infrastructure analyst was to explore

The vulnerabilities of other countries networks, ie he was a hacker for the government.

He was telling the truth. He was hired to be part of a potential cyber war and that is why he has mad skills and access.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023144494

[Recursion]

14. I didn't respond because I have no idea why that's so important to you, and Schwartz...

... just asserts without offering any evidence.

But even granting that, who the fuck cares? Why does it matter so much to you whether his role was offensive or defensive?

[dkf]

16. You said he was lying about his access...what do you think now?

[Recursion]

19. I think Schwartz is wrong, personally, but granting that he's right

Yes, hackers can access all kinds of data they shouldn't be able to, even government data. That's what they do.

[dkf]

27. Exactly. And this one has been rummaging around internally.

This is key to understanding why they are going NUTS over his being around the Russians and the Chinese and all the rest. He is trained to take down vulnerable systems, which is practically all of them.

They aren't going to leave him out there. We both know that. And no he is not exaggerating. His life is in danger.

You know this is what the NSA is up to. Why so disbelieving that Snowden is part of this crew?

I respect you a lot and I suspect you already know what is up. I'm not doing Snowden any good by pointing out what a long shot it is that he will have a future. I'm depressed. But he is trying his best to warn us and he made a huge sacrifice.

[Recursion]

38. Hackers aren't as all-powerful as that, though

The fact that he knew the inside of our systems doesn't mean he can do anything about it once he's outside. Though I'm sure Russia and China would like to know what he does, if you are right.

[dkf]

42. They've figured a way in I am sure.

More than that, they can fix or plug their vulnerabilities.

[randome]

40. In another thread, someone pointed out he'd probably get 36 months for this.

So he still has a future.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dkf]

43. Lol. I doubt it.

[vdogg]

45. He won't get life

But he'll do a decent 10, you can count on that. Maybe 20 if he keeps releasing intel about foreign ops.

[randome]

24. Do you understand where some of us are coming from regarding the 'evidence'?

It's not very conclusive at all, subject to a lot of interpretations. Can you at least understand why some of us think Snowden was lying about his access since he couldn't get something more substantial?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dkf]

34. I do see that

But someone leaked to the NYT what his title means and now it all makes sense. This is the job he was hunting for so that he had the run of the place. He has explored our vulnerabilities. He is what is valuable to the bad guys.

I hope he goes somewhere that is benign. That is his best hope. I feel for him because I think he warned us of something very very important, that our Democracy was failing due to secrecy and that our rights have been violated. Where is the happy ending?

[Recursion]

36. No, an unnamed "intelligence analyst" for the NYT guessed that's what it means

Big difference.

[dkf]

37. NSA is set for a cyber war. Who do you think they are hiring?

Hackers perhaps?

This guy guessed early on what was up...

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2013/06/snowden-and-toxicity-of-internet.html?m=1

[cali]

12. yes. well done.

my only hesitancy is with #4- despite the Constitution mentioning it. My hesitation lies in just what you mentioned; the significant problems. Those contractors have a vested interest in expanding surveillance and exploit it every which way from Sunday.

[Recursion]

21. I'll also acknowledge the form it takes in the Constitution is pretty much outdated

We have very few privateer vessels nowadays, and this was written before the Napoleonic wars nationalized and professionalized militaries in general (and so, for that matter, was the 2nd amendment). 4 is probably the one I'd be most comfortable letting go of.

[cali]

26. Yikes. Why would you be comfortable to let go the 4th Amendment?

(if that's what you're actually saying)

<snip>

In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials.

<snip>

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/215219/Fourth-Amendment

[Recursion]

29. No, #4 in my list

Sorry. I meant point 4 is the one I'm weakest in general support of.

[rrneck]

13. A lot of common ground can be found in self examination.

People from other countries don't like us. Generally speaking, they don't like us because we use waaay more than our fair share of resources. We have stolen those resources from those people who don't like us. So the reality is that if you turn the ignition key on a car, set an air conditioning thermostat, ride on an airplane, or buy anything beyond the basic necessities of life you're part of the problem.

We're in a gigantic game of resource musical chairs and everyone, in one way or another, is hoping to have a place to sit when the music stops. The vast majority of us will fall on our asses. In our hearts we know this so the political will to eliminate the hate for America is dulled by the unspoken need for Veg-O-Matics. If we could be a better member of the world of nations, we wouldn't need all that security against the people we've been raping for a century.

[vdogg]

17. These are all sensible statements

And I agree with them wholeheartedly. Perhaps this makes me a conservadem as well but I prefer to look at things realistically. All nations spy, on friend and foe alike. As long as our efforts are focused overseas, I have no problem, even if it's on European countries (who also spy on us).

[leftstreet]

20. A small 'c' conservative wouldn't blow billions on intel

The US has 17+ intel agencies, sucking at the public trough along with the profiteering military contractors

But the peons can't afford healthcare, housing, food, etc

Please

[Recursion]

23. I can talk all day about my issues with the budget, starting with our not having one for years

And for that matter I'd like Congress to make a deficit ceiling rather than a debt ceiling and be required to raise taxes to meet all expenses not covered by that annual borrowing.

Yes, I certainly agree we spend too much on the MIC. And on the Farm Bill.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. minimal and not really acceptable.

(5) seems to be you are avoiding saying something outright, but I'm not sure exactly what it is.

(1) is way to modest. We have an institutionalized secret government that has been developing since the end of WWII and that blossomed into a national nightmare via the patriot act and assorted follow on legislation, provisions of which are secret, and through assorted executive branch signing statements, almost all of which are also secret. To wit: outside of leaks such as the Snowden leaks we have no fucking clue what is actually going on. This is incompatible with representative democracy. As such the only reasonable conclusion is that since approximately the date of passage of the Patriot Act we ceased to be a democratic republic and became instead something else.

If we can't agree on something much stronger than your (1) we do not have anything like common ground.

[Recursion]

25. I guess that's what I'm saying, then. We're not going to get rid of the MIC

As you point out, we've had it for nearly 70 years. It's not going away. Within that framework, I'm interested in what we can do that would make things better.

[Th1onein]

32. Sorry, Recursion, I recognize you as a defender of mass surveillance in your posts on this topic.

But I was willing to read your "common ground" post with an open mind. You lost me on Number Five, though. They have the technology to spy on us on a massive basis, but they don't have the technology to NOT do it? Meh, I don't think so. And, absolutely, there is nothing "positive" that comes from it.

[Recursion]

33. Huh? I'm talking about Facebook, the supermarket tracking what you buy, etc.

The point of #5 is that this is part of a larger context of technology eroding privacy in general.

[Th1onein]

49. Here's a copy of your Number Five. I don't think that's clear at all, that that is what you're

talking about.

5. This entire surveillance story comes in the context of growing encroachments of privacy from all fronts, but this encroachment is to some extent inseparable from the increased communications capabilities we have now, which have definitely brought good things with them.

[Recursion]

51. I apologize

if I can think of a better way to say it, I'll edit.

[treestar]

53. anyone who even argues with you on the subject is a "defender of mass surveillance"

That's straw man stuff. It's how you evade the more subtle questions.

[Th1onein]

56. I haven't evaded this question, have I?

In fact, I've been perfectly willing, time and time again, to discuss these issues. But mass surveillance is what's happening, and I doubt anyone can dispute that.

And, by the way, thanks for the ad hominem attack. Really helps your argument.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

35. Agree and disagree

1. Agreed

2. Close... you use the word targets, but not as part of the remedy. Foreign survelience MUST be targeted as well. There is both a cost, and diplomatic concern.

3. Agreed

4. Agreed

5. Muddies the waters between commerce and gov spying. Just because companies have my data that I willingly gave them in no way means the gov is entitled to it as well.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

50. Crickets

So much for the "sincere" post for common ground, eh?

Or I guess the OP could have steped out, but where are all his comrades?

I think that says a lot for the scincerity of looking for common ground.

[Recursion]

54. I was taking my wedding photos

2. Close... you use the word targets, but not as part of the remedy. Foreign survelience MUST be targeted as well. There is both a cost, and diplomatic concern.

If you mean from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint, sure; any program "must" be limited since as a country we have finite resources (physical and political).

5. Muddies the waters between commerce and gov spying. Just because companies have my data that I willingly gave them in no way means the gov is entitled to it as well.

No, but I think it's a mistake to talk about government surveillance without mentioning all the other types of surveillance that are happening everywhere too.

[BanTheGOP]

39. Even simpler "common sense" solution

1. Ban the GOP... duh! There can be NO needed changes until the GOP is made illegal. They are only in office because of illegally placed members in the first place. Since the method of how they are in office is illegal, then it stands to reason the existence of the GOP is illegal in the first place, as I've outlined in hundreds of other posts.

2. Once the progressives have taken control, we must increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 9 to 13. It is ludicrous that the US Supreme Court has LESS members than the average state Supreme Court. 13 will allow Obama to appoint 4 progressive judges to ensure that any shenanigans the rethugs try in the court system is rebuffed. Although we have to deal with Roberts for another couple of decades, we should have the majority to enable a vigorous amount of certs that will allow us to fundamentally the country in a reasonable, shorter time period.

3. Of course, once this happens we control the NSA and can shape our progressive needs to privacy as necessary. I would like to see all income details completely transparent, all corporation activities completely transparent, and all individuals non-financial, non-medical, non-environmental activities completely private.

[randome]

41. Even better, disband the House of Representatives.

We don't need 535 politicians all trying for a piece of the pie. 100 will do just fine.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. So, you are a conservative. You admit it. Got it.

Whether a foaming right-wing conservative, a "centrist" conservative, or a "left" conservative, it would be interesting to know your perspective -- What have you ever conserved?

[Recursion]

46. Yes, that's such an honest take on that OP

[pnwmom]

48. S/he's a conservative in the sense of not being a revolutionary or an anarchist. n/t

[pnwmom]

47. K & R. n/t

[treestar]

52. That's fair enough

And I agree changes can be made under the law and that means electoral politics.

[Hekate]

57. kick -- will check back later