Request: Ideas for actions related to privacy, surveillance, secret courts, etc..

[allin99]

If anyone knows of actions that can be taken, please post. Actions no matter how small for those against the increasing powers of gov’t to serveil us all, both here and abroad.

I’ll just list the few I do, so if anyone can chime in...

So far the only ones I can think of are these:

Active Groups:

-Donate to ACLU: They currently have a lawsuit against the U.S. govt for massive data collection. These happen pretty much in every administration, not sure what positive effect they have, but at least they fight for it. They also have a campaign to alter the Patriot Act by removing section 215, details below. Their lobbyists are useful and they need support. On all their pages donate button is easily found.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/patriot-acts-section-215-must-be-reformed

Lawmakers:

-Follow the Wyden/Udall bill for timely contact with your representatives (I seriously have no idea what is up with their bill, as in, where in the process it is, but I know they’ve been continuing to ask questions of the administration related to nsa activities).
http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3497
-I suppose one could donate to them? Here’s more info on Wyden’s site, he’s very serious about the issue:
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/priorities/secret-law

-We can write our representatives and ask them to support the bill, but then again, I have no idea where the bill is now. lol. I’m sure we all know how to find our reps but here they are anyway:
Find your congress person: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Upper right hand corner here for senators: http://www.senate.gov/index.htm

Social Media:

-Post the most relevant articles to facebook (or twitter or whatever): I like this one..
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?hpw

-There’s probably a number of links requesting signatures, if you know them, post that seem to be substantial. Stop Watching Us org (who are also targeting section 215 of the Patriot Act) has ½ million signatures at counting:
https://optin.stopwatching.us/

-Don't forget to add all groups and efforts to your social media pages (aclu, swydall, etc)

-and if this post gets some suggestions, post the list to your social media page.

Any other suggestions, links, etc?

i'm sure everyone has other things to do, abortion, local stuff, etc, but these are so easy, if a person did it all it would take like an hour.

[jazzimov]

1. THANK YOU! Let's hope this discussion

doesn't degenerate into name-calling and finger-pointing.

Although I would love to just give up all protections in favor of private rights, the Boston Marathon bombings prove that there are still people who want to hurt/kill us for no reason than we are Americans. Therefore, we still need some protections. However, bin Laden is dead. al Qaeda is different than it was in the past. It is no longer centralized, which means that they are unable to coordinate attacks as they once could. However, they are now working as decentralized cells which means they are still dangerous, although not as dangerous as before, yet more difficult to detect.

Therefore, we MUST change our tactics to meet this new threat. But whatever tactics we choose, we must assume that the situation will change, and therefore we must make the tactics expire or at least reviewable within a specified timeline. I have no idea what a suitable timeline would be and I doubt anyone else can accurately predict such a timeline. Therefore, we must choose an arbitrary timeline. I would suggest no more than 5 years - annually would be better, but I don't expect a serious discussion annually which would facilitate "rubber stamps" to extend the provisions indefinitely.

Now, we also need a serious discussion about what is defined as "private". For instance, when one is in their home they expect a certain amount of privacy unless a warrant is served. When one is in a public place, they cannot expect any amount of privacy - hence the term "public". But we are primarily talking about communications and what is considered "private" and what is considered "public", as well as what is considered "communications".

For instance, Facebook is considered social media and a form of communication. If one posts an "update" for all the world to see, then that communication must be considered public. But if an individual has privacy settings in place, then that information must be considered private.

But, here we are talking about US citizens. What about non-citizen communications? Because the Constitution has been widely interpreted to only apply to US citizens, which makes non-citizens fair game. Is this fair? Is that what the Constitution really intended?

Although I generally support the ACLU, I feel that they are not taking into consideration the protectionist issue. I have no problem with that, because that is not their job. Their job is to advocate for the Civil Liberties despite the other unforeseen consequences. We need that, but we need it presented in a factual manner. I may disagree with them, but I respect them.

So far, I support the Wyden/Udall bill, although I would need to research it more. But it looks pretty good. I doubt it will gain much traction, however. Not without support for all of us.

If it fails, however, we need to push for another bill that has similar requirements.

[allin99]

3. well...

i'd be willing to bet, whatever you ask the gov't for, they're not going to give it to you, they will retain what they need, so i think it's safe to say, no matter what the aclu or wyden ask for, you can ask for a mile and maybe, just maybe, the gov't will give you a a 1/2 an inch, if you're lucky. So you might as well ask for the mile.

The U.S. courts will not all the sudden give the ACLU what they want unless it actually is clearly against the Constitution in no uncertain terms. At very most the U.S. might give us little people some tiny little infinitesimal tiny bit of a hair of compromise on the smallest issue in the name of privacy.

[jazzimov]

9. Reminds me of an old saying about budgets

at work:

"Ask for the moon, and hope you can get a star".

But the point is, you'll never get anything if you don't bother to ask!

We need this discussion.

Thanks for posting!

[allin99]

10. Also would add...

agree with your statement that it won't gain traction without support. I hope people decide to put their money where there mouth is and not be all talk and no action. Wyden is pretty active at very least got the support of Senators to demand answers:

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/bipartisan-group-of-26-senators-seek-answers-from-dni-clapper-on-bulk-data-collection-program

and i think his bill have support as long as people ask for it. I wish i knew where and when and how to support it.

[jazzimov]

2. Hello? I took a long time to reply

and I thought there would be several replies by the time I was finished. At least half of them serious.

But there weren't any. NADA. nothing.

Could it be true? Are DUer's now more concerned with name-calling and finger-pointing than actual discussion and possible solutions?

No, I refuse to believe that. But maybe it's just stubbornness on my part - an illogical desire to hang on to the DU of the past.

[think]

4. Thanks for bumping the thread. I think it's been lost in the shout out fest

[allin99]

8. ....

i have no idea. i'm pretty new so i don't know what people are into. i know the first thing i do when i don't like something is try to do something about it, but every online message board has different behaviors. I know people here campaign, my personal opinion is, once they're there, they have to be either given support to take action, or be prodded to take action.

[jazzimov]

12. Welcome to DU!

I'm a long time lurker and generally don't post often, but I felt your post was important.

DU used to emphasize facts and open discussion, but that seems to have changed as the emphasis seems to be now more on personal attacks. You always needed a "thick skin" and at times a "fire retardant suit" to continue to post here, but it seems even more important now. I don't know why, although I have my suspicions.

Regardless, there are some of us here who prefer facts and logical discourse over "running around with their hair on fire" and making emotionally-based claims that simply aren't true.

Regardless, welcome to DU! We need you!

[allin99]

11. i'm like you...

i get stubborn and believe the best of things. lol. it is seriously THE WORST HABIT EVER. It sucks.

[99Forever]

5. Haven't got anything to add yet...

... but this thread needs to stay around a while. Thanks for your ideas, so far.

[kentuck]

6. Alan Grayson has a petition in the House.

http://mindyourownbusinessact.com/?source=Jun11Email

[jazzimov]

13. Well, that's one way to do it!

Instead of outlawing the acts themselves, just de-fund them! It worked with GITMO, for instance.

Although I would rather see the instructions codified, this is one approach. It does also leave open some some possibilities that I can agree with, but I also take issue with:

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2014 or any succeeding fiscal year may be used to collect any information generated by a citizen of the United States while located in the United States, including telephone records, internet records, and physical location information, without probable cause of a terrorism offense or an offense within the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice related to action or conduct by that citizen.

Basically, this changes nothing on the current law.

[Downwinder]

7. How about a FOIA request to GSA for Gov. phone records?

[jazzimov]

14. FOIA requests are being denied because of

national security issues.

Perhaps the laws regarding FOIA requests need to be addressed? Another discussion we need to have. When is a FOIA necessary, and when is it trivial and an actual security breach?