I don't have a problem saying I was wrong about the Catalono affair

[cali]

It serves as a cautionary exercise for me not to jump to conclusions, to keep my mind open. I hope that those who consistently defend NSA activities even after revelation after revelation about overreach under the Obama administration can strive to do the same.

Yes, I jumped to a conclusion, rooted in my sense that we live in an age so dominated by the fear of terrorism that many in the government find it reasonable to go to extremes to prevent it. The whole brouhahaha over pressure cookers is an example. Guns in this country cause thousands and thousands of times more deaths than pressure cooker bombs have or ever will, yet the post Boston bombing fear around pressure cookers has reached an absurd level.

We live in an age where we are being asked to sacrifice privacy for the so-called greater good. Whether you see privacy in the European way as essential to human dignity or in the American way as essential to liberty- or both- privacy is being diminished.

So, yes, I was wrong. If you're jumping up and down with glee at that admission, fine; but on the larger point of the diminution of the value of privacy in our society and the role that the National Security apparatus is playing in it, well, that I stand by.

[KharmaTrain]

1. A Classic Example...

...of a rumor running around the world while the truth gets it's pants on. It's the instantaneous nature of the innertoobs that makes this happen as all you need is one person to retweet or link and soon it's all over the place. I've long learned to do an internet version of "counting to 10" before I jump into the "new bright shiny thing".

The problem is there are lots of questions with few real answers...and the lack of information creates a void that is easily filled by anyone with internet access. There needs to be investigations into what is truth and what is tin foil. In the meantime the sides divided by this issue will continue to hop on the "next big thing" to prove yet another point...that just adds more noise and little clarity...

[MineralMan]

2. Well done.

The internet is valuable, but there is a lot of nonsense posted on it every day. Even on sites like Huffington Post, there are no filters, no editors, no fact checkers, and nobody in charge. That means that anything that appears on the Internet, on blogs, news aggregation sites, Twitter, or just about anywhere else, might well be incorrect.

When this story first appeared on DU, I didn't comment at all in the threads. Logically, it was too isolated an incident to be taken at face value from someone who was not a news reporter who had checked all the facts. So, I just passed over the threads. Later, as it turned out, the facts of the story showed that the police visit had nothing whatever to do with government monitoring of Internet activity.

It's just another example of why we need to maintain caution with stories that appear on the internet on sites that do not employ any editorial oversight, like Huffington Post and every blog out there. Caution.

Caution and hesitance to believe things just because they're written down by someone.

[tridim]

3. Can you please inform your peeps? Most of them are still spouting Catalano crap this morning.

Thanks.

[cali]

4. doesn't my op serve that purpose?

and I don't have any peeps here. I think for myself and post what I think. That simple.

[tridim]

6. We'll see, but...

they're still spreading the crap after being informed that they are spreading crap.

Maybe not YOUR peeps, but you know exactly who I'm talking about.

[cthulu2016]

49. Then by all means go talk to them. Geezus.

[Ptah]

10. You could self-delete or post a correction here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023387535

[cali]

13. why? this will get more eyes. that's why I posted it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. Posting here does not preclude additionally posting a correction there & if you like a link to here.

[geek tragedy]

5. Thanks for this. If we don't make mistakes, how would we learn? nt

[leftstreet]

7. DURec

[ProSense]

8. I certainly

accept your apology.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023385470#post75

"If it was misleading, just know that my intention was the truth" (embarrassing)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023389805

[SunSeeker]

39. Cali's posts in that first link are revoltingly rude. DU hides "Snowdenbot" but not that crap?!

Of course, Cali did not apologize for the rudeness, just for being "wrong about the Catalano affair."

Yes, Cali's apology sure does sound a lot like Catalano's in that second link.

And yes, people really DO like links.

[90-percent]

9. Sorry to use the cliche "teachable moment"

But, this episode will help all of us at DU become even better CRITICAL THINKERS.

This event was perfectly plausible, given all the other heinous stuff our government is doing to us on a daily basis. I would have been righteously indignant if I were paying attention to this event, which I wasn't.

Like this whole TPP thing. Why on earth are there not 100,000,000 Americans rioting in the streets over this? It sounds like the entire planet is going to be ruled by the iron hand of global corporations. Corporations treat their workers like slaves. They really do want to turn us all into corporate serfs without any human rights, don't they?

-90% Jimmy

[jessie04]

11. Cool.

This is the world we live in where any innocent actions is viewed as possible terrorism.... and usually against muslims.

President Obama said last week that Islam has uniquely contributed to making America different.

its time people realize that.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Catalano is pretty much a straight up Republican

She had articles in Forbes and pajamas media, two very conservative news outlets. She also engaged in the swift boating of John Kerry. She said she considered herself a "security mom."

There is currently a Republican campaign to win 2014. One of their tactics will be to engage in voter suppression by slamming the Obama admin any way they can and pretending as if "both parties are the same." The goal is to discourage Democratic voters and take 2014. It's essentially a form of voter suppression.

Unfortunately way too many DUers are taking the bait and the Catalano story was a good example.

[Raine1967]

26. I wasn't aware of this

That is actually really interesting information. I googled her and found this interview from a few years ago. http://www.rightwingnews.com/symposiums/media.php

This was her blog from 2004. I tend to think you are correct in this assessment.
As far as voter suppression - I see it here on DU.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. Interesting information.

Thanks.

[zeemike]

14. I question whether you need to apologize at all

It was a logical assumption given what we know.
And you will never see the security state apologist apologize for anything they are wrong on...they simply say they are not wrong and rationalize it all.

But you show class in this...so good for you.

[geek tragedy]

18. It's never logical to take unsubstantiated allegations and hearsay and idle speculation

at face value.

[tridim]

19. In reality it was the most illogical assumption possible.

Many, many DU'ers noticed the stench seconds after the bullshit story was first posted.

Why didn't you? <- A question you should be asking yourself.

[zeemike]

21. Actually I did not know about it until yesterday after the fact.

And I don't think of myself as a detective at all...I am sure I would be a failure at it.

[cali]

20. I was wrong. I apologized. I did jump to a conclusion and

no, it wasn't really a logical assumption because it was based on too scanty information. But thanks.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. I probably shouldn’t wade in with this comment; but, …

If this is to be a teachable/learning moment, may I take it a bit further?

This is fine, even, admirable:

I don't have a problem saying I was wrong about the Catalono affair. It serves as a cautionary exercise for me not to jump to conclusions, to keep my mind open

But, IMHO, when you do this:

I hope that those who consistently defend NSA activities even after revelation after revelation about overreach under the Obama administration can strive to do the same.

It changes an acknowledgement to a:

“I sincerely apologize to anyone that might have been offended by my comments; but …” kind of statement.

Just saying ...

[PowerToThePeople]

15. Just need to be a little more conservative

This is something outside of the realm of the left-right spectrum. I have always noticed that "non-thinkers" are more reactionary (post 9/11, it's Obama's fault, Benghazi, birthers, more..) and that thinkers are more cautious and conservative with jumping to conclusions before all the facts are there. We like to consider ourselves the latter of the two. But we are all capable of falling into mob mentality.

Now, do I feel that the NSA is wrong? Yes. Would a valid story of the type hyped yesterday push the cause? Yes. Do I think they are watching every move we make on the interwebs and cell phones? I do not know. But, I do believe they have the ability to if they wanted to.

I think the patriot act is unconstitutional and that any departments created under it should be dismantled, any data created by those departments destroyed. But, I do not see how this could happen without the Supreme Court's intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

16. I say it is the totalitarians of NSA who needs to apologize

If it wasn't for their unprecedented spying stories like these would not seem true to begin with.

It would be more appropriate to just acknowledge that the reporting of that one story has proven to be inaccurate.

[geek tragedy]

17. Wrong and proud! nt

[SunSeeker]

30. LOL. nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

36. Nope, but I acknowledge the story was wrong.

[jeff47]

48. The problem is you're still jumping to conclusions

Lots of people are trying very hard to conflate all of the NSA programs leaked by Snowden into a single program spying on everyone. But that isn't true either.

Snowden leaked one program that collects data on US persons, the phone metadata program. All the rest of the programs he leaked collect data on non-US persons.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to point the same tools at US persons, but Snowden didn't leak any information showing that this is happening. Lots of people are making claims that it is, but none of them have anything to back up their claims.

And it's difficult to argue the phone metadata program is a privacy violation, since the metadata belongs to the phone company, and they have been selling it to marketers for years.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

50. No I'm not. I've read the documents, and the first-hand accounts

And Sen. Ron Wyden tells me it is worse than what the NSA is claiming.

That is no where near jumping to conculisions as you speciously claim.

You, and your ilk need to learn how to practice more critical thinking skills and skepticism, especially when the reports come from spokespeople with an agenda.

Unfortunately you all embarrassing, and shamelessly jump right in with any talking point thrown your way with the only question, if ever, being how high.

Here is a link on the topic by mineral man that I highly recommend you read and take to heart.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3391995

You're welcome

[jeff47]

56. If you had read the documents, you'd be able to list the other programs

That are targeting US persons.

Prism? Nope.
XKeyscore? Nope.

So, which ones are?

And Sen. Ron Wyden tells me it is worse than what the NSA is claiming.

And when Wyden provides something to actually back that up, it would be a useful addition to the debate. But we don't know what he thinks qualifies as "much worse".

You, and your ilk need to learn how to practice more critical thinking skills and skepticism, especially when the reports come from spokespeople with an agenda.

You're the one claiming things as fact without any evidence. You've got people claiming "it's worse!". That's not enough. Wyden needs to start making his evidence public.

As for your link, critical thinking is required on both sides of any issue. Not just the side you disagree with.

[Fuddnik]

22. I have some good recipes for Crow.

Dog knows I eat enough of it.

[frazzled]

23. All of us need to step back, consider, and analyze more often

One of the things we should pride ourselves on as liberals/progressives is our ability to act from thoughtful positions based on facts, and to consider all sides of an argument before forming our opinions. We're all guilty of jumping into the fray at times before the facts are known. So no apologies needed. We all make mistakes.

I think the Internet has made us all less willing to think and study before we speak. Because there is so much "writing" out there--good, bad, and otherwise--it has the tendency to make us all into seekers of anything written that supports our already held opinions. We jump on anything that let's us say, "ah ha! Just as I suspected!"

What we all (and I truly include myself in this) need to do is slow down, not rely on a single source or narrowly agreeing set of sources. We need to stop being antagonists and shouting louder and admit that there are usually points to each side of a debate that are valid.

Thus, for instance, while I would very much like to see a number of provisions of the Patriot Act changed or rescinded, and the NSA programs reigned in, I also believe at the same time that the government does need to have a certain amount of latitude to use new technologies to engage in the kinds of intelligence work it does (and has always done), and that certain kinds of "secrecy" will always be necessary in foreign intelligence gathering. (After all, we were all appalled at the revelation of a secret agent's cover and work in the Plame affair.)

What I do not like is when each side feels the need to hyperbolize its case in order to make its points. It's like being in a noisy restaurant. One table is loud so the next table has to get louder. Pretty soon it's mayhem, and unbearable.

Oh, I could go on ... but really, what I want to say is: can we all just tone it down and have more rational, less antagonistic discussions? Can we put a little "maybe" into our discussions rather than always being so cocksure all the time? I can't think of any of us who is not guilty of this. But it needs to be changed.

[jessie04]

25. Well said.

Very thoughtful.

[leveymg]

28. +1

[leveymg]

27. I personally apologized to another member who was highly skeptical of the account.

I was condescending toward her, and she accepted my apologies graciously. It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

[SunSeeker]

40. Now THAT shows class. We all get things wrong. It's the rudeness that requires apology.

[uncle ray]

29. not only were you wrong, you were manipulated.

who needs sockpuppets when True Progressives can be manipulated into doing the republicans work for them?

[TheKentuckian]

31. Too true. Look how often our pols are hoodwinked, maneuvered, compromised, and surrendered into

implementing Republican initiatives and policies or even accepting their perverse worldview?

Hell, usually all they have to do is abandon a position in favor of something crazier and lumps of shit turn into Godiva ice cream.

[blackspade]

32. And this is what makes progressives like you so great.

K&R.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

33. That story turned out to be bogus but Obama is still looking at our porn.

[snagglepuss]

41. Not entirely bogus. Unless new details have emerged the FBI did pay a visit

but it was after the husband's former employer snooped into his google searches. The short article I read says the FBI didn't say how they targeted them so it was not beyond the pale for the Catalanos to assume their at home internet searches were being monitiored.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. I'm more inclined to think it was exaggerated by a known shit stirrer.

[jeff47]

46. Sorry, not the FBI. Suffolk county sheriff's office. (nt)

[pnwmom]

51. New details did emerge. The FBI wasn't involved.

The Suffolk County Police paid the husband a visit at home after the husband's ex-employer tipped off the police when they found "some things" on his work computer.

The wife was at work somewhere else when this happened, and apparently there was some miscommunication that resulted in her "misleading" (her word) blog post.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/suffolk-county-home-search-tipoff

[intaglio]

34. Not just you, indeed your responsibility is minimal

The primary agent behind this were an irresponsible media reporting an unsupported blog posting.

Oh and sorry, for my quick temper on this but I really expect more from you - you are one of the better members.

[L0oniX]

35. How long have there been bombs in boxes and letters yet no one is frightened to get their mail.

Irrational is the norm.

[msanthrope]

37. Well done, cali. nt

[treestar]

38. You know I dislike being told we are "defending (presumably horrible) NSA activities

when that is not true.

We are not wiling to jump to conclusions that everything it does it evil or something to be scared about.

Recently my state's university was hacked and the employees' social security numbers lost to the hackers. That is the type of thing modern technology is more likely to cause a problem for the average guy than the NSA allegedly "spying" on people. The NSA is not going to spy on the average person and it's egotistical to think they care.

Indeed it was Obama and Clinton, Bill who were the only ones mentioned as having been spied on. That's the type of person who has something to fear from this.

[arely staircase]

44. recommended nt

[OneGrassRoot]

45. More info, please? Was that story debunked somewhere?

I can't find where the story was debunked here on GD. Thanks.

[pnwmom]

52. Here.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023389342

And more info here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023391018

[OneGrassRoot]

53. Thank you so much. n/t

[HiPointDem]

47. good work; funny the nsa cheerleaders never make apologies.

[reusrename]

55. There's nothing about this story that makes sense.

Either there was a serious threat or there wasn't. It's that simple. What was the threat?