remember, the surveilance we allow now will be available to ideological...

[grasswire]

....tyrannical presidents to come. Libertarian. Teabagger. Whatever stripe.

Do you trust your personal communications being available to minions working for teabaggers? Freeper types? Cavers? People we have always despised and mocked? People who hate us for our sexual orientation, our race, our politics, our religion?

Do you want the cohorts and subcontractors working under President Cruz to have the capability to listen to your phone conversations real time?

When dissent is finally criminalized, how will surveillance policies be changed? We the people CAN force these rollbacks to happen.

And this urgent necessity has nothing to do with "hating" Obama.

If not now, when?

[xchrom]

1. Centrists and Pragmatists do not really disagree with massive spying on the populace

even when done by ideological radicals..
they essentially created this system -- they are fine with it.

this is essentially just another fault line among liberals and progressives.

[grasswire]

2. yeah, massive spying works so well for the benefit of...

.....people who live under its tyranny. /sarcasm

It doesn't differentiate between those who welcome it, tolerate it, or dissent.

[woo me with science]

29. "Centrists and Pragmatists" are neither centrist nor pragmatic.

There is absolutely nothing "centrist" or moderate or pragmatic about what is being done to this country.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3345811

These labels are a mask for corporate authoritarianism.

[okieinpain]

3. i agree with you, but do you seriously

Think whom ever isnt going to collect data. with everything digital its really super duper easy to collect data. Hell you can collect data without trying to collect data.

[grasswire]

4. well, we can at least criminalize the abuse of data...

....and strengthen the restrictions on those who have access to it and what can be done with it.

[grasswire]

5. or we can object to the programs on the basis of their immense...

...cost and poor return on investment.

Seriously. At this point the surveillance state is just another path to separate Americans from their treasure. Like the War On Some Drugs and the Prison Binge. It's all about looting for the benefit of entities like Booz Allen and the Carlyle Group.

[okieinpain]

6. i agree, but i truly and seriously believe

That the government will always collect our data.

[Th1onein]

17. You can't criminalize that which is legally SECRET.

If you don't know it's happening, how can you ever do anything about it? Witness the "re-creation of investigations."

[spin]

33. That's why I have some admiration for Snowden.

Had he tried to use the proper channels he would have been squashed like a bug. In my opinion, our whistle blower laws are designed to be a trap and only a fool would spill the goods on their employer especially if it is a government agency and involves classified information.

[markpkessinger]

7. I cannot understand why more people don't get this . . .

. . . Even if you have absolute trust in this President and this administration not to abuse the surveillance authority they have arrogated to themselves, do you trust the next equally? Imagine some day in the future when, say, a Liz Cheney gets elected (God forbid!) to the Presidency. Would you be comfortable with her and her Dad's pals having that kind of authority at their disposal? This is what the "you're-just-opposed-because-you-hate-Obama" crowd seems to be deliberately obtuse about.

[heaven05]

8. true

yet, the surveillance state is here to stay, no matter the party in power.

[Th1onein]

18. Well, let's just go the fuck ahead and give up, shall we?

That's a sure way to concede power. And why stop there? Let's just stop voting, too.

FUCK THAT.

Repeal the Patriot Act, Obama.

[heaven05]

22. Oh

I am not giving up, not till my ashes are blowing in the wind. You're as pissed as I am. I agree, try to get a repeal. I am a realist, though.

[Th1onein]

27. When you don't concede power, you often have the ability to influence reality.

Saying that we will never get rid of the surveillance on us is conceding power.

[heaven05]

30. I

like your spirit. I'd be in a foxhole, patrol with you anytime. also it's full speed ahead. damn the torpedoes!!!!!two b-24 liberators, yankee air museum, just flew over. great sight.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. No, the surveillance state is not here to stay

It may take a hard fight to keep it it at bay, but it is a winnable fight, even if we must dedicate our very lives to beating it back.

This is not about keeping us safe from terrorism. You and I and all our neighbors are the ones under surveillance; it has nothing to do with who's a terrorist and who isn't. The surveillance state is for the benefit of those who fear us, the People, who see us as potential terrorists and don't see the difference between mass civil disobedience and planting a bomb in the capitol. They are those who would establish a free market dystopia over the entire world and will tolerate no resistance. They must be resisted.

[heaven05]

35. damn

bout time.

[tom_kelly]

12. They already do IMO

I couldn't imagine Cheney and crew not having access and control over the info even to this day. That man loves secrets.

[Progressive dog]

9. As long as we have a government of laws,

we have survived all kinds of presidents. A tyrannical president will be a tyrannical president. If we are dumb enough to elect one, we will have earned our loss of freedom.
Most of my personal communications would bore any spies.

When dissent is finally criminalized

Okay,

And this urgent necessity has nothing to do with "hating" Obama.

BTW It is tough to attend church without making your religion public. Our race is even harder to hide. I am a registered Democrat, that is publicly available information.

[Jesus Malverde]

10. As if Cheney didnt have an NSA terminal in his bunker, prolly still does...nt

[MineralMan]

11. Oh, for pete's sake. You post your political opinions openly on

a public discussion forum. Are you concerned about that? It's all indexed on Google. It will be searchable for years.

Do you think you are anonymous here? Really?

You have posted over 37,000 things on DU. All of them are searchable. It's highly unlikely that you have not revealed enough information to destroy your anonymity.

I give up...

[Th1onein]

19. There's a difference.

We CHOOSE to give that information. Whereas, we don't choose to give out other information. Do you think that Spitzer CHOSE to leak his bank account information that he was paying for escorts?

There's a difference.

[NightWatcher]

21. Help, I'm having one hell of a time trying to find the definition of the word "irony".

[MineralMan]

23. Ah, but I'm not even attempting to be anonymous.

If I were, the links in my signature line would not be there. No irony at all. I use a screen name here because that's the practice of the people on this forum. But it's not to hide my identity. I don't care, really, if someone knows who I am. It's always fun to go look at the stats for those links after threads like this.

[NightWatcher]

28. No, the irony is the OP posting in a public forum about the loss of privacy

I love when people go online to post about lack of privacy online. It's ironic almost to the point of comical.

I'm agreeing with you and laughing at the people that think this is something new. The OP has posted 37000 comments on a public message board and NOW has a problem with online privacy?

Funny stuff.

I don't want to hear their argument about in here they control what information they want shared with the entire world. If you play online, prepare to play the whole game. You cant pick and choose your level of access or vulnerability. If you don't want your emails to be read by other than the recipient, don't send it in an email. You cant control the internet, you should've known this before you played with it.

[MineralMan]

31. OK, I see, now. I misunderstood.

There's a lot of "theoretical" thinking being expressed on DU.

In a way, it's a lot like the folks on other websites crowing about their readiness for "revolution." If they're posting about it on a public forum, it's clear that they're not actually planning to participate. Their motto is "Let's you and him fight."

Reality is real. The internet rarely is.

[Jack Rabbit]

36. Oh, for Pete's sakes

Where else are we going to discuss it? Civil liberties are urgent public business.

[WillyT]

13. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[millennialmax]

14. Now we have to always be on the lookout for some future tyrannical President.

I guess the antichrist card was overplayed.

[Th1onein]

20. Have you had your coffee today, millennialmax?

You look like you might NEED some.

[millennialmax]

24. Nope. Only soaking the aspartame-sweetened beverages today, but thanks for asking. eom

[Th1onein]

25. Well, it seems like you might need some. In fact, maybe all you need is coffee. Ya think?

[randome]

15. When you say 'allow', are you talking about laws, rules and regulations?

The same laws, rules and regulations that currently prohibit the NSA from targeting American citizens?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[MisterP]

16. how else will they use it to blame lefties?

"Harold Ford lost '16 because of YOU PEOPLE and that's why the Gee-Oh-Pee took over the spying network they inherited FROM BUSH"
or summat

[woo me with science]

32. "If not now, when?"

Indeed. They are going to try their best to mollify the public with meaningless "reform" that does not address the fact that the mass access to and collection/storage of data itself is the problem.

We cannot relent now. The programs do not need mere "transparency" or "reform." They need to be ended.

K&R

[bhikkhu]

37. Electing people to power is always a big risk, and a big responsibility

...which should be taken more seriously by people in general. I don't know how many people I talked to around here who voted for bush based on little more than "he's a guy I could sit and have a beer with". What could go wrong?

[JoeyT]

38. And they promise to be properly

pissed off when a Republican does it. But until a Republican does it, they'll continue to defend it. They'll also post threads about how hypocritical Republicans are without the slightest trace of irony.