Obama Defends Surveillance Programs as Legal and Limited

[onehandle]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Friday offered a robust defense of the government surveillance programs revealed this week, and sought to reassure the public that his administration has not become a Big Brother with eyes and ears throughout the world of online communications.

“Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” Mr. Obama said, delivering a 14-minute answer to two questions about the surveillance programs during a four-day trip to the West Coast at an event that was initially supposed to be devoted to the health care law. “That’s not what this program is about.”

The president’s remarks were his first since the revelations this week of programs to collect information about phone calls and Internet traffic. Mr. Obama said the programs help prevent terrorist attacks and they are kept in check by rigorous judicial and Congressional oversight.

He acknowledged that the public may be uncomfortable with the broad reach of the formerly secret programs, but he said he believed the government had struck the right balance between the need to fight terrorism and the need to protect privacy.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/us/national-security-agency-surveillance.html

---

'Five years ago, six years ago, we would not be having this debate... I think it's good.'

The President said he welcomes the discussion.

[villager]

1. Good ol' openness and transparency! Good ol' hope and change!

[still_one]

5. Did you even hear what he said?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

90. I heard he denounced the scrutiny applied to the Tea Party

but supported the extra scrutiny applied to the American People.

How Bizarre

[L0oniX]

2. Corporate government dictatorship enabling at the highest level ...nice.

This is all happening to keep us from being able to fight back ...IMO.

[PSPS]

3. Obummer

[bunnies]

6. Now were using freeper lingo on DU?

Nice. Really fucking nice.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. There are a bunch of DUers who FReep with the best of the Rim Jobs. n/t

[bunnies]

13. And they seem to be feeling free to wave that flag rather proudly...

lately.

[Andy823]

44. Yep

And the sad thing is many here can't seem to see through the BS and see thing for what they really are. Way to many people here are willing to attack the president before they even hear the facts. They buy into the right wing BS and go ballistic for no real reason. I mean does anyone think is even possible to listen in on "EVERY" single cell phone call in this country? Some here must because they seem to think their calls are being listened to and recorded.

Sure people have a right to complain, but it's been going far beyond that lately. Myself I think all this BS coming out the last few weeks is simply another lame ass attempt to get democrats to stay home next year and not vote. Same crap happened back in 2010 and look how great that worked out, at least for the republicans!

[bunnies]

50. Vote suppression.

Thats exactly what this is about. It'll be nothing but "scandals" and outrage between now & 2014. They do this every frigging time & people will get pissed off & stay home. Works like a charm.

[RobinA]

67. Is It Me

or do many people not get the point here. Of course the government can't listen to every phone conversation. And if they did they'd be bored to death by mine. The point is THEY AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOWED TO JUST LISTEN IN, or even collect the information, until a very specific set of procedures is followed, thus preventing them from doing general sweeps for information. Like this one. We have a Constitution that to some of us appears to prevent this sort of thing.

Now we have a President who is saying, "Oh, believe me, we would never do anything bad with this power we have claimed for ourselves." Open a history book for heaven's sake.

[premium]

75. ^^^THIS^^^.

This blanket data collection of 100's of millions of innocent Americans phone records without probably cause is so unconstitutional, and I don't give a flying fuck what an appeals court ruled.

There should be no warrant issued until there is probably cause to believe there is evidence of a crime, but how the hell would we know, it is, after all, a secret court, which flies in the face of everything this country used to stand for.

[appacom]

87. Emphatically agree!

[Generic Other]

16. No it is not nice

Neither is it nice to spy on Americans, violate their rights, run roughshod over the laws of the land all in the name of some voyeurocrat argument that we are being kept safe.

Ya right. The government knows when you buy toilet paper, but can't catch a bunch of morons blowing up people on our city streets with cooking equipment.

The bummer is that I voted twice now for a man who wholeheartedly backs spying on his fellow Americans or is too damn lazy, incompetent or frightened to do something about it. Obummer indeed.

[bunnies]

20. wow.

Twice in one thread. I dont even know what to say. I thought we could be critical of the President without using dumbass freeper bullshit. Obviously I was wrong.

[Generic Other]

23. Ya wow

Some of us are reaching our tolerance level. Maybe you can have me kicked off DU. I just paid my dues yesterday. Certainly, that entitles me to an opinion or a refund.

[bunnies]

27. Maybe I can have you kicked off DU?

Yeah. Thats what Im after. Hey, if you want to talk like a freepwad, you go right ahead with that. They have many colorful insults for our "lazy, incompetent" President I'm sure you'd enjoy.

[Generic Other]

28. How would I know I have never been there before

I have been here since 2001. You on the other hand have spent enough tiome over there to be able to spot me right out. Thank you Senator McCarthy.

[bunnies]

33. Uhm. I think you'd be in the minority here...

if you've NEVER been to FR. Not to mention the countless posts people have made here referencing the site. I find it amazing that youre not familiar with the insults they use for the President. Seriously. Its quite impressive.

[Generic Other]

34. You do a very good impression of Senator McCarthy

[bunnies]

36. Personal attacks now?

Im shocked. And this is all because I think freeper lingo has no place on DU. wow.

[Psephos]

45. It's all about you now? Wrong. It's about speaking truth to power. n/t

[bunnies]

47. Geezus.

Must be something in the water today. How is using freeper words speaking truth to power?

[Psephos]

51. Read this, and see if you can identify who said it.

“Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.”

That was last month.

I guess we should only speak "nice" truth to power. Exercise only polite righteousness. Confront non-confrontationally.

Truthful words are not beautiful;
beautiful words are not truthful.
Good words are not persuasive;
persuasive words are not good.
- Lao-Tzu. Tao-te-ching.

[bunnies]

53. So you condone using RW smears then?

Got it.

[Psephos]

55. No, but you are unable to divorce yourself from that trope.

It's preventing you from seeing larger issues. And then you use the language of denial because it all seems obvious to you.

Do you not understand this isn't about us vs. freepers?

[bunnies]

57. Do you not understand that the freeper bs is the only thing I was addressing?

Go back & look at the post that started the discussion. I was referring to that one thing and that one thing only. The use of RW smears against our President. Its that simple.

[Psephos]

58. Freepers do not have a monopoly on words of contention.

And you are not the arbiter of what words others may use when confronting criminal disregard of civil rights.

[bunnies]

59. "Obummer" is not a freeper word?

Alrighty then.

[Psephos]

61. You sound like those vuvuzela guys - one note, and you keep blowing the horn.

It's pointless to have a discussion with you if you ignore all questions and simply repeat yourself.

[bunnies]

62. If I didnt need to keep repeating myself...

I wouldnt. I dont know why you refuse to understand that my entire point was that we shouldnt use RW smears. Im sorry if that point is not valid in your opinion. I give up.

[Psephos]

64. Look, I realize YOU think it's RW smears. Others legitimately don't.

Strong offenses require strong condemnation. I don't use "Obummer" myself but I can get why someone would.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

They're shredding the Bill of Rights and stealing private information like thieves in the night. All behind a mommy's skirt of top-secret mumbo-jumbo. Because if even one life is saved it's worth it, and if you have nothing to hide, why are you upset, and besides it's for the children.

Wake up, it's not for the children. It's for the Bilderberg Group and elites who count on the sheep not to notice.

And you want us to soft-pedal the condemnation after a whistle-blower risked his life to bring this to us?

What's your take on this criminality? What words of condemnation are you using?

[bunnies]

69. Risked his life to tell us something we already knew?

Heres a link from 2006 that reads like it could have been written yesterday.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm?453

Ive yet to comment on this situation, actually, as this is not something Ive only recently learned. I can't bring myself to get all riled up about something I've known for more than seven years. If there is anything new that was not disclosed, perhaps my attitude will change. But for me, this is old news dragged out for the purpose of vote suppression.

[Psephos]

72. That story is so obsolete. The new revelations go way, way beyond it.

You haven't read it yet, so here's the link. Read it all the way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

They can sit at a keyboard, select anyone they want from a pre-approved total "facility" sweep of tens of millions of people, and read what they're doing in real time. Take their pick from Google, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, and more. They're about to add Dropbox. You use any of these?

Not phone records. Email, Apple IMs, SMS texts, chat, video, anything that you upload. Probe your Facebook account. Monitor your social media. Read your texts. Grab your photos. In REAL TIME. They can see what you're typing AS YOU TYPE IT.

This isn't about left vs. right. It goes way deeper than that. Take the Red Pill, bunnies.


"Why do my eyes hurt?"
"Because you've never used them."

[bunnies]

78. "take the red pill, bunnies"

I like your style. Ok. I read the article.

And I stand corrected. Clearly the surveillance has been expanded, as I understand it. Makes me think of how the microsoft people can remotely control your computer when someone calls them for help. I guess it was only a matter of time until the government seized on that kind of technology. My question is though, wouldnt a warrant be required before they could monitor someone in real time? Im trying to understand how this works and didnt see that in the article.

[Psephos]

83. *bunnies*

I like your style too. Seriously, you just impressed the hell out of me.

I was trying to think of a way to not put you on the defensive, and instead take a second look at this. I *do* get where you're coming from, and I'll be the first to stand with you to ridicule or condemn freepers. But this is beyond progs vs. freepers. This stuff is scary and gets scarier the deeper you look.

To answer your question, the so-called warrant they get is a blanket warrant issued by secret judges with no oversight and no public disclosure. It covers everyone on a server system (for example, Facebook or Apple) in advance. They can monitor in real time under this so-called warrant. No actual person's name is on the warrant. It includes *everyone* on the server. What kind of "warrant" is that???

This is a complete mockery of the Fourth Amendment.

The only way to roll this back is through sustained public outrage that has political consequences for the elites who put it into place. It will not be easy. I can't think of a more progressive cause.

[bunnies]

84. Thanks Psephos.

We started out iffy, but Im glad came around to communicating. Its not always that easy, typed words of a stranger & all, and I'll admit that Im prone to debating. But that line just made me chucke & say to myself "ok, Ill give this conversation a chance". Glad I did. I learned something from you today.

If its true that they can monitor someone in real-time without getting a warrant for that specific person... I've gotta say... that just really blows my mind. I simply can't comprehend how that could be considered constitutional under any circumstance. Which, clearly is the reason for the anger. Its so outrageous that I dont even know how to respond. And that doesnt happen often, believe me. It seems I may have underestimated the level of intrusion and obviously I need to pay closer attention as this story unfolds.

As it goes... "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." I feel dirty. Thanks for explaining it to me.

[Psephos]

89. bunnies, you have earned my respect as a *true* liberal thinker

I'm applying the definition from Bertrand Russell.

"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."
-- Bertrand Russell. Unpopular Essays, "Philosophy and Politics" (1950).


Hey, I'm sure this story will have twists and turns, and I'm also sure that pugs will try to make hay from it. I'm not treating the WaPo and Guardian stories as gospel. Over the next few days we'll be able to make better judgments as findings are either corroborated or disproved, and new facts come to light.

BUT. It's definitely bad.

Here's a good Mother Jones article from today worth reading. Justice Department is fighting release of a secret court finding that the government engaged in unconstitutional spying. Why?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

Also, I *highly* recommend finding a DVD of The Lives of Others, a movie about an East German tasked with spying on citizens. It's totally engrossing, and really brings you into the emotional and moral consequences of all this.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lives-Others-Martina-Gedeck/dp/B000OVLBGC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370658777&sr=8-1&keywords=the+lives+of+others

Good on ya!

[Jesus Malverde]

91. The narrow focus on the verizon leak

Seems designed to confuse the greater scandal (Prisim) which is what you called out. Thanks!

[Psephos]

93. lol Never thought I'd say this on DU, but - thank you Jesus! n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

43. Could you maybe address the substance and lay off about the tone and word choice?

[bunnies]

46. What substance did I not address?

I think you might want to re-read the subthread. I was lambasted for suggesting that we shouldnt resort to freeper bullshit. Do you disagree with that?

[FiveGoodMen]

49. What you called freeper bullshit was a choice of words

The substance is whether Obama's acting in America's best interest.

No amount of references to FR and its habits has anything to do with whether our president has betrayed us.

[bunnies]

52. The choice of words was the only thing I commented on to begin with.

That the responder chose to change the subject in response to my post, doesnt require that I change the subject also. As I said, I'd think we could be critical of the President without resorting to RW smears. That was my point. Nothing more.

[RobinA]

68. Yeah, Well

if the show fits...

[okaawhatever]

22. Well, don't worry, with people like you the tea party will win the next election and you won't have

to worry about any of it. I don't call having three judges sign off on my international phone calls spying, but that's just me. Quite frankly, people like you scare me much more than the President does. We have changed the parameters of this program. It is reviewed by all three branches of government. So apparently no one believes that our elected President is "too damn lazy, incompetent or frightened" to do what's legal. Indeed, even his worst enemies believe he is following the law. Why can't a supposed democrat give him the same courtesy?
I know this may be hard for someone like you to grasp, but people who work in the Nat'l security agency are people who could make a lot more money in the private sector. I would say that more of them than the general population care about your rights and your safety. They have dedicated their lives to trying to stop the next 9/11. The pay taxes and vote and raise kids in this country. If there are bad apples, they are few and far between. I'm much more worried about the impact of people like you in this country than I am about them.

[Generic Other]

25. Oh yeah I am all about what's wrong with America

The disclosure of the government’s vast surveillance of American telephone records and foreigners’ e-mail and other Internet communications on Thursday served as a potent reminder that Mr. Obama continues to deploy many of the national security tools he inherited from his predecessor even as he seeks to turn the corner in the way the United States responds to terrorism.

Whatever his ambivalence about what President George W. Bush called a global war, Mr. Obama has used some of the same aggressive powers in the name of guarding national security even, in the view of critics, at the expense of civil liberties. Rather than dismantling Mr. Bush’s approach to national security, Mr. Obama has to some extent validated it and put it on a more sustainable footing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/obamas-strong-embrace-of-divisive-security-tools.html?hp

Who is turning the party over to the teabaggers???

Let me further edit this to say: I don't give a fuck how our voyeurocrats sacrificed their chance to be data miners and telemarketers in the private sector so they could help the government become more totalitarian.

[okaawhatever]

30. Totalitarian is not STORING phone records (not even with names, just numbers) to be used IF a warran

is issued by a three judge panel. A three judge panel is the level of Federal Appeals Court. You can be sentenced to life in prison by just one judge. The phone program is nothing more than storage to preserve the ability to use the records when a warrant is obtained. I don't believe it includes phone calls between American citizens, only overseas calls. If that is totalitarian to you?

[Psephos]

48. A "warrant" issued by a secret court with no public record or knowledge.

That's called a "Star Chamber."

And you're dead wrong on your belief that the records are merely reserved for possible future use.

Read the WaPo article. They can pick and choose what they want in real time. The "warrant" pertains to a "facility" (which now means an entire server's contents), not a person. In other words, tens of millions of people with one "warrant." And no one ever knows about it.

It they want, they can read what you type as you type it. And they do.

Why on Earth would anyone who values Constitutional guarantees of liberty and privacy provide cover for this criminality?

[ocpagu]

54. This is criminal. Obama is wrong.

Don't try to defend it.

[boilerbabe]

65. Obummer is too kind for what i would want to call him. nt

[Life Long Dem]

17. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck... n/t

[Sunlei]

19. ask republicans why none of them make a nice messageboard for Rs to post on?

It is kind of sad the little rs have to be silent and are called squidges and hobbits by the big Rs if they dare to speak. /plays the march of the sad hobbits.

[Barackattack]

86. I'm sure he has a good reason for looking at the phones

Take off the tinfoil hat! It's not like he's going to go after us or anything. Hes looking for terrorists and teabaggers. This is a good program and I trust my president with my information, why don't you?

[pinto]

4. Currently a "breaking" banner at the top of NYT website - link -

http://www.nytimes.com/

[still_one]

7. He said in the press conference it was a debate that should have happen long ago, and it is good it

is happening now.

Except this time Congress will need to step up and commit, not wash their hands clean like they did when they authorized and re-authroized the Patriot Act

However, I would not be surprised, if they let everything stand as is, since Congress is a joke anyway

[valerief]

10. Congress is a commodity that can be bought and sold. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Exactly

The Congressional moles who kept re-authorizing it year after year need to be outed and shown what their beloved law CAN do when "enforced strictly".

[JuniperLea]

12. Glad to see someone paying attention.

[Sunlei]

21. now congress can't step up and blame the O, when it is now known the Rs voted for all of this.

like did Boehner yesterday

[pinto]

24. Framed the program as a "balance" - Not wiretapping conversations, emails w/out probable cause and

a court issued warrant after judicial review of a probable cause claim. The oft mentioned "meta data" *is* part of the program.

Noted oversight from all three branches of federal government.

[JuniperLea]

9. Good... I hope he continues to use the bejesus out of the Patriot Act!

How else to whip up enough angry froth on a bipartisan level to force CONGRESS to repeal the most heinous piece of legislation passed in my lifetime? Only Congress can do this... and we all know how much support he's had from those asshats.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. ^^^THIS^^^^ +infinity. n/t

[bunnies]

15. Congress doesnt give two shits what we think.

See: background checks.

[Psephos]

56. wow, well said n/t

[The CCC]

18. Obama Defends Surveillance Programs as Legal and Limited

He's putting lipstick on a pig. There is something about Probable Cause he doesn't understand.

[Denise21]

26. Obama Defends Surveillance Programs as Legal and Limited

You know people need to shut the f---k up when Bush did it and did it with a smile like try to do something about it. But Obama administration is doing it and there is an uproar get over it Obama is a lawyer he would do everything by the law! I believe in this President and know he is for the people!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

32. "Obama is a lawyer he would do everything by the law"

hahahahahahahaha

[razorman]

38. Being "legal" still doesn't make it right.

It was "legal" when President Bush did it, and DU'ers were all over him like stink on shit. We would be hypocritical if we give President Obama a pass on it now. Maybe repealing the Patriot Act would make this sort of thing against the law, so something could be done about it, regardless of who's in charge. Obviously I am dreaming, though.

[Denise21]

40. Obama Defends Surveillance Programs as Legal and Limited

CONGRESS APPROVED THIS!!! DEAL WITH THEM THEY ARE THE ONES YOU NEED TO TAKE TO THE WALL NOT OBAMA! THEY WANT THIS TO GO ON SO FIGHT WITH THEM NOT OBAMA

[frylock]

42. RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!1

[DisgustipatedinCA]

29. Tough question: what reason exists to take Obama at his word?

He hasn't done much to inspire confidence in his ability to tell the truth.

[Sunlei]

37. about what?

now congress who voted FOR all this 'anti-terror' trillions, some of them lie outright and still manage to spend enough to get elected by their little r voters.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

39. Agreed, but completely beside the point.

Do you take the President at his word in regard to his domestic spying program, and if so, why?

[Sunlei]

41. It's not 'his' program (please read everything) and yes I think President O is an honest man.

He's not superman but vs the Rs trillion dollar anti-D, Obama campaigns..President Os does pretty darn good in my book.

Not perfect, though getting rid of salazar ranks highest to me, a good start and please Mr. President close that nasty horse traders door. we are sick of them

[forestpath]

63. None as far as I'm concerned.

[kestrel91316]

31. Big Brother is still watching us. Orwell was a prophet.

[MotherPetrie]

35. Meaningless words. There is no "discussion" when NSA is doing exactly what Obama wants it to do and

the rest of us can like it or lump it, per Obama.

[Puzzledtraveller]

66. We are counted on to just take it

most of us will, some of us will resist. The majority of America isn't even aware, and if they were would'nt care, as long as you don't cut their internet off. We are addicted to information, and like any drug we will give up all that is important to keep it coming.

[WeekendWarrior]

60. I have no reason to believe Obama is lying, and

I honestly think this is much ado about very little.

I really couldn't care less that the NSA is looking at phone records to see who called whom. If they aren't listening to the actual calls, then why care? To my mind this is one of the least invasive ways to monitor potential terrorist activity—which, of course, is their concern. I fail to see how this impinges on anyone's right to privacy or anything else.

I really think this had been blown WAY out of proportion. Unless and until it involves targeting specific people for political activity, then I see nothing to be alarmed about.

[RobinA]

70. It's Not About Privacy

it's about the 4th Amendment. Search and seizure, probable cause, etc. You can look it up.

[CanonRay]

71. They appear to be neither legal nor limited

But what do I know, I'm just a citizen.

[Arctic Dave]

73. This coming from a guy that thinks killing people with drones is A-O-K.

Yeah, I'll pass on the "trust me" reach around.

[JDPriestly]

74. The program chills speech.

It would be helpful if the government sent us a list of whatever it is that they consider to be searches, calls, etc. that they question. We need more specifics and more precise wording in the laws if this is to be done.

That is what I object to and always have objected to about the Patriot Act. The language, for example, that defines a "terrorist" is vague and broad. How is a person to know whether or not he might come under suspicion under the Patriot Act?

Did Dianne Feinstein every got to law school? She seems ignorant about certain basic concepts.

[MjolnirTime]

77. Now, that is humorous. I'd like a tall glass of chilled speech, please.

[JDPriestly]

81. Google "chilled speech."

It's a legal concept, and there are Supreme Court cases on it. I've already posted on it. It's easy to Google. You can get an entire Wikipedia article.

Here it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29

[MjolnirTime]

76. What's that you say? You mean Obama didn't destroy Social Security again?

Some want to believe the worst in him so badly. It's damned shameful.

[JoePhilly]

80. My bet ...

In a week or so, when this latest outrage burns itself out ...

BOOM ... it'll be Hair-on-fire-Underground all over again over Social Security.

I mean, its been at least 4 weeks since this place blew up with the same folks claiming to be sure that at any second Obama was going to strike a deal to kill Social Security.

Outrage widgets are a dime a dozen.

[qanda]

79. Very disappointed with Obama right now

Hard to put it all into words but it seems like he doesn't find a real backbone until it has to do with taking away our rights.

[Babel_17]

82. All Occupiers’ phones were logged

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/security_expert_all_occupiers_phones_were_logged/

I can tell you that everybody that attended an Occupy Wall Street protest, and didn’t turn their cell phone off, or put it — and sometimes even if they did — the identity of that cell phone has been logged, and everybody who was at that demonstration, whether they were arrested, not arrested, whether their photos were ID’d, whether an informant pointed them out, it’s known they were there anyway. This is routine.

I can tell you that if you go into any police station right now, the first thing they do is tell you, “Oh I’m sorry you’re not allowed to bring a cell phone in there. We’ll hold it for you.” Not a joke. And by the way it’s a legitimate investigatory technique. But cell phones are now the little snitch in your pocket. Cell phones tell me where you are, what you do, who you talk to, everbody you associate with. Cell phone tells me [sic] intimate details of your life and character, including: Were you at a demonstration? Did you attend a mosque? Did you demonstrate in front of an abortion clinic? Did you get an abortion?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/06/1214215/-Open-thread-for-night-owls-Your-taxes-at-work-Occupiers-phones-were-logged

It's a lot of power and it can be easily misused.

[freshwest]

85. It will be resolved, but the corporations that have had our data for years have no oversight.

The loss of privacy is part of the desire for social networking, and it's a fine one.

We tend to forget how much information we give to get online service, for example. It's enough that improperly used, it's perfect for identity theft. The point of entry into the web of text or voice communication and more so video connections, starts with us.

Good laws have to be put in place, wrong laws have already been passed. They must be repealed by the people who wrote them. But there will always be a danger to privacy.

We can't control what many corporations do with our personal data when they send our medical, credit and other records overseas to be handled in other countries that have no laws regarding our data. It's just a job for them there, they have no idea what our expectations are about that data.

It's out of our hands. It should not be so sloppy. Sometimes that's where scamming and abuse takes place, in unknown hands. We give up a lot to get into these systems.

I see no way back from this, just agitation to get protections that only exist as long as there is funding for enforcement. The machines don't care and neither do the companies. They sell our information because they are in it for the money and it's worth a few dimes to someone to get it.

Unless we're willing to give the freedom we have had with our technology, and we won't, this will always be a problem. Keep on agitating the government, but don't forget that the greater loss of privacy and data is corporate.

[blkmusclmachine]

88. Obama Defends Surveillance Programs as Legal and Limited

No, and no.

[underpants]

92. Was there a warrant?

that was my concern from the beginning.