|
Post by Hunny on Jun 7, 2013 14:16:53 GMT
WHAT THE PAPERS SAY
The Washington Post says one of the many things still unclear about the phone surveillance programme is why Americans didn't know about it. In an editorial, the paper says the public needs more explanation to be able to make a reasonable assessment of whether such programmes are worth the security benefits. The New York Times says President Barack Obama "is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it". The Patriot Act should be sharply curtailed if not repealed, it says. The Los Angeles Times says this week's disclosures underscore how US intelligence and law enforcement now "secretly glean vast amounts of information from communications technology". The San Francisco Chronicle says the collection of phone records "conducted with only the barest legal oversight" is "another policy disappointment from a president who came to office promising to ease the worst of the panicky, ill-considered policies launched after the Sept. 11 attacks 13 years ago".
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jun 7, 2013 16:21:20 GMT
I don't understand how they can do this? Where is the probable cause? The news is also saying they are doing the same with Facebook......and keeping posts and pictures..........I'm really disturbed by this whole thing......also...I don't believe it is just Verizon.......
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 20, 2013 14:23:56 GMT
Head of revived watchdog pledges open look at U.S. surveillanceThe head of a newly revived federal privacy oversight board pledged on Wednesday to be "as transparent and public as possible" as the board reviews recently exposed U.S. government secret surveillance programs. READ THE ARTICLE... What a load of hooey! We're letting the criminals police themselves essentially. (ie, the government is who is "looking into" government misdoings. -the government is who is to protect us from the government). Nice. I suggest the "oversight board" will work just like ALL government agencies do: to protect the government's people, not us at all, and to put out propaganda to make us think differently.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 20, 2013 14:26:39 GMT
Seriously. "We're spying on you" "And we're going to go after ourselves over it" !
pthhht!
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jun 20, 2013 15:57:40 GMT
And we are all going to believe it when they come back and say nothing illegal was going on.....really.....trust them!!!
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jun 20, 2013 20:22:49 GMT
Some people need to be spied on.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 21, 2013 17:19:12 GMT
lol, yea well maybe they should just spy on them, instead of all of us which is invasive, unwarranted and may be unconstitutional too (although the government so often feels it doesn't need to obey those major laws)
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jun 22, 2013 22:49:04 GMT
In a way I agree with Bush Admirer. As long as there are people who seek to impose their will on others through the use of terror there is at least a semblance of justification for the intrusive surveillance and deliberate infringements of privacy.
The problem is of course that all governments claim to be acting in the best interests of the country and sadly it is rarely true that they are.
This is not any kind of political point; the track record of left and right has been appalling on civil liberties and even liberals and libertarians have become increasingly inured to accepting restrictions and monitoring that would have been intolerable only a few years ago.
And there is no doubt that both Clinton and Bush deliberately increased the use of this type of method to an extent that went far beyond legitimate self-defence or even reasonable intelligence gathering. Obama has shown that he is every bit as repressive as his predecessors and after a bright start by rejecting ID cards (largely under pressure from the Lib Dem partners in his coalition) Cameron too is moving towards a more authoritarian approach.
So the problem is as ever, who guards the guardians? Who controls and restrains abuses of power by those who hold power?
That is the real concern.
|
|