TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#56326: Jun 10th 2013 at 6:32:47 PM

My understanding is that they grabbed everything in order to run high-level analysis on it, without any of it being personally identifiable. If they actually want to use any specific information in relation to a particular person, they do have to get a warrant exactly like you're describing.

But now they already have it. The point isn't use to me, the point is that they don't need a warrant to get the information. The entire point is that they shouldn't have the ability to dig through our shit in the first place without a reason to be looking.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#56327: Jun 10th 2013 at 7:02:49 PM

Donald Trump: Edward Snowden ‘a bad guy’

edited 10th Jun '13 7:27:54 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#56328: Jun 10th 2013 at 7:04:08 PM

So...wait. Sen. Feinstein and Donald Trump agree on something? Glenn Beck and Michael Moore agree on the opposite?

WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE

edited 10th Jun '13 7:04:43 PM by Pykrete

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#56329: Jun 10th 2013 at 7:06:29 PM

^

Oh good. Looking at it in that light... Haha, that's hilarious.

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#56331: Jun 10th 2013 at 7:10:47 PM

Somehow I'm enjoying this sort of chaos. In a popcorny way.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#56332: Jun 10th 2013 at 7:14:14 PM

The entire point is that they shouldn't have the ability to dig through our shit in the first place without a reason to be looking.
What I'm saying is, if I understand it correctly, they can't. To use a stupid analogy, it's like they have all the files locked in a room, and they can look through the window into the room to get a general idea of what the files as a whole look like, but if they want to actually look at any given file, they have to go ask FISC for permission.

edited 10th Jun '13 7:14:52 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#56333: Jun 10th 2013 at 7:17:58 PM

Doesn't even matter what they're doing with it, really. Collecting that data in the first place without probable cause is still a violation of the 4th.

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#56334: Jun 10th 2013 at 7:20:55 PM

^^

That's the thing, I don't want them locked in a room. I want them to have to get permission first, and then go find the shit.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#56335: Jun 10th 2013 at 7:21:34 PM

@Native Jovian: I don't think it works like that. Verizon hasn't been providing the NSA with high level summaries of phone call patterns, they've been providing the records, at least according to the whistleblowers. But ultimately we don't know for certain, because they are keeping it secret.

The best summary of the situation that I have found. Another source.

Anyway, doesnt this conversation belong in the other thread?

edited 10th Jun '13 7:25:27 PM by DeMarquis

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
Meklar from Milky Way Since: Dec, 2012 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
#56338: Jun 10th 2013 at 7:34:17 PM

Snowden decided to leak it, not because it was illegal or dangerous, but because he didn't like the program. He doesn't get to make that call.
Then who does? Some sort of monolithic top-down authority? Some particular person with a title and many medals, and many vested interests that probably have little or nothing to do with what is actually right? If Snowden shouldn't have acted, then who should have acted, and who could have been expected to act? Sure, PRISM may have been carried out entirely by the book. But we can't just wait around for people doing things 'by the book' to fix our problems, especially when 'the book' has been written by people with titles and medals and vested interests and no particular desire to actually see those problems fixed. To me, PRISM comes across as orwellian whether there was a book for it to be carried out by or not, and apparently a lot of other people also see it this way.

There's a difference between objecting to a law because you don't like it or because it personally inconveniences you and objecting to it because you find it morally repugnant.
I hardly think it was 'personally convenient' for Snowden to publish those documents, considering that, you know, he could end up in jail for a very long time if his former colleagues get their hands on him.

Maybe this is the point you're trying to make, though.

It's also been noted that Congress was not only aware of the program, but approved of it.
Newsflash: On average, people with titles, medals, vested interests and giant bank accounts approve of a project that benefits people with titles, medals, vested interests and giant bank accounts! Oh, and they also approve of keeping the project secret from people without titles, medals, vested interests and giant bank accounts, who might disapprove of the project! Hooray for democracy!

Join my forum game!
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#56339: Jun 10th 2013 at 9:06:25 PM

Doesn't even matter what they're doing with it, really.
I find it impossible to get up in arms about my data sitting around being ignored on government servers instead of (or rather, in addition to) sitting around being ignored on corporate servers. Unless that data is actually used for something, I don't see it as a privacy violation. I understand why other people would feel differently, but that's my take on the issue.

Then who does?
No one. You can't just decide to ignore the fact that information is classified because you don't like the fact that the information is classified. That's the whole point.

To me, PRISM comes across as orwellian whether there was a book for it to be carried out by or not, and apparently a lot of other people also see it this way.
And a lot of people disagree. But you can't just up and toss the rules out the window every time you disagree with them, or else there's no point in having them in the first place.

Newsflash: On average, people with titles, medals, vested interests and giant bank accounts approve of a project that benefits people with titles, medals, vested interests and giant bank accounts!
How in God's name does the average Congressman — or even the average member of the intelligence or security committees — benefit from the existence of Prism on a personal level?

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#56340: Jun 10th 2013 at 9:10:12 PM

^

This is a particular case where enough people disagree with this move to where it shouldn't be classified, or should have been disseminated further.

We're still a fucking Democracy, and we aren't a good representative democracy if shit like this is going on, how do you specifically decide to vote for people who won't do something like this if you never find out it's going on?

Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#56341: Jun 10th 2013 at 9:12:09 PM

..... You don't and decide to move to Sweden wild mass guess

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#56342: Jun 10th 2013 at 9:21:30 PM

And what happens when the country in question has gone batshit and started enacting insane laws?

That's what international law is for, the US (or other country) can enact as many "It's okay to deliberately gun down civilians" laws as it likes, those orders are still in violation of international law and anyone who follows them can be tried for war crimes. Though international law has the problem that it's only enforced if the people who approve of it can (and will) kick the but of the people who don't, which can result in problematic situations.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#56343: Jun 10th 2013 at 9:21:54 PM

How in God's name does the average Congressman — or even the average member of the intelligence or security committees — benefit from the existence of Prism on a personal level?

When you don't need probable cause to collect this amount of data and investigate people (and from what the leaker indicated, they are in fact able to go full-out wiretap on a whim contrary to Clapper's claims), you effectively have the power to detain whoever you want — because it's really not that hard to find and trump up stuff to make anyone look suspicious "enough". Cherrypicking stuff on the internet is the easiest fucking thing.

And then you can target dissidents at will. Which, again, has already happened in this very country even without giving that additional tool to do so.

This is not something you're particularly wise to say "well they're not that likely to go crazy with", especially in a country that's already demonstrated the opposite. You're wise to not give them that freely invasive a power at all.

edited 10th Jun '13 9:30:38 PM by Pykrete

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#56344: Jun 10th 2013 at 9:31:02 PM

But you need a warrant to actually do anything with the data. The data, sitting there on a server, harms no one. I feel like you guys are arguing that having a police force is a terrible breach of civil rights, because once we have people who are paid to detain criminals, all we have to do is change the definition of criminal and SUDDENLY ANYONE CAN BE THROWN IN JAIL FOR ANY REASON!!

There's a ton of unwarranted alarmist hysteria going around, here.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#56346: Jun 10th 2013 at 9:36:33 PM

Okay, so would you be opposed to NSA agents randomly picking your door while you're out and snooping around in your home without a reason? Oh it's okay, they still need a warrant to actually do anything with it.

Also, once more, the leaker claims they didn't need a warrant for jack shit. Also, people get detained without charge all the time. Intelligence agencies have been doing that for years.

edited 10th Jun '13 9:38:30 PM by Pykrete

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#56348: Jun 10th 2013 at 10:09:50 PM

Okay, so would you be opposed to NSA agents randomly picking your door while you're out and snooping around in your home without a reason? Oh it's okay, they still need a warrant to actually do anything with it.

Side Note: The NSA doesn't have agents, it just collects the information. You're probably looking at the FBI or the local Police instead.

Keep Rolling On
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#56349: Jun 11th 2013 at 7:17:29 AM

^

Publicly.

Anyway, that's still a good analogy. I look at it this way:

If Batman didn't feel comfortable having that kind of power, I don't trust the NSA with it. I'm with Fox on this one.

I don't care that they need a warrant to do anything with information they steal from me, it's my fucking information, and they should require a warrant to even possess it. A more apt analogy would be if the law was changed so that police officers could walk into your house whenever you want to search the place, but even if they found something illegal, they would need a warrant to act on their findings and arrest you.

Who would be comfortable with that? I for one don't want police officers to have the ability to just walk into my fucking house without a warrant, even if they don't do it very often because there are so many houses and they want the ones that have the highest likelihood of containing contraband. The entire point is that I don't want uninvited guests coming into my house, I want to be in control of who can come in and look through all my drawers and shit, even if they never exercise that ability.

That's essentially what it is. I demand my right to privacy. I don't give a fuck if it makes it easier for us to catch the bad guys, my civil rights aren't worth that increased security.

edited 11th Jun '13 7:26:16 AM by Barkey

SomeSortOfTroper Since: Jan, 2001
#56350: Jun 11th 2013 at 7:19:01 AM

[up][up]As far as you know.

edited 11th Jun '13 7:19:38 AM by SomeSortOfTroper


Total posts: 417,856
Top