login
Snowden again.. Why? (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-08-13 9:17 AM in reply to: powerman |
Pro  9391     Omaha, NE |  Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why?Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by powerman We spent a TRILLION dollars on the two wars over a decade... and nobody over there likes us any better. And now, we have massive intelligence gathering in our own country, and we have authorized the MILITARY to use drones for survielence over our own country, and that we can kill American citizens without a trial and detain them indefinitely. I don't give a crap about Snowden, but it's wrong what we have done, and what we are doing. Bingo. I'm sort of appalled by you folks who think we should just let the NSA go about their business without oversight. They classify anything that might require them to have a shred of accountability with the people in this country. And when they talk to our elected representatives? Well, the Director of National Intelligence has already been caught lying straight to Congress. Why on earth would you think you can trust them to keep you safe? They're the instrument of the executive branch or whomever's pocket they're in on a given day. There are several circumstances where the law itself is classified. Sir, we're arresting you. Why? Sorry we don't have to tell you. Yes this has happened already with the TSA.If you want to live in a free country you should be pretty concerned about the direction we've gone since 9/11. I agree, in principle, with what you have written and what you have quoted from Powerman. There must be oversight. There also is a need for classified intelligence gathering, as there always has been when we were threatened by a sworn enemy like Al Queda, etc. I don't know what the answer is, but it isn't on either extreme. And I say regularly, the answer is somewhere in the middle. I'm sure it's no different in this instance. LE have been walking the fine line since the country was founded. And taken purely at face value, at what the majority are trying to do, it is about catching the bad guys and protecting the good. But, the bad spoil it for everyone, and LE have gone in front of the court time and time again and been told they got it wrong. And over decades, these matters get sorted out step by step. And yes, terrorism is a LE issue. But every since 9/11... we have been moving at leaps and bounds. That one day it's all good, and the next they have a clean slate to do what they want. That's not good enough. There most certainly will be push back. And it will be sorted out by those that still think individual freedom and rights are a pretty good thing when it comes to every day life. And that is most certainly a BIPARTISAN issue. And that dieing in a terrorist attack is somewhere behind winning the power ball the same day you are struck by lightening twice. The tricky part from a debate standpoint is these tactics do work. If you look at the stop and frisk tactics in NYC, they do work because if you are a bad guy and plan to carry a gun you know that a cop could stop and frisk you at any time. However, the same argument could be made about any of our civil rights. If LB could put video cameras in every house recording voice and video, listen in on any phone call, walk into any house, search anybody anywhere he wanted it would help his job tremendously. If all those things make LB's job easier then why not let him do it if it saves lives and makes us all safer? Our founding fathers knew this, so they guaranteed us individual rights and freedoms to prevent the government from overstepping it's bounds. With the advent of technology the rights don't go away, if anything they need to be enforced and protected even more. I know the US isn't a dictatorship and wanting to "spy" on me to stay in power. However, with things like the IRS scandal as a loose example. There are people in the government who will push the boundaries as far as they can to stay in power. The more we allow our rights to slip, the easier it is for the government to abuse their power. |
| 2013-08-13 9:23 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by Left Brain Tony - in every interdiction I have been involved with where a large amount of cash was found with a sketchy story, the police also want to search the vehicle for drugs. Now, granted, I don't know what the PC was for wanting to search the car to begin with, or if it was consensual, but once a large amount of cash or an amount of drugs are found the police will impound the vehicle to get it off the road and search it more completely. If there is no immediate probable cause to arrest, then the occupants will be told that they are free to go, but their vehicle is not, and then they will be given the choice of coming with their vehicle or walking away. (obviously that only happens in cases where money and not drugs are immediately found). I agree that it feels like an arrest or a detention if your car gets taken and you are from out of state. Again, I'll bet they weren't arrested. Is it right? That's an arguable point, but it has been upheld as legal time and again. One thing I know for sure, if we make drugs legal that's the end of seizing people's property in the name of illegal proceeds. I've said it before....the "war on drugs" isn't a war at all....it's a money grab.
There's a halfway decent summary of the sequence of events in the court opinion: The background section is fairly short on the second page. They were stopped for speeding, and asked if they had any illegal items such as weapons, large sums of cash, or drugs in the vehicle. The driver responded that he didn't have anything illegal (kind of true, but also a somewhat deceptive response). They then consented to a search of their vehicle for some stupid reason and it all went south from there. Obviously this could very well be illegal money, but they also had a plausible story and according to one of the articles I read the exotic dancer even had tax returns showing how she earned all the money over 15 years. So, who knows. |
| 2013-08-13 9:24 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by powerman We spent a TRILLION dollars on the two wars over a decade... and nobody over there likes us any better. And now, we have massive intelligence gathering in our own country, and we have authorized the MILITARY to use drones for survielence over our own country, and that we can kill American citizens without a trial and detain them indefinitely. I don't give a crap about Snowden, but it's wrong what we have done, and what we are doing. Bingo. I'm sort of appalled by you folks who think we should just let the NSA go about their business without oversight. They classify anything that might require them to have a shred of accountability with the people in this country. And when they talk to our elected representatives? Well, the Director of National Intelligence has already been caught lying straight to Congress. Why on earth would you think you can trust them to keep you safe? They're the instrument of the executive branch or whomever's pocket they're in on a given day. There are several circumstances where the law itself is classified. Sir, we're arresting you. Why? Sorry we don't have to tell you. Yes this has happened already with the TSA.If you want to live in a free country you should be pretty concerned about the direction we've gone since 9/11. I agree, in principle, with what you have written and what you have quoted from Powerman. There must be oversight. There also is a need for classified intelligence gathering, as there always has been when we were threatened by a sworn enemy like Al Queda, etc. I don't know what the answer is, but it isn't on either extreme. And I say regularly, the answer is somewhere in the middle. I'm sure it's no different in this instance. LE have been walking the fine line since the country was founded. And taken purely at face value, at what the majority are trying to do, it is about catching the bad guys and protecting the good. But, the bad spoil it for everyone, and LE have gone in front of the court time and time again and been told they got it wrong. And over decades, these matters get sorted out step by step. And yes, terrorism is a LE issue. But every since 9/11... we have been moving at leaps and bounds. That one day it's all good, and the next they have a clean slate to do what they want. That's not good enough. There most certainly will be push back. And it will be sorted out by those that still think individual freedom and rights are a pretty good thing when it comes to every day life. And that is most certainly a BIPARTISAN issue. And that dieing in a terrorist attack is somewhere behind winning the power ball the same day you are struck by lightening twice. The tricky part from a debate standpoint is these tactics do work. If you look at the stop and frisk tactics in NYC, they do work because if you are a bad guy and plan to carry a gun you know that a cop could stop and frisk you at any time. However, the same argument could be made about any of our civil rights. If LB could put video cameras in every house recording voice and video, listen in on any phone call, walk into any house, search anybody anywhere he wanted it would help his job tremendously. If all those things make LB's job easier then why not let him do it if it saves lives and makes us all safer? Our founding fathers knew this, so they guaranteed us individual rights and freedoms to prevent the government from overstepping it's bounds. With the advent of technology the rights don't go away, if anything they need to be enforced and protected even more. I know the US isn't a dictatorship and wanting to "spy" on me to stay in power. However, with things like the IRS scandal as a loose example. There are people in the government who will push the boundaries as far as they can to stay in power. The more we allow our rights to slip, the easier it is for the government to abuse their power. You are wrong there......and that's my biggest problem with the NSA program. It doesn't necessarily make my job easier because the "noise" gets too loud. Good surveillance work and good police work in general is not about trying to find a needle in a haystack.....it's about finding out which haystacks have all the damn needles. In that light, do I have a problem tracking every phone call into and out of a known terrorists home or cell phone.....hell no. Do I have a problem tracking the phone calls and correspondence to the people that THOSE people are talking to? I do not. I have a problem with tracking phones and other correspondence when there is no nexus to ANYTHING. That's just shoddy work and really doesn't advance our security at all....in fact, I could argue that it makes us less safe because it's eqasier for the needles to hide in the good haystacks. |
| 2013-08-13 9:57 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? stripper saving money to have a million would not shock me, but it also occurs to me that might be perfect money laundering also. thousands of dollars of tips given and you never have to know where it comes from. |
| 2013-08-13 10:53 AM in reply to: chirunner134 |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? And that is most certainly a BIPARTISAN issue. Sort of. It's not a conservative versus liberal issue. But it is most definitely authoritarian against libertarian. You can have authoritarian liberals (Obama) and conservative libertarians (Rand Paul). Americans just aren't used to making that distinction. It takes some effort to research a candidate and his/her voting record. But that's how you'll find out where they stand on this type of law. We're all better off if we're more knowledgeable when we vote... no matter who you vote for. |
| 2013-08-13 11:03 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by powerman We spent a TRILLION dollars on the two wars over a decade... and nobody over there likes us any better. And now, we have massive intelligence gathering in our own country, and we have authorized the MILITARY to use drones for survielence over our own country, and that we can kill American citizens without a trial and detain them indefinitely. I don't give a crap about Snowden, but it's wrong what we have done, and what we are doing. Bingo. I'm sort of appalled by you folks who think we should just let the NSA go about their business without oversight. They classify anything that might require them to have a shred of accountability with the people in this country. And when they talk to our elected representatives? Well, the Director of National Intelligence has already been caught lying straight to Congress. Why on earth would you think you can trust them to keep you safe? They're the instrument of the executive branch or whomever's pocket they're in on a given day. There are several circumstances where the law itself is classified. Sir, we're arresting you. Why? Sorry we don't have to tell you. Yes this has happened already with the TSA.If you want to live in a free country you should be pretty concerned about the direction we've gone since 9/11. I agree, in principle, with what you have written and what you have quoted from Powerman. There must be oversight. There also is a need for classified intelligence gathering, as there always has been when we were threatened by a sworn enemy like Al Queda, etc. I don't know what the answer is, but it isn't on either extreme. And I say regularly, the answer is somewhere in the middle. I'm sure it's no different in this instance. LE have been walking the fine line since the country was founded. And taken purely at face value, at what the majority are trying to do, it is about catching the bad guys and protecting the good. But, the bad spoil it for everyone, and LE have gone in front of the court time and time again and been told they got it wrong. And over decades, these matters get sorted out step by step. And yes, terrorism is a LE issue. But every since 9/11... we have been moving at leaps and bounds. That one day it's all good, and the next they have a clean slate to do what they want. That's not good enough. There most certainly will be push back. And it will be sorted out by those that still think individual freedom and rights are a pretty good thing when it comes to every day life. And that is most certainly a BIPARTISAN issue. And that dieing in a terrorist attack is somewhere behind winning the power ball the same day you are struck by lightening twice. The tricky part from a debate standpoint is these tactics do work. If you look at the stop and frisk tactics in NYC, they do work because if you are a bad guy and plan to carry a gun you know that a cop could stop and frisk you at any time. However, the same argument could be made about any of our civil rights. If LB could put video cameras in every house recording voice and video, listen in on any phone call, walk into any house, search anybody anywhere he wanted it would help his job tremendously. If all those things make LB's job easier then why not let him do it if it saves lives and makes us all safer? Our founding fathers knew this, so they guaranteed us individual rights and freedoms to prevent the government from overstepping it's bounds. With the advent of technology the rights don't go away, if anything they need to be enforced and protected even more. I know the US isn't a dictatorship and wanting to "spy" on me to stay in power. However, with things like the IRS scandal as a loose example. There are people in the government who will push the boundaries as far as they can to stay in power. The more we allow our rights to slip, the easier it is for the government to abuse their power. You are wrong there......and that's my biggest problem with the NSA program. It doesn't necessarily make my job easier because the "noise" gets too loud. Good surveillance work and good police work in general is not about trying to find a needle in a haystack.....it's about finding out which haystacks have all the damn needles. In that light, do I have a problem tracking every phone call into and out of a known terrorists home or cell phone.....hell no. Do I have a problem tracking the phone calls and correspondence to the people that THOSE people are talking to? I do not. I have a problem with tracking phones and other correspondence when there is no nexus to ANYTHING. That's just shoddy work and really doesn't advance our security at all....in fact, I could argue that it makes us less safe because it's eqasier for the needles to hide in the good haystacks. In another post you mentioned Al qaeda as the need for secret intel gathering as they are our enemy. Perhaps if the NSA would focus on those "haytacks" (islamic militants) instead of everyone in the US their job would be a little easier and our constitutional rights protected. I suspect because of the PC culture that permeates everything from BT forums to the halls of our gov., we will never focus solely on those who declared war on us. Heaven forbid we single out any group for close scrutiny, that is, unless it is the tea party. |
| 2013-08-13 11:34 AM in reply to: NXS |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by NXS In another post you mentioned Al qaeda as the need for secret intel gathering as they are our enemy. Perhaps if the NSA would focus on those "haytacks" (islamic militants) instead of everyone in the US their job would be a little easier and our constitutional rights protected. I suspect because of the PC culture that permeates everything from BT forums to the halls of our gov., we will never focus solely on those who declared war on us. Heaven forbid we single out any group for close scrutiny, that is, unless it is the tea party. Which puts us back to stop and frisk. The statistics to support it are staggering. In NY, the vast VAST majority of crime is committed by blacks. Homicides are like 85%. Robberies and assaults are just as high. So what is wrong with targeting blacks... those are the ones committing the deeds. But as far as citizens are concerned, it's just wrong. that's not how it works. Non citizens, or those here on visas... ehh, don't much care. So while we do indeed have a "Muslim" problem, as in those are the ones that want to do us harm, you can't just sweep them up in a big drag net... at least Americans. If it is fine to do it to Muslims, it is certainly fine to do it to young black males. |
| 2013-08-13 12:34 PM in reply to: 0 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by NXS In another post you mentioned Al qaeda as the need for secret intel gathering as they are our enemy. Perhaps if the NSA would focus on those "haytacks" (islamic militants) instead of everyone in the US their job would be a little easier and our constitutional rights protected. I suspect because of the PC culture that permeates everything from BT forums to the halls of our gov., we will never focus solely on those who declared war on us. Heaven forbid we single out any group for close scrutiny, that is, unless it is the tea party. Which puts us back to stop and frisk. The statistics to support it are staggering. In NY, the vast VAST majority of crime is committed by blacks. Homicides are like 85%. Robberies and assaults are just as high. So what is wrong with targeting blacks... those are the ones committing the deeds. But as far as citizens are concerned, it's just wrong. that's not how it works. Non citizens, or those here on visas... ehh, don't much care. So while we do indeed have a "Muslim" problem, as in those are the ones that want to do us harm, you can't just sweep them up in a big drag net... at least Americans. If it is fine to do it to Muslims, it is certainly fine to do it to young black males. You don't have to target ALL Muslims domestically, if you have the self proclaimed enemy identified, (we supposedly have been listen to them already)it seems to me there is probable cause for surveillance (LB could clarify that). Then the spooks and police could legally do their thing without doing the blanket surveillance they are doing now. They could target mosques that spew hate or groups that aid or send cash to terrorists overseas. If you hang with Muslim extremists then it sucks to be you. The mosque the Boston bombers attended has a history of leaders associated with radical organizations and channeling money to them. But for some reason (?) we didn't watch the folks who went there even when the Russians told us this guy was trouble. Why? I have my guess and I stated it earlier. I am not suggesting we do what Pres. Roosevelt did with the Japanese, but hell, at least focus on those who have declared war on us. Stop and frisk is wrong, it is just the lazy way of addressing a problem instead of aggressively going after the root. Edited by NXS 2013-08-13 12:38 PM |
| 2013-08-13 12:40 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? I agree that the NSA surveillance should focus on those who have stated a desire to harm us, and those who have contact with them. That's the nexus that ties it all together. I couldn't imagine in 1000 years why you'd need my phone or computer information as it applies to terrorism against our country. I'm willing to bet 99% of us are the same. But for those of us who do have contact with our known enemies......you just became a known enemy too...and now a justifiable target of surveillance. It's the justifications that are screwed up......the lack of a nexus. We all know they don't need our information to do the job....so why have it? Edited by Left Brain 2013-08-13 12:40 PM |
| 2013-08-13 1:06 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by Left Brain I agree that the NSA surveillance should focus on those who have stated a desire to harm us, and those who have contact with them. That's the nexus that ties it all together. I couldn't imagine in 1000 years why you'd need my phone or computer information as it applies to terrorism against our country. I'm willing to bet 99% of us are the same. But for those of us who do have contact with our known enemies......you just became a known enemy too...and now a justifiable target of surveillance. It's the justifications that are screwed up......the lack of a nexus. We all know they don't need our information to do the job....so why have it? So how is that different that stop and frisk? I'm asking seriously, legally. Is it the action? I mean, if black males with saggin pants and playing rap music commits 90% of the crime in a city, then that's the population that needs to be targeted. But I am assuming stop and frisk is not "surveillance" or monitoring, but taking action... yet I don't quite get the distinction, because monitoring is just a big net cast on those you target to see what shakes out. Well so is a frisk, you are casting a net of those you target to see what shakes out. I'm not advocating "stop and frisk" by any stretch of the imagination. Walking down the street is not probable cause. |
| 2013-08-13 1:13 PM in reply to: powerman |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? A frisk is for weapons only. See Terry v. Ohio. I can't just stop and frisk anyone anytime. I can frisk you if what I see you do would make a reasonable person believe a crime was afoot and you were armed. It's less than probable cause, but there still is a reasonableness test. I must have articulable facts that would make a reasonable person with my training believe you were armed. A frisk is NOT a search.....not at all. It is me runnig my hands over the outside of your clothing to check for weapons....legally, I can't even manipulate articles I feel. Black people commit most of the murders in some parts of some cities, therefore if I'm in that part of that city I can stop a black person and frisk him...................no. Hell no!! |
| 2013-08-13 1:39 PM in reply to: powerman |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by Left Brain I agree that the NSA surveillance should focus on those who have stated a desire to harm us, and those who have contact with them. That's the nexus that ties it all together. I couldn't imagine in 1000 years why you'd need my phone or computer information as it applies to terrorism against our country. I'm willing to bet 99% of us are the same. But for those of us who do have contact with our known enemies......you just became a known enemy too...and now a justifiable target of surveillance. It's the justifications that are screwed up......the lack of a nexus. We all know they don't need our information to do the job....so why have it? So how is that different that stop and frisk? I'm asking seriously, legally. Is it the action? I mean, if black males with saggin pants and playing rap music commits 90% of the crime in a city, then that's the population that needs to be targeted. But I am assuming stop and frisk is not "surveillance" or monitoring, but taking action... yet I don't quite get the distinction, because monitoring is just a big net cast on those you target to see what shakes out. Well so is a frisk, you are casting a net of those you target to see what shakes out. I'm not advocating "stop and frisk" by any stretch of the imagination. Walking down the street is not probable cause. So lets say Mr. Powerman attends a mosque with known ties to radical groups. Even though you personally have done nothing (so far), because you associate with known radical sympathizers you are a suspect and are subject to surveillance (probable cause?). Big difference than just being on the street and stopped without probable cause because you are black, Muslim, Hispanic, etc. |
| 2013-08-13 1:41 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Got it. Well, I'm not a legal scholar, I only play one on the web. |
I assume there are volumes and volumes of case law. But this goes to imminent danger like you say, armed... and what could happen some day. Getting a drag net for surveillance plays with the laws of what is "reasonable" to find stuff, and what isn't. I don't always agree, but I am glad there are organizations that fight to maintain our rights. | 2013-08-13 2:58 PM in reply to: powerman |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? No scholar here either. Heck I have never stayed at a Holiday Inn for that matter. There is a fine line between probable cause and blanket searches. I guess that is why we should not have secret FISA courts. This needs to be out in the open and clear that no constitutional rights are violated, not even for public safety concerns. |
| 2013-08-13 3:31 PM in reply to: NXS |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by NXS No scholar here either. Heck I have never stayed at a Holiday Inn for that matter. There is a fine line between probable cause and blanket searches. I guess that is why we should not have secret FISA courts. This needs to be out in the open and clear that no constitutional rights are violated, not even for public safety concerns. There will always be a need for secrets. Part of the problem is that few can keep one anymore. |
| 2013-08-14 8:39 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by Left Brain A frisk is for weapons only. See Terry v. Ohio. I can't just stop and frisk anyone anytime. I can frisk you if what I see you do would make a reasonable person believe a crime was afoot and you were armed. It's less than probable cause, but there still is a reasonableness test. I must have articulable facts that would make a reasonable person with my training believe you were armed. A frisk is NOT a search.....not at all. It is me runnig my hands over the outside of your clothing to check for weapons....legally, I can't even manipulate articles I feel. Black people commit most of the murders in some parts of some cities, therefore if I'm in that part of that city I can stop a black person and frisk him...................no. Hell no!! hmm, In that case I think I'd be profiling athletic looking blondes. |
| 2013-08-14 8:42 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain A frisk is for weapons only. See Terry v. Ohio. I can't just stop and frisk anyone anytime. I can frisk you if what I see you do would make a reasonable person believe a crime was afoot and you were armed. It's less than probable cause, but there still is a reasonableness test. I must have articulable facts that would make a reasonable person with my training believe you were armed. A frisk is NOT a search.....not at all. It is me runnig my hands over the outside of your clothing to check for weapons....legally, I can't even manipulate articles I feel. Black people commit most of the murders in some parts of some cities, therefore if I'm in that part of that city I can stop a black person and frisk him...................no. Hell no!! hmm, In that case I think I'd be profiling athletic looking blondes. You use the back of your hand to frisk them......truthfully, all the damn fun has been taken out of my job. |
| 2013-08-14 6:36 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Expert 1951 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain A frisk is for weapons only. See Terry v. Ohio. I can't just stop and frisk anyone anytime. I can frisk you if what I see you do would make a reasonable person believe a crime was afoot and you were armed. It's less than probable cause, but there still is a reasonableness test. I must have articulable facts that would make a reasonable person with my training believe you were armed. A frisk is NOT a search.....not at all. It is me runnig my hands over the outside of your clothing to check for weapons....legally, I can't even manipulate articles I feel. Black people commit most of the murders in some parts of some cities, therefore if I'm in that part of that city I can stop a black person and frisk him...................no. Hell no!! hmm, In that case I think I'd be profiling athletic looking blondes. You use the back of your hand to frisk them......truthfully, all the damn fun has been taken out of my job. you guys are really special.... |
| 2013-08-14 6:46 PM in reply to: KateTri1 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by KateTri1 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain A frisk is for weapons only. See Terry v. Ohio. I can't just stop and frisk anyone anytime. I can frisk you if what I see you do would make a reasonable person believe a crime was afoot and you were armed. It's less than probable cause, but there still is a reasonableness test. I must have articulable facts that would make a reasonable person with my training believe you were armed. A frisk is NOT a search.....not at all. It is me runnig my hands over the outside of your clothing to check for weapons....legally, I can't even manipulate articles I feel. Black people commit most of the murders in some parts of some cities, therefore if I'm in that part of that city I can stop a black person and frisk him...................no. Hell no!! hmm, In that case I think I'd be profiling athletic looking blondes. You use the back of your hand to frisk them......truthfully, all the damn fun has been taken out of my job. you guys are really special.... Tony's paranoid. |
| 2013-08-14 8:44 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by KateTri1 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain A frisk is for weapons only. See Terry v. Ohio. I can't just stop and frisk anyone anytime. I can frisk you if what I see you do would make a reasonable person believe a crime was afoot and you were armed. It's less than probable cause, but there still is a reasonableness test. I must have articulable facts that would make a reasonable person with my training believe you were armed. A frisk is NOT a search.....not at all. It is me runnig my hands over the outside of your clothing to check for weapons....legally, I can't even manipulate articles I feel. Black people commit most of the murders in some parts of some cities, therefore if I'm in that part of that city I can stop a black person and frisk him...................no. Hell no!! hmm, In that case I think I'd be profiling athletic looking blondes. You use the back of your hand to frisk them......truthfully, all the damn fun has been taken out of my job. you guys are really special.... Tony's paranoid. SHH
|
| 2013-08-14 10:04 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? LMAO  |
| 2013-08-15 8:22 AM in reply to: NXS |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by Left Brain I agree that the NSA surveillance should focus on those who have stated a desire to harm us, and those who have contact with them. That's the nexus that ties it all together. I couldn't imagine in 1000 years why you'd need my phone or computer information as it applies to terrorism against our country. I'm willing to bet 99% of us are the same. But for those of us who do have contact with our known enemies......you just became a known enemy too...and now a justifiable target of surveillance. It's the justifications that are screwed up......the lack of a nexus. We all know they don't need our information to do the job....so why have it? So how is that different that stop and frisk? I'm asking seriously, legally. Is it the action? I mean, if black males with saggin pants and playing rap music commits 90% of the crime in a city, then that's the population that needs to be targeted. But I am assuming stop and frisk is not "surveillance" or monitoring, but taking action... yet I don't quite get the distinction, because monitoring is just a big net cast on those you target to see what shakes out. Well so is a frisk, you are casting a net of those you target to see what shakes out. I'm not advocating "stop and frisk" by any stretch of the imagination. Walking down the street is not probable cause. So lets say Mr. Powerman attends a mosque with known ties to radical groups. Even though you personally have done nothing (so far), because you associate with known radical sympathizers you are a suspect and are subject to surveillance (probable cause?). Big difference than just being on the street and stopped without probable cause because you are black, Muslim, Hispanic, etc. Suppose Mr. Powerman attends a mosque that is moderate in it's views, but there are a couple of extremists who have attended services, and are known to the authorities. Does that then mean everyone who attends that mosque should now be under surveillance? After all, Mr. Powerman was only two rugs down from the principle target, they might have passed secret messages while praying. The point is that we come into contact with people every day under many different circumstances. Keeping records on everyone just in case you might need the data in the future is not the answer. As LB and other pointed out, it's noise and it makes it more difficult to do the job. Part of my job is working with other researchers on analysis of very large data sets. One of the most difficult things I do is trying to understand the specific questions that the data are supposed to answer. If you ask a general question you get a large set of results that are not interpretable. If you ask a specific question I know what data are required, what statistical and computational methods to apply, and I can give you something meaningful (and manageable) to test. Can't be that different with any large data set. |
| 2013-08-15 9:05 AM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by NXS Suppose Mr. Powerman attends a mosque that is moderate in it's views, but there are a couple of extremists who have attended services, and are known to the authorities. Does that then mean everyone who attends that mosque should now be under surveillance? After all, Mr. Powerman was only two rugs down from the principle target, they might have passed secret messages while praying. The point is that we come into contact with people every day under many different circumstances. Keeping records on everyone just in case you might need the data in the future is not the answer. As LB and other pointed out, it's noise and it makes it more difficult to do the job. Part of my job is working with other researchers on analysis of very large data sets. One of the most difficult things I do is trying to understand the specific questions that the data are supposed to answer. If you ask a general question you get a large set of results that are not interpretable. If you ask a specific question I know what data are required, what statistical and computational methods to apply, and I can give you something meaningful (and manageable) to test. Can't be that different with any large data set. Originally posted by powerman So lets say Mr. Powerman attends a mosque with known ties to radical groups. Even though you personally have done nothing (so far), because you associate with known radical sympathizers you are a suspect and are subject to surveillance (probable cause?). Big difference than just being on the street and stopped without probable cause because you are black, Muslim, Hispanic, etc. Originally posted by Left Brain I agree that the NSA surveillance should focus on those who have stated a desire to harm us, and those who have contact with them. That's the nexus that ties it all together. I couldn't imagine in 1000 years why you'd need my phone or computer information as it applies to terrorism against our country. I'm willing to bet 99% of us are the same. But for those of us who do have contact with our known enemies......you just became a known enemy too...and now a justifiable target of surveillance. It's the justifications that are screwed up......the lack of a nexus. We all know they don't need our information to do the job....so why have it? So how is that different that stop and frisk? I'm asking seriously, legally. Is it the action? I mean, if black males with saggin pants and playing rap music commits 90% of the crime in a city, then that's the population that needs to be targeted. But I am assuming stop and frisk is not "surveillance" or monitoring, but taking action... yet I don't quite get the distinction, because monitoring is just a big net cast on those you target to see what shakes out. Well so is a frisk, you are casting a net of those you target to see what shakes out. I'm not advocating "stop and frisk" by any stretch of the imagination. Walking down the street is not probable cause. Last month when testifying before congress the NSA admitted they used the 3 hop rule for investigating people. So, if Bad guy suspected of doing something calls 30 people on his phone, they will then look into all the people who those 30 people called and then look into all the people that they all called. With 6 degrees of separation worldwide and the terror watch list having 700k+, that pretty much means we've all been "investigated" (whatever that means) lol |
| 2013-08-15 9:11 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Expert 1951 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by NXS Suppose Mr. Powerman attends a mosque that is moderate in it's views, but there are a couple of extremists who have attended services, and are known to the authorities. Does that then mean everyone who attends that mosque should now be under surveillance? After all, Mr. Powerman was only two rugs down from the principle target, they might have passed secret messages while praying. The point is that we come into contact with people every day under many different circumstances. Keeping records on everyone just in case you might need the data in the future is not the answer. As LB and other pointed out, it's noise and it makes it more difficult to do the job. Part of my job is working with other researchers on analysis of very large data sets. One of the most difficult things I do is trying to understand the specific questions that the data are supposed to answer. If you ask a general question you get a large set of results that are not interpretable. If you ask a specific question I know what data are required, what statistical and computational methods to apply, and I can give you something meaningful (and manageable) to test. Can't be that different with any large data set. Originally posted by powerman So lets say Mr. Powerman attends a mosque with known ties to radical groups. Even though you personally have done nothing (so far), because you associate with known radical sympathizers you are a suspect and are subject to surveillance (probable cause?). Big difference than just being on the street and stopped without probable cause because you are black, Muslim, Hispanic, etc. Originally posted by Left Brain I agree that the NSA surveillance should focus on those who have stated a desire to harm us, and those who have contact with them. That's the nexus that ties it all together. I couldn't imagine in 1000 years why you'd need my phone or computer information as it applies to terrorism against our country. I'm willing to bet 99% of us are the same. But for those of us who do have contact with our known enemies......you just became a known enemy too...and now a justifiable target of surveillance. It's the justifications that are screwed up......the lack of a nexus. We all know they don't need our information to do the job....so why have it? So how is that different that stop and frisk? I'm asking seriously, legally. Is it the action? I mean, if black males with saggin pants and playing rap music commits 90% of the crime in a city, then that's the population that needs to be targeted. But I am assuming stop and frisk is not "surveillance" or monitoring, but taking action... yet I don't quite get the distinction, because monitoring is just a big net cast on those you target to see what shakes out. Well so is a frisk, you are casting a net of those you target to see what shakes out. I'm not advocating "stop and frisk" by any stretch of the imagination. Walking down the street is not probable cause. Last month when testifying before congress the NSA admitted they used the 3 hop rule for investigating people. So, if Bad guy suspected of doing something calls 30 people on his phone, they will then look into all the people who those 30 people called and then look into all the people that they all called. With 6 degrees of separation worldwide and the terror watch list having 700k+, that pretty much means we've all been "investigated" (whatever that means) lol I'm no NSA expert but I'm guessing that's exactly what they do. The data (phone call data) is sifted for very specific types of profile info, the rest is dumped. |
| 2013-08-15 9:55 AM in reply to: KateTri1 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: Snowden again.. Why? Originally posted by KateTri1 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by NXS Suppose Mr. Powerman attends a mosque that is moderate in it's views, but there are a couple of extremists who have attended services, and are known to the authorities. Does that then mean everyone who attends that mosque should now be under surveillance? After all, Mr. Powerman was only two rugs down from the principle target, they might have passed secret messages while praying. The point is that we come into contact with people every day under many different circumstances. Keeping records on everyone just in case you might need the data in the future is not the answer. As LB and other pointed out, it's noise and it makes it more difficult to do the job. Part of my job is working with other researchers on analysis of very large data sets. One of the most difficult things I do is trying to understand the specific questions that the data are supposed to answer. If you ask a general question you get a large set of results that are not interpretable. If you ask a specific question I know what data are required, what statistical and computational methods to apply, and I can give you something meaningful (and manageable) to test. Can't be that different with any large data set. Originally posted by powerman So lets say Mr. Powerman attends a mosque with known ties to radical groups. Even though you personally have done nothing (so far), because you associate with known radical sympathizers you are a suspect and are subject to surveillance (probable cause?). Big difference than just being on the street and stopped without probable cause because you are black, Muslim, Hispanic, etc. Originally posted by Left Brain I agree that the NSA surveillance should focus on those who have stated a desire to harm us, and those who have contact with them. That's the nexus that ties it all together. I couldn't imagine in 1000 years why you'd need my phone or computer information as it applies to terrorism against our country. I'm willing to bet 99% of us are the same. But for those of us who do have contact with our known enemies......you just became a known enemy too...and now a justifiable target of surveillance. It's the justifications that are screwed up......the lack of a nexus. We all know they don't need our information to do the job....so why have it? So how is that different that stop and frisk? I'm asking seriously, legally. Is it the action? I mean, if black males with saggin pants and playing rap music commits 90% of the crime in a city, then that's the population that needs to be targeted. But I am assuming stop and frisk is not "surveillance" or monitoring, but taking action... yet I don't quite get the distinction, because monitoring is just a big net cast on those you target to see what shakes out. Well so is a frisk, you are casting a net of those you target to see what shakes out. I'm not advocating "stop and frisk" by any stretch of the imagination. Walking down the street is not probable cause. Last month when testifying before congress the NSA admitted they used the 3 hop rule for investigating people. So, if Bad guy suspected of doing something calls 30 people on his phone, they will then look into all the people who those 30 people called and then look into all the people that they all called. With 6 degrees of separation worldwide and the terror watch list having 700k+, that pretty much means we've all been "investigated" (whatever that means) lol I'm no NSA expert but I'm guessing that's exactly what they do. The data (phone call data) is sifted for very specific types of profile info, the rest is dumped. Dumped how? What's their data retention policy? Right now it's legally five years. When the Utah facility comes online next month the only limitation will be whatever the FISA courts allow, unless Congress decides to intervene. If I put the tinfoil hat on, after Clapper's blatantly lying to Congress, I am not so certain the NSA would fully comply. As far as the specific question goes, that's the hard part. And it gets exponentially harder when you try and troll through disparate data types. If I continue the analogy of science, what happens is the data analysis becomes so complex and the right questions so hard to frame properly two things happen: 1. You just start looking for things you already know to help validate your existing hypothesis. 2. You was a lot of time and resources trying to validate things that appear interesting (novel, relevant, etc.) but are statistically insignificant. So you collect more data. |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Texas cheerleaders win in court again over Bible banners Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
| Catholics - Why do you do that? Pages: 1 2 3 4 |
| |||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK