Intelligent conversation about surveillance versus the Constitution

[tommyg29]

I think this board is populated by lots of wise old farts whose opinions I value. Most of the time I consider myself one of them, though I am quite capable of the occasional brain fart too. 
I wish to seek knowledge and opinions about this subject because of its complexity. It really is a 2 edged sword. Please do not inject too much in the way of politics, because we all know where that will lead.
I simply ask, how much surveillance is too much? I know what Ben Franklin said about the matter. I know a lot about the constitution and our freedoms, but does it really have to come down to "the price of freedom is having to suffer the occasional bombed subway train or blown up bridge". Really!?
In todays world, people with seriously evil intent have access to weapons that can kill thousands. Maybe even millions!
How do we solve this problem in a way that most people on both sides can agree?

[brads70]

IMO.... the price of freedom has always been paid by the innocent . It always has been and always will be.
What people have to realize is  do they REALLY want to race towards socialism and or communism by giving up there rights and freedoms for the illusion of protection  to leaders ( ANY political party!) that is incapable of not letting corruption and greed and the lust for power and money get in the way of making decisions  with honor and integrity?
It will never happen as human nature has always been what it is!
As the old saying goes .... "absolute power corrupts absolutely "
again IMO.... the best/biggest thing the USA has going for it is the right to bear arms, the idea is it keeps the government from going totally "amuck" Loose that..... your done!
In regards to  " surveillance" ... it's the same as socialism, sounds good at first but human nature WILL screw with it and use it for purposes not intended for. Lots of examples of that already......  

[tommyg29]

Brad,
why am I not surprised you are the first to respond 
But where do we draw the line and how do we determine the line?
There must be some sort of security. Not sure where but arent the feds charged with defending the country? but the military specifically swears to defend "the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic"
Doesnt say anything about defending the citizens.
Regardless, seems to me some reasonable level of surveillance is needed.
Maybe we just rely on good old fashioned detective gumshoe work, and let the people be on the lookout and fend for themselves. Problem is thats usually only good for solving the crime afterwards...not preventing it.
But first time we are hit again there will be lots of people screaming "how come the government didnt protect us!?"

[tommyg29]

Do we want to live in a world where the trains we ride every day, or the planes we fly, or the building we work in, or the school our kids attend, is subject to attack at any time?
That is the world we may live in without any surveillance and covert operations.
Personally, I would accept those risks, but only to a certain extent, because I dont know how I would react if it happened TO ME.

Seems to me that our society now is so apathetic, so accepting of anything goes, and so selfish, that evil doers can go undetected until you read in the paper how "good a neighbor they were, but they kept to themselves". Heck, most of us dont know our neighbors anymore. In "the old days" that wasnt the case. Maybe Im just becoming the crotchedy old man, but I bet thats a part of the problem.
People with evil intentions dont stand out anymore! Probably most of the time they could practically announce what theyre going to do and like a car alarm in the parking lot, because of political correctness, they would get ignored. It has happened. People have turned a blind eye with excuses like "oh he is just ranting" or "he's entitled to his opinion, its a free country"
Our society is such that things slip through the cracks way more than they should. Not saying that people should be ratting on neighbors for every dumb comment they make, but common sense definitely has a place here, and really knowing whats going on around you, and being alert, is as important as ever.

[dodj]

I simply ask, how much surveillance is too much?

I often wonder how much we have already. The surveillance you can 'see', is just the stuff that is done in the open to make people 'feel' secure. 

[BIGSHCLUNK]

Ol' BIGS has a crap load of opinions on this (no surprise I'm sure). Our freedoms are slowly getting whittled away to the point younger folks dont even see it because you cant miss what you never knew you had. That being said I echo my friend Brad on the right to bear arms. I'm going to watch from the sideline to see where this goes...... for now. 

[spamtank]

Brad,
why am I not surprised you are the first to respond 
But where do we draw the line and how do we determine the line?
There must be some sort of security. Not sure where but arent the feds charged with defending the country? but the military specifically swears to defend "the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic"
Doesnt say anything about defending the citizens.
Regardless, seems to me some reasonable level of surveillance is needed.
Maybe we just rely on good old fashioned detective gumshoe work, and let the people be on the lookout and fend for themselves. Problem is thats usually only good for solving the crime afterwards...not preventing it.
But first time we are hit again there will be lots of people screaming "how come the government didnt protect us!?"

What I heard the president say is that "we are not _listening_ to your phone calls."

I think that is a true statement, in that I'm pretty sure they have very good voice recognition software nowadays, and they are technically "reading" our phone calls.

But this has been going on for a while. 

I read a book a few years ago called "The Shadow Factory" by James Bamford, 2008.  Pretty interesting stuff talking about Trailblazer, a follow-on called Turbulence and other programs of the NSA.

Personally, I don't like the idea of being listened to, read, or tracked.  But, I think a certain amount of that may be okay. 

I work for a defense contractor, so I suspect that maybe I maybe at risk of more scrutiny than the next guy.  I do know that my recycling was collected on one occasion before the trash guys got there, along with a few other peculiarities. 

But it does appear that there are plenty of opportunities to use this type of info against our citizens in unlawful manner.  And I believe there is an inherent distrust of the government brewing. 

This has me worried.

[tommyg29]

What I heard the president say is that "we are not _listening_ to your phone calls."

I think that is a true statement, in that I'm pretty sure they have very good voice recognition software nowadays, and they are technically "reading" our phone calls.

So what youre saying is they are playing a game of semantics. Typical legal double talk and done every day in Washington.
With a legitimate court order, I think even listening in real time is appropriate. Obviously we dont have the manpower to listen to EVERY conversation that way, but with some conversations it is called for. What is not appropriate is for a kangaroo type court or judge to just rubber stamp every request, or give blanket approvals.

[tommyg29]

Or....maybe I am a clueless citizen who doesnt comprehend the depth of the technology being used. Maybe they CAN listen in real time to every conversation. Much like google can return millions of results within a second, I imagine it could be possible to scan every conversation for key words, and immediately start recording and archiving those targeted, prioritizing the most promising for immediate analysis, and even directing them to actual persons in real time.
Could be 
I would think though that a system like that could easily be defeated by just speaking in coded terms, like criminals have always done, or, just overwhelming the system with LOTS of people using the same key terms. 

[brads70]

Brad,
why am I not surprised you are the first to respond 
But where do we draw the line and how do we determine the line?
There must be some sort of security. Not sure where but arent the feds charged with defending the country? but the military specifically swears to defend "the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic"
Doesnt say anything about defending the citizens.
Regardless, seems to me some reasonable level of surveillance is needed.
Maybe we just rely on good old fashioned detective gumshoe work, and let the people be on the lookout and fend for themselves. Problem is thats usually only good for solving the crime afterwards...not preventing it.
But first time we are hit again there will be lots of people screaming "how come the government didnt protect us!?"

"Security" and "surveillance"  are not necessarily the same thing? Is not the " country "  it's citizens? That's like saying a "Church" is the building  when really it's the people that make a Church or country what it is? I do expect the government/military to do there best to protect the country and it's citizens that is there # 1 priority IMO?
A country is not the bunch of clowns sitting in a white house ( or any other colour) but rather its citizens and there ideals whether good or bad.
For example your mentioned protecting kids at school. Unfortunately the time has come for armed guards and/or teachers ( if willing and trained) to protect our kids. I don't like it and would rather it not be so but that's the world "we" ( as in humans) have created . That doesn't mean to keep our kids safe we need to wiretap everyone's homes monitor every citizens move, etc.... ( besides doing so will bankrupt our society) 

When I started my business I discovered and used a computer database that when ANY purchase a person made ( other than cash)   is tracked ( bank cards, cheques, credit cards etc..) I used this database to narrow down where the majority of my customers lived. Now I wasn't allowed to narrow it down to a specific person or address but I could find out what a group of people on any street spend on anything you could dream up. In my case it was lawn equipment.  But the fact is the government has been tracking EVERY transaction YOU make for years, this is nothing new.
Or another example... I went to see about building a garage . The city clerk used a satellite to look at my property to see what I had built on it to see if I had enough useable space  to build on.  He came back and said hey that's a nice red Buick you have there....

Telephone conversations have been " monitored" for years, that's nothing new.  I'm quite certain all your internet traffic and everything you type or click onto is also monitored. Electricity usage is monitored, that's how they find drug labs.  So really what else can they monitor?  I suspect people are just waking up to the reality/facts and are shocked by it?   

[tommyg29]

Good points. I know it has been happening a long time, but technology must also be allowing it to get even more intrusive with each passing year.
And now they can monitor us in our living rooms? Hear about the new Xbox? Whats next? the bedroom? bathroom?
1984?

[GranCuda1970]

Been going on for a looooooong time. Clinton had Carnivore activated in the 90's it was monitoring all electronic data.
Europeans were being recorded loooong before that on Tape reel drives during the cold war. Does not seem to stop much or gather much when you gather it all!!  The real terrorism gets lost in the Grand size of the data. Not to mention it is Unconstitutional. 1984 indeed. Those who give up Liberty for Security deserve neither.

[HP_Cuda]

We have lived in a MIC (Military Industrical Complex) for quite some time and Eisernhower was dead on.

Now we are moving towards a police state if not already in one. When normal everyday citizens are being monitored it seems we are all guilty until proven innocent now. This could be limited to folks who are known or at least have links but then folks would argue a few might slip through the cracks. This is one slippery slope and our constitution will never be the same.

I agree the apathetic are allowing this country to become the New World Order. 

[brads70]

And I believe there is an inherent distrust of the government brewing. 

This has me worried.

I agree, an understatement I'd venture to say. It really upsets me to see the USA in such turmoil as half of my family ( wife's side ) are American and how angry they are at the current government. I'm guessing the USA hasn't been this "divided" since the civil war?  SCARY! 

[tommyg29]

personally I think some inherent distrust is always warranted and healthy. We forget...government is considered by the wisest to be a necessary evil. Others have wisely noted that it should fear the people, and not the other way around. But... government should not take that literally by turning on the people to defend itself as if it were some living being. It is not. It is a servant of the people, and many of the life long bureaucrats within it, at every level of government, seem to have forgotten that.
I agree that distrust is higher than it should be, but ask yourself who is responsible for that?

This may be stepping into the political realm for a moment, but one reason people are so upset and distrusting...the government is overstepping its authority, and writing new ones as they go, in all manner of our lives in unprecedented ways, IMO abusing the commerce clause, and the general welfare clause, and pi$$ing off a lot of people in the process.

Pick up my garbage, maintain my roads, police my neighborhood and defend the country. Thats it! Stay out of almost everything else. Maybe a little too simple in this complex world, but this became the greatest country the world has ever seen with not much more than that.

Sorry for the temporary rant. I know most of us feel the same way, but if you dont...and feel our governement should be "leveling the playing field for everyone" or "providing jobs for everyone who wants one", oh well, back to a non-political discussion