HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If Big Brother is listeni...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 06:54 AM

If Big Brother is listening to everything was say and everything we do, why do we have crime?

If their mission is to keep us safe, they are not!
If their mission is to stop acts of terrorism, they are not!

You say a murder is not an act of terror? Ask the victims. You say rape and robbery is not a crime? Ask the victims.

They are monitoring all activity, so they should be able to prevent many crimes and solve those they can't prevent.


If this is not the case, then what are they listening to?

18 replies, 1229 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply If Big Brother is listening to everything was say and everything we do, why do we have crime? (Original post)
liberal N proud Jun 2013 OP
graham4anything Jun 2013 #1
PennsylvaniaMatt Jun 2013 #18
djean111 Jun 2013 #2
customerserviceguy Jun 2013 #3
randome Jun 2013 #4
liberal N proud Jun 2013 #5
djean111 Jun 2013 #6
treestar Jun 2013 #14
djean111 Jun 2013 #17
randome Jun 2013 #8
treestar Jun 2013 #15
WovenGems Jun 2013 #16
treestar Jun 2013 #13
KurtNYC Jun 2013 #7
DCKit Jun 2013 #9
BenzoDia Jun 2013 #10
Savannahmann Jun 2013 #11
treestar Jun 2013 #12

Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:03 AM

1. THEY ARE NOT LISTENING.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 04:58 PM

18. +1

Once again, graham, telling it like it is, right to the point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:05 AM

2. I don't think they are listening to everything. Not possible, especially in real time.

The data collection seems to be most useful for after the fact or for watching/listening in on actual suspects.
The only way your scenario would work is if we were living in the Tom Cruise "Minority Report" world, or The Truman Show, and there were bugs and cameras literally everywhere, not just in convenience stores and ATMs, etc.
I don't think most rapists and robbers and murderers make phone calls about what they are planning to do; I think most of those crimes are secretive and impulsive. And I believe detectives can request phone data concerning suspects and victims, and that data is useful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:14 AM

3. They haven't developed the pre-cogs yet. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:18 AM

4. You are making the assumption that everything Snowden says is true.

He said "I'm not going to hide" and then hid in Hong Kong and has now disappeared entirely.

So giving credence to his allegations without evidence of some sort seems premature.

It's more likely, based on what you asked about crime, that the NSA is not spying on anyone without legal warrants.



Stop looking for heroes. BE one.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:22 AM

5. It is an IF question looking at the assumption

The reason I ask this question is because I am unsure about how much they truly are collecting.

If they are collecting this much information, why isn't it solving crime?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:38 AM

6. They are not looking for the type of crime you are asking about.

And - I have not heard of ANY government member saying the allegations are not true, all I hear is that what they are doing is legal and that they NEED to do it. And that this has been going on for years and years, so why get upset now.
So whether the messenger is hiding or strolling down Pennsylvania Avenue eating a snow cone is irrelevant to what he has said, to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:55 AM

14. I guess considering both sides

Of an issue is out of the question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 04:31 PM

17. Two sides of what issue? Whether Snowden is telling the truth, or

whether the government is collecting all that data?
As far as Snowden is concerned, all I can tell is that it is true, but they have been doing it for a long time and it is legal. I have not seen any sort of denial. That is why I think Snowden's character or girlfriend or education or veracity in other things is immaterial.
As to whether the data collection is legal, damned if I know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:45 AM

8. It's not solving crime because it's illegal for them to look at it without a warrant.

Also impossible to review the entire country's daily communications -even hourly communications- even if they were inclined to do that without a warrant.



Stop looking for heroes. BE one.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:57 AM

15. Why would metadata on phone

Calls solve crime ? Whoosh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:03 AM

16. Watson

If you watched Jeopardy when that IBM Watson played then you know why the computers can't solve boo. A answer like "Halt, insert proboscis into sex organ of plant" left poor Watson in the dark. Computers are databases that query those databases. Fuzzy thinking is required for tougher questions. Thus this massive computer is just a file cabinet that still needs a human to make sense of it.

Smart computers are a marketing scheme for AI doesn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:54 AM

13. +1

There has been an emotional jump into hyperbole now they think their calls are being tapped.

Why would the government even bother? The hilarious thing is that it is the same rich or powerful people they hate who are the ones likely to be tapped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:41 AM

7. They record so they can find and play back calls later.

For example, after the Boston bombers are identified they can go back to the recordings of their phone calls and listen to all of them and see who they conspired with and then pursue the co-conspirators ASAP.

The problem in stopping crimes and terrorism is not with intelligence gathering. Bush was told 36 days before 9/11/01 in a daily briefing memo that "bin laden determined to strike within US" , specifically with airplanes. They had the hijack teams under surveillance. The intelligence community did their job. The failure was elsewhere in the chain.

Surveillance's primary role is identifying bad actors, before or after they commit whatever. Stopping them or catching them falls to others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:53 AM

9. Common crime is not their issue, never has been.

 

The poor don't have cell phones or Internet access. The NSA and CIA can't track them. If they did, some of this would make sense.

I had a gang of ten year olds threaten to kill me last weekend. I'm terrified for my neighbors and friends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:22 AM

10. FISA = Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Prisim is not a general purpose law enforcement tool.

One end of the comm has to be foreign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:49 AM

11. Churchill was given a test of his resolve to win the war.

The Germans were going to bomb Coventry, and through Ultra, the decryption of German radio traffic, Churchill learned of this attack. He could evacuate the city, and focus intensive anti-aircraft fire there and destroy many German Planes, and save many lives. But in doing so, he would let the German's know that we were reading their messages. Churchill sacrificed Coventry, and the people, and the vital industrial base there producing aircraft components, to save the secret of Ultra.

With this simple understanding, remember that our Government is and was well aware of this historical fact. How would they react if they had a choice. Give up a vital intelligence asset, be it technical like Prism, or a well placed spy, and sacrifice a few hundred, or thousand people, or save those few peoples, and risk much more down the line.

We sent people into the Pacific, who died because we assumed that sacrificing them was better than the intelligence we would lose if the Japanese changed their codes, and we lost Magic.

The CIA didn't mind one bit when the Rosenberg's were executed, because they had been reading the Russian traffic, and the Rosenberg's had been named during the Venona project. Interestingly enough, the CIA had been ordered to end the project, but they decided they knew better than those pesky politicians always interfering in things.

So when you say that our Intelligence Agencies, and Contractors are not out of control, and not invading our privacy, I know better because I know history. The CIA has never walked away from the chance to read someone's mail. Despite the fact that reading someone else's mail has caused as many problems as it solved. The Zimmerman Telegram started American direct involvement in the First World War. We would probably gotten in anyway, we were too closely tied to the Allies to allow them to lose, our economy would have been ruined a decade earlier.

We killed Yamamoto because we learned from Magic where he would be. In doing so, we killed one of the greatest tactical leaders the Japanese had. Yet, even Yamamoto could not turn the events around at Guadalcanal, and his operation at Midway was an abomination of Byzantine complexity. All we did was take their best, and give someone else a chance to be better. What would have happened if the next guy was an actual genius, who understood the need for combined arms attacks better than Yamamoto? We would have lost hundreds of thousands of more lives.

How many of you would have moved to Coventry to make the bombing look good if you had known it was vital to save the secret of Ultra? How many Civilian lives were lost to make sure we kept our secret? You can argue that the lives saved was two or three or ten to one. But why do we allow ourselves to be the pawns sacrificed to keep a secret?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:50 AM

12. Because they are not?

Good grief !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread