PBS Frontline: Domestic Surveillance

[panadero]

Re: PBS Frontline: Domestic Surveillance

I did see this last night...very informative...

pbs has it online now...

Pbs Frontline, Spying...

[Zuggy]

Re: PBS Frontline: Domestic Surveillance

Problem with this, is there is no specification of what "our country" refers to. Is our country Canada? Does Canada know this? I thought the war of 1812 told the U.S. otherwise.

Haha, I still have a tendency to forget World in World Wide Web. As you probably guessed I was referring to the United States of America.

And thanks for the link to the political forum, it serves as an excellent guide to not get "too political"

[TheCotMan]

Re: PBS Frontline: Domestic Surveillance

Our country is entering an era of guilty until proven innocent

Problem with this, is there is no specification of what "our country" refers to. Is our country Canada? Does Canada know this? I thought the war of 1812 told the U.S. otherwise.

On a less humorous note, please avoid Politics and religion on the forums, as it can and has attracted some of the looniest people on the internet. We had a "Politics and Religion" forum. It generated a lot of volume, but little useful discussion.

If you have ever witnessed an online discussion on Usenet, or on a mailing list like "My OS can beat up your OS" then you have some idea what kinds of discussions existed in Politics and Religion-- only about P&R instead of operating Systems.

This said, we have been tolerant, lately, of discussions of laws, and cases where policy has an element of security to it. Where is the line? Tough to know. Every moderator enforces this, but generally agree about what is over the line. However, it is subjective.

I've tried to outline some specific, quantifiable things that seem to exist in threads that are considered "too political" and put them in this thread.

Good luck!

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: PBS Frontline: Domestic Surveillance

Just because your [sic] innocent doesn't mean you have nothing to worry about.

this is precisely something that i wish more people understood. one of the best examples i could give of this phenomenon pertains to firearm ownership (it's a topic that's been getting more attention recently on the forums and in my talks, so i'm just jumping to it because it's convenient... there are loads of other examples in other categories and i'd encourage folks to raise them as well)

Some states have a number of hoops that one must jump through like a trained monkey in order to own guns. I live in one of them, and while my state is pretty bad... at least we do not have "registration" of firearms. Why would i, a law-abiding non-criminal citizen, care about such a thing? Well, it comes down to being innocent but still having plenty to worry about.

Let's say there was a warrant drawn up for a search of my home or the seizure of an individual likely to be there. If a record existed showing precisely all the weapons i own, the police could conceivably make the case that they needed clearance to perform a perfunctory knock-and-announce or even a no-knock serving of said warrant. of course they would have no grounds for it, but when making a case to a judge in a 30-second stroll down a hallway, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they'd trump up some groundless fears.

hence, i could in all truth one day be facedown in my own carpet with officers pointing weapons and me and my family because they're trying to arrest or detain a friend or mine... all because a record somewhere in a drawer was used to make the case that i'm a dangerous citizen deserving of an additional show of force by the state. not saying that this is the most likely of happenings... but i'm happy to stay off the radar as much as possible.

[Zuggy]

Re: PBS Frontline: Domestic Surveillance

It makes want to put your foil hat on.

But on a more serious note, the end hits the nail on the head. Just because your innocent doesn't mean you have nothing to worry about.

Our country is entering an era of guilty until proven innocent

[hackajar]

Re: PBS Frontline: Domestic Surveillance

In Bill Youngs defense, he left the office of Sheiff for these reasons, amongst others.

[tprime]

Re: PBS Frontline: Domestic Surveillance

I managed to watch this last night thanks to the heads up from Deviant. I enjoyed it alot, and learned quite a bit about the level of domestic surveillance we have in this country. I especially liked the part with Alberto Gonzalez, the way he answered those questions before congress was rather revealing. I'm also glad they decided to cover the story about the secret AT&T room, something I've felt has gone overlooked. Thanks for the suggestion, now I know quite how many cameras I'm being watched by at Defcon.

[hackajar]

Re: PBS Frontline: Domestic Surveillance

Awww, I got to wait until 15th to watch online :(

Thanks for the GREAT link though!

[Deviant Ollam]

i just read on Dave Farber's IP List that the May 15th broadcast of the PBS program "Frontline" may be of interest to many of us here. I know i'll be tuned in.

Spying on the Home Front
coming May. 15, 2007 at 9pm (check local listings)

FRONTLINE addresses an issue of major consequence for all
Americans: Is the Bush administration's domestic war on terrorism
jeopardizing our civil liberties? Reporter Hedrick Smith presents new
material on how the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program
works and examines clashing viewpoints on whether the president has violated
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and infringed on
constitutional protections. In another dramatic story, the program shows how
the FBI vacuumed up records on 250,000 ordinary Americans who chose Las
Vegas as the destination for their Christmas-New Year's holiday, and the
subsequent revelation that the FBI has misused National Security Letters to
gather information. Probing such projects as Total Information Awareness,
and its little known successors, Smith discloses that even former government
intelligence officials now worry that the combination of new security
threats, advances in communications technologies, and radical
interpretations of presidential authority may be threatening the privacy of
Americans.