ACLU forces government to reveal skyrocketing surveillance stats

page: 3
31
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Looking at these graphs it occurs to me that in the future, historians will mark September 11th 2001 as the beginning of the end of the Republic. It's really just incredibly astonishing how far the US Governments activities against her own people have gone just since 2001. And it's not just phone tracking but the tracking of all forms of information, cell phone activity, location gathering, information farming from social media.

Logically one can only come to a single conclusion when taking into account the increased activities against our people. The Government is gathering it for a reason, and even if it's not gathering for a nefarious reason in the wrong hands the infrastructure they are building could be used against any group of people.




posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by JackBauer
I guess when i see those graphs i'm not so much concerned with the numbers as i am the huge spike in 2009.

What exactly happened in 2009 that caused this massive jump? Criminals come and go by nature, they don't just quadruple in one year.


Excellent point. It's the fact the graph has gone exponential that's the key here. The numbers, although I admit surprised me by their tiny size compared to my expectation, are probably a divide and conquer distraction, as demonstrated in this thread!

Gravity pull of the singularity (or abyss as one poster said) means we are speeding up and it will get very much faster from here on. You can see this exponential acceleration all over the place.

Keep your eyes on Spain (forget Greece and Portugal for now), wait for Italy to join in, then the UK and when Germany kicks off it is over for the European cabal and the US will follow. IMO


Buckle up, learn to express love and be prepared for ANYTHING!
edit on 29-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-9-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT3
 



It just makes me very sad to know that people actually expect to be "surveiled" (i make up badly thought out words all the time). How can you truly expect privacy if you also expect that Big Brother is actually watching you? And when did American's give up this expectation of privacy for the relatively safe harbor of tyranny?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Ericthenewbie
 



Your fallacy lies in the way you apply context. Sure, 50k out of 300mil is not a large number. But that 50k represents individual people. Individuals with individual rights.

To help shed light on my viewpoint, consider this:


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.



I think we are all familiar with the above, no need to source.

So, they have come for that 50k people and you are not speaking out. When will you?


My fallacy lies in the way I imply context?

I'm being factual based on the numbers from the article...70,800 being monitored = 0.022619% of total US population...

If you believe that to be a big number then you must also have the belief that every single person in the US is 100% innocent of any wrong doing..no gangs, no drug dealers, no murderers, no kidnappers, no rapists, no child molesters, no thieves, no fraudsters, no mafia, no embezzlers and so on.

The article doesn't identify who is being monitored (just type of monitoring that is taking place)...so again, unless you believe there are no bad apples in any group, my analysis of the numbers isn't a stretch by any means.

That being said, I do believe that every push from governments and corporations to change laws and policies in regards to accessing a citizens personal information has to be challenged at every opportunity! I have never said nor indicated that I believe any differently!

When people exaggerate, embellish or fear monger.. it does nothing positive for the cause..it simply diminishes their creditability and turns those that might have otherwise joined the fight, against you...hindering you rather than helping you....which in turn, let's the governments and corporations further invade your rights and freedoms without contention!

Again, my posts have been in relation to this article and the numbers presented within...outside of that, conspiracy88 has very valid points in their first post....what aren't we seeing?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Ericthenewbie
 


First of all, "drug dealing" should not be illegal and represents an erosion of liberties. "Let the buyer beware" is a cornerstone of American commerce that, in our encroaching nanny state, we have forgotten about.

RE: murderers, child molesters, etc, etc...does surveillance actually work on that?

Eavesdropping is shameful. I don't care why it is done.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 



I think you are working with the wrong set of numbers.


I pulled the numbers from the article and the article is based on the US...how could they be wrong? (honest question)



Ask yourself how many analysts are required to sift through all of this information?
Fortunately, this fact alone tends to cap the number.


None, if you've created the right programming code(s) which in turn doesn't cap the number.


Moreover, it also doesn't take into account the other types of electronic surveilance ativity not addressed by the article. And, it doesn't identify which groups of people are the targets of this activity.


I agree that it only covers phone, email and internet in the article ..but it would be great if you could elaborate on the "other types of electronics" you refer to? Also agree it doesn't cover groups of people being targeted by this activity in the article ...could be joe public but also could be anyone of those 9,000,000 people within the Us' corrections system (again the article is lacking in details).


The essential problem is the apparatus continues to grow. Our relationship to government is changing. We are moving into an ominous direction....exposing ouselves to potential abuses...


I don't disagree with that statement, I only based my responses from the content within the article.



It doesn't take a whole lot to subjugate large groups of people. So in that sense, it seems unreasonable to compare the level of this activity against the entirety of the United States population and assume it has little significance.


As mentioned before, I don't think this topic isn't important just that we should be putting it into proper perspective...if the article is talking about the amount of people in the US being "watched", how is the amount of people in the US not relevant?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Ericthenewbie
 


First of all, "drug dealing" should not be illegal and represents an erosion of liberties. "Let the buyer beware" is a cornerstone of American commerce that, in our encroaching nanny state, we have forgotten about.




To clarify, I was thinking of illegal narcotics such as heroin, meth and crack when I wrote "drug dealing"...if you wanted to be technical about it..the argument could be made that "drug dealing" isn't illegal if you consider the big pharma industry...Can I conclude you are okay with that industry based on your statement above?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ericthenewbie

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Ericthenewbie
 


First of all, "drug dealing" should not be illegal and represents an erosion of liberties. "Let the buyer beware" is a cornerstone of American commerce that, in our encroaching nanny state, we have forgotten about.




To clarify, I was thinking of illegal narcotics such as heroin, meth and crack when I wrote "drug dealing"...if you wanted to be technical about it..the argument could be made that "drug dealing" isn't illegal if you consider the big pharma industry...Can I conclude you are okay with that industry based on your statement above?







To help you understand where I am here....unless the "crime" creates a clear victim, it should not be a crime.

And if there is a clear victim, then things like wiretapping will not often yield results. Wiretapping is a preventive measure, most often (and is how it is used when used in relation to The Patriot Act....preemptive law enforcement). What you are calling a very small number I am calling an utter travesty, because even that very small number is too much.





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join