MovieChat Forums > Snowden (2016) Discussion > I'm OK being monitored if it prevents te...

I'm OK being monitored if it prevents terrorist attacks


This film didn't go too much into that, apart from the bit where it said the US was using these technologies for 'social gain' which would be in the national interest anyway wouldn't it?

Don't we need these technologies to fight terrorism?

There was a scene where his girlfriend questioned him and he responded with, 'I saw you looking at other guys on the dating site we met'.

Well thats not really a matter of national security is it.

I dont really care at all about being monitored on the phone/internet, why should anyone else? Forget your morals and principals and stop being such a weirdo on the internet!

reply

That's the point, though. It doesn't prevent terrorist attacks. Furthermore - it was never intended to stop terrorist attacks. So why would it.

reply

The whole point is that giving anyone these kinds of powers will inevitably end up in them being used for nefarious purposes. Either everyone is good and we don't need control, or some or good and some are bad in which case the bad ones will take advantage, or we're all bad and therefore screwed anyway.

I can't remember the exact laws which were made but making it so that government agencies can spy on anyone - includes politicians and those in positions of power; which opens them up to being manipulated/blackmailed. It would almost be funny if it wasn't so tragic - when the mechanisms which were designed to identify external threats to America were turned inward; they began to destroy the very thing they were supposed to protect.

It is an unfortunate consequence of Western civilization allowing females positions of power/the vote in that they are biologically wired to value security over freedom. And of course politicians will take advantage of this with false promises of security in exchange for freedoms, and once those freedoms are gone they are very hard to get back (usually with the cost of blood)

reply

I dont really care at all about being monitored on the phone/internet, why should anyone else? Forget your morals and principals and stop being such a weirdo on the internet!

You approve these intrusions not because you're enlightened but because you're a moron. To blithely cast aside a claim to personal privacy generations have fought long and hard to establish simply because it hurts your brain to think, because a corrupt banking elite financing a non-existent 'war on terror' they themselves instigated haven't told you that a world without borders necessarily means personal lives without them as well, and because you've never in your silly, empty existence had to consider anything more pressing than whether to down that Sex on the Beach in one go or add more ice to your Strawberry Daiquiri constitutes about as profound an exhibition of contempt for those who went before us as it's possible to imagine in my book. I'm sorry to be blunt but there it is.

Do you trust policemen who demand further powers of intrusion saying 'If you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to worry about'? Perhaps you do. I suggest you talk to people from Eastern Europe - people with real experience of real tyranny - before voicing ill-informed opinions. They know what happens when when harmless messages get flagged, when words and phrases 'inadvertently' misconstrued are used to improve the arrest figures for the month. It's hard enough getting officials to abide by safeguards all ready shamefully weakened as it is. Do you really suppose innocence will be any sort of defence?

It wearies me that people bleat about 'freedom' without having the first idea what it entails, but then it seems freedom isn't for everyone, and I've no doubt plenty will agree with you and with Corbin in the film that what people really want isn't liberty but 'security' [a nebulous concept you'll have no say in defining rest assured]. Unfortunately the authorities cannot provide 'security' and have no intention of trying. The 'war on terror' is a ruse you see. It doesn't exist except as a plan to micro-manage of your life. Perhaps you should read H. G. Wells 'The Time Machine' and take a look at those Eloi. You might recognise something.

The funniest part of this feature for me was the involvement of that pious, disgusting rag The Guardian, especially at the end where we meet former editor Alan Rusbridger as 'The Moderator' hosting an internet link up. The list of liberal great and good desperate to squeeze themselves into this production provided its own amusing talking points really, but Rusbridger's presence took the biscuit. He it was after all who stitched up Members of Parliament - including Ian and his wife Christine Hamilton, both entirely innocent of wrong-doing - during the manufactured Cash for Questions 'scandal' that effectively brought Tony Blair to power, a manoeuvre that so incensed journalist Boyd Hunt that he wrote 'Trial by Conspiracy' precisely to document the vast web of deceit put in place at the time by the powerful Guardian/Manchester Evening News media axis. Rusbridger left the Guardian eventually to become head of Lady Margaret Hall College, Oxford, from where he and his slithering, lavishly greased coterie of 'advisors' continue I have no doubt to influence events while posing as champions of personal liberty.

A plague on both their houses.

reply

You approve these intrusions not because you're enlightened but because you're a moron. To blithely cast aside a claim to personal privacy generations have fought long and hard to establish simply because it hurts your brain to think,


Generations? Generations? because we have been using the internet for hundreds of years? complete rubbish. Go home, Quiet while the grown ups are talking.

Listen to what I am trying to say before you respond with your long winded responses.

The whole purpose of this post is to highlight in today's times we are in constant threat of a terror attack and we HAVE to have some kind of way this can be prevented.

What I'm saying if the authorities needed to go through me to track someone down urgently I wouldn't have an issue with them going through my online contacts and activities.

What part of that can you not understand? You sit there talking about freedom when your just a Latte sipping imbecile blurting out various lords that have studied at Oxford.

reply

Give me a few specific examples please of how your freedom and mine (I'm an American) are currently being curtailed by the various apparatuses of the State.

And by this I mean, please tell me some of the things I cannot do or say in public that would make the State go after me and cause me to lose my freedom.

Thanks!

reply

The film shows you an example of that very thing. If you disclose to journalists that the government is performing illegal surveillance you will get charged with espionage and lose your freedom.

The criminals in this scenario weren't charged because they were the government. The whistle blower was charged instead and he was charged with several crimes and had his passport revoked. What greater example do you need to see?

Now use your imagination and extend it to any other freedoms you might enjoy that the government can declare illegal in future, put you on trial in a secret court and then kill you extrajudicially. The US government calls it "self-defense" since it would otherwise be illegal since you are not at war with the country in question. This happens every day to non-US citizens and civilians are treated as collateral damage; what makes you think you're special?

Heck, they don't even need to charge you with a crime, they can just use the information they've collected to manipulate or blackmail you. Again, an example shown in the film was the banker; and this was not just cinema, it was based on Snowden's accounts reported by the journalists back in 2013.

You're being willfully ignorant if you think this kind of unfettered data collection and flagrant disregard for both domestic and international law isn't dangerous.

reply

Give me a break. I'm not talking about turning over secret documents to a potentially hostile foreign power. Because yeah, that's an act of treason that deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg deserved everything they got.

I'm talking about speaking out against the government of the United States.

You and I can write, blog, tweet, and put on Facebook and Youtube any bloody thing we want about how EVIL we think America and its leaders are and the government won't do anything to us in return.

Nothing.

And the proof is in the pudding: Every day, thousands upon THOUSANDS of people are broadcasting the most anti-American swill you can imagine on more platforms than you can think of and the government does nothing by way of retaliation.

And what's incredible is the sheer number of people who feel oh-so-brave for "taking on" the U.S. government this way. As if they're living in a police state. As if they're David standing up to Goliath. Insanity.

A police state is North Korea, or Putin's Russia, or a Communist dictatorship like Venezuela or Cuba, or any friggin' country in the Arab world. Try speaking out in one of those places, why don't you.

But the USA? A police state? Or anything within a billion miles of a police state??

You've got to be kidding me.



reply

Though to be fair, it probably seems far more like a police state if you're black and especially if you're poor than if you're not.

reply

Jewel v. NSA class action lawsuit. The position of the federal government is, regardless which party is in power, is that you can't argue encountering suffering from mass data collection as it involves anyone.

The precedence of said trial is, that the executive does away with the judicial arm to press the legislative arm to do their bidding. Now if there were something called checks and balances...

Lavabit rather shot down, than to allow a backdoor into its encryption process, and we know from the Apple phone hack, that the DOJ doesn't wait or asks for permission.

In closing, to opposite methods from 2 German states from their era: West Germany was plagued by homegrown terrorism in the '70s and '80s, so the federal criminal agency devised a method to compare suspected terrorists with their known contacts, and analyzed the likelihood of them being suppliers, sympathizers or yet to be uncovered terrorists. They succeeded without the need to survey the whole country. On the other side of the border, the Stasi had a machine, that was automated to open up all letters coming from or going out the country, then reseal it after reading. A few thousand people still managed to escape the country before its downfall, but they, the Securitate and the KGB came closest to what people like to call thought police. Actually, no, the Tokko, the special branch of the Kempetai in Imperial Japan was the actual thought police.

We behind the Iron Curtain got to learn about these methods after the fall of the regimes, no defector came from any fabric, that has disclosed the scope and magnitude of mass surveillance. Mechanical surveillance is but a part of it, try a sleuth of people, who volunteer or is being coerced into spying on you. The so called secret trials, the little we know about them, is either a precursor to show trials, or they already are.

I have to join others in bringing the point home that no, these systems don't stop anything, nor do they prevent it. In large part because it's only mechanical surveillance, and no field agent extends it with an in-depth report if the target is actually dangerous, or how dangerous they really are. If you're a conservative, you have a buddy with whom you frequently go to a gun range to practice, but your buddy has a cousin, who writes an essay on domestic terrorism, so his search terms come up with white supremacy, pipe bombs, church shootings, etc. You the know the guy's cousin, you're being watched. The same with a liberal, a friend of theirs goes to the same organic artisan shop, they purchase similar foods, like the same movies, and the other one was in the Occupy movement, but one of their older relatives was a member of the Weather Underground, still at large, so they're under surveillance.

This may seem as overblown, or a joke, but it's neither. This is the only issue affecting everyone, including Americans, where you already are proven guilty by association until you can prove to be innocent. The 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments exists because it's based on precedence, namely the redcoats making any *beep* up to perform unlawful search and seizure. Saying I have nothing to hide, like the OP does, is nothing short of Loyalist behavior. It's also a lie. No sane person would tell an other at a first date, that there was cancer or mental illness in their family history, that they're nail biters, they snore, or they like to watch other people having sex.

I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Escher.

reply

>> Give me a few specific examples please of how your freedom and mine (I'm an American) are currently being curtailed by the various apparatuses of the State.

The problem is that we will never know.

reply

I actually see it the other way around. I am OK with terrorist attacks if that is the price of not having other people intruding on my privacy. I'm not even a lawbreaker. I just value freedom over security.

reply

so your okay with thousands of innocents being killed,

As long as no one knows what websites you visit (-____-)

reply

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ~Benjamin Franklin


Do you have any idea why one of the most astute of our Founding Fathers said that?

reply

Its about sacrifices, Very small ones for what it COULD prevent.

reply

Eh? I'm not following you. Sacrificing what to prevent what?

Why would he say that people who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither?

He never said anything about the amount of liberty being sacrificed to be "very small ones".

reply

Sacrifice sounds like such a strong word for what I'm saying.

Its more just transparency. Being open to authorities looking at your contacts/internet history if they urgently needed to track a terror suspect.

If this were the case, I'd be okay with it.

AND i feel I still deserve my liberties for saying this, so i'd have to respectfully disagree with Mr Franklin there.

reply

It's still not clear at all that you understand why Ben Franklin felt that way.

Do you have any idea at all why he felt people that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither?

reply

not really no,

something like our liberties are our human right? and if we dont have them we aren;t human?

reply

It's ok, I suspect virtually all Americans that pose the question you did including many on this thread probably have no clue either.

The Founding Fathers understood firsthand what it was like experiencing constant persecution from the tyranny of government, in their case from the British Crown who ruled over them as monarchical dictator. They were also well educated men who recognized this pattern with government over and over in history, the natural state of government is to abuse its power, because it's just human nature to abuse unchecked power, and humans are in charge of government. That abuse of power included the abuse of the citizenry ruled by government.

That's why when they won the war and it was time to form a government they tried to make it a government by the people for the people by implementing checks and balances by dividing the power of government into 3 branches.

Except there was a problem which could still lead to abuses of the citizenry. That's because the tyranny of the majority in a democratic system still had a great deal of power. They knew the majorities would end up persecuting the minorities as a means of staying in power.

To protect against these abuses they enshrined our inalienable rights into the Constitution and Bill of Rights so that all may be treated fairly and equally no matter who was in power to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

That's why Ben Franklin said what he said. He knew that giving up your inalienable rights to liberty protected by the constitution in exchange for security was a lie because you end up giving up both. Once you give up your rights, the government will never willingly give them back to you because the nature of government is to expand and abuse its power. Trying to sell you the lie that you'll be more secure if you give up your liberties is the oldest trick in the book by governments using fear to wrest power away from its people in order to rule more effectively. Human rights makes the job of effective governing far more difficult and less corruptible when the citizens actually have rights and the government can't just decide who to sacrifice and run roughshod over when disputes arise.

So one of the key rights is the 4th amendment that grants us the right to privacy so the government can't just kick down your door and search and seize you personal effects, tap your phone, open your mail, and monitor your private conversations without probable cause and a warrant.

I hope it's self evident why the 4th amendment is important. Without it, how would it be any different than living in Soviet East Germany, where everyone was monitored constantly by government and lived in a constant state of paranoia and fear?

And remember, law abiding people that did nothing wrong were not free from living in a constant state of fear either. They had to live terrible, paranoid lives too in constant fear of being falsely accused and turned in by government informers who made up 1/3rd of the citizenry. They didn't have rights that would protect them against the tyranny of government. The Constitution is what protects us from the abuses of a totalitarian state.

You might think that's being over dramatic, because all you're giving up is a little bit of liberty so the government will keep you more safe. But even Ben Franklin 200 years ago knew the truth. It never stops there. You've been sold a lie of the government being able to keep you more safe, and once you give up that liberty, you're not going to get it back without fighting and tooth and nail for it, and most importantly ... giving up liberty actually makes you LESS SAFE. This is the truth that Ben Franklin and the other Founders knew and foundation of the Constitution was written with this danger very much in the forefront of their minds.

It's as true today as 200 years ago. The technologies the government has now has never been shown by the government how it makes us more safe or has ever prevented a terror attack. Bulk data collection, which is in effect violating the 4th amendment by seizing everyone's private conversations to store and access without a warrant, actually makes us LESS SAFE because of the sheer volume of data. What's most effective is the old fashioned way of requiring PROBABLE CAUSE before the government can violate our personal space.

And in the end, the most important reason it makes us LESS SAFE is the same. It's a slippery slope. Because by doing so we've given up our rights, and the nature of government is to abuse and expand its power, so it will always be pressing you and trying to make you more fearful to give up more rights until we no longer have rights at all. You might find it hard to believe, but this has always been the consistent pattern of governments and how dictatorships and totalitarianism starts. Look at 1930s Germany, a democratic and highly civilized, industrious society until Hitler came to power and staged terrorist attacks that he framed communists as committing in order to terrorize Germans into giving up their rights in exchange for security and thereby gave him the absolute power to transform Germany into a fascist state.

reply

Thanks for explaining this, really good strong response to my theory.

First post I've seen that would even make me think about changing my views on this, although i'll stick to my guns.

See, what a great discussion this is, and this will all be no more once they close the message boards. 😢

I salute you Sir/Madam!

reply

It really is a shame, especially to those like myself who don't use Facebook and so can't engage with IMDB using Facebook as they cite their members do primarily these days to justify the forum shutdown. I always found the notion of Facebook highly invasive and disturbing for those of us that value personal privacy when their security is so easily compromised. My refusal to use their service runs more pragmatic than principled, so sadly at some point it may no longer be useful for me not to.

One more thing I should mention on the false liberty-security dichotomy that Ben Franklin was indirectly exposing as fraudulent in that quote. I should point to the present day example that reinforces its accuracy. Former senator Jim Sensenbrenner, responsible for drafting the original Patriot Act in that moment of national cowardice 15 years ago when our reps in congress betrayed our national values and sacrificed much of our fundamental 4th amendment rights to privacy at the the false altar of security after 911, a few years ago admitted it was a mistake and wants to see it repealed.

The reasons being that the extrajudicial powers granted to the government by the Patriot Act, ostensibly to better "keep us safe" have been so thoroughly abused by using the powers granted to monitor and track us in ways and scope which the law never originally intended when written. This goes back to how the natural state of government power, all power really, is to abuse it by pushing the boundaries of what is reasonable and overreach. In this case an analogy would be like consenting to let agents into your house for a look around to better protect you and they use your permission to also set up surveillance cameras and bug each and every room as justified to better keep you safe.

Meanwhile, while they promise you and everyone else that surveillance feeds from inside your homes would only be used to pursue terrorism, they were also sharing those feeds with all their law enforcement agencies behind your back. Those agencies were then free to use the info as the sole source to build profiles and criminal cases on people. Feds were working with state and local police using an infamous process now known as 'parallel construction' where surveillance data was trawled for prosecutable crimes, which is what the 4th amendment is supposed to protect us against.

So yeah, the consequences of giving up essential liberty in the Patriot Act is a great modern day example of what he meant. We are not more safe by giving up our rights, the government could never demonstrate their capabilities as having prevented a single attack. But we are unquestionably less safe to persecution by our own government by being dumb enough to allow the agents through the front door after 911.

And like someone mentioned below, this does effect us law abiding citizens. Don't you want to know that you can freely exercise your constitutional right to protest government without having to worry about persecution, harassment, and blackmail? Because MLK couldn't when FBI boss J Edgar Hoover abused the surveillance powers his position granted him by trying to use tapes of the affairs King conducted to extort him into killing himself. The letter written to King anonymously urging suicide was discovered in Hoover's archives after his death. King had done nothing illegal. Marital infidelity is a personal affair the government has no business being involved in.

As a law abiding citizen, you wouldn't like it if you had to constantly worry that anything you do could be potentially mis-perceived, taken out of context, and used against you. They aren't against the law per se, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be embarrassed either personally or professionally (where it could jeopardize your career depending on your employer and what kind of job you have) enough that it could be used to try to extort you. That's Orwellian totalitarianism and Big Brother at work.

reply

Here's the problem, that was outlined in the film. The intelligence agencies are monitoring more than twice as many American communications as they are in Russia. Why do they need to do this? Why are Americans monitored the most, versus places where *known* terrorist cells are?

I am not a threat, you are not a threat, 99% of Americans aren't a threat. So, why would the government need access to my personal life, to "prevent terrorism"?

Remember, our government was collecting data and building FBI profiles on civil rights activists, in order to infiltrate and disrupt their activities. Yes, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was on their list. The protesters that joined him were on their list. This program, COINTELPRO, was active from 1956-1971, after Congress found out about it and shut it down.

Was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a threat to national security? No. But he sure was a threat to those in power.

If their goal was to squash the Civil Rights Movement, and they had access to the activists personal data, locations, and communications, you bet they would've been able to stop the movement.

And that's the point. There will always be corrupt people in power, people that feel threatened by those that oppose them. It only takes a few, really, to use a program like mass surveillance for ill. It only takes a few to decide what is or isn't a threat to them and their position of power, but couch it in terms like "national security". Like I said, it was done for almost 15 years, as recently as 48 years ago, without the knowledge of our Congress - and that's only what we know of.

So, no, I don't engage in any illegal activities. But I definitely don't want my personal information to be accessed by my government. That is such an extreme and intimate violation of my rights - of all of our rights.

reply

Well stated.

reply

OK ... how would you know?

How could you know if you are an inventor say, and the
USA government needs something you are inventing, so
it watches you and takes your data and then before you
can patent your work it lets someone else steal it and
start a company with it.

How would you know if our government was taken over
by the Mafia after the Kennedy assassination, or fascists
escaped from Nazi Germany with tons of money and gold
who have insinuated themselves into the tech sector of
the economy and taken our government over?

Ever wonder why we still have organized crime even with
all this surveillance technology?

I might agree with your if the information was open to everyone
and not used unequally, but it is.

reply

Being monitored by your government is a terrorist attack.

The Founding Fathers specifically wanted these types of practices precluded.

Sixth Article of the United States Constitution:

The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

reply

How far would the monitoring go, though?

reply

So are you okay with the government violating the laws it is supposed to operate under, and the Constitution that protects your rights from government overreach, as long as they keep you safe and you "have nothing to hide"?

What if the next President, or the one after that, is not from your party, and uses that power for more than just stamping out terrorist plots, such as cracking down on critics and protestors? What's to stop him or her, if the law and the Constitution don't matter anymore?

Oliver Stone made that argument in passing, clearly pointing to Trump, but what if some future President is worse than Bush/Obama/Trump/Biden/etc.? There's a real reason there are legal constraints on government power.

reply