Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Metadata question. Does this include government, military and police communications?

Posted 2 years ago on June 13, 2013, 12:48 p.m. EST by windyacres (1157)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Any reason why it wouldn't include all of these communications?



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by windyacres (1157) 2 years ago

We know now that surveillance of all communications is recordable. Why is their a need for hearings where people testify to events? Can't the Congressional oversight committees review the specific communications for answers to their questions?

Hearings are held on past events. People die, forget, or don't communicate clearly when they testify. There is suspicion of evasiveness sometimes.

We know now the communications that occur during an event can easily be recorded. Verbal or hand written memos wouldn't be available but who does business like that anyway? Security of classified information is still secure, only the oversight committees would have access.

All government, military, and police communications should be recorded if they are not already.

As the president has said, "If we can't trust our government, we are going to have problems."

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 2 years ago

Military, police and government comms are mainly encrypted and through secure networks. For anyone concerned with matters of cyber-security, please see - https://www.eff.org/ and also for more information - http://www.nationofchange.org/terror-bytes-edward-snowden-and-architecture-oppression-1371132973 . Never Give Up Meditating Upon 'Freedom and Liberty! Occupy Transparency and Democracy! Solidarity.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1157) 2 years ago

Are they recorded so that they could be accessed in the future?

[-] 1 points by Ache4Change (3340) 2 years ago

Probably. Much more info here - https://www.eff.org/ . Solidarity.

[-] 2 points by windyacres (1157) 2 years ago

Thanks for the link. Solidarity to you.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 2 years ago

'Former Vice President Dick Cheney (R), whose false statements helped propel the United States into an eight year war in Iraq, said Sunday that citizens should simply “trust” the federal government on matters of privacy and security.' from - http://www.nationofchange.org/dick-cheney-laughs-privacy-concerns-over-government-surveillance-1371479624 .Never Stop Asking The Hard Questions! Occupy Transparency! Solidarity.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

It does where those in power deem it beneficial or profitable, yes.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1157) 2 years ago

If no one can access them without a warrant, why wouldn't they record everything? No one has anything to hide, right?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

Well, why a definition, or presence of the word, "privacy" at all? Could it be that the desire for privacy is evolutionary? And that it occurs for a reason? Privacy is antithetical to cause of such surveillance; the intent is to invade privacy, are not all then susceptible to their scrutiny?

[-] 2 points by windyacres (1157) 2 years ago

Yes and the 4th Amendment provided privacy. Our president says we can't have 100% privacy and 100% security, and 0% inconvenience. All should be susceptible to their scrutiny, including themselves.

[-] 3 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Privacy is security from the unjust scrutiny of others.

[-] 2 points by windyacres (1157) 2 years ago

Hope you start a forum post on this article. One of the best from truth-out.


[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

As you can see, http://occupywallst.org/forum/history-teaches-that-we-have-the-power-to-transfor/ as of this writing, there hasn't been any interest expressed in discussing an excellent article about the nuts and bolts of bringing forth positive change. That would require actual study and planning and more importantly, actual community building beyond the mere attention seeking protesting that most folks here are about.

[-] 3 points by windyacres (1157) 2 years ago

Sadly, I agree. We are still in the stage of attention seeking protesting instead of community building. The nuts and bolts of bringing positive change needs energy, I feel that outrage from the busy masses could spark that energy. The karen Hudes conglomerate story has that possibility.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

While I agree with our president, I also believe the potential for abuse is far too great. They have already proven they are capable of electioneering fraud and the use of federal agencies against political opponents - what's next? Beyond executing opponents, is a "next" even possible?