Tice said the communications were collected and stored, not that it was analyzed. I don't see the problem. Am I wrong about something?

 

What I "think" I heard him say is that they are stored, as you say, but they are analyzed not by humans but, rather, by software programs using algorithms to find "problems."

 

If my understanding is correct then its a big problem. Why? Because detection software would seem to be incapable of using common sense to determine if words like "bomb" or "Israel" or "Al-qaeda" are being used in a context that warrants concern. So, if a flagged word or phrase is heard, regardless of how it was being used, then that person gets flagged in the NSA database. That flag could lie dormant for a while - years. However, somewhere soon or in the future that flag could cause problems for the person.

 

I do find it interesting/surprising that one would think the NSA is "collecting" conversations but not actually "analyzing" them. Why do you think they would not analyze them? Why do you think its OK to even collect them without cause?

 

Last note: Tice claims that it wasn't just journalists who were spied on but also me and you.

What I "think" I heard him say is that they are stored, as you say, but they are analyzed not by humans but, rather, by software programs using algorithms to find "problems."

 

If my understanding is correct then its a big problem. Why? Because detection software would seem to be incapable of using common sense to determine if words like "bomb" or "Israel" or "Al-qaeda" are being used in a context that warrants concern. So, if a flagged word or phrase is heard, regardless of how it was being used, then that person gets flagged in the NSA database. That flag could lie dormant for a while - years. However, somewhere soon or in the future that flag could cause problems for the person.

 

I do find it interesting/surprising that one would think the NSA is "collecting" conversations but not actually "analyzing" them. Why do you think they would not analyze them? Why do you think its OK to even collect them without cause?

 

Last note: Tice claims that it wasn't just journalists who were spied on but also me and you.

 

 

Clyde,I am not calling you out on this. I went back and listened to the interview again. Tice said, "I don't know what was done with the collection. I'm sure the information, the collection was digitized and put on data bases. Somewhere, I'm not sure what was done with it from that point." This guy is just speculating that the information was saved. Therefore he is speculating about the use of "detection software". This makes your first argument mute, at this point.

 

I don't have a problem in the collecting and saving the information if it happened. If a reporter would print or broadcast a story that would indicate he had some direct contact with a terrorist this contact would be pertinent to national security. The anilyzeation could be necessary. If not saved it can't be analyzed.

 

And as far as the NSA collecting and potentially analyzing my communications, if they want to listen to my Aunt B complaining abut her legs hurting her, or my wife nagging me because I spend too much time at work then I can care less. I have nothing to hide.

Whether you have anything to hide or not is not the problem. ^

Whether you have anything to hide or not is not the problem. ^

 

:thumb:

Whether you have anything to hide or not is not the problem. ^

 

The problem is that Bush and all his cronies didn't want another 9/11 on their hands. They also understood that another attack could have been domestic and not foriegn.

 

I'm all for this. Its a computer reading my lips. I also have nothing to hide. I'd sacrifice this to keep me and my country and all the people in my country safe.

The problem is that Bush and all his cronies didn't want another 9/11 on their hands. They also understood that another attack could have been domestic and not foriegn.

 

I'm all for this. Its a computer reading my lips. I also have nothing to hide. I'd sacrifice this to keep me and my country and all the people in my country safe.

 

 

So we give up this freedom now, what freedom will be next? Kind of the same argument the 2nd Amendment people made on their thread, don't you think?

So we give up this freedom now, what freedom will be next? Kind of the same argument the 2nd Amendment people made on their thread, don't you think?

 

:thumb: As Benajmin Franklin said, "Anyone who trades essential liberty for security deserves neither."

:thumb: As Benajmin Franklin said, "Anyone who trades essential liberty for security deserves neither."

 

A timeless quote. I'd probably be safe and sound in solitary at Leavenworth.

:notworthy:

 

They say great minds think alike.

 

I'll bet that helps you sleep at night, huh?

They say great minds think alike.

 

I'll bet that helps you sleep at night, huh?

 

:scared:

Clyde,I am not calling you out on this. I went back and listened to the interview again. Tice said, "I don't know what was done with the collection. I'm sure the information, the collection was digitized and put on data bases. Somewhere, I'm not sure what was done with it from that point." This guy is just speculating that the information was saved. Therefore he is speculating about the use of "detection software". This makes your first argument mute, at this point.

 

I don't have a problem in the collecting and saving the information if it happened. If a reporter would print or broadcast a story that would indicate he had some direct contact with a terrorist this contact would be pertinent to national security. The anilyzeation could be necessary. If not saved it can't be analyzed.

 

And as far as the NSA collecting and potentially analyzing my communications, if they want to listen to my Aunt B complaining abut her legs hurting her, or my wife nagging me because I spend too much time at work then I can care less. I have nothing to hide.

 

Fatman, do you really think that they are going to go through the efforts of collecting this data and not analyze it?

 

Are you also OK with the govt coming into your house and checking your guns every time there is a crime? You've got nothing to hide, right?

Fatman, do you really think that they are going to go through the efforts of collecting this data and not analyze it?

 

Are you also OK with the govt coming into your house and checking your guns every time there is a crime? You've got nothing to hide, right?

 

Clyde, I'm not sure how to answer you except to say, you are making allegations without proof. Please show me a journalist who has been indicted or even accused of a crime based on a collected phone conversation.

 

Although I don't really understand your connection between compiling a database of communications and coming into my house and checking my guns every time there is a crime, I'll play along. The guns in my house have been legally purchased. Therefore there is a record of the purchase which includes serial numbers, gun caliber, and manufacturer, among other information. If I was a suspect in a crime the "govt" could access those records and developed a case. So they have been compiling information on innocent citizens that could potentially be used as evidence for years.

 

As for your assertion that I somehow have something to hide. Who are you and how do you have that type of information on me? Or is this just more speculation on your part.

Come on , Shooter. I'm a big fan of your intelligence and I know you're smart enough to know that the claims are the claims no matter who the claim-er is making them to. KO is not the issue here.

 

What are your thoughts on the actual claims?

 

 

I agree that Tice's credibility can be determined independently from Olbermann's credibility.

 

However, it should be the duty of a journalist to vet the claims of anyone they wish to give a national audience. By putting someone on television, a journalist is implicitly claiming that it's worthwhile listening to who they are interviewing. I have no faith in Olbermann in objectively evaluating Tice's credibility so the question "should I listen to this guy?" remains. This is particuarly true concerning these new claims by Tice's which had been first aired by Olbermann. I also have no faith in Olbermann asking Tice a tough question which is important if you're really interested in searching for the truth. So that's why I said I would not take anything at face value on Olbermann's show. I give the same amount of credibility to Olbermann's show as I do gossip. It might be true; it might be false; most times there's a bit of truth that has been grossly distorted and it is oftentimes repeated by someone with a vested interest in bringing someone else down.

Clyde, I'm not sure how to answer you except to say, you are making allegations without proof. Please show me a journalist who has been indicted or even accused of a crime based on a collected phone conversation.

 

I never made that claim. However, I am supposing with a high degree of confidence that IF the govt goes so far as to file all of our conversations , emails, faxes, credit card transactions (as Tice alleges) that they are not doing it for an IT project. They are doing it for a reason - to snoop. I would find it hard to believe that many folks would think otherwise.

 

Although I don't really understand your connection between compiling a database of communications and coming into my house and checking my guns every time there is a crime, I'll play along. The guns in my house have been legally purchased. Therefore there is a record of the purchase which includes serial numbers, gun caliber, and manufacturer, among other information. If I was a suspect in a crime the "govt" could access those records and developed a case. So they have been compiling information on innocent citizens that could potentially be used as evidence for years.

 

My point about the guns was made in response to your thinking of "check me since I don't have anything to hide." If that's your mentality towards communications it would seem to be your mentality towards all govt intrusions. So, if a crime was committed in your town with a gun then you would be OK if the police came into your house and looked at every gun you (may) own and try to match it up against the remnants of the shooting.

 

I find this hard to believe as well.

 

 

 

As for your assertion that I somehow have something to hide. Who are you and how do you have that type of information on me? Or is this just more speculation on your part.

 

Uh, dude , I was using an example.

I agree that Tice's credibility can be determined independently from Olbermann's credibility.

 

However, it should be the duty of a journalist to vet the claims of anyone they wish to give a national audience. By putting someone on television, a journalist is implicitly claiming that it's worthwhile listening to who they are interviewing. I have no faith in Olbermann in objectively evaluating Tice's credibility so the question "should I listen to this guy?" remains. This is particuarly true concerning these new claims by Tice's which had been first aired by Olbermann. I also have no faith in Olbermann asking Tice a tough question which is important if you're really interested in searching for the truth. So that's why I said I would not take anything at face value on Olbermann's show. I give the same amount of credibility to Olbermann's show as I do gossip. It might be true; it might be false; most times there's a bit of truth that has been grossly distorted and it is oftentimes repeated by someone with a vested interest in bringing someone else down.

 

That's the Shooter I know and love.

 

However, while I understand your overall point, your prior post would seem to indicate a complete dismissal simply based on the fact that it was KO.