What is Pegasus? How Surveillance Spyware Invades Phones

That's why I said that there SHOULD BE something like an opposing council, a voice for the public's interests, representing the rights of the people, akin to a public defender (whose office does look into the cases, to make sure they seem kosher), which is completely independent, and which also argues before the judge, whenever their office finds a request questionable.

 

This specific technology I’m not sure. The FBI has acknowledged that they own it or rent it and the purchase was made under Trump. This according to the FBI is for no one, they’re just testing it. Something I highly doubt. If you haven’t read the Snowden book then you only know what the media wants you to know, not what Snowden was trying to teach everyone. I’ll go ever that in another post.

 

Snowden talked about how forthcoming our government is. And how loosely they actually monitor their own program keepers. (Snowden did walk out with a crap ton of data from their buildings after all).

Snowden in his book bore witness to people stocking girlfriends, ex’s, or just checking out random nudes and texts. He speaks about encryption and why it’s important (until this program came out). He spoke about the government getting back doors from IPhone, Blackberry, and Droid phones. If you think this access is regulated you’re wrong.

 

If you reread my posts you will find that I said they need to let them Know electronically either by text or email that they obtained data from them after they obtained it. Maybe I wasn’t being 100% clear but in the digital world they could even do it before because nothing is truly deleted. Just as this program in the OP will get deleted info. That’s something else Snowden goes into in his books. How nothing is deleted. It’s a feel good statement

 

You did not address my comment. How reasonable is it, to alert a crime kingpin, who is shipping some sex slaves over the border, in a few days, that a government warrant had been executed on his phone data? Obviously, the shipment would just be cancelled, & rescheduled on a new, burner phone. Same for a terrorist attack: You have to, first, make the bust, before you can tip them off, that they have been monitored-- you understand that, right? Basically, the investigation has to be completed, before notice of it, can be provided. I will grant that, if we equate this to laws about real- life property, it would not seem to fly, with the Constitution, as it has been interpreted. On the other hand, I believe that secret phone taps, under certain conditions, have been found to be Constitutional. I think that there are a lot of cyber issues, which have yet to be examined, by the SCOTUS.

 

You see, what I have been advocating, is that these programs cannot be, "loosely," monitored. This is why my objection, is to our government farming out this work to private business. I believe, if we were to keep it in-house, it would be possible to enforce safeguards, beginning with the granting of the warrants. But if your position is that the government's intelligence services are ungovernable, then how can you not also be against our even having these agencies? There, I believe, is the basis of our different conclusion: I feel these tools can be better regulated. You, apparently, feel there is no hope of this.

 

Yes… in a perfect world that would be great. But you think government people are not people too? They will do the same thing. Snowden was at one time working for the NSA and he discusses how they are in that book as well. He never once suggested that our data was secure from unwarranted government search in that book.

Our data is collected all the time. As in ALL. They store it in huge servers and claim they never look at it without warrants. Look how easily they got a warrant on a presidential campaign. I know you don’t like Trump and trust me I don’t either but the opposing political powers and party in control was able to literally have access to an opposing political challenger. You can’t in a fair mind think that’s justified in any way. This wasn’t just some wacko party running… it was one of two major parties candidates. They were able to do it through a warrant obtained by secret courts and that’s another topic that down right disgusting (secret courts). But that warrant was based on false information from a dossier paid for by the candidates opposition.

you can hate trump but this stuff was abused by our own politicians and they were given a pass just because it was Trump. If that happened to a Bush all hell would have broke out.

 

Secret phone taps can remain secret. If they want to wait until after they make a bust they can do so as well. So long as they provide the warrant or info if no bust occurs. People need to know when their info was looked at by the government. I believe every time a government employee or a contractor of the government access a name it should require by penalty of law that the person knows after the investigation or after they get what they’re after, wether it results in an arrest or not.

 

Some investigations are years long.

 

This is one of your post's two arguments, as I see it. First of all, I see no reason that policies and procedures cannot be changed. In fact, I would presume that a fair part of what is in Snowden's book-- since he did bring these practices out into the light-- is now outdated.

But beyond this, I guess I am less awed by our cyber capabilities, than are you. Not that, in some respects, the digital world can't be impressive. But, from my own interactions with constantly malfunctioning technology, there is a point, beyond which, I am nonplussed, by it. There are so many examples of problems, allowing huge security breaches, requiring constant updating of apps, allowing a website that had a year to set up, knowing that they would get immediately pummelled with users, nevertheless crash, when Obamacare was first offered. There is just a limit to what we can do. So if you tell me that absolutely all of my and everyone else's data was being stored by the government, I would not find that especially alarming. Why? Because that is far TOO MUCH data for the government to possibly keep track of. Just the data about terrorists, was too much for our intelligence agencies to connect the dots, for 9-11; so how in God's name could they keep track of everyone's info? They do not have the personnel, to be able to review, every trivial thing that gets done online, or on the phone. They would essentially be building their own proverbial haystacks, and hiding the pins from themselves. Once the scale becomes too great, it is just no longer practical, to be able to assess, what you've got.

Besides, because of the attention which Snowden drew to this, I believe the wholesale data capture which the government had been practicing, was stopped. So I see these problems of people, being people (as you pointed out, earlier in your post), as being far more worrisome, when the people are working in the dark of secrecy. As long as the public is aware of the programs, our potential scrutiny gives us some ability to keep them honest. But this gets into your other point:

So, what you seem to be saying, is that WE, the PUBLIC, got all the basic details, ultimately, about what went on with the Trump campaign. To my mind, that is a form of oversight. If a majority of the population were as outraged about this, to match your own, obvious concern, you can be sure that this would have forced changes to be made. Note your final line, which deserves more thought, than I think you have given it. Yes, if what our Intelligence services had done, had struck the overall populace as being dirty, or abusive of power, on someone else, "all hell would have broke out." But why didn't it? Because a great many of us, saw there as being reasonable grounds for investigation, in the case of the Trump Campaign. Your seeming mistake, in my mind, is to want to treat all situations, as if they are equal-- which they are not.

We can try to argue into this case, if you think it is especially relevant, though I have forgotten many of the specifics, I'm sure, at this point, and most of the names. But there were actual contacts, in-between the Trump campaign, and people known to be associated with Russian Intelligence. Even if some of it was coincidental, I disagree that our own Intelligence services should just have assumed it all to be innocent, without investigating it at all. I mean, especially with the past history of Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort (look at that, I remembered one, at least!).

As you said, people are people, so it is a false standard, to expect perfection. But, in this case, from what I know, even if one might be able to pick at details, there was a legitimate and overriding cause for concern. I would therefore have seen an ignoring of these multiple interconnections to Russia, as dereliction of duty, on the part of the FBI. And, I would maintain, in this case, my view is the more prevalent one, than yours.

 

Oh, I wasn't sure if that was what you were saying. As long as you're talking after the investigation, I would support that policy.

 

I think if people knew every time their info was looked at it would change the way people view this spying. The notion that “I have nothing to hide” is not necessarily someone saying they have nothing to hide. What it really is is that they don’t believe as you said “they are big fish”. Everyone has something to hide. Everyone has secrets. They are all stored at NSA as well.

 

The problem is with no real knowledge given to the public, no real oversight, there is no way to know if either of our assumptions are true. Based off of what Snowden says I’m sure I’m closer to truth than you realize. If NSA employees had no hard time looking up data on their ex’s, then their ex’s be fling(s) then I think it’s safe to assume the government has no hard time either.