Comments on: The intelligence of the crowd http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/ by Jeff Jarvis Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:40:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Rick Smiddy http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/#comment-21826 Rick Smiddy Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:15:57 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=926#comment-21826 Preventing the abuse of power is the point of having checks and balances. With oversight trust is not an issue. Without it trust is the issue. I do not trust this ethically and credibility challenged president with unchecked power, especially during a war he started for reasons that are highly suspect. And who is to say what a future president would do with unilateral power. As hard as it is to imagine, he or she could actually be less trustworthy than Mr. Bush, though I doubt it. Preventing the abuse of power is the point of having checks and balances. With oversight trust is not an issue. Without it trust is the issue. I do not trust this ethically and credibility challenged president with unchecked power, especially during a war he started for reasons that are highly suspect. And who is to say what a future president would do with unilateral power. As hard as it is to imagine, he or she could actually be less trustworthy than Mr. Bush, though I doubt it.

]]> By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » More secrets about secrets http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/#comment-21804 BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » More secrets about secrets Sun, 01 Jan 2006 04:55:51 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=926#comment-21804 [...] He also trips over himself praising the story itself and does not raise questions about it. I raised some questions here. [...] [...] He also trips over himself praising the story itself and does not raise questions about it. I raised some questions here. [...]

]]> By: Andy Freeman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/#comment-20416 Andy Freeman Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:15:44 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=926#comment-20416 If BushRoveCheneyHitler was the evil alleged by some, they'd let the Dems win on surveillance, let an attack succeed, blame the latter on the former, and watch 10-15 states blink red and the dems disappear as a national power. If BushRoveCheneyHitler was the evil alleged by some, they’d let the Dems win on surveillance, let an attack succeed, blame the latter on the former, and watch 10-15 states blink red and the dems disappear as a national power.

]]> By: Andy Freeman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/#comment-20415 Andy Freeman Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:12:06 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=926#comment-20415 > The fear that the ruling party uses the info for oppo research and tactics against the other party in elections. Remind me - did you care when the Clintons actually did it? (FileGate etc) Or is it only a concern when the NSA under a Repub administration does something that involves the same methods but different targets? > The fear that the ruling party uses the info for oppo research and tactics against the other party in elections.

Remind me – did you care when the Clintons actually did it? (FileGate etc) Or is it only a concern when the NSA under a Repub administration does something that involves the same methods but different targets?

]]> By: Ed Poinsett http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/#comment-20395 Ed Poinsett Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:35:33 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=926#comment-20395 The law lags way behind the reality. Not that this is to be unexpected, but FISA was written before Cell Phones or Disposable Phones even existed. If you're a terrorist today, you can buy a disposable, do your damage and throw it away before a warrant could possibly be issued. Do we ignore this based on some notion of civil rights being trampled? I have no problem with the idea that the law insist that any warrantless intercepts still require a post facto FISA review, but to tie the president's hands in the war we are presently involved in is suicide. I'm not a lawyer either, and it seems a good idea to clarify some of these issues with a national debate. However, to pillory the president about national defense for political advantage is insane. The law lags way behind the reality. Not that this is to be unexpected, but FISA was written before Cell Phones or Disposable Phones even existed. If you’re a terrorist today, you can buy a disposable, do your damage and throw it away before a warrant could possibly be issued. Do we ignore this based on some notion of civil rights being trampled? I have no problem with the idea that the law insist that any warrantless intercepts still require a post facto FISA review, but to tie the president’s hands in the war we are presently involved in is suicide. I’m not a lawyer either, and it seems a good idea to clarify some of these issues with a national debate. However, to pillory the president about national defense for political advantage is insane.

]]> By: jimbo http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/#comment-20241 jimbo Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:05:51 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=926#comment-20241 This is the best post on the topic that I have yet seen. I have no problem with NSA or some other agency combing through billions of phone conversations to find patterns that might identify a terrorist network. The problem is, as you point out, politicians will not stop there. As I understand it, a lot of the stuff in the Patriot Act was borrowed from the war on drugs and RICO. There is a reason for the system of checks and balances. The only way to stop the most egregious abuses of this power is to have the branches watching each other. I really hope that there will be a way to hash this all out without spilling secrets to terrorists. This will surface in discussions of the Alito nomination. The question will be how willing are Bush's judicial nominees to check the power of the president. Unfortunately, the Dems are a lousy opposition, and some of them will, rightly, be seen as caring more about the rights of terrorists than finding ways to prevent future attacks. This is the best post on the topic that I have yet seen. I have no problem with NSA or some other agency combing through billions of phone conversations to find patterns that might identify a terrorist network. The problem is, as you point out, politicians will not stop there. As I understand it, a lot of the stuff in the Patriot Act was borrowed from the war on drugs and RICO. There is a reason for the system of checks and balances. The only way to stop the most egregious abuses of this power is to have the branches watching each other. I really hope that there will be a way to hash this all out without spilling secrets to terrorists. This will surface in discussions of the Alito nomination. The question will be how willing are Bush’s judicial nominees to check the power of the president. Unfortunately, the Dems are a lousy opposition, and some of them will, rightly, be seen as caring more about the rights of terrorists than finding ways to prevent future attacks.

]]> By: J http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/#comment-20152 J Sun, 25 Dec 2005 05:10:14 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=926#comment-20152 Are government surveillance operations not part of "The Crowd" for the purposes of your argument? It seems they are in this case. I'm puzzled by the assumption by so many people (who, coincidentally, seem to be hostile to the current administration) that this activity, which was briefed to congress and reviewed by the FIS court, is illegal. The president was granted a lot of power to pursue the war on terror, and human nature being what it is there's no question that those powers will eventually be abused and scaled back. But we're not there yet with this episode. A side rant: please tell me you don't teach your students to write nonsense like "collection and analysis of phone and Internet traffic have raised questions among some law enforcement and judicial officials". Since those questions have evidently been answered, so what? If you don't like what's going on, write an editorial advocating a change in the law - but keep that crap out of news stories. Babs was great on SNL. Are government surveillance operations not part of “The Crowd” for the purposes of your argument? It seems they are in this case. I’m puzzled by the assumption by so many people (who, coincidentally, seem to be hostile to the current administration) that this activity, which was briefed to congress and reviewed by the FIS court, is illegal.

The president was granted a lot of power to pursue the war on terror, and human nature being what it is there’s no question that those powers will eventually be abused and scaled back. But we’re not there yet with this episode.

A side rant: please tell me you don’t teach your students to write nonsense like “collection and analysis of phone and Internet traffic have raised questions among some law enforcement and judicial officials”. Since those questions have evidently been answered, so what? If you don’t like what’s going on, write an editorial advocating a change in the law – but keep that crap out of news stories.

Babs was great on SNL.

]]> By: Jeff Jarvis http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/#comment-20059 Jeff Jarvis Sun, 25 Dec 2005 00:36:53 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=926#comment-20059 Thanks, Jimmy. People, people, who need people..... Thanks, Jimmy.
People, people, who need people…..

]]> By: Jimmy http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/#comment-20054 Jimmy Sun, 25 Dec 2005 00:20:22 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=926#comment-20054 Granted on both accounts, but I do love a good Streisand tune. Granted on both accounts, but I do love a good Streisand tune.

]]> By: Jeff Jarvis http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/#comment-20048 Jeff Jarvis Sun, 25 Dec 2005 00:00:30 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=926#comment-20048 Well, Jimmy, read the post again: I said the adminstration should get legal warrants. As for Streisand, well, she's a natural born punchline. Lighten up. Well, Jimmy, read the post again: I said the adminstration should get legal warrants.
As for Streisand, well, she’s a natural born punchline. Lighten up.

]]> By: Jimmy http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/#comment-20033 Jimmy Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:25:36 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=926#comment-20033 Not being a “privacy freak” or being a “hawk on terrorism” doesn't mean we should blithely allow any administration to ignore the law of the land. Of course I want them to keep me safe, but if we allow any government to set aside the law in the name of national security then we are pretty poor citizens. This has very little, in my opinion, to do with national security as it does with this president's excuses for not following the law. You don't just ignore a law you don't like, you work within the government to change that law so that it not only allows you to accomplish what's needed, but also safeguards the rights and freedoms many Americans have fought and died for – even when that means compromising with your political opposites. This system has worked for more than 230 years. Should we just set that aside because an elected leader says we should, or doesn't want to work with Congress? Of course not. And no, I don't believe any administration is doing this “for their jollies,” but some of the groups being surveilled are questionable at best and most likely a waste of our national security infrastructure. By the way, the Barbara Streisand remark: kinda stupid. What is your deal with American citizens, regardless of who they are, speaking their mind – even when they don't agree with you? This sort of immaturity nearly ruins an otherwise thought-provoking post. Not being a “privacy freak” or being a “hawk on terrorism” doesn’t mean we should blithely allow any administration to ignore the law of the land. Of course I want them to keep me safe, but if we allow any government to set aside the law in the name of national security then we are pretty poor citizens. This has very little, in my opinion, to do with national security as it does with this president’s excuses for not following the law. You don’t just ignore a law you don’t like, you work within the government to change that law so that it not only allows you to accomplish what’s needed, but also safeguards the rights and freedoms many Americans have fought and died for – even when that means compromising with your political opposites. This system has worked for more than 230 years. Should we just set that aside because an elected leader says we should, or doesn’t want to work with Congress? Of course not. And no, I don’t believe any administration is doing this “for their jollies,” but some of the groups being surveilled are questionable at best and most likely a waste of our national security infrastructure.

By the way, the Barbara Streisand remark: kinda stupid. What is your deal with American citizens, regardless of who they are, speaking their mind – even when they don’t agree with you? This sort of immaturity nearly ruins an otherwise thought-provoking post.

]]> By: james http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/12/24/the-intelligence-of-the-crowd/#comment-20019 james Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:28:59 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=926#comment-20019 The fear that the ruling party uses the info for oppo research and tactics against the other party in elections. The fear that the ruling party uses the info for oppo research and tactics against the other party in elections.

]]>