Edward Snowden

1. Many of the revelations Snowden made had already been revealed by previous whistleblowers - none of whom fled the country with a laptop of sensitive secrets that they handed over to our enemies.

2. There are a ton of commercial data marketing firms that can and do look at your purchasing history. The government can buy that information the same way Cabela's can (minus whatever toothless statutory restrictions apply).

3. So far, about the only bonus Snowden has added to privacy is his leaks punched a hole in attempts to deny standing in several suits based on earlier whistleblower testimony and they have garnered a ton of media attention that none of the previous half-dozen whistleblowers ever received despite saying mostly the same things - which to me is one of the more curious aspects about Snowden.
 
Could they ever create a gun registry? Probably not. However, there was the story of the other official who came out and said that the main purpose behind the process was to gain information for law enforcement. When they want you, they can use the information already indexed to find out things about you to go after you or coerce you into giving them legally obtained information that can be used against you in court.

Imagine they learn that you don't have a CWL but you bring your gun from your apartment to your car where it's illegal in your state because you want to protect yourself. That you bought a gun and removed the permanent flash hider and the barrel length ended up being 15.8". You're looking at felonies there for laws you might not even know existed.

What we don't know is what the system looks like and what type of information they can store, but what we do know is that the capability to do so is ever increasing as software technology gets stronger. It's myopic to look at the question and say that they can't build a gun registry simply because the technology doesn't exist yet. The 4th amendment still exists with new technology the same as the 1st amendment didn't disappear when we got satellite TV. So the more important question should be where the line is on this kind of surveillance and how much of it (if any) is constitutional.
 
I know they may not have the ability to track things right now, but computing power keeps doubling each year and they are building this super facility for the purpose of monitoring. They may not have the ability now but give them 10 years and they will. Snowden sounded the alarm early on in the game.
 
They may not have the ability now but give them 10 years and they will. Snowden sounded the alarm early on in the game.
25 Years ago would maybe have been early in the game, this is very late in the game. As the "Slippery Slope" goes this is already a growing oak.

This was done in the name of fighting terrorism, one of the sad things is this program will only catch the amatures and probably few of them. The professional's who we really need protection from have known about this for years. I remember a Gene Hackman movie from the 80's maybe early 90's that was mostly about this very thing.

I am thinking we will be electing officials for years who will be campaining on this very thing to do something about this but something will never happen. To get the Lottery in Texas they justified it saying it would fund our schools so it passed. Then it was revieled that the money actually went in the general fund and not to schools. Politicians for years campained to give Lottery proceeds directly to schools but it never happened. Why actually do something when you loose a campain talking point.

Holiday's over!! I gotta get ready for work.
James
 
That's a very myopic view.
Here's how it works: You collect 'infinite' amounts of data, catalogue it, tree it, cross reference it, spider it, then sit on it until you need actionable intelligence, leverage or something else.

Yeah, but what data can they hoover up? Gun shops still operate under a very archaic, non-digital system in which paper records are kept in an arbitrary order on the premises. Finding one guy's information is like finding a needle in a very big haystack.
There's the phone call. The E-form. Gunbroker, Armslist, and so on. More than they should. But again, they'd still need a reason to stick a warm body in front of a keyboard to look at it. Which isn't likely to come from a trip to the store in and of itself.

So what you're saying is they passively collect a bunch of stuff about you or I, and sit on it (catalog), until you come to their attention for something they care about (need actionable intelligence). Gee. Sounds pretty much like what I said, so I guess we're both myopic

Yes they do. They collect all the data they can get their hands on, index it by whatever criteria, and then just store it away.

That is passively tracking. To put a warm body on the screen looking at Joe from Anytown, USA day in and day out is actively tracking.

Let's for a second consider the sheer number of credit card transactions that occur at retail every day. Even if they had a surveillance program to tap that, it would have to work transparently with dozens of payment processing companies, all running several different types of hardware and operating systems.

This is certainly accurate. It's also not the way the NSA would track gun sales. A credit card slip doesn't say what you bought. It just says you spent XYZ dollars at ABC location. They'd transcribe the 4473 phone call. Name, description, long gun/pistol it's all there. And they still wouldn't be 100% accurate doing that. They wouldn't know which ones were gifts, which ones you sold later to the guy who's back yard adjoins your back yard, and so on.

Could they ever create a gun registry? Probably not.
Sure they could. A couple states already have, without the NSA. If the Feds wanted to, the NSA would not be the agency they use. Congress would pass a law reclaiming all the bound books, require a voluntary-ish registration from everyone, and then start tracking all the transactions, for the basics. Hope you kept a copy of the receipt and possibly ID of any second hand sales you made.

Imagine they learn that you don't have a CWL but you bring your gun from your apartment to your car where it's illegal in your state because you want to protect yourself. That you bought a gun and removed the permanent flash hider and the barrel length ended up being 15.8". You're looking at felonies there for laws you might not even know existed.

Both of those examples are more likely caught by a LEO/Citizen seeing you, than an email sucked up by the NSA. And both of those are "your" fault, much more so than performing websearches by multiple family members for backpacks, a pressure cooker for your quinoa, and news on the Boston Bombing.
 
Commercial firms - good point. The NY Times has targeted ads for 9mm or training appearing for me when I log on.

Some gun forums give me ads for microwaves as I searched for a new one for the kitchen.

If it ever came to it - there are a zillion ways to find Glenn E. Meyer, moderator on TFL has guns.
 
Last edited:
If it ever came to it - there are a zillion ways to find Glenn E. Meyer, moderator on TFL has guns.

I disagree. It may sound like nitpicking but there are a zillion ways to find Glenn E Meyer, moderator on TFL has an INTEREST in guns, and may have them to a degree that could/would articulate reasonable suspicion. However (assuming owning a gun is illegal for this point) none of that would likely overcome reasonable doubt were you to be arrested and tried without a search warrant actually finding guns in your possession.

It's the same theory that the NRA has a registry of gun owners because they got marketing data from their outdoorsman shows. They don't have a list of guns owned by whom. They have a list of people who used a credit card to buy a ticket, food, or register for free giveaways at a show that implies an interest in firearms.
 
This shouldnt be a controversial issue or a controversial thread. The majority of Americans across all political parties agree that warrant-less surveillance is bad.

I can say semi-confidently the NRA has never gotten together with liberal minded organizations like the ACLU over anything except for this one issue. I guess we are united over this one issue. This is the issue that binds us all and, except for the few devils advocates out there, this thread should serve as reinforcement.
 
I can say semi-confidently the NRA has never gotten together with liberal minded organizations like the ACLU over anything except for this one issue.

The ACLU may not be especially firearm friendly, but they are objective enough to maintain their defense of privacy rights and due process. They came out against S.649 with the NRA over registry fears, and criminal justice traps for example. They may have changed their mind after reassurances on the registry/privacy rights issue however.

The ACLU may be liberally biased, but they aren't afraid to buck the popular opinion to defend principles. And the NRA doesn't necessarily have a mainstream or moderate point of view either. Neither organization spends a lot of time in the middle of the political spectrum. Both are more than happy to ignore the details of their "client" to fight for the principles they believe in, however.
 
I disagree. It may sound like nitpicking but there are a zillion ways to find Glenn E Meyer, moderator on TFL has an INTEREST in guns, and may have them to a degree that could/would articulate reasonable suspicion. However (assuming owning a gun is illegal for this point) none of that would likely overcome reasonable doubt were you to be arrested and tried without a search warrant actually finding guns in your possession.

Don't you realize that's enough?

If they took an interest in Glenn (unlikely) they would comb through all the data connected to him to manufacture reasonable suspicion of something else. Trafficking ivory, perhaps. Or possessing an owl feather. The guns would be found incident to a raid for something else and used to make it "Aggravated Whatever". And if the guns weren't found, they still would find *something* to ruin his life over.

I don't think this is actually happening yet, only because it would take something pretty bad to get on the list. For now.
 
Last edited:
The majority of Americans across all political parties agree that warrant-less surveillance is bad.
Really? Then why do the majority of voters keep re-electing the guys who passed and continue to pass these laws? It was unumurcin to oppose the Patriot Act when it was popular, but now the same provisions have everybody up in arms.

Still, I don't expect to see consequences at the polls. In the absence of that, there's no reason for these programs not to continue and to expand.
 
The majority of Americans across all political parties agree that warrant-less surveillance is bad.
Really? Then why do the majority of voters keep re-electing the guys who passed and continue to pass these laws? It was unumurcin to oppose the Patriot Act when it was popular, but now the same provisions have everybody up in arms.

Still, I don't expect to see consequences at the polls. In the absence of that, there's no reason for these programs not to continue and to expand.
As a private contractor, according to at least 1 techy I consulted with at the FBI Center at Springfield VA, "you don't need a warrant if you're not going to court". With that kind of attitude in government do we really have any privacy?
 
Last edited:
Cross reference social media profiles, pictures, forum comments, credit purchase histories, cell phone location tracking, phone meta-data, internet searches, organizational memberships, FFL meta-data, (etc, etc), and you can build a pretty comprehensive profile on someone (likely including how often they visit the range, buy ammo, and what firearms they commonly use).

Intelligence agencies are not likely to put that much effort (probably at least a half hour!) on random people. Now, if you pop up on the "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" for a known terrorist...
 
well, correct me if I'm wrong, but if they could snoop on calls or over-internet requests for 4473, they already have proof that you bought a firearm.
Yes, they we know that they collect meta-data so they know your local LGS makes X amount of 4473 applications per day. And they can show you went to an LGS and spent $400. But why chase every TomServo in the US?

Even easier, they could just get a warrant for these calls against the FBI database end of the requests and they have a list of everyone in the US who buys a firearm legally in one fell swoop.

If they could snoop those fax calls to send in the 4473 data or grab your internet traffic and re-assemble it (after cracking the cypher), then they know that doofus47 who lives at this address bought a long arm serial number xyzpdq13 last week. They have the technology.

So, if it's just a matter of turning up the surveillance on a limited number of lines and waiting as the data base fills up over time.
 
Yeah, but what data can they hoover up? Gun shops still operate under a very archaic, non-digital system in which paper records are kept in an arbitrary order on the premises. Finding one guy's information is like finding a needle in a very big haystack.

I’ve mentioned this here before, and caught a lot of grief for it, but I’m a glutton for punishment I guess, so here it goes again.

Years ago I applied for a C&R FFL. I was denied pending clarifications. Seems a guy that lives two counties away from me, same name / same spelling, same birthday, and very close social security numbers, was convicted of domestic abuse. This raised a red flag on my FFL application. In the process of clearing this up, on advise from my Congressman no less, I called the FBI to see what could be done to separate myself from this convicted felon. The lady I talked with in an FBI Office in Chicago, was able to tell me my last firearm purchase which was a year prior. I bought a NEF 20 ga single shot, shotgun for my daughter from a local WalMart. The FBI knew I bought it, and the FBI knew the date and place of purchase. This record was on file and assessable to this FBI agent a year after the transaction. So the NIC phone call records are being placed into a permanent electronic system. I know laws prohibit this, but since when has the government followed it’s own laws?

Go ahead, tell me the NIC doesn’t request the make/model/type of firearm you are buying. Go ahead, everyone tell me I’m wrong. Go ahead, tell me I’m crazy. I don’t really care because I know what happened to me.
 
The lady I talked with in an FBI Office in Chicago, was able to tell me my last firearm purchase which was a year prior. I bought a NEF 20 ga single shot, shotgun for my daughter from a local WalMart. The FBI knew I bought it, and the FBI knew the date and place of purchase. This record was on file and assessable to this FBI agent a year after the transaction. So the NIC phone call records are being placed into a permanent electronic system.
That can't have been part of the NICS check. We're never asked any information about the gun other than type of firearm (hand gun, long gun, or other). Given that the operators work off a script, we couldn't offer that information if we wanted to.

One possibility is that a trace was issued for your gun for some reason, but barring an interagency investigation, that would have been done by the ATF. I have no idea why or how the FBI would get that information.
 
That is the biggest problem in all of this. No one really knows "how or why" the government or the NSA works not even members of Congress or Obama himself. Its almost as if there is a shadow government behind the leaders operating on its own with programs and databases of their own design without regard for civil rights or the Constitution. Are some shadowy anti-gun figures out there creating databases of God knows what?

It would be a big help if there was more transparency and accountability.
 
Snowden validated a heck of a lot of what some people called conspiracy theory. the sad part is that it continues on and the electorate are just as stupid as before in light of the truth.
 
I am personally very confident in the NSA's ability to collect any and all targeted information and exploiting that information at will. Anyone who doubts this will likely be very surprised at just how capable the NSA really is when this issue comes to a head, which I am sure will happen soon enough, Edward Snowden or not...

That is all I am going to say about this conversation.
 
Given there about 40,000 people working for the NSA and only one spilled the beans. This is a shame as the NSA was out of control and 39,999 people are more interested in big paychecks than exposing the abuses of their agency.

Too much information on you is a threat, maybe not now, but Governments change, parties in power change. What you are reading today, the people you associate with today (anyone remember the McCarthy era and blacklisting?) can become unpopular tomorrow and the people in charge tomorrow may consider you an "infidel" to say the least.

I heard the German Government has a hard time convincing Germans to fill out their census forms. Germans have this cultural memory of what happened in the 1930's when one political group went down to the census bureau and identified all those who had "Jewish Blood".

You would think that fighting for your country would provide some sort of protection and proof that you are not a traitor, but German Jews who in their youth who fought, and been awarded medals, in WW1, were stuffed in gas chambers with all the other underpeople. The world can change nasty very quickly.

When the Germans occupied countries, they used Government data bases to identify Jews. You can read about what they did in Norway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Norway

Anyone remember the rounding up of the American Japanese in WW2? How do you think the US Government identified those innocents?

One election, one big media event, can change today's benevolent overlords to hostile dictators in one night.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top