The Fantastic Feinstein: How To Make Privacy Disappear While Appearing To Defend It

225px-dianne_feinstein_official_senate_photoimages>Civil libertarians have long viewed Senator Dianne Feinstein (D.,CA) as a menace to privacy and civil liberties in her role on the  Senate Intelligence Committee. She has worked to blocked investigation of torture while supporting warrantless surveillance of our own citizens. Recently, many Californians became aware of her role in seeking ever-expanding powers for the security state. Feinstein desperately tried to get citizens to embrace a new model of privacy that allows for their continual surveillance in the latest scandals under her tenure. That has not worked particularly well so now Feinstein is taking a new approach: she is proclaiming her concern over the dangers of privacy posed by . . . drones. That’s right. Like the street magicians distracting an audience, Feinstein is trying to get citizens to focus on the use of drones for surveillance and promising some form of “regulation” in the future. The obvious intent behind yesterday’s carefully constructed scene was to present Feinstein in the light of a fighter for, rather than an attacker of, privacy rights.

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged the law enforcement agency uses drone aircraft in the United States for surveillance in some cases.

Feinstein jumped at the opportunity to declare “I think the greatest threat to the privacy of Americans is the drone and the use of the drone, and the very few regulations that are on it today and the booming industry of commercial drones.” The point is obvious. The collection of every call made by every American is not really a big deal in turns of privacy. It is also not a concern to grab hundreds of millions of emails and attachments. No, it is the limited number of drone cases that is “the greatest threat to the privacy of Americans.” Of course, using drones to vaporize Americans without a charge or judicial review does not appear to bother Feinstein greatly.

Feinstein appears to be taken advice from street magicians:

Physical misdirection is a well-known tool for the magician: he points at an object, a big gesture distracts, spectators fixate on a suddenly appearing dove. All are designed to distract from another movement that is vital for the trick.

Psychological misdirection is much more subtle – a good example is the false solution. This is where the magician leads spectators to believe they’ve worked out how the trick is done. Once this ‘solution’ is suggested people are much less likely to notice the clues that crop up as to how it’s really done. Instead people look for confirmation that their own theory is correct. When the magician finally shows this ‘solution’ is no such thing, spectators are left even more bemused. The false solution is, therefore, not just a happy coincidence, it is used as a distraction from the real solution.

Of course, Feinstein and the White House never intend to reveal the trick. With few people buying the new privacy model, Feinstein wants to get people to look at a problem that will then be “solved” by her. . . And presto, your privacy is gone.

I hear that her next trick will be to saw the Separation of Powers in half by further supporting the unchecked powers of the President.

Of course, Obama, Feinstein, and others in Congress live by the same oath when it comes to telling the public anything:

“As a magician I promise never to reveal the secret of any illusion to a non-magician, unless that one swears to uphold the Magician’s Oath in turn. I promise never to perform any illusion for any non-magician without first practicing the effect until I can perform it well enough to maintain the illusion of magic.”

This is why an oath to testify truthfully is not binding on people like Clapper and not enforced by people like Feinstein. They are honoring an older oath to each other.

69 thoughts on “The Fantastic Feinstein: How To Make Privacy Disappear While Appearing To Defend It”

  1. Hey. I’ll bash Hilary for ya.

    [Music] I’m Hilary the 8th I am!
    Hilary the 8th I am I am.
    I got married to the a hole next door.
    He did Monica 7 times before.

  2. Now someone needs to bash Hillary. I bet those ladies keep on winning until they decide to retire 🙂

  3. And while we’re at it, so does Nancy “impeachment is off the table” Pelosi.

  4. Her husband has got his fingers on the high speed rail in California. Feinstein and Boxer have got to go

  5. If they are big enough to be Senators and Congressmen/women – they are big enough to take a tongue lashing (not literally though).

    What they would really complain of – is the Truth Hurts!

  6. Bron,

    It’s politically acceptable to trash men in general…. But, watch it with women and democrats…. Republican women are ok to berate and belittle…..if they were smart they’d be democrats….. Same goes for you jim2..,,,

    Only kidding…

  7. i had the exact same thoughts about Feinstien the day after the NSA announcment when she bleated ineffectually about getting Drs out to Guantanamo to help the prisoners.
    She has been in office way to long, as well she is one of the lead architects of the police state and definitely a DINO.

  8. AY:

    Lindsey Graham and John McCain are pcs of sh1t too.

    Feel better?

    I think the Viet Cong turned McCain into a Fascist a$$hat. He made a career out of that. And used it to deflect criticism from his fascist bullsh*t.
    “oooooh, I am a patriot because I got shot down and beaten.”

    It didnt matter that he never met a totalitarian program he didnt like.

    I was listening to him on a committee grilling some radio company. He sounded like a Nazi. I was appalled and called his office and told them McCain was a fascist punk. They didnt like that. Not that it did any good.

    And by the way, it was long before I started posting here.

  9. bill mcwilliams;

    I believe you meant to say “If the majority of voters were THINKERS & DOER’s —-”

    I’m just sayin…….

  10. If the majority of voters were THINKERS, both wings of the Property party
    would become extinct, beginning with the 2014 mid-term elections.

  11. She should be charged with war crimes….. Treason…. High Crimes and other misdemeanors…..

  12. In Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court might demonstrate how “Originalist” its majority can be. By Originalist, I mean the notion put forth by Scalia and others that the duty of a Justice on the Supreme Court is to look at the original intent of the original Framers of the Constitution. Now, Scalia seldom looks to the original intent of the Framers of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments which followed the Civil War and ushered in the Second Revolution. So if the Court strikes down the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which are specifically authorized in the Constitution for Congress to pass legislation to enforce the Amendments, then we will see the red necks on the Court rear their ugly heads. Yeah, States Rights! Shelby County don’t need no federalists looking over their shoulders when they bring back the literacy test. I recall that Shelby County had a test which asked the black voter registration applicants: How Many Bubbles In A Bar of Soap? Scalia could not answer that one. Or Feinstein for that matter.

  13. Think about running a good dog for Senator out in California. But, we are nearing the end of the Supreme Court Term. Yeah, they go on vacation for three months and this is the “hectic” end. Here is how a law magazine lays out the “hectic week” and what has been done and what is left to be done:

    The Supreme Court announced three more decisions on Thursday, but it looks more and more like a set of historic cases will come down to the wire next week.

    The justices ruled Thursday in cases involving federal criminal sentencing, the Federal Arbitration Act and the Agency for International Development.

    That leaves 11 decisions left for the court to release on its final week of the current term, which ends this month. The court can release between three and five opinions a day. But it’s also possible a decision could be pushed back to the court’s next term.

    For now, Monday, June 24 is the only day officially scheduled for decisions. It is widely expected that the court could add Wednesday, June 26 and/or Thursday, June 27 as extra days.

    There are three decisions that have been greatly anticipated: affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act and same-sex marriage (the two cases in same-sex marriage debate are expected to be announced at the same time).

    And it’s not outside of the realm of possibility that two of the “big three” decisions could be announced on the same day, which would lead to a tidal wave of attention from the media, observers, and interested parties.

    Other cases in the queue, according to SCOTUSblog, include Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, a widely followed adoption case.

    Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin is the affirmative action case we’ve profiled extensively. That case was argued last October, and its delayed release has spawned theories that the justices still could be writing opinions, or they could push the case to its next term, starting in October 2013.

    Shelby County v. Holder is the case involving part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It is anticipated that the court could invalidate a section of the act that requires states with a history of voter suppression before 1965 to get federal approval of voting changes.

    And there are two cases about same-sex marriage: Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor. The Hollingsworth case is about California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman; the Windsor case is about the Defense of Marriage Act. The decision could help define the future of same-sex marriage, or raise a whole new set of questions.

    In any event, after last year’s media swarming of the Affordable Care Act decision (with several erroneous reports), expect an equally high level of attention on the court.

    If any of the “big three” cases aren’t announced on Monday at 10 a.m., the attention could be glaring next Wednesday or Thursday.


  14. This just in at the Guardian by Glenn. “Top secret documents submitted to the court that oversees surveillance by US intelligence agencies show the judges have signed off on broad orders which allow the NSA to make use of information “inadvertently” collected from domestic US communications without a warrant.

    The Guardian is publishing in full two documents submitted to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (known as the Fisa court), signed by Attorney General Eric Holder and stamped 29 July 2009. They detail the procedures the NSA is required to follow to target “non-US persons” under its foreign intelligence powers and what the agency does to minimize data collected on US citizens and residents in the course of that surveillance.

    The documents show that even under authorities governing the collection of foreign intelligence from foreign targets, US communications can still be collected, retained and use

  15. The Feinsteinster and her husband have become enormously wealthy by her position, where before they were part of the “99%.” They are military contractors for Big Gov. How cozy!

Comments are closed.