Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter PlasmaDogPlasma
- Start date
drummer
Footballguy
What about the people who aren't American citizens?
This - as someone put it earlier - is that "Genie in a Bottle" that once uncorked is way too complicated to stuff back in. It just gets bigger and more powerful as long as there is a viable threat to National Security. Being data mined is something we have lived with and even more so now with smartphones, inter-connectivity, and telecommunications, not just from the Government, but from Corporations etc.
The thing is, once I connect with a smartphone, I volunteer (unfortunately) to have data mined from me. I never think how the Government would do the same, but then again, I am not naive to think that they wouldn't do it anyway since they have been doing it for years.
Chuck Harder would have a field day with this.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
It was just a question. And humbpack brought up the bill which is about the providers... I was asking a question.
Sorry if asking questions and searching for answers offends you.
Fennis
Footballguy
There is some data companies are required to collect by regulation. Beyond that they can choose not to collect. From my experience, multi national companies that deal in data, collect what they are legally entitled to by region and hold that data for as long as they are legally allowed to.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
The government is welcome to spy on foreign nationals. Breaking laws of other countries can be a dangerous business, but go for it.
ETA: I don't think I knew who Chuck Harder was, but I just a blurb on him. Sounds like his head would explode.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Statement of Purpose: To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.
Strike = remove
immunity from civil liability = what is being removed
communication service providers = who is losing immmunity
provided to the Govt = what they were not civil liable for... but now are
He voted FOR the above.
Would you like to change your recap? Because it seems as if "You don't seem to understand the bill."
Or maybe you have more info but simply didnt include anything that was pertinent beyond the prefix.
I was hoping you had more insight then just to provide a link then repeat the opening line.
Strike = remove
immunity from civil liability = what is being removed
communication service providers = who is losing immmunity
provided to the Govt = what they were not civil liable for... but now are
He voted FOR the above.
Would you like to change your recap? Because it seems as if "You don't seem to understand the bill."
Or maybe you have more info but simply didnt include anything that was pertinent beyond the prefix.
I was hoping you had more insight then just to provide a link then repeat the opening line.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Offer something up humpback. Anything on the subject of that bill.
Go on.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Was that bill a positive or negative for civil liberties? Was it consistent or inconsistent with his present policies?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Why are you asking other? You posted the ####### bill. Have a thought. Post it up. ***Was a positive for the citizens who get wronged by the Communication companies, as they can now press charges against the Comms. As the Comms are no longer immune from such recompense.That's exactly how it reads in name and in the prefix.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register
When, in 2006, the Bush administration came under fire for having secretly collected billions of phone call details from regular Americans, ostensibly to check for calls to terror suspects, the Pen Register Act was cited, along with the Stored Communications Act, as example of how such domestic spying violated Federal law
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Any opinion to go with the wiki link?
From that very link...
Ten years later the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744 (1979).
From that very link...
Ten years later the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744 (1979).
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
The Penn Register Act requires probable cause. it requires collection of data to be done for an ongoing criminal investigation. My phone data doesn't meet any of that criteria.
Last edited by a moderator:
shader
Footballguy
Looks like the govt is responding to the reports by.......shooting the messenger.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95700K20130608?irpc=932
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95700K20130608?irpc=932
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Then your issue is with the Communication Company who collected the data.
Furthermore....
The Pen Register Statute is a privacy act. As there is no constitutional protection for information divulged to a third party under the Supreme Court's expectation of privacy test,
Furthermore....
The Pen Register Statute is a privacy act. As there is no constitutional protection for information divulged to a third party under the Supreme Court's expectation of privacy test,
Fennis
Footballguy
BST I am honestly confused by your responses. In one post you indicate you don’t like the policy, but in pretty much every other post you are defending the administration.
Ill rephrase my earlier question at one point does a president deserve criticism for the policies being carried out in his administration. And if this isnt one time when is?
Ill rephrase my earlier question at one point does a president deserve criticism for the policies being carried out in his administration. And if this isnt one time when is?
Not sure if you're sober, but are you seriously incapable of seeing the point? There have been several links saying the same thing- as a Senator, he was outspoken against the policies of the Bush administration in terms of infringing on civil liberties. As POTUS, he's one-upped him.
Of course, you'll accuse everyone else of "hearing what you want to hear".
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
I dont like the policy.
But I do expect people to work within the rules/laws as structured.
What brought me into this last line of discussion (as I had stated) was MikeIke putting his make believe wishes on the President. When you could plainly see the actions prehand.
And for any conservative-republican (san Ron Paul supporters) to take up arms now is laughable at best.
btw... Whenever a new president comes into office, he will be the neophyte in the room on national defense, info gathering and security all while listening to people who have much invested in the process.
But I do expect people to work within the rules/laws as structured.
What brought me into this last line of discussion (as I had stated) was MikeIke putting his make believe wishes on the President. When you could plainly see the actions prehand.
And for any conservative-republican (san Ron Paul supporters) to take up arms now is laughable at best.
btw... Whenever a new president comes into office, he will be the neophyte in the room on national defense, info gathering and security all while listening to people who have much invested in the process.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Going from your links...
He gave the citizens a chance to sue the Comm companies if they had wronged them during the info gathering techniques.
Prehand, had it been found out they were wronged, the citizens had no recourse because they gained immunity the minute they dealt with the governmental request for that info.
Do you understand that?
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
Not going to take the time to wade through this thread, but I was tremendously disappointed with Obama's comments today - at least, what I heard of them. I wasn't lying when I said I am more worried about our own government than I am terrorists. But if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about 
don't give me that BS.
don't give me that BS.
jonessed
Footballguy
Legal does not mean constitutional.
First of all, the bill didn't pass, so no one gave anyone anything.
You claim his action/votes are "clear as day"- several of us have pointed out multiple times that he has been on both sides of this issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Now your just looking to fight anything humpy. Those links of yours didn't prove anything at all. Hell its obvious to everyone you didn't understand them.
*but I know you learned something on the S.AMDT.3907 subject... so its all good.
*but I know you learned something on the S.AMDT.3907 subject... so its all good.
Last edited by a moderator:
At one point, Obama was a proponent of civil liberties, criticizing the Bush administration and co-sponsoring bills to improve them. Now, he's taken those same policies he criticized and tried to restrict and put them on steroids.
It's obvious to everyone that you're a complete hack. If you haven't noticed, not one person in this thread has agreed with you, and several of them are on your "team".
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
This is very interesting, as is your point about a 3rd party collecting the information.
Obviously people as politically opposite as Rich Conway and NC Commish strongly disagree with you. But as I tried to point out before, it's an open question. When Rich claims that there no one sensible could possibly think that this isn't a violation of the 4th Amendment, obviously that's just not true.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
I'm inclined to just take Slapdashes' position on all of this to be honest. That guy usually makes a lot of sense.
drummer
Footballguy
Sure it does in this political climate. Any policy with an even bi-partisan framework always get's hi-jacked due to rhetoric. Even the smallest policies are being combed through the media as opposed to actual across the table legislation.
If this is a real effective tool to fight terror, then there would not be any partisan opposition despite what we think our liberties are. The bottom line to me is that we think our liberties are individual liberties that transcend politics, but in the end don't. Yet I don't think any politician in this climate thinks about your individual liberty. They just want to eat and get paid, and to get paid is to get on the right side of this issue.
The thing is, where is the right side?
If you're defining "the right side" as "the one that gets the politicians paid", then it's the same one as every other policy, which is the side that the biggest special interests have chosen.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
Where's that? I usually love where he stands on Internet privacy stuff.
Fennis
Footballguy
It is. The case you sited does not allow the government to collect data of every american and every phone call made.
.
--Sonia Sotomayor
drummer
Footballguy
5 digit know nothing
Footballguy
161719 responds to Tim from Reddit
I live in a country generally assumed to be a dictatorship. One of the Arab spring countries. I have lived through curfews and have seen the outcomes of the sort of surveillance now being revealed in the US. People here talking about curfews aren't realizing what that actually FEELS like. It isn't about having to go inside, and the practicality of that. It's about creating the feeling that everyone, everything is watching. A few points:
1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.
Lets say you are a college student and you get in with some people who want to stop farming practices that hurt animals. So you make a plan and go to protest these practices. You get there, and wow, the protest is huge. You never expected this, you were just goofing off. Well now everyone who was there is suspect. Even though you technically had the right to protest, you're now considered a dangerous person.
With this tech in place, the government doesn't have to put you in jail. They can do something more sinister. They can just email you a sexy picture you took with a girlfriend. Or they can email you a note saying that they can prove your dad is cheating on his taxes. Or they can threaten to get your dad fired. All you have to do, the email says, is help them catch your friends in the group. You have to report back every week, or you dad might lose his job. So you do. You turn in your friends and even though they try to keep meetings off grid, you're reporting on them to protect your dad.
2) Let's say number one goes on. The country is a weird place now. Really weird. Pretty soon, a movement springs up like occupy, except its bigger this time. People are really serious, and they are saying they want a government without this power. I guess people are realizing that it is a serious deal. You see on the news that tear gas was fired. Your friend calls you, frantic. They're shooting people. Oh my god. you never signed up for this. You say, #### it. My dad might lose his job but I won't be responsible for anyone dying. That's going too far. You refuse to report anymore. You just stop going to meetings. You stay at home, and try not to watch the news. Three days later, police come to your door and arrest you. They confiscate your computer and phones, and they beat you up a bit. No one can help you so they all just sit quietly. They know if they say anything they're next. This happened in the country I live in. It is not a joke.
3) Its hard to say how long you were in there. What you saw was horrible. Most of the time, you only heard screams. People begging to be killed. Noises you've never heard before. You, you were lucky. You got kicked every day when they threw your moldy food at you, but no one shocked you. No one used sexual violence on you, at least that you remember. There were some times they gave you pills, and you can't say for sure what happened then. To be honest, sometimes the pills were the best part of your day, because at least then you didn't feel anything. You have scars on you from the way you were treated. You learn in prison that torture is now common. But everyone who uploads videos or pictures of this torture is labeled a leaker. Its considered a threat to national security. Pretty soon, a cut you got on your leg is looking really bad. You think it's infected. There were no doctors in prison, and it was so overcrowded, who knows what got in the cut. You go to the doctor, but he refuses to see you. He knows if he does the government can see the records that he treated you. Even you calling his office prompts a visit from the local police.
You decide to go home and see your parents. Maybe they can help. This leg is getting really bad. You get to their house. They aren't home. You can't reach them no matter how hard you try. A neighbor pulls you aside, and he quickly tells you they were arrested three weeks ago and haven't been seen since. You vaguely remember mentioning to them on the phone you were going to that protest. Even your little brother isn't there.
4) Is this even really happening? You look at the news. Sports scores. Celebrity news. It's like nothing is wrong. What the hell is going on? A stranger smirks at you reading the paper. You lose it. You shout at him "#### you dude what are you laughing at can't you see I've got a ####### wound on my leg?"
"Sorry," he says. "I just didn't know anyone read the news anymore." There haven't been any real journalists for months. They're all in jail.
Everyone walking around is scared. They can't talk to anyone else because they don't know who is reporting for the government. Hell, at one time YOU were reporting for the government. Maybe they just want their kid to get through school. Maybe they want to keep their job. Maybe they're sick and want to be able to visit the doctor. It's always a simple reason. Good people always do bad things for simple reasons.
You want to protest. You want your family back. You need help for your leg. This is way beyond anything you ever wanted. It started because you just wanted to see fair treatment in farms. Now you're basically considered a terrorist, and everyone around you might be reporting on you. You definitely can't use a phone or email. You can't get a job. You can't even trust people face to face anymore. On every corner, there are people with guns. They are as scared as you are. They just don't want to lose their jobs. They don't want to be labeled as traitors.
This all happened in the country where I live.
You want to know why revolutions happen? Because little by little by little things get worse and worse. But this thing that is happening now is big. This is the key ingredient. This allows them to know everything they need to know to accomplish the above. The fact that they are doing it is proof that they are the sort of people who might use it in the way I described. In the country I live in, they also claimed it was for the safety of the people. Same in Soviet Russia. Same in East Germany. In fact, that is always the excuse that is used to surveil everyone. But it has never ONCE proven to be the reality.
Maybe Obama won't do it. Maybe the next guy won't, or the one after him. Maybe this story isn't about you. Maybe it happens 10 or 20 years from now, when a big war is happening, or after another big attack. Maybe it's about your daughter or your son. We just don't know yet. But what we do know is that right now, in this moment we have a choice. Are we okay with this, or not? Do we want this power to exist, or not?
You know for me, the reason I'm upset is that I grew up in school saying the pledge of allegiance. I was taught that the United States meant "liberty and justice for all." You get older, you learn that in this country we define that phrase based on the constitution. That's what tells us what liberty is and what justice is. Well, the government just violated that ideal. So if they aren't standing for liberty and justice anymore, what are they standing for? Safety?
Ask yourself a question. In the story I told above, does anyone sound safe?
I didn't make anything up. These things happened to people I know. We used to think it couldn't happen in America. But guess what? It's starting to happen.
I actually get really upset when people say "I don't have anything to hide. Let them read everything." People saying that have no idea what they are bringing down on their own heads. They are naive, and we need to listen to people in other countries who are clearly telling us that this is a horrible horrible sign and it is time to stand up and say no.
1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.
Lets say you are a college student and you get in with some people who want to stop farming practices that hurt animals. So you make a plan and go to protest these practices. You get there, and wow, the protest is huge. You never expected this, you were just goofing off. Well now everyone who was there is suspect. Even though you technically had the right to protest, you're now considered a dangerous person.
With this tech in place, the government doesn't have to put you in jail. They can do something more sinister. They can just email you a sexy picture you took with a girlfriend. Or they can email you a note saying that they can prove your dad is cheating on his taxes. Or they can threaten to get your dad fired. All you have to do, the email says, is help them catch your friends in the group. You have to report back every week, or you dad might lose his job. So you do. You turn in your friends and even though they try to keep meetings off grid, you're reporting on them to protect your dad.
2) Let's say number one goes on. The country is a weird place now. Really weird. Pretty soon, a movement springs up like occupy, except its bigger this time. People are really serious, and they are saying they want a government without this power. I guess people are realizing that it is a serious deal. You see on the news that tear gas was fired. Your friend calls you, frantic. They're shooting people. Oh my god. you never signed up for this. You say, #### it. My dad might lose his job but I won't be responsible for anyone dying. That's going too far. You refuse to report anymore. You just stop going to meetings. You stay at home, and try not to watch the news. Three days later, police come to your door and arrest you. They confiscate your computer and phones, and they beat you up a bit. No one can help you so they all just sit quietly. They know if they say anything they're next. This happened in the country I live in. It is not a joke.
3) Its hard to say how long you were in there. What you saw was horrible. Most of the time, you only heard screams. People begging to be killed. Noises you've never heard before. You, you were lucky. You got kicked every day when they threw your moldy food at you, but no one shocked you. No one used sexual violence on you, at least that you remember. There were some times they gave you pills, and you can't say for sure what happened then. To be honest, sometimes the pills were the best part of your day, because at least then you didn't feel anything. You have scars on you from the way you were treated. You learn in prison that torture is now common. But everyone who uploads videos or pictures of this torture is labeled a leaker. Its considered a threat to national security. Pretty soon, a cut you got on your leg is looking really bad. You think it's infected. There were no doctors in prison, and it was so overcrowded, who knows what got in the cut. You go to the doctor, but he refuses to see you. He knows if he does the government can see the records that he treated you. Even you calling his office prompts a visit from the local police.
You decide to go home and see your parents. Maybe they can help. This leg is getting really bad. You get to their house. They aren't home. You can't reach them no matter how hard you try. A neighbor pulls you aside, and he quickly tells you they were arrested three weeks ago and haven't been seen since. You vaguely remember mentioning to them on the phone you were going to that protest. Even your little brother isn't there.
4) Is this even really happening? You look at the news. Sports scores. Celebrity news. It's like nothing is wrong. What the hell is going on? A stranger smirks at you reading the paper. You lose it. You shout at him "#### you dude what are you laughing at can't you see I've got a ####### wound on my leg?"
"Sorry," he says. "I just didn't know anyone read the news anymore." There haven't been any real journalists for months. They're all in jail.
Everyone walking around is scared. They can't talk to anyone else because they don't know who is reporting for the government. Hell, at one time YOU were reporting for the government. Maybe they just want their kid to get through school. Maybe they want to keep their job. Maybe they're sick and want to be able to visit the doctor. It's always a simple reason. Good people always do bad things for simple reasons.
You want to protest. You want your family back. You need help for your leg. This is way beyond anything you ever wanted. It started because you just wanted to see fair treatment in farms. Now you're basically considered a terrorist, and everyone around you might be reporting on you. You definitely can't use a phone or email. You can't get a job. You can't even trust people face to face anymore. On every corner, there are people with guns. They are as scared as you are. They just don't want to lose their jobs. They don't want to be labeled as traitors.
This all happened in the country where I live.
You want to know why revolutions happen? Because little by little by little things get worse and worse. But this thing that is happening now is big. This is the key ingredient. This allows them to know everything they need to know to accomplish the above. The fact that they are doing it is proof that they are the sort of people who might use it in the way I described. In the country I live in, they also claimed it was for the safety of the people. Same in Soviet Russia. Same in East Germany. In fact, that is always the excuse that is used to surveil everyone. But it has never ONCE proven to be the reality.
Maybe Obama won't do it. Maybe the next guy won't, or the one after him. Maybe this story isn't about you. Maybe it happens 10 or 20 years from now, when a big war is happening, or after another big attack. Maybe it's about your daughter or your son. We just don't know yet. But what we do know is that right now, in this moment we have a choice. Are we okay with this, or not? Do we want this power to exist, or not?
You know for me, the reason I'm upset is that I grew up in school saying the pledge of allegiance. I was taught that the United States meant "liberty and justice for all." You get older, you learn that in this country we define that phrase based on the constitution. That's what tells us what liberty is and what justice is. Well, the government just violated that ideal. So if they aren't standing for liberty and justice anymore, what are they standing for? Safety?
Ask yourself a question. In the story I told above, does anyone sound safe?
I didn't make anything up. These things happened to people I know. We used to think it couldn't happen in America. But guess what? It's starting to happen.
I actually get really upset when people say "I don't have anything to hide. Let them read everything." People saying that have no idea what they are bringing down on their own heads. They are naive, and we need to listen to people in other countries who are clearly telling us that this is a horrible horrible sign and it is time to stand up and say no.
Sometimes your never ending defense of Obama can be downright pathetic. Since when has Obama ever worried about angering the Right? Or the Left for that matter?
You probably think George Bush has been President for the last 5 years, except for the day Obama single-handedly killed Bin Laden.
drummer
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
This has already been determined. There are also other places/times/events where a person is not to expect the rights of privacy. Particularly when you use someone elses venue/apparatus.
They are volunteering that info to a Communication Company that can collect much of its own info transferred through its framework. ( A person doesn't have to use that company).
I do appreciate Sotomayor dissenting voice, but she came along after the precedent and rulings had already been set.
And if you ever want to see a new ruling and this law changed, you better start by getting a liberal majority in the SC.
Last edited by a moderator:
3C's
Footballguy
Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the law school at UC Irvine and a specialist in constitutional law and civil liberties, said he found the news about the NSA's telephone records "surprising" and "also very troubling," although he added that the Supreme Court has ruled the collection of metadata does not violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_23407431/nsa-data-collection-raises-new-questions-u-s
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_23407431/nsa-data-collection-raises-new-questions-u-s
timschochet
Footballguy
Pretty much, yes. Great piece by Alan Dershowitz this morning:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/09/is-prism-really-a-scandal.html
Half a century ago, the great American historian Richard Hofstadter wrote about “the paranoid style in American politics.” He discussed the influence of conspiracy theories and extremism in our collective mindset.
Since that time, two phenomena have become apparent. The first is that we may indeed have much to be paranoid about. Or put another way, “Even paranoids have real enemies.” Watergate, and the Nixon Administration in general, demonstrated even to the least paranoid among us that government officials are fully capable of misusing the IRS against political enemies, breaking into psychiatric records of perceived traitors, burglarizing the political opposition, and all other manner of dirty tricks that cross the line from politics as usual to felonies.
The second phenomenon is that the first phenomenon has caused many Americans to become even more paranoid, to seek conspiracies where none exist, to confuse overzealousness with evil intentions, and to assume malevolence rather than incompetence or laziness. The reality is that over the past 50 years, while we have somewhat less to be paranoid about, the paranoid streak in American politics has broadened considerably.
The most recent revelations regarding the mining of phone and internet data provide a case in point. The initial revelation was made by a man named Glenn Greenwald, who wrote about them in the Guardian and who has been all over the media taking a victory lap. Greenwald is the personification of the paranoid streak in American politics. He is more of an ideologue than a reporter. He has long been an apologist for terrorism—a word he believes serves only as an excuse for violence and oppression by America and its allies. He has pushed false stories that his paper was forced to backpedal on, such as an AP report blaming the incendiary video “The Innocence of Islam” on an Israeli Jew living in California. He is Chomsky-like in his willingness to blame most of the world’s ills on the United States, Israel, the Obama Administration and liberals who do not buy into his radical worldview. He viciously opposed Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Greenwald would not understand the word “nuance” if he tripped over it, which he often does.
Now he is pushing the view that the Obama Administration’s surveillance program is not really designed to prevent terrorism but rather to gather information for less salutary purposes. Greenwald’s hard-left conspiracy theories are attractive to far-right talk show hosts and bloggers who share a common suspicion of liberal government. This suspicion has been nurtured by the recent IRS scandal and the Justice Department’s overzealous pursuit of journalists. The result has been a debate dominated by the extremes, with little patience for nuance, calibration, or balancing. The reality may be less exciting (and less suited for talk show dialogue) than the paranoid narrative, but the boring reality is what must be addressed if necessary reform is to be implemented.
And reform of the current excesses of surveillance is indeed necessary. There is too much secrecy, too little accountability, too much classification, not enough information, too much speculation. This all feeds into the paranoid streak because we don’t know what we don’t know. For those who trust the government this informational lacunae is an excuse for inaction. For those who do not trust the government, it is an excuse for ranting and raving instead of legislating compromised reform.
It is important not to lump all forms of intrusion together, but rather to consider them category by category.
There is an enormous difference between listening to the content of people’s phone calls and creating a database of telephone numbers used to make and receive calls and their duration. Creating the meta-database is a fairly debatable issue and should be the subject of hearings at which non-classified information can be discussed. I, for one, would like to hear the arguments for and against such a database before deciding whether on balance the benefits of the intrusion outweigh their obvious costs. For decades, the Supreme Court has permitted what are called mail watches, under which postal authorities have the power to maintain data based on the outsides of envelopes—the address to and from which the letter is sent. We no longer send letters. Now we use quicker and more efficient forms of communication. As technology changes, so must the law.
I also want to hear both sides of the debate concerning the far more serious intrusions into e-mails and other forms of modern electronic communication. Although the Obama Administration assures us that these more intrusive techniques are not used against Americans, there is every reason to believe that at least some Americans are caught up in the electronic net, whether deliberately or inadvertently.
So let the debate begin, but don’t let it be dominated by the extremes or fueled by paranoia. We need reform, not revolution—improvement, not impeachment.
timschochet
Footballguy
What a great article by Dershowitz. He is dead on.
Great articles often start out with ad homenim. As far as Americans not being surveiled by the only methods he is concerned with: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining
timschochet
Footballguy
Obviously Dershowitz is not a fan of Greenwald. Neither am I. There is good reason not to be. If you're interested, you might check out Dershowitz's fine book The Case Against Israel's Enemies, which exposes Greenwald unequivocally as a liar and generally bad guy.
But that's beside the point of this discussion, which is whether or not these searches constitute a significant violation of the 4th Amendment and our rights of privacy. Dershowitz, like me, would like to see this debated further, but in a moderate tone devoid of paranoid concerns.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
The leaker has identified himself and made a video about why. Fairly extraordinary thing to do -- as he's fled the US and is hoping to get asylum somewhere else now:
Similar threads
