Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)

[sporthenry]

So whats the reasoning behind going after Snowden? Hasn't really directly put lives at risk. I guess getting into the nitty-gritty, he might have alerted terrorists to the technology or what we are doing, but that seems like a stretch.

 

[tommyboy]

two presidents and 12 years to reach a state where everything you say, read, write is being recorded. If you work in the gov't spying apparatus you better lawyer up. Going to get ugly.

 

[Psychopav]

Tim your government lies to you. They lie to their allies. They break international treaties. I know this because I have been involved. I have been places we weren't supposed to be, doing things we weren't supposed to do, and you were either told nothing about it or were lied to about it, usually a bit of both. I have helped break international treaties concerning certain weapon systems. I have seen men killed in a place we weren't supposed to be and their deaths tucked into a training exercise thousands of miles away.

Your naivety is kind of nice but it's time to take off the blinders. Governments exist to accrue power and the only curb on that accrual is sunshine. Too much happening in the dark here for anyone to be comfortable with or accepting of it.

:greatposting:

 

[shader]

So whats the reasoning behind going after Snowden? Hasn't really directly put lives at risk. I guess getting into the nitty-gritty, he might have alerted terrorists to the technology or what we are doing, but that seems like a stretch.

I think the terrorists already know that the US govt is trying to monitor their communications.

 

[Fennis]

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:

There was a time when the US would be where people like Edward Snowden would flee to. Now people like him have to flee the US. Disgusting.

 

[Hang 10]

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:

There was a time when the US would be where people like Edward Snowden would flee to. Now people like him have to flee the US. Disgusting.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So whats the reasoning behind going after Snowden? Hasn't really directly put lives at risk. I guess getting into the nitty-gritty, he might have alerted terrorists to the technology or what we are doing, but that seems like a stretch.

I'm glad that he leaked this and I'm sorry that he feels obliged to leave the US and flee to China (!) of all places. This is a great example of somebody leaking top-secret stuff who unambiguously qualifies as a whistle-blower.

Contrast this person with Bradley Manning, who indiscriminately leaked thousands of diplomatic cables, making future efforts to resolve conflicts through diplomacy harder. That guy can sit in a cell for the rest of his life as far as I'm concerned. Snowden, on the other hand, is a hero.

 

[drummer]

So whats the reasoning behind going after Snowden? Hasn't really directly put lives at risk. I guess getting into the nitty-gritty, he might have alerted terrorists to the technology or what we are doing, but that seems like a stretch.

I'm glad that he leaked this and I'm sorry that he feels obliged to leave the US and flee to China (!) of all places. This is a great example of somebody leaking top-secret stuff who unambiguously qualifies as a whistle-blower.

Contrast this person with Bradley Manning, who indiscriminately leaked thousands of diplomatic cables, making future efforts to resolve conflicts through diplomacy harder. That guy can sit in a cell for the rest of his life as far as I'm concerned. Snowden, on the other hand, is a hero.

WAT. Manning's hacking brought more sunshine then a "Verizon is logging phone numbers" that is just one part of what is now being brought to 'light'. Ars Technica has posted on how tech companies such as Google and such have been even before the Verizon leak have willingly been in concert with the Government's requests with data.

Diplomatic cables.

Your call to Pizza Man.

How many freakin' posts about pizza have you willingly made on the Internet?

Enough to figure out that nobody cares or it matters.

 

[Psychopav]

Two guys who understand The Way Things Work in Chicago:

Amid the revelations that the National Security Agency has been secretly monitoring the records of millions of phone calls across the country via telephone service provider Verizon, Congress is concerned that the NSA's actions may have also captured phone calls of lawmakers and their staffers. It should be noted that Verizon is one of the main service providers to government issued Blackberries members and their staff use to communicate with one another.A senior hill staffer on the House side told Breitbart News on Sunday, I have grave concerns over the privacy of communications between staff and their member of Congress. All of our communications go through Verizon or ATT to reach our Blackberries." The staffer added, "Through a blanket seizing of these communications, the NSA is permanently intercepting and storing privileged material. This rasies further constitutional issues regarding separation of powers."A senior Senate staffer agreed telling Breitbart News, "Senators and staff all use Verizon phones. So the executive branch is monitoring the meta data of the Senate. This seems like a violation of the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution." "The calling data that is gathered can be more invasive than knowing the content of the call. One can figure out much about a person's personal habits, preferences and line of work from knowing how often and patterns of calls," he said. Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) questioned Attorney General Eric Holder last Thursday at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing about whether the NSA spied on members of Congress. Mr. Attorney General, I want to take you to the Verizon scandal and which I understand takes us to possibly monitoring up to 120 million calls. You know, when government bureaucrats are sloppy, theyre usually really sloppy. Want to just ask, could you assure to us that no phone inside the Capitol were monitored of members of Congress that would give a future executive branch, if they started pulling this kind of thing off, would give them unique leverage over the legislature?" he asked.Holder responded, With all due respect, Senator, I dont think this is an appropriate setting for me to discuss that issue. Id be more than glad to come back in a in an appropriate setting to discuss the issues that you have raised."Kirk, a Naval intelligence officer, pressed Holder remarking, I would interrupt you and say the correct answer would be say no, we stayed within our lane, and Im assuring you we did not spy on members of Congress.Holder remained defiant saying, And I would be more than glad, as I said, in an appropriate setting, to deal with the question. And Senator Kirk, please do not take my response as something as being anything but respectful of the concerns that you have raised. There has been no intention to do anything of that nature that is, to spy on members of Congress, to spy on members of the Supreme Court.Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said Kirk raised a very important point," and said a classified hearing would be in order to discuss the issue further."This act by the Obama Administration is clearly unconstitutional. The federal government has no probable cause to believe that all users of Verizon phones are presumed the aiders and abettors to international criminals," said the Senate staffer. He continued, "The 4th Amendment requires probable cause and it does not exist, unless if we are now to presume that all Americans are potential terrorists."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/09/Snooping-Concerns-Emerge-Over-Congressional-Blackberries-Serviced-By-Verizon

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”~George Orwell in “1984”

 

[Slapdash]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Reminds me of Room 641A. How many more times is this going to keep happening before people admit what's going on? Seems like the "gun nuts" are right about not wanting national databases of their purchases and the potential of a tyrannical government.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I'm inclined to just take Slapdashes' position on all of this to be honest. That guy usually makes a lot of sense.

;goodposting;

If someone could send me a daily digest of all his posts in the FFA, I'd rarely have to visit this place.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

NSA also obtains access to data from Internet service providers on Internet use such as data about email or website visits, several former officials said. NSA has established similar relationships with credit-card companies, three former officials said

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578529112289298922.html No problem with this either, eh Tim?

To take it a little further Snowden claims he could "wiretap" anyone in the world from his desk with just their personal email address. I assume in this context he means gain access to all of their email content.link

 

[RCon]

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).

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.

Sometimes the courts are wrong, sometimes blatantly so (e.g. Scalia's twisted reasoning in Raich).

Anyone trying to argue a distinction of "it's just metadata" is being foolish, and I truly can't take them seriously. Metadata is extremely powerful, precisely because it is searchable and sortable. Metadata, especially when cross-referenced with other, separate metadata, can easily be more informative than the "original data" itself.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

NSA also obtains access to data from Internet service providers on Internet use such as data about email or website visits, several former officials said. NSA has established similar relationships with credit-card companies, three former officials said

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578529112289298922.html No problem with this either, eh Tim?

To take it a little further Snowden claims he could "wiretap" anyone in the world from his desk with just their personal email address. I assume in this context he means gain access to all of their email content.link

Seems like he could do it or anyone else that works at the level. Pretty sure he called himself an "average" guy and anyone could do this at any time. I will have to watch it again to get the full gist but it seemed pretty disturbing to me.

 

[The Commish]

two presidents and 12 years to reach a state where everything you say, read, write is being recorded. If you work in the gov't spying apparatus you better lawyer up. Going to get ugly.

We've been in this "state" for a long time. Apparently, you've just realized it in the last 12 years??

 

[RCon]

two presidents and 12 years to reach a state where everything you say, read, write is being recorded. If you work in the gov't spying apparatus you better lawyer up. Going to get ugly.

We've been in this "state" for a long time. Apparently, you've just realized it in the last 12 years??

I'd suggest that government's willingness to spy on its citizens has been present for quite a while, but only over the last 20 years or so has their ability to do so caught up to their willingness.

 

[timschochet]

Seems like the "gun nuts" are right about not wanting national databases of their purchases and the potential of a tyrannical government.

There are certainly parallels here,mostly in the reaction. In both cases, we see a great amount of paranoia which is not only counterproductive but based on fears which are unsubstantiated.

 

[timschochet]

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).

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.

Sometimes the courts are wrong, sometimes blatantly so (e.g. Scalia's twisted reasoning in Raich).

Anyone trying to argue a distinction of "it's just metadata" is being foolish, and I truly can't take them seriously. Metadata is extremely powerful, precisely because it is searchable and sortable. Metadata, especially when cross-referenced with other, separate metadata, can easily be more informative than the "original data" itself.

Then call me foolish. The point of it being "metadata" is that the government is not looking specifically at your information. They're cross-referencing stuff to find certain words and phrases which they hope will lead them to terrorists. The more I learn about this, the more I'm inclined to think that it's necessary and not a violation of the 4th Amendment- or at least I would, if not for the secrecy. The secrecy does bother me, which is why I'd like to see an investigation. But based on the facts we know, I'm not really bothered.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Seems like the "gun nuts" are right about not wanting national databases of their purchases and the potential of a tyrannical government.

There are certainly parallels here,mostly in the reaction. In both cases, we see a great amount of paranoia which is not only counterproductive but based on fears which are unsubstantiated.

Paranoia = delusional or irrational fears yes?

 

[timschochet]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

 

[timschochet]

Seems like the "gun nuts" are right about not wanting national databases of their purchases and the potential of a tyrannical government.

There are certainly parallels here,mostly in the reaction. In both cases, we see a great amount of paranoia which is not only counterproductive but based on fears which are unsubstantiated.

Paranoia = delusional or irrational fears yes?

Yes.

 

[shader]

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).

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.

Sometimes the courts are wrong, sometimes blatantly so (e.g. Scalia's twisted reasoning in Raich).

Anyone trying to argue a distinction of "it's just metadata" is being foolish, and I truly can't take them seriously. Metadata is extremely powerful, precisely because it is searchable and sortable. Metadata, especially when cross-referenced with other, separate metadata, can easily be more informative than the "original data" itself.

It's funny seeing non-technical senators and journalists say "IT'S JUST METADATA", when they obviously have no idea what metadata means.

 

[RCon]

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).

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.

Sometimes the courts are wrong, sometimes blatantly so (e.g. Scalia's twisted reasoning in Raich).

Anyone trying to argue a distinction of "it's just metadata" is being foolish, and I truly can't take them seriously. Metadata is extremely powerful, precisely because it is searchable and sortable. Metadata, especially when cross-referenced with other, separate metadata, can easily be more informative than the "original data" itself.

Then call me foolish. The point of it being "metadata" is that the government is not looking specifically at your information. They're cross-referencing stuff to find certain words and phrases which they hope will lead them to terrorists. The more I learn about this, the more I'm inclined to think that it's necessary and not a violation of the 4th Amendment- or at least I would, if not for the secrecy. The secrecy does bother me, which is why I'd like to see an investigation. But based on the facts we know, I'm not really bothered.

I don't think you understand what metadata is and/or what the government is actually doing.

1. As I understand this, the government is not currently monitoring content (i.e. the actual calls themselves), meaning no, they are not looking for certain words and phrases, as they're not monitoring or recording the words and phrases at all.

2. What the government is currently doing is recording data about the call, such as originating phone number, number dialed, duration of call, date and time of call, etc.

3. If the government was only monitoring by certain filters, it wouldn't need to store this information permanently. It would only need to parse through the information one time, then discard the irrelevant data. It's not doing that. It's storing the data for future reference. Ditto your search history on Google, page visits on Facebook, e-mail metadata (i.e. who you e-mailed and when), etc.

 

[Slapdash]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Are you saying you are OK with collecting specific information about people as long as it part of a broader sweep?

 

[Slapdash]

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).

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.

Sometimes the courts are wrong, sometimes blatantly so (e.g. Scalia's twisted reasoning in Raich).

Anyone trying to argue a distinction of "it's just metadata" is being foolish, and I truly can't take them seriously. Metadata is extremely powerful, precisely because it is searchable and sortable. Metadata, especially when cross-referenced with other, separate metadata, can easily be more informative than the "original data" itself.

It's funny seeing non-technical senators and journalists say "IT'S JUST METADATA", when they obviously have no idea what metadata means.

Yep.

 

[timschochet]

Another good article, this one from the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324634304578535492421480524.html

Once again, the tanks-have-rolled left and the black-helicopters right have joined together in howls of protest. They were set off by last week's revelations that the U.S. government has been collecting data that disclose the fact, but not the content, of electronic communications within the country, as well as some content data outside the U.S. that does not focus on American citizens. Once again, the outrage of the left-right coalition is misdirected.



Libertarian Republicans and liberal—progressive, if you prefer—Democrats see the specter of George Orwell's "1984" in what they claim is pervasive and unlawful government spying. These same groups summoned "1984" in 2001 after passage of the Patriot Act, in 2008 after renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and many times in between and since.

Regrettably, those best positioned to defend such surveillance programs are least likely to do so out of obvious security concerns. Without getting into detail here, intelligence agencies, with court authorization, have been collecting data in an effort that is neither pervasive nor unlawful. As to the data culled within the U.S., the purpose is to permit analysts to map relationships between and among Islamist fanatics.

For example, it would be helpful to know who communicated with the Tsarnaev brothers, who those people were in touch with, and whether there are overlapping circles that would reveal others bent on killing and maiming Americans—sort of a terrorist Venn diagram. Once these relationships are disclosed, information can be developed that would allow a court to give permission to monitor the content of communications.

As to monitoring content abroad, the utility is obvious. At least one conspiracy—headed by Najibullah Zazi and intended to maim and kill New York City subway riders—was disclosed through such monitoring and headed off. Zazi, arrested in 2009, pleaded guilty and awaits sentencing.



Because intelligence does not arrive in orderly chronological ranks, and getting useful data is an incremental process that often requires matching information gathered in the past with more current data, storing the information is essential. But, say the critics, information in the hands of "the government" can be misused—just look at the IRS. The IRS, as it happens, has a history of misusing information for political purposes. To be sure, there have been transgressions within intelligence agencies, but these have involved the pursuit of an intelligence mission, not a political objective.

Consider also that in a post-9/11 world all of those agencies live in dread of a similar attack. That ghastly prospect itself provides incentive for analysts to focus on the intelligence task at hand and not on political or recreational use of information. And the number of analysts with access to the information is not terribly large. The total number of analysts in the intelligence community, though certainly classified, appears to be a few thousand, with those focusing on terrorism likely a limited subset.



Given the nature of the data being collected and the relatively small number and awful responsibility of those who do the collecting, the claims of pervasive spying, even if sincere, appear not merely exaggerated, but downright irrational. Indeed, psychiatry has a term for the misplaced belief that the patient is the focus of the attention of others: delusions of reference.



Some wallow in the idea that they are being watched, their civil liberties endangered, simply because a handful of electrons they generated were among the vast billions being reviewed in a high-stakes antiterrorism effort. Of course, many are motivated politically or ideologically to oppose robust intelligence-gathering aimed at fending off Islamist terrorism. Criticism from that quarter can be left to lie where it fell.

All of that being said, it is at least theoretically possible that information could be misused to the prejudice of innocent citizens, which would be both a shame and a crime. But it makes about as much sense to deny intelligence agencies access to information necessary to defend the nation because some of that information theoretically could be misused as it does to deny guns to police because they could be turned on the innocent.

Nor do these programs violate the law. Start with the Constitution. The applicable provisions lie in two clauses in the Fourth Amendment. The first bars "unreasonable searches and seizures." The second provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" established by affidavit, and it requires that warrants describe with particularity what or who is to be seized, and from where.

Notice that the first clause does not forbid warrantless searches, only unreasonable ones. And the second simply creates a warrant requirement that is read, with some exceptions, to bar evidence at trial if it is obtained without a valid warrant. The first clause has been read to protect the content of communications in which the speaker has a reasonable expectation of privacy—telephone conversations being an obvious example. It does not protect the fact of communications. Even in routine cases, prosecutors may obtain permission from a court to monitor the source of incoming calls and the destination of outgoing calls, as well as their date and duration, solely by averring that the information has to do with a criminal investigation.

The Founders were practical men who understood the need for secrecy. Indeed, they drafted the Constitution with windows and doors closed against prying eyes and ears even in sweltering summertime Philadelphia, lest their deliberations be revealed—not only prematurely, but at all. They realized that the free exchange of ideas was crucial to the success of their awesome project, and that it could only be inhibited by the prospect of disclosure, whether future or present

hey also understood that the nation could not survive without preserving its secrets. Article I, Section 5 of the document they created requires that "Each House . . . keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy." The Founders well understood the difference between government by consent and government by referendum.

Even zealots do not dispute that the Patriot Act, as amended, authorizes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that was established under FISA to grant permission to gain access to the information at issue here. As to intercepting the content of foreign communications, I think it is best put starkly: The Constitution and U.S. laws are not a treaty with the universe; they protect U.S. citizens. Foreign governments spy on us and our citizens. We spy on them and theirs. Welcome to the world.



Real damage was done last week by Edward Snowden, who on Sunday claimed credit for leaking the secrets he learned while working for NSA contractors. Every time we tell terrorists how we can detect them, we encourage them to find ways to avoid detection.



Further, the current administration's promiscuous treatment of national secrets suggests that the current disclosures will beget others. Recall the president's startling boast in May 2011 that Osama bin Laden's hideout had yielded a trove of valuable intelligence, which alerted anyone who had dealt with bin Laden and thereby rendered much of that material useless. Recall the June 2012 newspaper stories describing U.S. participation in implanting a malware worm called Stuxnet in Iran's nuclear facilities, reports that even described White House Situation Room deliberations. And summon to mind also the president's obvious discomfort as he defended—sort of—the programs now in question. There is little doubt that we will be treated to further disclosures to prove that these programs were successful.



If the current imbroglio opens an honest discussion of the legitimate need for secrecy in a fight against seventh-century primitives equipped with 21st-century technology, it may eventually prove to have been worth the cost, but I'm not laying down any bets.

 

[RCon]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Metadata is not "information gathered en mass". Metadata = information about other data. For example...

I write a Word document and store it as a file. The content of the document itself (i.e. what you would see when you open the file in Microsoft Word) is data. The metadata about that document would encompass such things as Author Name, Date Created, Date Modified, Document Title, Size of File, etc.

The fact that the metadata is easily categorized into fields and searchable makes it specific. For instance, I could easily query the database and ask it to "show me a list of all documents written by timschochet, along with dates, titles, etc."

 

[timschochet]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Are you saying you are OK with collecting specific information about people as long as it part of a broader sweep?

I think so, yes. If I understand you correctly. I'd certainly like to hear more. Like the writer of the WSJ article and like Dershowitz, the secrecy bothers me. But the overall principle really doesn't.

 

[Fennis]

As I understand this, the government is not currently monitoring content (i.e. the actual calls themselves), meaning no, they are not looking for certain words and phrases, as they're not monitoring or recording the words and phrases at all.

They are monitoring content (phone calls). Just not all calls. And I have no doubt they will once they can store the data, but right now the size is still prohibitive.

 

[timschochet]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Metadata is not "information gathered en mass". Metadata = information about other data. For example...

I write a Word document and store it as a file. The content of the document itself (i.e. what you would see when you open the file in Microsoft Word) is data. The metadata about that document would encompass such things as Author Name, Date Created, Date Modified, Document Title, Size of File, etc.

The fact that the metadata is easily categorized into fields and searchable makes it specific. For instance, I could easily query the database and ask it to "show me a list of all documents written by timschochet, along with dates, titles, etc."

OK.

But see, I want them to be able to do this, in order to stop terrorism. I'm not fearful they're going to use it against me for some diabolical purpose.

 

[Fennis]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Metadata is not "information gathered en mass". Metadata = information about other data. For example...

I write a Word document and store it as a file. The content of the document itself (i.e. what you would see when you open the file in Microsoft Word) is data. The metadata about that document would encompass such things as Author Name, Date Created, Date Modified, Document Title, Size of File, etc.

The fact that the metadata is easily categorized into fields and searchable makes it specific. For instance, I could easily query the database and ask it to "show me a list of all documents written by timschochet, along with dates, titles, etc."

OK.

But see, I want them to be able to do this, in order to stop terrorism. I'm not fearful they're going to use it against me for some diabolical purpose.

It worked real well in Boston.

 

[timschochet]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Metadata is not "information gathered en mass". Metadata = information about other data. For example...

I write a Word document and store it as a file. The content of the document itself (i.e. what you would see when you open the file in Microsoft Word) is data. The metadata about that document would encompass such things as Author Name, Date Created, Date Modified, Document Title, Size of File, etc.

The fact that the metadata is easily categorized into fields and searchable makes it specific. For instance, I could easily query the database and ask it to "show me a list of all documents written by timschochet, along with dates, titles, etc."

OK.

But see, I want them to be able to do this, in order to stop terrorism. I'm not fearful they're going to use it against me for some diabolical purpose.

It worked real well in Boston.

What's your point? We're not going to hear about the successes, are we?

 

[Fennis]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Metadata is not "information gathered en mass". Metadata = information about other data. For example...

I write a Word document and store it as a file. The content of the document itself (i.e. what you would see when you open the file in Microsoft Word) is data. The metadata about that document would encompass such things as Author Name, Date Created, Date Modified, Document Title, Size of File, etc.

The fact that the metadata is easily categorized into fields and searchable makes it specific. For instance, I could easily query the database and ask it to "show me a list of all documents written by timschochet, along with dates, titles, etc."

OK.

But see, I want them to be able to do this, in order to stop terrorism. I'm not fearful they're going to use it against me for some diabolical purpose.

It worked real well in Boston.

What's your point? We're not going to hear about the successes, are we?

According to Senator Udall thats because there are none.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Metadata is not "information gathered en mass". Metadata = information about other data. For example...

I write a Word document and store it as a file. The content of the document itself (i.e. what you would see when you open the file in Microsoft Word) is data. The metadata about that document would encompass such things as Author Name, Date Created, Date Modified, Document Title, Size of File, etc.

The fact that the metadata is easily categorized into fields and searchable makes it specific. For instance, I could easily query the database and ask it to "show me a list of all documents written by timschochet, along with dates, titles, etc."

OK.

But see, I want them to be able to do this, in order to stop terrorism. I'm not fearful they're going to use it against me for some diabolical purpose.

It worked real well in Boston.

What's your point? We're not going to hear about the successes, are we?

Tim once again is dead on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foiled_Islamic_terrorist_plots_in_the_post-9/11_United_States

 

[RCon]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Metadata is not "information gathered en mass". Metadata = information about other data. For example...

I write a Word document and store it as a file. The content of the document itself (i.e. what you would see when you open the file in Microsoft Word) is data. The metadata about that document would encompass such things as Author Name, Date Created, Date Modified, Document Title, Size of File, etc.

The fact that the metadata is easily categorized into fields and searchable makes it specific. For instance, I could easily query the database and ask it to "show me a list of all documents written by timschochet, along with dates, titles, etc."

OK.

But see, I want them to be able to do this, in order to stop terrorism. I'm not fearful they're going to use it against me for some diabolical purpose.

Hate to be blunt, but... you're a fool if you think this data won't be used in ways that it shouldn't be.

 

[timschochet]

All of you guys seem to have this fear that the government shouldn't have too much information. Because who knows what dire and tyrannical things they can do with it. But this is the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we've been hearing from those who have complained about the Census for years, except in that case we could relegate it to the "Black Helicopter" crowd. It dismays me that this sort of crowd has grown to include what the WSJ guy refers to a "libertarians"- not that it resembles even remotely the libertarianism that I once belonged to and admired, which concerned itself primarily with free trade and open immigration.

 

[Slapdash]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Are you saying you are OK with collecting specific information about people as long as it part of a broader sweep?

I think so, yes. If I understand you correctly. I'd certainly like to hear more. Like the writer of the WSJ article and like Dershowitz, the secrecy bothers me. But the overall principle really doesn't.

Well that seems to be a ridiculous disntiction, either way is invades the privacy of Americans in a serious manner.

That WSJ article didn't help you, it was laughable.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

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).

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.

Sometimes the courts are wrong, sometimes blatantly so (e.g. Scalia's twisted reasoning in Raich). Anyone trying to argue a distinction of "it's just metadata" is being foolish, and I truly can't take them seriously. Metadata is extremely powerful, precisely because it is searchable and sortable. Metadata, especially when cross-referenced with other, separate metadata, can easily be more informative than the "original data" itself.

Then call me foolish. The point of it being "metadata" is that the government is not looking specifically at your information. They're cross-referencing stuff to find certain words and phrases which they hope will lead them to terrorists. The more I learn about this, the more I'm inclined to think that it's necessary and not a violation of the 4th Amendment- or at least I would, if not for the secrecy. The secrecy does bother me, which is why I'd like to see an investigation. But based on the facts we know, I'm not really bothered.

I don't think you understand what metadata is and/or what the government is actually doing. 1. As I understand this, the government is not currently monitoring content (i.e. the actual calls themselves), meaning no, they are not looking for certain words and phrases, as they're not monitoring or recording the words and phrases at all. 2. What the government is currently doing is recording data about the call, such as originating phone number, number dialed, duration of call, date and time of call, etc. 3. If the government was only monitoring by certain filters, it wouldn't need to store this information permanently. It would only need to parse through the information one time, then discard the irrelevant data. It's not doing that. It's storing the data for future reference. Ditto your search history on Google, page visits on Facebook, e-mail metadata (i.e. who you e-mailed and when), etc.

This is the 900 pound gorilla in the room that ignorant posters like Tim, who do not understand what metadata is and how it is used. They are building a database, they are creating profiles of people. This has nothing to do with Terrorism, that is the excuse they are using. There is no oversight and we are supposed to just trust them with this wealth of knowledge?McCarthyism 2.0

 

[Sabertooth]

1984 much?

 

[RCon]

As I understand this, the government is not currently monitoring content (i.e. the actual calls themselves), meaning no, they are not looking for certain words and phrases, as they're not monitoring or recording the words and phrases at all.

They are monitoring content (phone calls). Just not all calls. And I have no doubt they will once they can store the data, but right now the size is still prohibitive.

Size of the content perhaps, although even that won't be prohibitive for long. I have no doubt that they are permanently storing the metadata on all calls.

 

[RCon]

All of you guys seem to have this fear that the government shouldn't have too much information. Because who knows what dire and tyrannical things they can do with it. But this is the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we've been hearing from those who have complained about the Census for years, except in that case we could relegate it to the "Black Helicopter" crowd. It dismays me that this sort of crowd has grown to include what the WSJ guy refers to a "libertarians"- not that it resembles even remotely the libertarianism that I once belonged to and admired, which concerned itself primarily with free trade and open immigration.

Libertarianism has always been about much more than "free trade and open immigration". I'd suggest those are tiny pieces of what libertarianism is, and has always been, about. Your blind spot on immigration simply prevented you from realizing it.

 

[Slapdash]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Metadata is not "information gathered en mass". Metadata = information about other data. For example...

I write a Word document and store it as a file. The content of the document itself (i.e. what you would see when you open the file in Microsoft Word) is data. The metadata about that document would encompass such things as Author Name, Date Created, Date Modified, Document Title, Size of File, etc.

The fact that the metadata is easily categorized into fields and searchable makes it specific. For instance, I could easily query the database and ask it to "show me a list of all documents written by timschochet, along with dates, titles, etc."

Worth mentioning that this "metadata" caveat is just really being used for the phone call monitoring.

No reason to think they wouldn't be recieving a richer dataset through vehicles like PRISM, photos and videos were specifically mentioned.

 

[timschochet]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Metadata is not "information gathered en mass". Metadata = information about other data. For example...

I write a Word document and store it as a file. The content of the document itself (i.e. what you would see when you open the file in Microsoft Word) is data. The metadata about that document would encompass such things as Author Name, Date Created, Date Modified, Document Title, Size of File, etc.

The fact that the metadata is easily categorized into fields and searchable makes it specific. For instance, I could easily query the database and ask it to "show me a list of all documents written by timschochet, along with dates, titles, etc."

OK.

But see, I want them to be able to do this, in order to stop terrorism. I'm not fearful they're going to use it against me for some diabolical purpose.

Hate to be blunt, but... you're a fool if you think this data won't be used in ways that it shouldn't be.

Well, I've been called worse.

Look, we live in an information society. The government, and large corporations as well, are going to know much more about us than they did 40 or 50 years ago. It's an inevitable consequence of the newer technologies, and there's nothing we can do about it. As I've pointed out several times, far from this resulting in our being less free, it actually increases our individual freedom. But in some ways privacy is going to have to be redefined, because the previous meaning is no longer applicable.

 

[timschochet]

1984 much?

Not at all. But I think Kafka's The Trial could be a reasonable concern.

 

[Slapdash]

All of you guys seem to have this fear that the government shouldn't have too much information. Because who knows what dire and tyrannical things they can do with it. But this is the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we've been hearing from those who have complained about the Census for years, except in that case we could relegate it to the "Black Helicopter" crowd. It dismays me that this sort of crowd has grown to include what the WSJ guy refers to a "libertarians"- not that it resembles even remotely the libertarianism that I once belonged to and admired, which concerned itself primarily with free trade and open immigration.

I think you have confused the words "libertarian" with "Chamber of Commerce"

 

[RCon]

Look, we live in an information society. The government, and large corporations as well, are going to know much more about us than they did 40 or 50 years ago. It's an inevitable consequence of the newer technologies, and there's nothing we can do about it. As I've pointed out several times, far from this resulting in our being less free, it actually increases our individual freedom. But in some ways privacy is going to have to be redefined, because the previous meaning is no longer applicable.

I'm confused. How is my individual freedom increased by the government having records on who I called and when?

 

[timschochet]

All of you guys seem to have this fear that the government shouldn't have too much information. Because who knows what dire and tyrannical things they can do with it. But this is the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we've been hearing from those who have complained about the Census for years, except in that case we could relegate it to the "Black Helicopter" crowd. It dismays me that this sort of crowd has grown to include what the WSJ guy refers to a "libertarians"- not that it resembles even remotely the libertarianism that I once belonged to and admired, which concerned itself primarily with free trade and open immigration.

Libertarianism has always been about much more than "free trade and open immigration". I'd suggest those are tiny pieces of what libertarianism is, and has always been, about. Your blind spot on immigration simply prevented you from realizing it.

I think I understand classic libertarianism pretty well. I was brought up on Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Tibor Machan, Milton Freidman. Now that is not to say that, if those 4 gentlemen were around today (Tibor might be, not sure) they wouldn't disagree with me on this issue- they very well might. But they would not do so in a paranoid manner. Their concerns were primarily economic and focused on trade and larger freedoms, as I have discussed.

 

[RCon]

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

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.

You're the one who injected that into the thread. It seems counter productive to say you want a debate while attacking the only reporter who is trying to uncover these programs. These programs that go much further than you and Dershowitz concede, yet you infer it is paranoia to mention that.

You keep asserting this, and I'm still waiting to discover what it means. So long as the principle involves collecting information in mass (megadata) I'm still not particularly concerned, no matter how "far" it goes. If it ever transfers into obtaining specific information on people without warrants, obviously that is cause for concern. Do you have evidence of the latter?

Metadata is not "information gathered en mass". Metadata = information about other data. For example...

I write a Word document and store it as a file. The content of the document itself (i.e. what you would see when you open the file in Microsoft Word) is data. The metadata about that document would encompass such things as Author Name, Date Created, Date Modified, Document Title, Size of File, etc.

The fact that the metadata is easily categorized into fields and searchable makes it specific. For instance, I could easily query the database and ask it to "show me a list of all documents written by timschochet, along with dates, titles, etc."

Worth mentioning that this "metadata" caveat is just really being used for the phone call monitoring.

No reason to think they wouldn't be recieving a richer dataset through vehicles like PRISM, photos and videos were specifically mentioned.

Definitely. I'm generally sticking to the phone call stuff since it's the original topic of the thread, but some of the other data collection scares me even more.