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

[timschochet]

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 But in some ways privacy is going to have to be redefined, because the previous meaning is no longer applicable.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?

I meant the technology, not the government's access to it.

 

[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 But in some ways privacy is going to have to be redefined, because the previous meaning is no longer applicable.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?

I meant the technology, not the government's access to it.

The technology can exist without government having access to it.

 

[timschochet]

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 But in some ways privacy is going to have to be redefined, because the previous meaning is no longer applicable.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?

I meant the technology, not the government's access to it.

The technology can exist without government having access to it.

I doubt that. What technology has ever existed without the government having access to 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."

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.

There is plenty we could do about it. Unfortunately, we have way too many people like you defending the status quo where our privacy is abused.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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

We just need to look at the IRS scandal to see why this should be scary. And when I say IRS scandal I suggest, at least for sake of argument in this thread limit what happened to the official story. Dedicated, hard working, honest people with something new to be concerned about and not enough direction created their own procedures and ran with it. Why should we suspect our dedicated, hard working, honest security people to be any different? If given a need to use this data they will use it - constitutionally appropriately or not because their job is to use the tools available to "save lives".

(That of course is pretending that the current usages are constitutionally appropriately and that this is not what has already happened.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Those that want the government bounded by the deal called the constitution are paranoid. Those thinking that terrorists are coming after them are not. Got it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There is plenty we could do about it. Unfortunately, we have way too many people like you defending the status quo where our privacy is abused.

We can't do anything about it until we find a way to stop being afraid of every boogie man that K Street creates.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

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

We just need to look at the IRS scandal to see why this should be scary. And when I say IRS scandal I suggest, at least for sake of argument in this thread limit what happened to the official story. Dedicated, hard working, honest people with something new to be concerned about and not enough direction created their own procedures and ran with it. Why should we suspect our dedicated, hard working, honest security people to be any different? If given a need to use this data they will use it - constitutionally appropriately or not because their job is to use the tools available to "save lives". (That of course is pretending that the current usages are constitutionally appropriately and that this is not what has already happened.)

Now imagine there was a link between this NSA scandal and the IRS scandal. It would take a leak for any chance to prove there was in this instance, and I'm certainly not trying to assert there was a link, but is it really that difficult for something like this to happen?

 

[timschochet]

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

We just need to look at the IRS scandal to see why this should be scary. And when I say IRS scandal I suggest, at least for sake of argument in this thread limit what happened to the official story. Dedicated, hard working, honest people with something new to be concerned about and not enough direction created their own procedures and ran with it. Why should we suspect our dedicated, hard working, honest security people to be any different? If given a need to use this data they will use it - constitutionally appropriately or not because their job is to use the tools available to "save lives".

(That of course is pretending that the current usages are constitutionally appropriately and that this is not what has already happened.)

Then just as with the IRS scandal, if that happens we punish the appropriate people in order to ensure it doesn't happen again. And if we have to, we change the procedures involved. But we don't dismantle the IRS, (as good as that might sound!)

 

[RCon]

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

We just need to look at the IRS scandal to see why this should be scary. And when I say IRS scandal I suggest, at least for sake of argument in this thread limit what happened to the official story. Dedicated, hard working, honest people with something new to be concerned about and not enough direction created their own procedures and ran with it. Why should we suspect our dedicated, hard working, honest security people to be any different? If given a need to use this data they will use it - constitutionally appropriately or not because their job is to use the tools available to "save lives".

(That of course is pretending that the current usages are constitutionally appropriately and that this is not what has already happened.)

Then just as with the IRS scandal, if that happens we punish the appropriate people in order to ensure it doesn't happen again. And if we have to, we change the procedures involved. But we don't dismantle the IRS, (as good as that might sound!)

How can anyone be punished for abuse of power when the extent of the power that the government has unilaterally granted to itself isn't known?

 

[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?

I meant the technology, not the government's access to it.

The technology can exist without government having access to it.

I doubt that. What technology has ever existed without the government having access to it?

You're suggesting that it's impossible for me to have the ability to perform internet searches without the government having access to the history of what I searched and when?

 

[timschochet]

Those that want the government bounded by the deal called the constitution are paranoid. Those thinking that terrorists are coming after them are not. Got it.

You're smarter than this. This is the sort of empty rhetoric that the gun nuts use. I've provided now at least 3 articles, all of them by constitutional scholars, which take issue with your interpretation of the Constitution. BIg Steel Thrill has provided you with a Supreme Court decision which also appears on its face to contradict it. You're free to disagree with all of that, as Rich does, but to argue that the other side is deliberately ignoring the Constitution is simply wrong.

 

[RCon]

Those that want the government bounded by the deal called the constitution are paranoid. Those thinking that terrorists are coming after them are not. Got it.

You're smarter than this. This is the sort of empty rhetoric that the gun nuts use. I've provided now at least 3 articles, all of them by constitutional scholars, which take issue with your interpretation of the Constitution. BIg Steel Thrill has provided you with a Supreme Court decision which also appears on its face to contradict it. You're free to disagree with all of that, as Rich does, but to argue that the other side is deliberately ignoring the Constitution is simply wrong.

I argue that the government, in particular the Executive Branch, deliberately ignores the Constitution quite frequently.

Edit: This is not a criticism of the Obama administration in particular. This has been going on for ages.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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

We just need to look at the IRS scandal to see why this should be scary. And when I say IRS scandal I suggest, at least for sake of argument in this thread limit what happened to the official story. Dedicated, hard working, honest people with something new to be concerned about and not enough direction created their own procedures and ran with it. Why should we suspect our dedicated, hard working, honest security people to be any different? If given a need to use this data they will use it - constitutionally appropriately or not because their job is to use the tools available to "save lives".

(That of course is pretending that the current usages are constitutionally appropriately and that this is not what has already happened.)

Then just as with the IRS scandal, if that happens we punish the appropriate people in order to ensure it doesn't happen again. And if we have to, we change the procedures involved. But we don't dismantle the IRS, (as good as that might sound!)

Cool. The new procedure is that government must have probable cause that I did something wrong in order to get a warrant for my phone records, or to read my e-mails, or to demand that Joe and company give info on what info I used to create a login. And they cannot save any of that beyond that particular investigation (assuming I'm not convicted).

 

[timschochet]

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?

I meant the technology, not the government's access to it.

The technology can exist without government having access to it.

I doubt that. What technology has ever existed without the government having access to it?

You're suggesting that it's impossible for me to have the ability to perform internet searches without the government having access to the history of what I searched and when?

Pretty much, yes. At least, having the ability to access it. Large corporations too. Some hacker in the middle of nowhere too. Anything you do on the internet is accessible to anyone who really wants it. Sorry.

 

[timschochet]

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

We just need to look at the IRS scandal to see why this should be scary. And when I say IRS scandal I suggest, at least for sake of argument in this thread limit what happened to the official story. Dedicated, hard working, honest people with something new to be concerned about and not enough direction created their own procedures and ran with it. Why should we suspect our dedicated, hard working, honest security people to be any different? If given a need to use this data they will use it - constitutionally appropriately or not because their job is to use the tools available to "save lives".

(That of course is pretending that the current usages are constitutionally appropriately and that this is not what has already happened.)

Then just as with the IRS scandal, if that happens we punish the appropriate people in order to ensure it doesn't happen again. And if we have to, we change the procedures involved. But we don't dismantle the IRS, (as good as that might sound!)

How can anyone be punished for abuse of power when the extent of the power that the government has unilaterally granted to itself isn't known?

This is a very good point. Like you, I am concerned about the secrecy. It's the one aspect of this we agree on.

 

[Fennis]

Cool. The new procedure is that government must have probable cause that I did something wrong in order to get a warrant for my phone records, or to read my e-mails, or to demand that Joe and company give info on what info I used to create a login. And they cannot save any of that beyond that particular investigation (assuming I'm not convicted).

scofflaw!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Those that want the government bounded by the deal called the constitution are paranoid. Those thinking that terrorists are coming after them are not. Got it.

You're smarter than this. This is the sort of empty rhetoric that the gun nuts use. I've provided now at least 3 articles, all of them by constitutional scholars, which take issue with your interpretation of the Constitution. BIg Steel Thrill has provided you with a Supreme Court decision which also appears on its face to contradict it. You're free to disagree with all of that, as Rich does, but to argue that the other side is deliberately ignoring the Constitution is simply wrong.

Those articles all dismissed any concerns as just another case of paranoid "conspiracy theorists". Trivializing concerns as just a "conspiracy theory" has been in the playbook since at least Iran-Contra.

 

[timschochet]

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

We just need to look at the IRS scandal to see why this should be scary. And when I say IRS scandal I suggest, at least for sake of argument in this thread limit what happened to the official story. Dedicated, hard working, honest people with something new to be concerned about and not enough direction created their own procedures and ran with it. Why should we suspect our dedicated, hard working, honest security people to be any different? If given a need to use this data they will use it - constitutionally appropriately or not because their job is to use the tools available to "save lives".

(That of course is pretending that the current usages are constitutionally appropriately and that this is not what has already happened.)

Then just as with the IRS scandal, if that happens we punish the appropriate people in order to ensure it doesn't happen again. And if we have to, we change the procedures involved. But we don't dismantle the IRS, (as good as that might sound!)

Cool. The new procedure is that government must have probable cause that I did something wrong in order to get a warrant for my phone records, or to read my e-mails, or to demand that Joe and company give info on what info I used to create a login. And they cannot save any of that beyond that particular investigation (assuming I'm not convicted).

There's no new procedure necessary yet for the NSA stuff because so far as we know, there have been no deliberate abuse. In any event, I am on the face of it opposed to your proposal, as it contradicts the whole purpose of collecting the data.

 

[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?

I meant the technology, not the government's access to it.

The technology can exist without government having access to it.

I doubt that. What technology has ever existed without the government having access to it?

You're suggesting that it's impossible for me to have the ability to perform internet searches without the government having access to the history of what I searched and when?

Pretty much, yes. At least, having the ability to access it. Large corporations too. Some hacker in the middle of nowhere too. Anything you do on the internet is accessible to anyone who really wants it. Sorry.

Quite simply, you're wrong about this. It's quite possible. BTW, I work in the IT field.

 

[timschochet]

Those that want the government bounded by the deal called the constitution are paranoid. Those thinking that terrorists are coming after them are not. Got it.

You're smarter than this. This is the sort of empty rhetoric that the gun nuts use. I've provided now at least 3 articles, all of them by constitutional scholars, which take issue with your interpretation of the Constitution. BIg Steel Thrill has provided you with a Supreme Court decision which also appears on its face to contradict it. You're free to disagree with all of that, as Rich does, but to argue that the other side is deliberately ignoring the Constitution is simply wrong.

Those articles all dismissed any concerns as just another case of paranoid "conspiracy theorists". Trivializing concerns as just a "conspiracy theory" has been in the playbook since at least Iran-Contra.

Well first, this has nothing to do with my point, which was about the Constitution and your interpretation of it, which is not a universal one.

But putting that aside, your statement is not correct. Each of the three articles I have posted did include concerns, especially the Dershowitz article. All of them questioned the secrecy involved. Dershowitz wants a congressional inquiry and a national discussion, which I agree would be a good idea.

But all 3 dismissed paranoid concerns, which is basically that the government is going to use this information to impose a tyranny on it's citizens.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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

We just need to look at the IRS scandal to see why this should be scary. And when I say IRS scandal I suggest, at least for sake of argument in this thread limit what happened to the official story. Dedicated, hard working, honest people with something new to be concerned about and not enough direction created their own procedures and ran with it. Why should we suspect our dedicated, hard working, honest security people to be any different? If given a need to use this data they will use it - constitutionally appropriately or not because their job is to use the tools available to "save lives".

(That of course is pretending that the current usages are constitutionally appropriately and that this is not what has already happened.)

Then just as with the IRS scandal, if that happens we punish the appropriate people in order to ensure it doesn't happen again. And if we have to, we change the procedures involved. But we don't dismantle the IRS, (as good as that might sound!)

Cool. The new procedure is that government must have probable cause that I did something wrong in order to get a warrant for my phone records, or to read my e-mails, or to demand that Joe and company give info on what info I used to create a login. And they cannot save any of that beyond that particular investigation (assuming I'm not convicted).

There's no new procedure necessary yet for the NSA stuff because so far as we know, there have been no deliberate abuse. In any event, I am on the face of it opposed to your proposal, as it contradicts the whole purpose of collecting the data.

As far as we know there were no deliberate abuse at the IRS, so all is good? No new procedures are needed there?

 

[timschochet]

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?

I meant the technology, not the government's access to it.

The technology can exist without government having access to it.

I doubt that. What technology has ever existed without the government having access to it?

You're suggesting that it's impossible for me to have the ability to perform internet searches without the government having access to the history of what I searched and when?

Pretty much, yes. At least, having the ability to access it. Large corporations too. Some hacker in the middle of nowhere too. Anything you do on the internet is accessible to anyone who really wants it. Sorry.

Quite simply, you're wrong about this. It's quite possible. BTW, I work in the IT field.

Well that was my understanding. Actually I'm happy to be wrong about it. If given a choice, I would prefer more privacy, not less.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But all 3 dismissed paranoid concerns, which is basically that the government is going to use this information to impose a tyranny on it's citizens.

If I'm not doing anything wrong then why can't I just speak freely without caring who is watching or listening or reading?

 

[timschochet]

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

We just need to look at the IRS scandal to see why this should be scary. And when I say IRS scandal I suggest, at least for sake of argument in this thread limit what happened to the official story. Dedicated, hard working, honest people with something new to be concerned about and not enough direction created their own procedures and ran with it. Why should we suspect our dedicated, hard working, honest security people to be any different? If given a need to use this data they will use it - constitutionally appropriately or not because their job is to use the tools available to "save lives".

(That of course is pretending that the current usages are constitutionally appropriately and that this is not what has already happened.)

Then just as with the IRS scandal, if that happens we punish the appropriate people in order to ensure it doesn't happen again. And if we have to, we change the procedures involved. But we don't dismantle the IRS, (as good as that might sound!)

Cool. The new procedure is that government must have probable cause that I did something wrong in order to get a warrant for my phone records, or to read my e-mails, or to demand that Joe and company give info on what info I used to create a login. And they cannot save any of that beyond that particular investigation (assuming I'm not convicted).

There's no new procedure necessary yet for the NSA stuff because so far as we know, there have been no deliberate abuse. In any event, I am on the face of it opposed to your proposal, as it contradicts the whole purpose of collecting the data.

As far as we know there were no deliberate abuse at the IRS, so all is good? No new procedures are needed there?

I don't know. We're still learning about that scandal. I certainly wouldn't impose any new procedures until we find out everything that happened.

 

[timschochet]

But all 3 dismissed paranoid concerns, which is basically that the government is going to use this information to impose a tyranny on it's citizens.

If I'm not doing anything wrong then why can't I just speak freely without caring who is watching or listening or reading?

You can. It's up to you if you want to care about it.

 

[RCon]

Well that was my understanding. Actually I'm happy to be wrong about it. If given a choice, I would prefer more privacy, not less.

Huh. That's odd, because throughout the first 13 pages of this thread you appear to have been arguing that you prefer less privacy.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

link I know this has been linked here already but it deserves a read from those that have not read the interview.

Q: Washington-based foreign affairs analyst Steve Clemons said he overheard at the capital's Dulles airport four men discussing an intelligence conference they had just attended. Speaking about the leaks, one of them said, according to Clemons, that both the reporter and leaker should be "disappeared". How do you feel about that?

A: "Someone responding to the story said 'real spies do not speak like that'. Well, I am a spy and that is how they talk. Whenever we had a debate in the office on how to handle crimes, they do not defend due process – they defend decisive action. They say it is better to kick someone out of a plane than let these people have a day in court. It is an authoritarian mindset in general."

Over the next three years, he learned just how all-consuming the NSA's surveillance activities were, claiming "they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behaviour in the world known to them".

 

[timschochet]

Well that was my understanding. Actually I'm happy to be wrong about it. If given a choice, I would prefer more privacy, not less.

Huh. That's odd, because throughout the first 13 pages of this thread you appear to have been arguing that you prefer less privacy.

No, that is not true. I don't regard my phone calls and emails and whatever being on some massive list which the government is culling in order to find terrorists as an invasion of my privacy. I realize that you do. We simply disagree on this.

 

[timschochet]

Gotta run now. I might have more time for this discussion later.

 

[RCon]

Well that was my understanding. Actually I'm happy to be wrong about it. If given a choice, I would prefer more privacy, not less.

Huh. That's odd, because throughout the first 13 pages of this thread you appear to have been arguing that you prefer less privacy.

No, that is not true. I don't regard my phone calls and emails and whatever being on some massive list which the government is culling in order to find terrorists as an invasion of my privacy. I realize that you do. We simply disagree on this.

It is a loss of your privacy. No offense timschochet, but this cannot be debated. As in, something that was once private is now not.

Your argument is that it is justified, and that your loss of privacy is worth it to you.

 

[timschochet]

Well that was my understanding. Actually I'm happy to be wrong about it. If given a choice, I would prefer more privacy, not less.

Huh. That's odd, because throughout the first 13 pages of this thread you appear to have been arguing that you prefer less privacy.

No, that is not true. I don't regard my phone calls and emails and whatever being on some massive list which the government is culling in order to find terrorists as an invasion of my privacy. I realize that you do. We simply disagree on this.

It is an invasion of your privacy. No offense timschochet, but this cannot be debated.

Your argument is that it is justified, and that your loss of privacy is worth it to you.

No, my argument is exactly what I wrote. It is not an invasion of my privacy. Nobody from the government is saying "Let's access these records of timschochet's and see what he's all about." I'm simply a number, one of many millions. My privacy is intact.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Well that was my understanding. Actually I'm happy to be wrong about it. If given a choice, I would prefer more privacy, not less.

Huh. That's odd, because throughout the first 13 pages of this thread you appear to have been arguing that you prefer less privacy.

No, that is not true. I don't regard my phone calls and emails and whatever being on some massive list which the government is culling in order to find terrorists as an invasion of my privacy. I realize that you do. We simply disagree on this.

It is an invasion of your privacy. No offense timschochet, but this cannot be debated. Your argument is that it is justified, and that your loss of privacy is worth it to you.

No, my argument is exactly what I wrote. It is not an invasion of my privacy. Nobody from the government is saying "Let's access these records of timschochet's and see what he's all about." I'm simply a number, one of many millions. My privacy is intact.

But you are perfectly fine with them creating a profile of you based on your interests, actions, check-in's, contacts, etc...to possibly be used at a later point in time even if your previous actions are not classified as a terrorist that matches your current profile, but you are defending their actions of keeping this profile of you in case at a future point in time something in your profile classifies you as a terrorist or you once answered a wrong number from a terrorist and accidentally spoke to them for 2 minutes or perhaps they left you a voicemail.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It is an invasion of your privacy. No offense timschochet, but this cannot be debated.

Your argument is that it is justified, and that your loss of privacy is worth it to you.

I doubt that this program can be demonstrated to be a cost effective means to thwart real terrorism even if we ignore the cost of the "invasion of privacy". It will eventually need to justify its costs some other ways.

 

[Slapdash]

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?

I meant the technology, not the government's access to it.

The technology can exist without government having access to it.

I doubt that. What technology has ever existed without the government having access to it?

You're suggesting that it's impossible for me to have the ability to perform internet searches without the government having access to the history of what I searched and when?

Pretty much, yes. At least, having the ability to access it. Large corporations too. Some hacker in the middle of nowhere too. Anything you do on the internet is accessible to anyone who really wants it. Sorry.

Quite simply, you're wrong about this. It's quite possible. BTW, I work in the IT field.

Well that was my understanding. Actually I'm happy to be wrong about it. If given a choice, I would prefer more privacy, not less.

 

[Slapdash]

Well that was my understanding. Actually I'm happy to be wrong about it. If given a choice, I would prefer more privacy, not less.

Huh. That's odd, because throughout the first 13 pages of this thread you appear to have been arguing that you prefer less privacy.

No, that is not true. I don't regard my phone calls and emails and whatever being on some massive list which the government is culling in order to find terrorists as an invasion of my privacy. I realize that you do. We simply disagree on this.

It is an invasion of your privacy. No offense timschochet, but this cannot be debated.

Your argument is that it is justified, and that your loss of privacy is worth it to you.

No, my argument is exactly what I wrote. It is not an invasion of my privacy. Nobody from the government is saying "Let's access these records of timschochet's and see what he's all about." I'm simply a number, one of many millions. My privacy is intact.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

 

[Slapdash]

Those that want the government bounded by the deal called the constitution are paranoid. Those thinking that terrorists are coming after them are not. Got it.

You're smarter than this. This is the sort of empty rhetoric that the gun nuts use. I've provided now at least 3 articles, all of them by constitutional scholars, which take issue with your interpretation of the Constitution. BIg Steel Thrill has provided you with a Supreme Court decision which also appears on its face to contradict it. You're free to disagree with all of that, as Rich does, but to argue that the other side is deliberately ignoring the Constitution is simply wrong.

Those articles all dismissed any concerns as just another case of paranoid "conspiracy theorists". Trivializing concerns as just a "conspiracy theory" has been in the playbook since at least Iran-Contra.

Well first, this has nothing to do with my point, which was about the Constitution and your interpretation of it, which is not a universal one.

But putting that aside, your statement is not correct. Each of the three articles I have posted did include concerns, especially the Dershowitz article. All of them questioned the secrecy involved. Dershowitz wants a congressional inquiry and a national discussion, which I agree would be a good idea.

But all 3 dismissed paranoid concerns, which is basically that the government is going to use this information to impose a tyranny on it's citizens.

Your articles were more concerned with deriding their oppositition that making a coherent argument.

As far as the bolded, why is it paranoid to take these whistleblowers at their own word?

 

[humpback]

Gotta run now. I might have more time for this discussion later.

Something tells me you'll be able to scrape together a few more posts.

 

[Black Box]

Tim is OK with his metadata profile because he can't be profiled. He's simply too prolific. A brilliant move on his part, really. I tip my hat to him.

NSA Supervisor: "Ok, plug in timschochet."

NSA Analyst: "Interests: everything."

Supervisor: "Everything? Impossible."

Analyst: "PRISM says he has a post connection... err... he is an expert on, quite literally, everything."

 

[Fennis]

Tim is OK with his metadata profile because he can't be profiled. He's simply too prolific. A brilliant move on his part, really. I tip my hat to him.

NSA Supervisor: "Ok, plug in timschochet."

NSA Analyst: "Interests: everything."

Supervisor: "Everything? Impossible."

Analyst: "PRISM says he has a post connection... err... he is an expert on, quite literally, everything."

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Using Metadata to Find Paul Revere

 

[5 digit know nothing]

"Maybe we should look to Israel"

 

[Doug B]

There is plenty we could do about it.

Anything besides taking up arms? Which does no good, anyway, because the new bosses will do the same stuff.

Any conceivable human govermnent -- even if it was the Slapdash/Strike ticket 2016 -- will employ the same techniology in the same way. Internal spying has been here a long, long time, and is never going anywhere.

 

[Doug B]

Huh. That's odd, because throughout the first 13 pages of this thread you appear to have been arguing that you prefer less privacy.

Not to speak for Tim, but:

It's not necessarily a preference for less privacy ... it might just be a resignation that privacy as we knew it can never again be attained.

 

[Slapdash]

There is plenty we could do about it.

Anything besides taking up arms? Which does no good, anyway, because the new bosses will do the same stuff.

Any conceivable human govermnent -- even if it was the Slapdash/Strike ticket 2016 -- will employ the same techniology in the same way. Internal spying has been here a long, long time, and is never going anywhere.

There are web services you can use that don't log your information or encryption methods to conceal your activity. People can choose to use those and not support firms that continue to violate their privacy. The firms do have to answer their shareholders afterall.

On the government side, we could repeal the Patriot Act and FISA and put stronger privacy protections in place like exist in Europe. Many European countires are actually trying to go after companies like Google for how poorly they treat customer information.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

There is plenty we could do about it.

Anything besides taking up arms? Which does no good, anyway, because the new bosses will do the same stuff. Any conceivable human govermnent -- even if it was the Slapdash/Strike ticket 2016 -- will employ the same techniology in the same way. Internal spying has been here a long, long time, and is never going anywhere.

boiling frog

 

[Doug B]

On the government side, we could repeal the Patriot Act and FISA and put stronger privacy protections in place like exist in Europe. Many European countires are actually trying to go after companies like Google for how poorly they treat customer information.

I believe, but have no evidence, that all goverments workdwide that have the technology do about the same thing. Just the way I think powerful people & organizations roll

 

[RCon]

Well that was my understanding. Actually I'm happy to be wrong about it. If given a choice, I would prefer more privacy, not less.

Huh. That's odd, because throughout the first 13 pages of this thread you appear to have been arguing that you prefer less privacy.

No, that is not true. I don't regard my phone calls and emails and whatever being on some massive list which the government is culling in order to find terrorists as an invasion of my privacy. I realize that you do. We simply disagree on this.

It is an invasion of your privacy. No offense timschochet, but this cannot be debated.

Your argument is that it is justified, and that your loss of privacy is worth it to you.

No, my argument is exactly what I wrote. It is not an invasion of my privacy. Nobody from the government is saying "Let's access these records of timschochet's and see what he's all about." I'm simply a number, one of many millions. My privacy is intact.

Security by obscurity never works in the long run.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Using Metadata to Find Paul Revere

Neat.

 

[Slapdash]

On the government side, we could repeal the Patriot Act and FISA and put stronger privacy protections in place like exist in Europe. Many European countires are actually trying to go after companies like Google for how poorly they treat customer information.

I believe, but have no evidence, that all goverments workdwide that have the technology do about the same thing. Just the way I think powerful people & organizations roll

[SIZE=10.5pt]Sure, power will always attempt to push the bounds of the law to keep control. The FBI has been engaging in illegal surveillance acts for a very long time. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]However, we could help a lot by not allowing the law to be so damn permissive in the first place. [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]It will always be a struggle at the margin, but I believe we could accomplish a great deal there. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I do think it is reasonable to assume that the US, as the world’s dominant power, is quite a bit more focused on doing these types of actions than say a Scandinavian nation or other liberal democracies would be. More akin to China or Singapore, that is a problem. [/SIZE]