Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Nikki, I honestly never paid attention as to whether or not the Patriot Act was "temporary", because I regard it as an irrelevant question. The genie is out of the bottle. The NSA is going to collect mass data and use it for the nation's security. That's the new world we are living in. Let's hope they don't abuse their power.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you. This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

It's not something we are just learning about. The Patriot Act has been a heated political debate for over a decade now. The fear of how far the government would go with it was always high on the list of concerns about it. Now we are just learning the worst fears over it have been realized, and maybe have even gone farther than what the act allows the government to do.

 

[Nikki2200]

This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Nikki2200]

Nikki, I honestly never paid attention as to whether or not the Patriot Act was "temporary", because I regard it as an irrelevant question. The genie is out of the bottle. The NSA is going to collect mass data and use it for the nation's security. That's the new world we are living in. Let's hope they don't abuse their power.

We can hope they don't abuse their power. Or we can take this crapola to the SCOTUS and have them decide whether or not these activities are in accordance with the basic laws of our land. If the SCOTUS wouldn't overturn this... then gods help us all.

As for the Patriot Act, the only reason a lot of people were able to stomach it and say it was a'right was because it was supposed to be sunset in 2005. If the proposal had been that the law would be permanent, there would have been a lot more opposition at the time. And the original dissenters were smart enough to realize how dangerous that act was for the future of our civil liberties and that it would not be sunset when it was supposed to be. And here we are in 2013 finding out the government has been collecting all of our online data and communications in the name of stopping terrorism - without warrants, without probable cause, and without our knowledge.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you. This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

It's not something we are just learning about. The Patriot Act has been a heated political debate for over a decade now. The fear of how far the government would go with it was always high on the list of concerns about it. Now we are just learning the worst fears over it have been realized, and maybe have even gone farther than what the act allows the government to do.

No they haven't, and no matter how many times you repeat this it doesn't make it true. And yes, this particular story is something we are learning about now.

 

[timschochet]

This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I know what the 4th Amendment says. I also know that Constitutional scholars as diverse as Alan Dershowitz and Bush's former attorney general disagree with you on this. So, apparently does Barack Obama.

 

[timschochet]

Nikki, I honestly never paid attention as to whether or not the Patriot Act was "temporary", because I regard it as an irrelevant question. The genie is out of the bottle. The NSA is going to collect mass data and use it for the nation's security. That's the new world we are living in. Let's hope they don't abuse their power.

We can hope they don't abuse their power. Or we can take this crapola to the SCOTUS and have them decide whether or not these activities are in accordance with the basic laws of our land. If the SCOTUS wouldn't overturn this... then gods help us all.

As for the Patriot Act, the only reason a lot of people were able to stomach it and say it was a'right was because it was supposed to be sunset in 2005. If the proposal had been that the law would be permanent, there would have been a lot more opposition at the time. And the original dissenters were smart enough to realize how dangerous that act was for the future of our civil liberties and that it would not be sunset when it was supposed to be. And here we are in 2013 finding out the government has been collecting all of our online data and communications in the name of stopping terrorism - without warrants, without probable cause, and without our knowledge.

Based on the 1979 decision that Big Steel Thrill referenced, I doubt SCOTUS will overturn the Patriot Act. But we'll see.

The "without our knowledge" part continues to bother me. The "without warrants" and "without probable cause" really doesn't. I don't think either are needed for what we have learned the NSA is up to.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you. This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

It's not something we are just learning about. The Patriot Act has been a heated political debate for over a decade now. The fear of how far the government would go with it was always high on the list of concerns about it. Now we are just learning the worst fears over it have been realized, and maybe have even gone farther than what the act allows the government to do.

No they haven't, and no matter how many times you repeat this it doesn't make it true. And yes, this particular story is something we are learning about now.

Yes they have. Read paragraph two and the fourth paragraph titled "section 215" of the ACLU's "Reform the Patriot Act" web page: http://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-actWe have never known what the government was doing with this provision in the act, which is an act directly contrary to the US Constitution that should expire. We now know the government has an $80 billion program with nearly 1 million employees dedicated to the provision, meaning the odds of this act ever being allowed to expire are close to zero now. Section 215 is now with us to stay... Like herpes. We've just learned civil rights we temporarily gave up are now permanently dead.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you. This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

It's not something we are just learning about. The Patriot Act has been a heated political debate for over a decade now. The fear of how far the government would go with it was always high on the list of concerns about it. Now we are just learning the worst fears over it have been realized, and maybe have even gone farther than what the act allows the government to do.

No they haven't, and no matter how many times you repeat this it doesn't make it true. And yes, this particular story is something we are learning about now.

Yes they have. Read paragraph two and the fourth paragraph titled "section 215" of the ACLU's "Reform the Patriot Act" web page: http://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-actWe have never known what the government was doing with this provision in the act, which is an act directly contrary to the US Constitution that should expire.We now know the government has an $80 billion program with nearly 1 million employees dedicated to the provision, meaning the odds of this act ever being allowed to expire are close to zero now. Section 215 is now with us to stay... Like herpes. We've just learned civil rights we temporarily gave up are now permanently dead.

Apparently your "worst fears" are far less than my "worst fears".

Earlier you provided a very questionable link about how the DHS is currently targeting people based on their conservative political beliefs as "domestic terrorists". I asked you if you could link that to a credible source. Can you? Because that's the sort of thing that really would concern me if it were true. Not this stuff.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you. This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

It's not something we are just learning about. The Patriot Act has been a heated political debate for over a decade now. The fear of how far the government would go with it was always high on the list of concerns about it. Now we are just learning the worst fears over it have been realized, and maybe have even gone farther than what the act allows the government to do.

No they haven't, and no matter how many times you repeat this it doesn't make it true. And yes, this particular story is something we are learning about now.

Yes they have. Read paragraph two and the fourth paragraph titled "section 215" of the ACLU's "Reform the Patriot Act" web page: http://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-actWe have never known what the government was doing with this provision in the act, which is an act directly contrary to the US Constitution that should expire.We now know the government has an $80 billion program with nearly 1 million employees dedicated to the provision, meaning the odds of this act ever being allowed to expire are close to zero now. Section 215 is now with us to stay... Like herpes. We've just learned civil rights we temporarily gave up are now permanently dead.

Apparently your "worst fears" are far less than my "worst fears". Earlier you provided a very questionable link about how the DHS is currently targeting people based on their conservative political beliefs as "domestic terrorists". I asked you if you could link that to a credible source. Can you? Because that's the sort of thing that really would concern me if it were true. Not this stuff.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities.I could list eggs, bread, and milk as being the "things" DHS choses to use to profile potential domestic terrorists. Provision 215 allows them to make that choice.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you. This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

It's not something we are just learning about. The Patriot Act has been a heated political debate for over a decade now. The fear of how far the government would go with it was always high on the list of concerns about it. Now we are just learning the worst fears over it have been realized, and maybe have even gone farther than what the act allows the government to do.

No they haven't, and no matter how many times you repeat this it doesn't make it true. And yes, this particular story is something we are learning about now.

Yes they have. Read paragraph two and the fourth paragraph titled "section 215" of the ACLU's "Reform the Patriot Act" web page: http://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-actWe have never known what the government was doing with this provision in the act, which is an act directly contrary to the US Constitution that should expire.We now know the government has an $80 billion program with nearly 1 million employees dedicated to the provision, meaning the odds of this act ever being allowed to expire are close to zero now. Section 215 is now with us to stay... Like herpes. We've just learned civil rights we temporarily gave up are now permanently dead.

Apparently your "worst fears" are far less than my "worst fears". Earlier you provided a very questionable link about how the DHS is currently targeting people based on their conservative political beliefs as "domestic terrorists". I asked you if you could link that to a credible source. Can you? Because that's the sort of thing that really would concern me if it were true. Not this stuff.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities.I could list eggs, bread, and milk as being the "things" DHS choses to use to profile potential domestic terrorists. Provision 215 allows them to make that choice.

So what? Why does this terrify you?

Do you honestly believe that, if we didn't have the Patriot Act, the government couldn't choose to do this sort of stuff if it wanted? Of course it could- ever since the technology began the government could and has been doing it. In a very real sense, the Patriot Act is not an extension of government power; it's a limitation of it.

Anyhow I have to go to bed. I think you're seeing phantoms that aren't there, honestly.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you. This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

It's not something we are just learning about. The Patriot Act has been a heated political debate for over a decade now. The fear of how far the government would go with it was always high on the list of concerns about it. Now we are just learning the worst fears over it have been realized, and maybe have even gone farther than what the act allows the government to do.

No they haven't, and no matter how many times you repeat this it doesn't make it true. And yes, this particular story is something we are learning about now.

Yes they have. Read paragraph two and the fourth paragraph titled "section 215" of the ACLU's "Reform the Patriot Act" web page: http://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-actWe have never known what the government was doing with this provision in the act, which is an act directly contrary to the US Constitution that should expire.We now know the government has an $80 billion program with nearly 1 million employees dedicated to the provision, meaning the odds of this act ever being allowed to expire are close to zero now. Section 215 is now with us to stay... Like herpes. We've just learned civil rights we temporarily gave up are now permanently dead.

Apparently your "worst fears" are far less than my "worst fears". Earlier you provided a very questionable link about how the DHS is currently targeting people based on their conservative political beliefs as "domestic terrorists". I asked you if you could link that to a credible source. Can you? Because that's the sort of thing that really would concern me if it were true. Not this stuff.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities.I could list eggs, bread, and milk as being the "things" DHS choses to use to profile potential domestic terrorists. Provision 215 allows them to make that choice.

So what? Why does this terrify you? Do you honestly believe that, if we didn't have the Patriot Act, the government couldn't choose to do this sort of stuff if it wanted? Of course it could- ever since the technology began the government could and has been doing it. In a very real sense, the Patriot Act is not an extension of government power; it's a limitation of it. Anyhow I have to go to bed. I think you're seeing phantoms that aren't there, honestly.

As slapdash asked you earlier, where is your line? If you have a line, the section 215 should scare you... Because section 215 says THERE IS NO LINE!

 

[timschochet]

Just want to add a final point for tonight: it seems to me that what is at the core of this discussion is a deep distrust of the motivations of government. I don't trust government in general; I think it's out of control and screws up a lot of the time- but I have a profound faith in their overall good intentions and I generally always have. It's a faith that many of you seem to be lacking. You look at the members of the Obama administration, guys like Eric Holder with an long record of public service, or members of the Bush administration, people like Condaleeza Rice, and you question their intentions and believe they are out to impose a dictatorship on us. It's completely paranoid and laughable IMO. These people can make mistakes, BIG mistakes, and sometimes in their haste to cover them up they can commit wrongful acts. But to accuse them of deliberately using their powers to impose tyranny- that's not something that I buy into. Good night, everyone.

 

[Politician Spock]

Just want to add a final point for tonight: it seems to me that what is at the core of this discussion is a deep distrust of the motivations of government. I don't trust government in general; I think it's out of control and screws up a lot of the time- but I have a profound faith in their overall good intentions and I generally always have. It's a faith that many of you seem to be lacking. You look at the members of the Obama administration, guys like Eric Holder with an long record of public service, or members of the Bush administration, people like Condaleeza Rice, and you question their intentions and believe they are out to impose a dictatorship on us. It's completely paranoid and laughable IMO. These people can make mistakes, BIG mistakes, and sometimes in their haste to cover them up they can commit wrongful acts. But to accuse them of deliberately using their powers to impose tyranny- that's not something that I buy into. Good night, everyone.

Faith in government? Does this mean you can't think of an example or two in history of why government can't be trusted, needs to be limited in power by a constitution, and should not be given the sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States without any suspicion of wrongdoing?As for intentions of politicians, I don't think this problem is individual or partisan based. This is a systemic problem. The system is reflecting that people have been so fearful that they valued safety more than civil rights. The politicians and parties are just doing what they thought the people wanted. Now we are learning thy the system went too far. This is why secrecy, in the name of security, is detrimental. JFK warned us of this:"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."Faith in a government with a sweeping authority to spy on its citizens IN SECRET without any suspicion of wrongdoing is foolish.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Just want to add a final point for tonight: it seems to me that what is at the core of this discussion is a deep distrust of the motivations of government.

Shall rehash all the pure evil crap our government has done? Particularly those key atrocities that they were not up front about?

 

[Statorama]

A small blurb in this story revealed that the whistleblower had offered the story to the Washington Post first, but they refused to publish it until the Obama Administration gave them the ok.

The Washington Post sure has come a long way since the days of publishing the Pentagon Papers. I'm so very glad that there was a news organization that had the balls to give this incredible government overreach the sunlight it needs.

 

[SacramentoBob]

A small blurb in this story revealed that the whistleblower had offered the story to the Washington Post first, but they refused to publish it until the Obama Administration gave them the ok.

The Washington Post sure has come a long way since the days of publishing the Pentagon Papers. I'm so very glad that there was a news organization that had the balls to give this incredible government overreach the sunlight it needs.

Well Obama has certainly made it clear he will go after the press for "national security leaks". Looks like no one is safe anymore.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I have to run, but one thing I need to clear up. I'm not afraid of the government getting out of hand because ultimately "we the people" do hold some at least token authority over the government. It will always at least give the appearance of being representative.

That is the fear however! "We the people" are reactionary. One very bad terrorists attack and they are all for trading "some measure of privacy for security". Fine, that is the very purpose of government. They are willing to allow the government to act in the shadows, to keep just about everything they do "top secret". They are willing to strip off shoes and coats and belts at the airport. Be patted down at stadiums. Etc. Fine. But what happens the next time our security apparatus just didn't have the tools to prevent some attack?

Look at the Boston marathon thread where no expenditure in capital or rights was too much to thwart the next terrorist attack. The fact that we are spending many times (as much as 20) more to save a life from terrorism than anywhere else in government is of no concern. How many lives are being saved by this $80 billion expenditure?

So I'm not afraid that the next president will just shut off the internet to silence discussion, I'm concerned that the masses will demand it. I'm not afraid that a tyrant will turn on web cams and microphones everywhere, I'm concerned that the people will vote in those that will. It is not a rogue administration that scares me, it is that I'm on the losing side of every rights versus security discussion as the government providing a faux sense of the warm and cozies trumps every rational discussion, every cost-benefit analysis. No amount of privacy is too much to give up if it will keep my kids safe from threats real or imagined.

 

[The Commish]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you.

This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

I do agree with you that it's early on in this particular story. Where you differ with most in this thread is you are giving the government the benefit of the doubt that they will do the right thing. The others are assuming the government is going to continue to act as it does and do the wrong thing. The the crux of the last 5+ pages. My question to you is why do you expect the government to all of a sudden do a 180 and begin doing things the right way?

 

[RCon]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/11/a_dog-bites-man_story_118755.html

An old journalism saw goes like this: Dog bites man, no story. Man bites dog, story. Allow me to update it. Government monitors email and telephone calls for national security, no story. Government doesn't do anything of the kind -- now, that's a story.

Clearly some awfully good newspapers and some awfully good reporters disagree. In the last week it's been raining stories about what the busybody government has been up to. The National Security Agency has been monitoring telephone calls and emails -- and even social media stuff of the sort you shouldn't have been doing anyway. To this, a whole lot of people have expressed shock. Oaths to the Fourth Amendment have filled the air. Unreasonable searches are simply unconstitutional, they assert -- without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized. It has merely been noted and, if suspicious, referred to a court for the appropriate warrant.

The programs certainly can be abused. (So can local police powers.) But oddly enough, proof that this has not happened comes from the self-proclaimed martyr for our civil liberties, Edward Snowden, late of Booz Allen Hamilton, the government contractor that ever so recently employed him. (I assume he'll be summoned to HR.)

In a remarkably overwrought interview conducted by the vainglorious Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian, Snowden cited not one example of the programs being abused. Greenwald wrote that Snowden "lines the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping" and that "he puts a large red hood over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them." Greenwald said that "Snowden will go down in history as one of America's most consequential whistleblowers." I think he'll go down as a cross-dressing Little Red Riding Hood.

Greenwald likens Snowden to Daniel Ellsberg, who revealed the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times and The Washington Post more than four decades ago. Not quite. The Pentagon Papers proved that a succession of U.S. presidents had lied about their intentions regarding Vietnam -- Lyndon Johnson above all. In 1964, he had campaigned against Barry Goldwater for the presidency as virtually the peace candidate while actually planning to widen the war. As the Times put in a 1996 story, the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance."

In contrast, no one lied about the various programs disclosed last week. They were secret, yes, but members of Congress were informed -- and they approved. Safeguards were built in. If, for instance, the omniscient computers picked up a pattern of phone calls from Mr. X to Suspected Terrorist Y, the government had to go to court to find out what was said. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act established a court consisting of 11 rotating federal judges. These judges are the same ones who rule on warrants the government seeks in domestic criminal cases. If we trust them for that, why would we not trust them for other things as well?

Whenever I see "Hello, Richard" on my computer screen, I realize what's happened: It knows me. It knows what I bought and when I bought it and where I was at the time. It knows my sizes and my credit card number and if it knows all that, it knows pretty much everything. I long ago sacrificed a measure of privacy for convenience. One click will do it.

I also made the same sort of deal for security. I assumed the government was doing at least what Google was doing -- and Google, I'm convinced, is the new Santa Claus: It sees you when you're sleeping, it knows when you're awake. It knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake. In 2009, Google's Eric Schmidt put us all at ease by telling CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." See, not all billionaires are so smart.

Everything about Edward Snowden is ridiculously cinematic. He is not paranoiac; he is merely narcissistic. He jettisoned a girlfriend, a career and, undoubtedly, his personal freedom to expose programs that were known to our elected officials and could have been deduced by anyone who has ever Googled anything. History will not record him as "one of America's most consequential whistleblowers." History is more likely to forget him. Soon, you can Google that.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/11/a_dog-bites-man_story_118755.html#ixzz2VsUHYHbeFollow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

So is your goal here to post each article more ridiculous than the last? And the first phrase you bolded here, "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized," only shows that both the writer and yourself have no concept of what metadata is and how powerful it is. Your Social Security Number is "only metadata". Feel like posting that here for all to see? How about your passport and driver's license numbers, personal e-mail address, real name, and cell phone numbers? Those are "only metadata".

 

[Politician Spock]

Jay Leno Show from 2008

(sorry if this has been posted before in the previous 17 pages. I haven't read the entire thread.)

 

[Slapdash]

Just want to add a final point for tonight: it seems to me that what is at the core of this discussion is a deep distrust of the motivations of government.

Shall rehash all the pure evil crap our government has done? Particularly those key atrocities that they were not up front about?

Didn't Tim try to write a ####### book about government abusing their power during WW2?His whole discussion with Politician Spock is disappointing. He says the Patriot Act limits surveillance, thinks lawyers from different admins are diverse, and has faith any wrongdoing will come to light. But the most disappointing part is that he still doesn't grasp the core arguement. It doesn't take bad motivations of this or any government to cause a problem. These data and capabilities will never go away. It is big data in a way even us that work in big data find it hard to comprehend. The insight and power this holds over the American people is unprecedented and scary. And one day it will be abused (it probably has already) even with the best intentions. THAT is the danger. Now, if the motivations of this or a future government are in fact evil, then the goose is cooked. As Snowden mentions: therBess nothing we can do to stop it.All of this is why controls and checks need to be put in place before evidence of abuse, not after. After is too late. Of course, I think we're already in the after.

 

[RCon]

Just want to add a final point for tonight: it seems to me that what is at the core of this discussion is a deep distrust of the motivations of government.

Shall rehash all the pure evil crap our government has done? Particularly those key atrocities that they were not up front about?

Didn't Tim try to write a ####### book about government abusing their power during WW2?His whole discussion with Politician Spock is disappointing. He says the Patriot Act limits surveillance, thinks lawyers from different admins are diverse, and has faith any wrongdoing will come to light.But the most disappointing part is that he still doesn't grasp the core arguement. It doesn't take bad motivations of this or any government to cause a problem. These data and capabilities will never go away. It is big data in a way even us that work in big data find it hard to comprehend. The insight and power this holds over the American people is unprecedented and scary. And one day it will be abused (it probably has already) even with the best intentions. THAT is the danger.Now, if the motivations of this or a future government are in fact evil, then the goose is cooked. As Snowden mentions: therBess nothing we can do to stop it.All of this is why controls and checks need to be put in place before evidence of abuse, not after. After is too late. Of course, I think we're already in the after.

Especially the bolded is the key here. Given human nature, that the information exists at all is the only proof I need to know with 100% certainty that it will be abused someday.

 

[Politician Spock]

I have to run, but one thing I need to clear up. I'm not afraid of the government getting out of hand because ultimately "we the people" do hold some at least token authority over the government. It will always at least give the appearance of being representative.That is the fear however! "We the people" are reactionary. One very bad terrorists attack and they are all for trading "some measure of privacy for security". Fine, that is the very purpose of government. They are willing to allow the government to act in the shadows, to keep just about everything they do "top secret". They are willing to strip off shoes and coats and belts at the airport. Be patted down at stadiums. Etc. Fine. But what happens the next time our security apparatus just didn't have the tools to prevent some attack?Look at the Boston marathon thread where no expenditure in capital or rights was too much to thwart the next terrorist attack. The fact that we are spending many times (as much as 20) more to save a life from terrorism than anywhere else in government is of no concern. How many lives are being saved by this $80 billion expenditure?So I'm not afraid that the next president will just shut off the internet to silence discussion, I'm concerned that the masses will demand it. I'm not afraid that a tyrant will turn on web cams and microphones everywhere, I'm concerned that the people will vote in those that will. It is not a rogue administration that scares me, it is that I'm on the losing side of every rights versus security discussion as the government providing a faux sense of the warm and cozies trumps every rational discussion, every cost-benefit analysis. No amount of privacy is too much to give up if it will keep my kids safe from threats real or imagined.

"Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king can." - from the movie The Patriot.

This isn't a politician becoming a tyrant. This isn't a group of politicians becoming tyrants. This isn't a political party becoming tyrannical.

What we are on the verge of (assuming we haven't already crossed the line) is collective tyranny. It is a system where the majority of people are so "afraid" that they democratically sacrafice freedom for tyranny, because freedom is scary and tyranny feels safer.

The days of being "the land of the free, and the home of the brave" may be in our past. If what is happening is allowed to continue, then we become "the land of the monitored, and the home of the scared." Whatever it costs, just make me feel safe... even if the cost is going from freedom to tyranny.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Man, Tim is a rube.

 

[Slapdash]

A small blurb in this story revealed that the whistleblower had offered the story to the Washington Post first, but they refused to publish it until the Obama Administration gave them the ok. The Washington Post sure has come a long way since the days of publishing the Pentagon Papers. I'm so very glad that there was a news organization that had the balls to give this incredible government overreach the sunlight it needs.

I'm sure the Administration will OK publishing these abuses Tim is looking for. Hey, what happened to the rest of the PowerPoint Snowden sent them?

 

[Good Posting Judge]

A small blurb in this story revealed that the whistleblower had offered the story to the Washington Post first, but they refused to publish it until the Obama Administration gave them the ok. The Washington Post sure has come a long way since the days of publishing the Pentagon Papers. I'm so very glad that there was a news organization that had the balls to give this incredible government overreach the sunlight it needs.

I'm sure the Administration will OK publishing these abuses Tim is looking for.Hey, what happened to the rest of the PowerPoint Snowden sent them?

The Guardian and WAPO won't put it out...yet. Even though he was given assurances that they'd publish the whole thing. But apparently Snowden's been in touch with Assange.

 

[Politician Spock]

As much as I find Tim's views greatly disappointing, I'm more than pleased to see that so many posters here that have argued from many different political perspectives on so many other issues, all agree that the one thing that seperates this country from the rest of the world should not be ####ed with.To all of you:

 

[RCon]

As much as I find Tim's views greatly disappointing, I'm more than pleased to see that so many posters here that have argued from many different political perspectives on so many other issues, all agree that the one thing that seperates this country from the rest of the world should not be ####ed with.To all of you:

I don't find timschochet's views disappointing as much as I know that many millions of American voters either agree with him or don't care at all.

 

[Politician Spock]

As much as I find Tim's views greatly disappointing, I'm more than pleased to see that so many posters here that have argued from many different political perspectives on so many other issues, all agree that the one thing that seperates this country from the rest of the world should not be ####ed with.To all of you:

I don't find timschochet's views disappointing as much as I know that many millions of American voters either agree with him or don't care at all.

I'm disappointed in every American that either agrees with him or doesn't care at all. They are why it is happening.

 

[timschochet]

I have to run, but one thing I need to clear up. I'm not afraid of the government getting out of hand because ultimately "we the people" do hold some at least token authority over the government. It will always at least give the appearance of being representative.That is the fear however! "We the people" are reactionary. One very bad terrorists attack and they are all for trading "some measure of privacy for security". Fine, that is the very purpose of government. They are willing to allow the government to act in the shadows, to keep just about everything they do "top secret". They are willing to strip off shoes and coats and belts at the airport. Be patted down at stadiums. Etc. Fine. But what happens the next time our security apparatus just didn't have the tools to prevent some attack?Look at the Boston marathon thread where no expenditure in capital or rights was too much to thwart the next terrorist attack. The fact that we are spending many times (as much as 20) more to save a life from terrorism than anywhere else in government is of no concern. How many lives are being saved by this $80 billion expenditure?So I'm not afraid that the next president will just shut off the internet to silence discussion, I'm concerned that the masses will demand it. I'm not afraid that a tyrant will turn on web cams and microphones everywhere, I'm concerned that the people will vote in those that will. It is not a rogue administration that scares me, it is that I'm on the losing side of every rights versus security discussion as the government providing a faux sense of the warm and cozies trumps every rational discussion, every cost-benefit analysis. No amount of privacy is too much to give up if it will keep my kids safe from threats real or imagined.

Good morning. This is an excellent post and it gives me much food for thought.

 

[shader]

A small blurb in this story revealed that the whistleblower had offered the story to the Washington Post first, but they refused to publish it until the Obama Administration gave them the ok. The Washington Post sure has come a long way since the days of publishing the Pentagon Papers. I'm so very glad that there was a news organization that had the balls to give this incredible government overreach the sunlight it needs.

The press is dead

 

[timschochet]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/11/a_dog-bites-man_story_118755.html

An old journalism saw goes like this: Dog bites man, no story. Man bites dog, story. Allow me to update it. Government monitors email and telephone calls for national security, no story. Government doesn't do anything of the kind -- now, that's a story.

Clearly some awfully good newspapers and some awfully good reporters disagree. In the last week it's been raining stories about what the busybody government has been up to. The National Security Agency has been monitoring telephone calls and emails -- and even social media stuff of the sort you shouldn't have been doing anyway. To this, a whole lot of people have expressed shock. Oaths to the Fourth Amendment have filled the air. Unreasonable searches are simply unconstitutional, they assert -- without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized. It has merely been noted and, if suspicious, referred to a court for the appropriate warrant.

The programs certainly can be abused. (So can local police powers.) But oddly enough, proof that this has not happened comes from the self-proclaimed martyr for our civil liberties, Edward Snowden, late of Booz Allen Hamilton, the government contractor that ever so recently employed him. (I assume he'll be summoned to HR.)

In a remarkably overwrought interview conducted by the vainglorious Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian, Snowden cited not one example of the programs being abused. Greenwald wrote that Snowden "lines the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping" and that "he puts a large red hood over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them." Greenwald said that "Snowden will go down in history as one of America's most consequential whistleblowers." I think he'll go down as a cross-dressing Little Red Riding Hood.

Greenwald likens Snowden to Daniel Ellsberg, who revealed the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times and The Washington Post more than four decades ago. Not quite. The Pentagon Papers proved that a succession of U.S. presidents had lied about their intentions regarding Vietnam -- Lyndon Johnson above all. In 1964, he had campaigned against Barry Goldwater for the presidency as virtually the peace candidate while actually planning to widen the war. As the Times put in a 1996 story, the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance."

In contrast, no one lied about the various programs disclosed last week. They were secret, yes, but members of Congress were informed -- and they approved. Safeguards were built in. If, for instance, the omniscient computers picked up a pattern of phone calls from Mr. X to Suspected Terrorist Y, the government had to go to court to find out what was said. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act established a court consisting of 11 rotating federal judges. These judges are the same ones who rule on warrants the government seeks in domestic criminal cases. If we trust them for that, why would we not trust them for other things as well?

Whenever I see "Hello, Richard" on my computer screen, I realize what's happened: It knows me. It knows what I bought and when I bought it and where I was at the time. It knows my sizes and my credit card number and if it knows all that, it knows pretty much everything. I long ago sacrificed a measure of privacy for convenience. One click will do it.

I also made the same sort of deal for security. I assumed the government was doing at least what Google was doing -- and Google, I'm convinced, is the new Santa Claus: It sees you when you're sleeping, it knows when you're awake. It knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake. In 2009, Google's Eric Schmidt put us all at ease by telling CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." See, not all billionaires are so smart.

Everything about Edward Snowden is ridiculously cinematic. He is not paranoiac; he is merely narcissistic. He jettisoned a girlfriend, a career and, undoubtedly, his personal freedom to expose programs that were known to our elected officials and could have been deduced by anyone who has ever Googled anything. History will not record him as "one of America's most consequential whistleblowers." History is more likely to forget him. Soon, you can Google that.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/11/a_dog-bites-man_story_118755.html#ixzz2VsUHYHbeFollow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

So is your goal here to post each article more ridiculous than the last? And the first phrase you bolded here, "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized," only shows that both the writer and yourself have no concept of what metadata is and how powerful it is. Your Social Security Number is "only metadata". Feel like posting that here for all to see? How about your passport and driver's license numbers, personal e-mail address, real name, and cell phone numbers? Those are "only metadata".

The government already has my Social Security number, passport, drivers license number. So yes I trust them not to divulge that information "for all to see." I have to.

 

[timschochet]

Just want to add a final point for tonight: it seems to me that what is at the core of this discussion is a deep distrust of the motivations of government.

Shall rehash all the pure evil crap our government has done? Particularly those key atrocities that they were not up front about?

Didn't Tim try to write a ####### book about government abusing their power during WW2?His whole discussion with Politician Spock is disappointing. He says the Patriot Act limits surveillance, thinks lawyers from different admins are diverse, and has faith any wrongdoing will come to light.But the most disappointing part is that he still doesn't grasp the core arguement. It doesn't take bad motivations of this or any government to cause a problem. These data and capabilities will never go away. It is big data in a way even us that work in big data find it hard to comprehend. The insight and power this holds over the American people is unprecedented and scary. And one day it will be abused (it probably has already) even with the best intentions. THAT is the danger.Now, if the motivations of this or a future government are in fact evil, then the goose is cooked. As Snowden mentions: therBess nothing we can do to stop it.All of this is why controls and checks need to be put in place before evidence of abuse, not after. After is too late. Of course, I think we're already in the after.

As I wrote earlier, if the motivations of the government are evil, then all of the controls and checks aren't going to matter.

 

[RCon]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/11/a_dog-bites-man_story_118755.html

An old journalism saw goes like this: Dog bites man, no story. Man bites dog, story. Allow me to update it. Government monitors email and telephone calls for national security, no story. Government doesn't do anything of the kind -- now, that's a story.

Clearly some awfully good newspapers and some awfully good reporters disagree. In the last week it's been raining stories about what the busybody government has been up to. The National Security Agency has been monitoring telephone calls and emails -- and even social media stuff of the sort you shouldn't have been doing anyway. To this, a whole lot of people have expressed shock. Oaths to the Fourth Amendment have filled the air. Unreasonable searches are simply unconstitutional, they assert -- without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized. It has merely been noted and, if suspicious, referred to a court for the appropriate warrant.

...<snip for brevity>

So is your goal here to post each article more ridiculous than the last? And the first phrase you bolded here, "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized," only shows that both the writer and yourself have no concept of what metadata is and how powerful it is. Your Social Security Number is "only metadata". Feel like posting that here for all to see? How about your passport and driver's license numbers, personal e-mail address, real name, and cell phone numbers? Those are "only metadata".

The government already has my Social Security number, passport, drivers license number. So yes I trust them not to divulge that information "for all to see." I have to.

I think you misunderstand my point. You bolded the phrase "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized". This is either a bold faced lie by the writer, or far more likely, a colossal failure to understand what metadata is.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you.

This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

I do agree with you that it's early on in this particular story. Where you differ with most in this thread is you are giving the government the benefit of the doubt that they will do the right thing. The others are assuming the government is going to continue to act as it does and do the wrong thing. The the crux of the last 5+ pages. My question to you is why do you expect the government to all of a sudden do a 180 and begin doing things the right way?

No this is incorrect. They are not assuming that the government is simply going to #### up and do the wrong thing. Personally I find that to be a reasonable assumption, and I do NOT give the government the benefit of the doubt. My opponents here are assuming the government is going to deliberately act in an evil manner, and that is why they should not have access to this information. That's the part I don't believe. I think the access is inevitable, and I don't think our government acts deliberately evil.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/11/a_dog-bites-man_story_118755.html

An old journalism saw goes like this: Dog bites man, no story. Man bites dog, story. Allow me to update it. Government monitors email and telephone calls for national security, no story. Government doesn't do anything of the kind -- now, that's a story.

Clearly some awfully good newspapers and some awfully good reporters disagree. In the last week it's been raining stories about what the busybody government has been up to. The National Security Agency has been monitoring telephone calls and emails -- and even social media stuff of the sort you shouldn't have been doing anyway. To this, a whole lot of people have expressed shock. Oaths to the Fourth Amendment have filled the air. Unreasonable searches are simply unconstitutional, they assert -- without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized. It has merely been noted and, if suspicious, referred to a court for the appropriate warrant.

...<snip for brevity>

So is your goal here to post each article more ridiculous than the last? And the first phrase you bolded here, "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized," only shows that both the writer and yourself have no concept of what metadata is and how powerful it is. Your Social Security Number is "only metadata". Feel like posting that here for all to see? How about your passport and driver's license numbers, personal e-mail address, real name, and cell phone numbers? Those are "only metadata".

The government already has my Social Security number, passport, drivers license number. So yes I trust them not to divulge that information "for all to see." I have to.

I think you misunderstand my point. You bolded the phrase "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized". This is either a bold faced lie by the writer, or far more likely, a colossal failure to understand what metadata is.

Or it's a different interpretation, one that you and I have been arguing for several pages now.

 

[RCon]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you.

This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

I do agree with you that it's early on in this particular story. Where you differ with most in this thread is you are giving the government the benefit of the doubt that they will do the right thing. The others are assuming the government is going to continue to act as it does and do the wrong thing. The the crux of the last 5+ pages. My question to you is why do you expect the government to all of a sudden do a 180 and begin doing things the right way?

No this is incorrect. They are not assuming that the government is simply going to #### up and do the wrong thing. Personally I find that to be a reasonable assumption, and I do NOT give the government the benefit of the doubt. My opponents here are assuming the government is going to deliberately act in an evil manner, and that is why they should not have access to this information. That's the part I don't believe. I think the access is inevitable, and I don't think our government acts deliberately evil.

The government as a whole probably won't act in a deliberately evil manner (although it will deliberately act to accrue ever more power). Individuals within the government certainly will.

 

[RCon]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/11/a_dog-bites-man_story_118755.html

An old journalism saw goes like this: Dog bites man, no story. Man bites dog, story. Allow me to update it. Government monitors email and telephone calls for national security, no story. Government doesn't do anything of the kind -- now, that's a story.

Clearly some awfully good newspapers and some awfully good reporters disagree. In the last week it's been raining stories about what the busybody government has been up to. The National Security Agency has been monitoring telephone calls and emails -- and even social media stuff of the sort you shouldn't have been doing anyway. To this, a whole lot of people have expressed shock. Oaths to the Fourth Amendment have filled the air. Unreasonable searches are simply unconstitutional, they assert -- without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized. It has merely been noted and, if suspicious, referred to a court for the appropriate warrant.

...<snip for brevity>

So is your goal here to post each article more ridiculous than the last? And the first phrase you bolded here, "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized," only shows that both the writer and yourself have no concept of what metadata is and how powerful it is. Your Social Security Number is "only metadata". Feel like posting that here for all to see? How about your passport and driver's license numbers, personal e-mail address, real name, and cell phone numbers? Those are "only metadata".

The government already has my Social Security number, passport, drivers license number. So yes I trust them not to divulge that information "for all to see." I have to.

I think you misunderstand my point. You bolded the phrase "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized". This is either a bold faced lie by the writer, or far more likely, a colossal failure to understand what metadata is.

Or it's a different interpretation, one that you and I have been arguing for several pages now.

No offense, but if you don't understand that metadata is real, tangible, and powerful, then you're an idiot.

Your Social Security number is metadata. If metadata is not real, tangible, and powerful, then I assume you have no issue posting your SSN here for all to see.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you.

This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

I do agree with you that it's early on in this particular story. Where you differ with most in this thread is you are giving the government the benefit of the doubt that they will do the right thing. The others are assuming the government is going to continue to act as it does and do the wrong thing. The the crux of the last 5+ pages. My question to you is why do you expect the government to all of a sudden do a 180 and begin doing things the right way?

No this is incorrect. They are not assuming that the government is simply going to #### up and do the wrong thing. Personally I find that to be a reasonable assumption, and I do NOT give the government the benefit of the doubt. My opponents here are assuming the government is going to deliberately act in an evil manner, and that is why they should not have access to this information. That's the part I don't believe. I think the access is inevitable, and I don't think our government acts deliberately evil.

This is a BS assumption on your part, and a strawman argument.

The intent of their future actions is not the determining factor as to why they should not have access to this infomation. Whether it is deliberate, accidental, or whatever makes no difference.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Conway's right.

Re: trusting the govt, it's hard to put much past them after Iraq War II.

 

[timschochet]

Slapdash, you're correct, I did write a ####### book about the government abuse of power (the internment of Japanese Americans). But two points about that- first, the theme of the book was that it was not a deliberate evil- it was a well-meaning government behaving in a bad way due to populist pressure (something like Bottomfeeder Sports' argument.)

More importantly, the government of 1942 didn't have access to email and phone records and DIDN'T NEED THEM. They managed to intern the Nisei without these technological tools. Technology doesn't bring us closer to this sort of action.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/11/a_dog-bites-man_story_118755.html

An old journalism saw goes like this: Dog bites man, no story. Man bites dog, story. Allow me to update it. Government monitors email and telephone calls for national security, no story. Government doesn't do anything of the kind -- now, that's a story.

Clearly some awfully good newspapers and some awfully good reporters disagree. In the last week it's been raining stories about what the busybody government has been up to. The National Security Agency has been monitoring telephone calls and emails -- and even social media stuff of the sort you shouldn't have been doing anyway. To this, a whole lot of people have expressed shock. Oaths to the Fourth Amendment have filled the air. Unreasonable searches are simply unconstitutional, they assert -- without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized. It has merely been noted and, if suspicious, referred to a court for the appropriate warrant.

...<snip for brevity>

So is your goal here to post each article more ridiculous than the last? And the first phrase you bolded here, "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized," only shows that both the writer and yourself have no concept of what metadata is and how powerful it is. Your Social Security Number is "only metadata". Feel like posting that here for all to see? How about your passport and driver's license numbers, personal e-mail address, real name, and cell phone numbers? Those are "only metadata".

The government already has my Social Security number, passport, drivers license number. So yes I trust them not to divulge that information "for all to see." I have to.

I think you misunderstand my point. You bolded the phrase "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized". This is either a bold faced lie by the writer, or far more likely, a colossal failure to understand what metadata is.

Or it's a different interpretation, one that you and I have been arguing for several pages now.

No offense, but if you don't understand that metadata is real, tangible, and powerful, then you're an idiot.

Your Social Security number is metadata. If metadata is not real, tangible, and powerful, then I assume you have no issue posting your SSN here for all to see.

We're going around in circles. I don't want you guys to have my SSN. I'm OK with the government having it. It wouldn't matter if I was OK with that or not- they have it anyhow.

Yes, metadata is real, tangible, and powerful. But the government's access to it does not, IMO, constitute search and seizure of my privacy.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you.

This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

I do agree with you that it's early on in this particular story. Where you differ with most in this thread is you are giving the government the benefit of the doubt that they will do the right thing. The others are assuming the government is going to continue to act as it does and do the wrong thing. The the crux of the last 5+ pages. My question to you is why do you expect the government to all of a sudden do a 180 and begin doing things the right way?

No this is incorrect. They are not assuming that the government is simply going to #### up and do the wrong thing. Personally I find that to be a reasonable assumption, and I do NOT give the government the benefit of the doubt. My opponents here are assuming the government is going to deliberately act in an evil manner, and that is why they should not have access to this information. That's the part I don't believe. I think the access is inevitable, and I don't think our government acts deliberately evil.

This is a BS assumption on your part, and a strawman argument.

The intent of their future actions is not the determining factor as to why they should not have access to this infomation. Whether it is deliberate, accidental, or whatever makes no difference.

Of course it makes a difference. You've been throwing around words like dictatorship and making analogies to 1984. Dictatorships are not accidental.

 

[RCon]

We're going around in circles. I don't want you guys to have my SSN. I'm OK with the government having it. It wouldn't matter if I was OK with that or not- they have it anyhow.Yes, metadata is real, tangible, and powerful. But the government's access to it does not, IMO, constitute search and seizure of my privacy.

You claim that "no one has asserted that anything has been searched or seized". This is clearly false. I am asserting it right now, in this very sentence.

You can argue that it is not important, or that it is worth whatever price we pay, but you cannot argue either A) that I haven't claimed something has been searched or seized, or B) that something hasn't been searched or seized. That data (even metadata) is stored proves that something has in fact been seized. You may not care that it's been seized, or you may think said seizure is perfectly legal, but you can't sit there and tell me it hasn't been seized at all.

Therefore, to write the phrase "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized" is colossally stupid, and to bold it as somehow helping your point is just as stupid.

 

[Nikki2200]

Slapdash, you're correct, I did write a ####### book about the government abuse of power (the internment of Japanese Americans). But two points about that- first, the theme of the book was that it was not a deliberate evil- it was a well-meaning government behaving in a bad way due to populist pressure (something like Bottomfeeder Sports' argument.)

More importantly, the government of 1942 didn't have access to email and phone records and DIDN'T NEED THEM. They managed to intern the Nisei without these technological tools. Technology doesn't bring us closer to this sort of action.

Why are you assuming that anyone who is opposed to the government keeping a giant database of personal conversations, photos, videos, and who knows what else, without probable cause or a warrant, is not OK with this because they think the government has some nefarious or evil intentions? Their intentions don't matter at all. I don't think Obama is sitting there in his office saying "muhahahahaha. I'm going to take over the world." That's not the point.

I don't understand why you can't see the point. I read a few pages back that you are a libertarian? Are you sure?

I also find it a bit contradictory that you seem to be calling people paranoid and black helicopter fearing about the government searching our communications, yet you are so afraid of terrorists that it leads you to believe this is OK.

 

[Politician Spock]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/11/a_dog-bites-man_story_118755.html

An old journalism saw goes like this: Dog bites man, no story. Man bites dog, story. Allow me to update it. Government monitors email and telephone calls for national security, no story. Government doesn't do anything of the kind -- now, that's a story.

Clearly some awfully good newspapers and some awfully good reporters disagree. In the last week it's been raining stories about what the busybody government has been up to. The National Security Agency has been monitoring telephone calls and emails -- and even social media stuff of the sort you shouldn't have been doing anyway. To this, a whole lot of people have expressed shock. Oaths to the Fourth Amendment have filled the air. Unreasonable searches are simply unconstitutional, they assert -- without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized. It has merely been noted and, if suspicious, referred to a court for the appropriate warrant.

...<snip for brevity>

So is your goal here to post each article more ridiculous than the last? And the first phrase you bolded here, "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized," only shows that both the writer and yourself have no concept of what metadata is and how powerful it is. Your Social Security Number is "only metadata". Feel like posting that here for all to see? How about your passport and driver's license numbers, personal e-mail address, real name, and cell phone numbers? Those are "only metadata".

The government already has my Social Security number, passport, drivers license number. So yes I trust them not to divulge that information "for all to see." I have to.

I think you misunderstand my point. You bolded the phrase "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized". This is either a bold faced lie by the writer, or far more likely, a colossal failure to understand what metadata is.

Or it's a different interpretation, one that you and I have been arguing for several pages now.

No offense, but if you don't understand that metadata is real, tangible, and powerful, then you're an idiot.

Your Social Security number is metadata. If metadata is not real, tangible, and powerful, then I assume you have no issue posting your SSN here for all to see.

We're going around in circles. I don't want you guys to have my SSN. I'm OK with the government having it. It wouldn't matter if I was OK with that or not- they have it anyhow.

Yes, metadata is real, tangible, and powerful. But the government's access to it does not, IMO, constitute search and seizure of my privacy.

Metadata regarding your private business relationship with Verizon, and their private business relationship with you IS REAL, TANGIBLE, AND POWERFUL PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The burden is not on those who oppose the government having this information to show what we are afraid of.

The burden is on the government to show why they need access to that information BEFORE they obtain it. THAT is the purpose of the 4th amendment.

 

[cstu]

Metadata regarding your private business relationship with Verizon, and their private business relationship with you IS REAL, TANGIBLE, AND POWERFUL PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The burden is not on those who oppose the government having this information to show what we are afraid of.

The burden is on the government to show why they need access to that information BEFORE they obtain it. THAT is the purpose of the 4th amendment.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm not convinced of that, Politician Spock.

I don't expect you to be.Without a news article to give you your opinion, you aren't ever convinced of anything.I've never known you to generate your own thought. Even when asked for a yes or no answer, you can't give one.

Yeah whatever. I doubt anyone who's read me here would claim that I can't offer my own opinion. Except you.

This particular story is something that we're just learning about, and it involves some VERY secretive stuff. The fact that you and others can make snap unequivocal judgments about it is pretty laughable to me.

I do agree with you that it's early on in this particular story. Where you differ with most in this thread is you are giving the government the benefit of the doubt that they will do the right thing. The others are assuming the government is going to continue to act as it does and do the wrong thing. The the crux of the last 5+ pages. My question to you is why do you expect the government to all of a sudden do a 180 and begin doing things the right way?

No this is incorrect. They are not assuming that the government is simply going to #### up and do the wrong thing. Personally I find that to be a reasonable assumption, and I do NOT give the government the benefit of the doubt. My opponents here are assuming the government is going to deliberately act in an evil manner, and that is why they should not have access to this information. That's the part I don't believe. I think the access is inevitable, and I don't think our government acts deliberately evil.

This is a BS assumption on your part, and a strawman argument.

The intent of their future actions is not the determining factor as to why they should not have access to this infomation. Whether it is deliberate, accidental, or whatever makes no difference.

Of course it makes a difference. You've been throwing around words like dictatorship and making analogies to 1984. Dictatorships are not accidental.

An example of what could happen is not the complete enumeration of why it should not be allowed. It is but one example of the many things that could occur if it is allowed. The people opposed to this have issue with any negative result, REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT! You get so tunnel visioned that you see arguments that others are not making.

 

[timschochet]

We're going around in circles. I don't want you guys to have my SSN. I'm OK with the government having it. It wouldn't matter if I was OK with that or not- they have it anyhow.Yes, metadata is real, tangible, and powerful. But the government's access to it does not, IMO, constitute search and seizure of my privacy.

You claim that "no one has asserted that anything has been searched or seized". This is clearly false. I am asserting it right now, in this very sentence.

You can argue that it is not important, or that it is worth whatever price we pay, but you cannot argue either A) that I haven't claimed something has been searched or seized, or B) that something hasn't been searched or seized. That data (even metadata) is stored proves that something has in fact been seized. You may not care that it's been seized, or you may think said seizure is perfectly legal, but you can't sit there and tell me it hasn't been seized at all.

Therefore, to write the phrase "without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized" is colossally stupid, and to bold it as somehow helping your point is just as stupid.

OK. I'll concede that your definition is more accurate than mine was. So long as you understand my point (and I'm pretty sure you do) we can move on from there.