Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (3 Viewers)

[RCon]

I'd like to go back to the e-mail versus physical mail distinction. How is storing the contents of every e-mail any different than, say, opening and photocopying every piece of physical mail before delivery?

 

[mattdaddy]

Gee. Why aren't the bad guys just communicating by mail if the government can't read those. They must just be stupid.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I really can't wait to see the tech communities response to this. I have a feeling it's going to be nothing short of amazing.

There's a really long e-mail chain going on in the NANOG mailing list right now. Haven't kept up with it the last couple days though.

 

[Doug B]

However, I would much prefer a situation where the government knows that it will have to break the law to do it, as opposed to a situation where it believes doing it is perfectly legal.

I agree with you here. That way, someone wrongfully investigated may at least have some legal recourse.

 

[Wrigley]

we've already lost

 

[tom22406]

Things I have learned.

2+2=5

I love Big Brother!

 

[jonessed]

However, I would much prefer a situation where the government knows that it will have to break the law to do it, as opposed to a situation where it believes doing it is perfectly legal.

I agree with you here. That way, someone wrongfully investigated may at least have some legal recourse.

The scary thing here is how far The Patriot Act has been legally stretched by the executive branch with little outside knowledge. Some Congressman were briefed, but it appears most didn't know how far intelligence agencies have reached. The court oversight on this is a joke. A rubber stamp judge running a secret court is worthless.They can legalize anything they want with this set up.

 

[uconnalum]

I work in Telecom and I hope nobody discredits Snowden's comments. In this day and age of IP Telephony all I need is an IP Address and enter that address on a server and seamlessly I can split the RTP of of all calls. So all calls are completed successfully but at the same time the RTP (audio) of all conversations are being stored to a listening device or call recorder for further review.

Tell me how does the FBI, CIA or DOJ know what number the terrorists are using if they are using burner phones they don't. The easiest way to do their surveillance is to just record all calls and then try to narrow down the time frame based on location and other factors.

Just my .02 cents.

 

[Doug B]

Tell me how does the FBI, CIA or DOJ know what number the terrorists are using if they are using burner phones they don't. The easiest way to do their surveillance is to just record all calls and then try to narrow down the time frame based on location and other factors.

Yep -- see also here.

 

[sublimeone]

I can't remember the last time a political story crossed party lines like this. We may be in the midst of an Orwellian nightmare but at least we have something D's and R's can agree on :silverlining:

 

[uconnalum]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I can't remember the last time a political story crossed party lines like this. We may be in the midst of an Orwellian nightmare but at least we have something D's and R's can agree on :silverlining:

True. Although I think anyone who voted for Romney and is suddenly showing deep concern for civil liberties is being a wee bit disingenuous. Obama's been no peach on the issue, even before this term, but I don't think it's arguable that Romney would've been worse, somehow.

Feinstein's been rotten on this.

 

[Gr00vus]

I can't remember the last time a political story crossed party lines like this. We may be in the midst of an Orwellian nightmare but at least we have something D's and R's can agree on :silverlining:

They already agree on it - that's the problem.

 

[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?

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.

I don't think they are talking about "good and evil" They are talking about overstepping. That's the wrong thing. With the data available to them, it's a matter of time that it's used in a way it wasn't intended. They've proven time and time again that when given the opportunity, they'll take advantage. You're saying they won't do that. Others are saying they will. It's hard to argue they won't given their history. What do you believe has changed that they won't overstep? That's what I'd like to understand from you.

I just wrote that it's a reasonable assumption that the government will screw things up. But overall I feel it's a worthwhile program, at least as best as I understand it. The good outweighs the bad, IMO.

My head hurts

 

[lod01]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

 

[timschochet]

I can't remember the last time a political story crossed party lines like this. We may be in the midst of an Orwellian nightmare but at least we have something D's and R's can agree on :silverlining:

The majority of the public, both Democrats and Republicans, are in favor of the NSA program, I believe. I know you'd never get that impression from reading this thread.

 

[jonessed]

I can't remember the last time a political story crossed party lines like this. We may be in the midst of an Orwellian nightmare but at least we have something D's and R's can agree on :silverlining:

True. Although I think anyone who voted for Romney and is suddenly showing deep concern for civil liberties is being a wee bit disingenuous. Obama's been no peach on the issue, even before this term, but I don't think it's arguable that Romney would've been worse, somehow. Feinstein's been rotten on this.

What does voting or not voting for Romney have anything to do with this? Even if we assume that Romney would have been worse (which is a BIG assumption) why would the opinion of someone who voted for him be disingenuous?

 

[timschochet]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

Great point. Per the Daily Mail, this NSA program helped stop New Yorks subways from being blown up. So innocent lives have already been saved.

 

[Gr00vus]

I can't remember the last time a political story crossed party lines like this. We may be in the midst of an Orwellian nightmare but at least we have something D's and R's can agree on :silverlining:

The majority of the public, both Democrats and Republicans, are in favor of the NSA program, I believe. I know you'd never get that impression from reading this thread.

The majority of the public has no clue on the content, scope and possibilities for abuse of the patriot act along with several other odious laws we've put on the books over the last 15 years, let alone what the NSA, FBI, CIA are doing.

Tim, captain anti-populism, appealing to the wisdom of the masses - great.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The real problem here is that no one in government can possibly win. NSA is not spying on the typical FBG and don't care you are telling your wife you're picking up your dry cleaning when in fact you're meeting a hooker at a motel. Those with the clearance in politics who know the real story can't divulge the details because they are classified, and they aren't going to say nothing is harming the common man because it makes them look like they are in on it. So they say nothing.

The politicians who don't have access to the details can crow and crow but won't crow too much because they are going to eventually find out the details, realize the program is in the best interest of the people and then go silent. Those people will then also be accused of being in on it or just not willing to do anything about, lose/lose.

Those who voted for the Patriot Act, those who have supported it, those who administer it and the White House all are at a disadvantage. They can site 40 instances of where the program prevented terror, but can't detail how the info was garnered, who was targeted or how they were targeted. The common American is at a disadvantage because they'll never get the real story, distrust their government and wonder what other programs are in place to restrict their freedoms.

While we don't want to end up like Israel with our security measures, a lot of what is in place is best left to the imagination IMO. I think people should generally be outraged by all of this but also consider the aspects of National Security that provide a service for all citizens. From what I know our government in general has a hard time processing metadata, and the complexities of spying on anyone via electronic means is arduous at best. Even those who are subversive in nature or highly conspiracy oriented aren't going to register on these data searches, but in theory they could at some point post-war on terror. That would be my worry as a citizen to be honest.

 

[Slapdash]

I can't remember the last time a political story crossed party lines like this. We may be in the midst of an Orwellian nightmare but at least we have something D's and R's can agree on :silverlining:

The majority of the public, both Democrats and Republicans, are in favor of the NSA program, I believe. I know you'd never get that impression from reading this thread.

Majority in favor of parts:

The latest survey from Pew Research shows that 56% of Americans think the NSA’s phone record tracking is acceptable to combat terrorism while 41% say that its unacceptable. What’s more, 45% of Americans surveyed said that they’d support government monitoring of everyone’s email to prevent future terror attacks while 52% were opposed

But the majority do not support email snooping. I wonder how many would support their credit card activity, photos, videos, web traffic/posting being snooped? You think that number would go down?

 

[jonessed]

I can't remember the last time a political story crossed party lines like this. We may be in the midst of an Orwellian nightmare but at least we have something D's and R's can agree on :silverlining:

The majority of the public, both Democrats and Republicans, are in favor of the NSA program, I believe. I know you'd never get that impression from reading this thread.

The phone logging, but not the monitoring of internet communications. The story just broke though. Most people don't follow the news like we do. These opinions will likely move around in the coming weeks/months.

 

[Slapdash]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

Great point. Per the Daily Mail, this NSA program helped stop New Yorks subways from being blown up. So innocent lives have already been saved.

The Daily Mail?

 

[timschochet]

I can't remember the last time a political story crossed party lines like this. We may be in the midst of an Orwellian nightmare but at least we have something D's and R's can agree on :silverlining:

The majority of the public, both Democrats and Republicans, are in favor of the NSA program, I believe. I know you'd never get that impression from reading this thread.

The majority of the public has no clue on the content, scope and possibilities for abuse of the patriot act along with several other odious laws we've put on the books over the last 15 years, let alone what the NSA, FBI, CIA are doing. Tim, captain anti-populism, appealing to the wisdom of the masses - great.

I'm not appealing to the masses. Their support doesn't make me more right. (In fact, it makes me more suspicious of my own convictions). I was simply countering sublime's assertion about the unity of people opposed.

 

[timschochet]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

Great point. Per the Daily Mail, this NSA program helped stop New Yorks subways from being blown up. So innocent lives have already been saved.

The Daily Mail?

Im trying to verify this. Is it your assertion that this program has not saved any lives?

 

[Slapdash]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

Great point. Per the Daily Mail, this NSA program helped stop New Yorks subways from being blown up. So innocent lives have already been saved.

The Daily Mail?

Im trying to verify this. Is it your assertion that this program has not saved any lives?

My assertion is that something written in the Daily Mail isn't proof of anything.

Nice spin though, no wonder you agree with all the political class on this one.

 

[timschochet]

The real problem here is that no one in government can possibly win. NSA is not spying on the typical FBG and don't care you are telling your wife you're picking up your dry cleaning when in fact you're meeting a hooker at a motel. Those with the clearance in politics who know the real story can't divulge the details because they are classified, and they aren't going to say nothing is harming the common man because it makes them look like they are in on it. So they say nothing. The politicians who don't have access to the details can crow and crow but won't crow too much because they are going to eventually find out the details, realize the program is in the best interest of the people and then go silent. Those people will then also be accused of being in on it or just not willing to do anything about, lose/lose. Those who voted for the Patriot Act, those who have supported it, those who administer it and the White House all are at a disadvantage. They can site 40 instances of where the program prevented terror, but can't detail how the info was garnered, who was targeted or how they were targeted. The common American is at a disadvantage because they'll never get the real story, distrust their government and wonder what other programs are in place to restrict their freedoms. While we don't want to end up like Israel with our security measures, a lot of what is in place is best left to the imagination IMO. I think people should generally be outraged by all of this but also consider the aspects of National Security that provide a service for all citizens. From what I know our government in general has a hard time processing metadata, and the complexities of spying on anyone via electronic means is arduous at best. Even those who are subversive in nature or highly conspiracy oriented aren't going to register on these data searches, but in theory they could at some point post-war on terror. That would be my worry as a citizen to be honest.

Awesome post. Excellent points.

 

[RCon]

I'd like to go back to the e-mail versus physical mail distinction. How is storing the contents of every e-mail any different than, say, opening and photocopying every piece of physical mail before delivery?

*bump*

 

[Slapdash]

The real problem here is that no one in government can possibly win. NSA is not spying on the typical FBG and don't care you are telling your wife you're picking up your dry cleaning when in fact you're meeting a hooker at a motel. Those with the clearance in politics who know the real story can't divulge the details because they are classified, and they aren't going to say nothing is harming the common man because it makes them look like they are in on it. So they say nothing.

The politicians who don't have access to the details can crow and crow but won't crow too much because they are going to eventually find out the details, realize the program is in the best interest of the people and then go silent. Those people will then also be accused of being in on it or just not willing to do anything about, lose/lose.

Those who voted for the Patriot Act, those who have supported it, those who administer it and the White House all are at a disadvantage. They can site 40 instances of where the program prevented terror, but can't detail how the info was garnered, who was targeted or how they were targeted. The common American is at a disadvantage because they'll never get the real story, distrust their government and wonder what other programs are in place to restrict their freedoms.

While we don't want to end up like Israel with our security measures, a lot of what is in place is best left to the imagination IMO. I think people should generally be outraged by all of this but also consider the aspects of National Security that provide a service for all citizens. From what I know our government in general has a hard time processing metadata, and the complexities of spying on anyone via electronic means is arduous at best. Even those who are subversive in nature or highly conspiracy oriented aren't going to register on these data searches, but in theory they could at some point post-war on terror. That would be my worry as a citizen to be honest.

I don't see how a "war on terror" ends. The classification of what is a terrorist just changes.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

Great point. Per the Daily Mail, this NSA program helped stop New Yorks subways from being blown up. So innocent lives have already been saved.

The Daily Mail?

Im trying to verify this. Is it your assertion that this program has not saved any lives?

My assertion is that something written in the Daily Mail isn't proof of anything.

Nice spin though, no wonder you agree with all the political class on this one.

Daily Mail also says Cesc is going to United, FYI.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The real problem here is that no one in government can possibly win. NSA is not spying on the typical FBG and don't care you are telling your wife you're picking up your dry cleaning when in fact you're meeting a hooker at a motel. Those with the clearance in politics who know the real story can't divulge the details because they are classified, and they aren't going to say nothing is harming the common man because it makes them look like they are in on it. So they say nothing.

The politicians who don't have access to the details can crow and crow but won't crow too much because they are going to eventually find out the details, realize the program is in the best interest of the people and then go silent. Those people will then also be accused of being in on it or just not willing to do anything about, lose/lose.

Those who voted for the Patriot Act, those who have supported it, those who administer it and the White House all are at a disadvantage. They can site 40 instances of where the program prevented terror, but can't detail how the info was garnered, who was targeted or how they were targeted. The common American is at a disadvantage because they'll never get the real story, distrust their government and wonder what other programs are in place to restrict their freedoms.

While we don't want to end up like Israel with our security measures, a lot of what is in place is best left to the imagination IMO. I think people should generally be outraged by all of this but also consider the aspects of National Security that provide a service for all citizens. From what I know our government in general has a hard time processing metadata, and the complexities of spying on anyone via electronic means is arduous at best. Even those who are subversive in nature or highly conspiracy oriented aren't going to register on these data searches, but in theory they could at some point post-war on terror. That would be my worry as a citizen to be honest.

I don't see how a "war on terror" ends. The classification of what is a terrorist just changes.

I was reading about the disposition of Guantanamo Bay prisoners recently, I don't see what we currently call "war on terror" ending in the next 20 years. 30? Doubtful. 40? Maybe.

 

[Slapdash]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

Great point. Per the Daily Mail, this NSA program helped stop New Yorks subways from being blown up. So innocent lives have already been saved.

The Daily Mail?

Im trying to verify this. Is it your assertion that this program has not saved any lives?

My assertion is that something written in the Daily Mail isn't proof of anything.

Nice spin though, no wonder you agree with all the political class on this one.

Daily Mail also says Cesc is going to United, FYI.

exactly my point.

 

[shader]

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.

I don't think they are talking about "good and evil" They are talking about overstepping. That's the wrong thing. With the data available to them, it's a matter of time that it's used in a way it wasn't intended. They've proven time and time again that when given the opportunity, they'll take advantage. You're saying they won't do that. Others are saying they will. It's hard to argue they won't given their history. What do you believe has changed that they won't overstep? That's what I'd like to understand from you.

I just wrote that it's a reasonable assumption that the government will screw things up. But overall I feel it's a worthwhile program, at least as best as I understand it. The good outweighs the bad, IMO.

My head hurts

 

[Slapdash]

The real problem here is that no one in government can possibly win. NSA is not spying on the typical FBG and don't care you are telling your wife you're picking up your dry cleaning when in fact you're meeting a hooker at a motel. Those with the clearance in politics who know the real story can't divulge the details because they are classified, and they aren't going to say nothing is harming the common man because it makes them look like they are in on it. So they say nothing.

The politicians who don't have access to the details can crow and crow but won't crow too much because they are going to eventually find out the details, realize the program is in the best interest of the people and then go silent. Those people will then also be accused of being in on it or just not willing to do anything about, lose/lose.

Those who voted for the Patriot Act, those who have supported it, those who administer it and the White House all are at a disadvantage. They can site 40 instances of where the program prevented terror, but can't detail how the info was garnered, who was targeted or how they were targeted. The common American is at a disadvantage because they'll never get the real story, distrust their government and wonder what other programs are in place to restrict their freedoms.

While we don't want to end up like Israel with our security measures, a lot of what is in place is best left to the imagination IMO. I think people should generally be outraged by all of this but also consider the aspects of National Security that provide a service for all citizens. From what I know our government in general has a hard time processing metadata, and the complexities of spying on anyone via electronic means is arduous at best. Even those who are subversive in nature or highly conspiracy oriented aren't going to register on these data searches, but in theory they could at some point post-war on terror. That would be my worry as a citizen to be honest.

I don't see how a "war on terror" ends. The classification of what is a terrorist just changes.

I was reading about the disposition of Guantanamo Bay prisoners recently, I don't see what we currently call "war on terror" ending in the next 20 years. 30? Doubtful. 40? Maybe.

I wonder how long it would take the spotlight to be pointed at non-islamic terror related targets. Politician Spock claims it is happening already. Not too sure we need to wait to see what happens after the end of this "war" to be worried, IMO.

Imagine someone's entire electronic life being stored in these databases 40 years from now and the control that would give a government or person who wants to use it...

 

[timschochet]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

Great point. Per the Daily Mail, this NSA program helped stop New Yorks subways from being blown up. So innocent lives have already been saved.

The Daily Mail?

Im trying to verify this. Is it your assertion that this program has not saved any lives?

My assertion is that something written in the Daily Mail isn't proof of anything. Nice spin though, no wonder you agree with all the political class on this one.

Your use of the term "political class" explains a lot. I don't think that way. I don't regard the so-called "establishment" as an opponent of the "people". Those are populist phrases.

 

[Slapdash]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

Great point. Per the Daily Mail, this NSA program helped stop New Yorks subways from being blown up. So innocent lives have already been saved.

The Daily Mail?

Im trying to verify this. Is it your assertion that this program has not saved any lives?

My assertion is that something written in the Daily Mail isn't proof of anything. Nice spin though, no wonder you agree with all the political class on this one.

Your use of the term "political class" explains a lot. I don't think that way. I don't regard the so-called "establishment" as an opponent of the "people". Those are populist phrases.

Oh Noes! Someone is being populist!

Right, you don't think about the political class. You just happen to swallow everything they throw your way. You are always appealing to their authority in discussions around here.

 

[timschochet]

I'd like to go back to the e-mail versus physical mail distinction. How is storing the contents of every e-mail any different than, say, opening and photocopying every piece of physical mail before delivery?

*bump*

I didn't answer because you already know my thoughts on this. Emails by design are not as private as regular mail. How could they be? The email company you use keeps records of all of them. If your email is through Yahoo, then Yahoo is already a third party with access. That doesn't exist in physical mail. The entire email system is nowhere near as private as regular mail. There is no means for the government to search through billions of physical mail- therefore any search they intend has to be more specific, and therefore a warrant is required; if they perform the search without a warrant that would violate the 4th amendment. But with emails the government is able to perform mass searches without needing to focus on specific parties- thus no warrant is required and these searches do not violate the 4th IMO

 

[timschochet]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

Great point. Per the Daily Mail, this NSA program helped stop New Yorks subways from being blown up. So innocent lives have already been saved.

The Daily Mail?

Im trying to verify this. Is it your assertion that this program has not saved any lives?

My assertion is that something written in the Daily Mail isn't proof of anything. Nice spin though, no wonder you agree with all the political class on this one.

Your use of the term "political class" explains a lot. I don't think that way. I don't regard the so-called "establishment" as an opponent of the "people". Those are populist phrases.

Oh Noes! Someone is being populist! Right, you don't think about the political class. You just happen to swallow everything they throw your way. You are always appealing to their authority in discussions around here.

I don't appeal to anyone's "authority". I appeal to the good reason and common sense of those people in the public eye who make sense to me.

 

[Gr00vus]

I'd like to go back to the e-mail versus physical mail distinction. How is storing the contents of every e-mail any different than, say, opening and photocopying every piece of physical mail before delivery?

*bump*

I didn't answer because you already know my thoughts on this. Emails by design are not as private as regular mail. How could they be? The email company you use keeps records of all of them. If your email is through Yahoo, then Yahoo is already a third party with access. That doesn't exist in physical mail. The entire email system is nowhere near as private as regular mail.There is no means for the government to search through billions of physical mail- therefore any search they intend has to be more specific, and therefore a warrant is required; if they perform the search without a warrant that would violate the 4th amendment. But with emails the government is able to perform mass searches without needing to focus on specific parties- thus no warrant is required and these searches do not violate the 4th IMO

What if I run my own mail server and maintain my own domain?

 

[timschochet]

I'd like to go back to the e-mail versus physical mail distinction. How is storing the contents of every e-mail any different than, say, opening and photocopying every piece of physical mail before delivery?

*bump*

I didn't answer because you already know my thoughts on this. Emails by design are not as private as regular mail. How could they be? The email company you use keeps records of all of them. If your email is through Yahoo, then Yahoo is already a third party with access. That doesn't exist in physical mail. The entire email system is nowhere near as private as regular mail.There is no means for the government to search through billions of physical mail- therefore any search they intend has to be more specific, and therefore a warrant is required; if they perform the search without a warrant that would violate the 4th amendment. But with emails the government is able to perform mass searches without needing to focus on specific parties- thus no warrant is required and these searches do not violate the 4th IMO

What if I run my own mail server and maintain my own domain?

How many people are talking about? If you had a few thousand, then the govt. should need a subpoena to access those records. If you has several million then under the Patriot Act the govt wouldn't need a warrant to access those records, and I think that's prpper

 

[Slapdash]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

Great point. Per the Daily Mail, this NSA program helped stop New Yorks subways from being blown up. So innocent lives have already been saved.

The Daily Mail?

Im trying to verify this. Is it your assertion that this program has not saved any lives?

My assertion is that something written in the Daily Mail isn't proof of anything. Nice spin though, no wonder you agree with all the political class on this one.

Your use of the term "political class" explains a lot. I don't think that way. I don't regard the so-called "establishment" as an opponent of the "people". Those are populist phrases.

Oh Noes! Someone is being populist! Right, you don't think about the political class. You just happen to swallow everything they throw your way. You are always appealing to their authority in discussions around here.

I don't appeal to anyone's "authority". I appeal to the good reason and common sense of those people in the public eye who make sense to me.

Come on. Many of your posts are just you invoking the authority of commentators or "constitutional scholars" who agree with you.

 

[Nikki2200]

I'd like to go back to the e-mail versus physical mail distinction. How is storing the contents of every e-mail any different than, say, opening and photocopying every piece of physical mail before delivery?

*bump*

There is no means for the government to search through billions of physical mail- therefore any search they intend has to be more specific, and therefore a warrant is required; if they perform the search without a warrant that would violate the 4th amendment. But with emails the government is able to perform mass searches without needing to focus on specific parties- thus no warrant is required and these searches do not violate the 4th IMO

So the fourth amendment only applies to searching the documents of private citizens when it's logistically hard to do?

 

[Nikki2200]

I'd like to go back to the e-mail versus physical mail distinction. How is storing the contents of every e-mail any different than, say, opening and photocopying every piece of physical mail before delivery?

*bump*

I didn't answer because you already know my thoughts on this. Emails by design are not as private as regular mail. How could they be? The email company you use keeps records of all of them. If your email is through Yahoo, then Yahoo is already a third party with access. That doesn't exist in physical mail. The entire email system is nowhere near as private as regular mail.There is no means for the government to search through billions of physical mail- therefore any search they intend has to be more specific, and therefore a warrant is required; if they perform the search without a warrant that would violate the 4th amendment. But with emails the government is able to perform mass searches without needing to focus on specific parties- thus no warrant is required and these searches do not violate the 4th IMO

What if I run my own mail server and maintain my own domain?

How many people are talking about?If you had a few thousand, then the govt. should need a subpoena to access those records.If you has several million then under the Patriot Act the govt wouldn't need a warrant to access those records, and I think that's prpper

What?

 

[Slapdash]

I'd like to go back to the e-mail versus physical mail distinction. How is storing the contents of every e-mail any different than, say, opening and photocopying every piece of physical mail before delivery?

*bump*

There is no means for the government to search through billions of physical mail- therefore any search they intend has to be more specific, and therefore a warrant is required; if they perform the search without a warrant that would violate the 4th amendment. But with emails the government is able to perform mass searches without needing to focus on specific parties- thus no warrant is required and these searches do not violate the 4th IMO

So the fourth amendment only applies to searching the documents of private citizens when it's logistically hard to do?

Sounds like it. But remember, technology doesn't make it easier for tyranny!

 

[shader]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

Great point. Per the Daily Mail, this NSA program helped stop New Yorks subways from being blown up. So innocent lives have already been saved.

The Daily Mail?

Im trying to verify this. Is it your assertion that this program has not saved any lives?

You know what else would save lives? A department of Homeland Pool Security. One federal agent for every pool in America. Kids would never drown again. It would save far more lives than this program.

 

[mattdaddy]

Why is it that I keep coming back to see someone contradict their on illogical arguments with even more illogical arguments? It's like I have a tooth ache and I can't stop touching it.

 

[shader]

The real problem here is that no one in government can possibly win. NSA is not spying on the typical FBG and don't care you are telling your wife you're picking up your dry cleaning when in fact you're meeting a hooker at a motel. Those with the clearance in politics who know the real story can't divulge the details because they are classified, and they aren't going to say nothing is harming the common man because it makes them look like they are in on it. So they say nothing. The politicians who don't have access to the details can crow and crow but won't crow too much because they are going to eventually find out the details, realize the program is in the best interest of the people and then go silent. Those people will then also be accused of being in on it or just not willing to do anything about, lose/lose. Those who voted for the Patriot Act, those who have supported it, those who administer it and the White House all are at a disadvantage. They can site 40 instances of where the program prevented terror, but can't detail how the info was garnered, who was targeted or how they were targeted. The common American is at a disadvantage because they'll never get the real story, distrust their government and wonder what other programs are in place to restrict their freedoms. While we don't want to end up like Israel with our security measures, a lot of what is in place is best left to the imagination IMO. I think people should generally be outraged by all of this but also consider the aspects of National Security that provide a service for all citizens. From what I know our government in general has a hard time processing metadata, and the complexities of spying on anyone via electronic means is arduous at best. Even those who are subversive in nature or highly conspiracy oriented aren't going to register on these data searches, but in theory they could at some point post-war on terror. That would be my worry as a citizen to be honest.

Awesome post. Excellent points.

The NSA and DHS may provide a service to citizens, but that is clearly not the point. At what cost. That is the point.

The Boston bomber was on a watch list and they didn't stop him, did they?

A 14 year old girl doesn't need her facebook and email snooped through, because she poses zero threat to national security.

A 3 year old doesn't need to be searched and patted down to get on a plane.

Terrorists are almost always men. They also share some other similarities that cannot be used because it is politically incorrect.

But there are ways to slow down and track terrorists without snooping through the email and personal lives of every person in the country.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Who posted in: Verizon required to give ALL call dat...

Member name Posts timschochet 170 Slapdash 118 Rich Conway 52 Fennis 43 Politician Spock 41

 

[Nikki2200]

Would people rather live free with no monitoring or surveillance and react to a terrorist event or would you rather want to live with surveillance in the hope of preventing a terrorist event. I would prefer the no monitoring because it has shown that with monitoring bad things still happen such as Boston.

Rememeber that there have been many instances of attacks being thwarted. Now imagine no monitoring and the # of ssuccessful attacks increases. What is it worth then? You can never have 100% certainty that all attacks will be thwaerted. That is impossible.

Great point. Per the Daily Mail, this NSA program helped stop New Yorks subways from being blown up. So innocent lives have already been saved.

The Daily Mail?

Im trying to verify this. Is it your assertion that this program has not saved any lives?

You know what else would save lives? A department of Homeland Pool Security. One federal agent for every pool in America. Kids would never drown again. It would save far more lives than this program.

Hey. About 15,000 more people are murdered in this country every year by non-terrorists than terrorists. Why don't we use this fancy system to try to prevent all of those deaths and/or catch the murderers too. On account of we don't need a warrant and all.

We could mass search for violent code words such as "kill", "hate", "b****". This could be very effective and since it's easy to do, we don't have to go through the normal annoying channels of warrants due to it being real easy.

Or I wonder if there's some reason why it's not OK to do that.

 

[Gr00vus]

I'd like to go back to the e-mail versus physical mail distinction. How is storing the contents of every e-mail any different than, say, opening and photocopying every piece of physical mail before delivery?

*bump*

I didn't answer because you already know my thoughts on this. Emails by design are not as private as regular mail. How could they be? The email company you use keeps records of all of them. If your email is through Yahoo, then Yahoo is already a third party with access. That doesn't exist in physical mail. The entire email system is nowhere near as private as regular mail.There is no means for the government to search through billions of physical mail- therefore any search they intend has to be more specific, and therefore a warrant is required; if they perform the search without a warrant that would violate the 4th amendment. But with emails the government is able to perform mass searches without needing to focus on specific parties- thus no warrant is required and these searches do not violate the 4th IMO

What if I run my own mail server and maintain my own domain?

How many people are talking about?If you had a few thousand, then the govt. should need a subpoena to access those records.If you has several million then under the Patriot Act the govt wouldn't need a warrant to access those records, and I think that's prpper

What?

You're not making sense here Tim. I suspect because you don't actually believe most of the #### you've been posting and this is all really another fishing trip of yours.