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

[timschochet]

Whether or not you believe this government is capable of becoming a dictatorship is irrelevant to this discussion, because if it did it wouldn't need data mining in order to violate civil liberties.

The government doesn't need to be able round up Japanese Americans to be a dictatorship either. Yet, when it did, and if it does it again, it is violating civil liberties.

You keep trying to equate evil/grand schemes/conspiracy theories to civil rights violations. These types of governments are not a prerequisite that must be in place before civil rights violations can occur. The government could be the most honest, well intended, good and benevolent government it could possibly be, yet still go too far and violate civil rights. When it does, what the government is, good or bad, DOES NOT MATTER!!!!!

Slapdash, do you believe that violating civil liberties in the form of interning Japanese Americans is a little different than violating civil liberties in the form of data mining? Are you willing to acknowledge that one is a far worse violation of civil liberties than the other?

I'm not Slapdash. But given you asked these in response to my post I will respond.

According to the Bill of Rights they are both civil rights violations. The Bill of Rights makes no distinction that one is worse than the other.

In my personal opinion, one is worse than the other. But my opinion doesn't matter in regards to whether or not they are, or are not, civil rights violations.

You however believe personal opinion does matter, which is why arguments of intent, evil, grand schemes, conspiracy theories, etc, etc... keep being key parts of your argument, and why so many people keep telling you that none of that matters. It's a civil rights violation regardless of all of those considerations.

It's like arguing sins with a religious Christian. A religious Christian will tell you that, in God's eyes, all sins are equal, so that lying to your mom at age 5 is no different from mass murder.Again, the courts do not agree with this sort of absolutist interpretation of the Bill of Rights. I'm glad they don't.

And once again, the 4th amendment does not give people absolute right to privacy. The provision for government to have access to a person's privacy already exists in the 4th amendment, and the government is ignoring it.

And once again, the courts don't agree with you- they allow for circumstances in which the government is able to bypass the 4th Amendment restrictions,without ignoring them. Why keep repeating this? You may not like it, but the facts are on my side here.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Do people who support the NSA in this, think the FBI wiretapping of Martin Luther King was a good thing?

Since I seem to be the only "people" in this thread that falls into this category, I suppose this question was meant for me?My answer is no. Wiretapping without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Would you have had any problem of the FBI recording every communication of MLK and holding it "unheard" until they had a suspicion, or the computer filters picked up some "keywords"?

Of course I would. Why are they targeting MLK?

Why are they targeting every American?

 

[Doug B]

Just checking in to see how long a 5 versus 1 battle could continue. Setting records in this thread!

Tim has been carrying the load largely alone in this thread, but there have been several people earlier in this thread who were on his side. Doctor Detroit, for sure, though he's been smart enough to stay out of the fray. I, for one, think Tim is pragmatically correct though I'm coming from a different philosophical viewpoint.

 

[timschochet]

Do people who support the NSA in this, think the FBI wiretapping of Martin Luther King was a good thing?

Since I seem to be the only "people" in this thread that falls into this category, I suppose this question was meant for me?My answer is no. Wiretapping without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Would you have had any problem of the FBI recording every communication of MLK and holding it "unheard" until they had a suspicion, or the computer filters picked up some "keywords"?

Of course I would. Why are they targeting MLK?

Why are they targeting every American?

They're not.

 

[Doug B]

Why are they targeting every American?

They aren't, and they can't. The resources aren't there. Similarly, traffic cameras aren't targeting every car that passes by, though all cars end up on tape.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Do people who support the NSA in this, think the FBI wiretapping of Martin Luther King was a good thing?

Since I seem to be the only "people" in this thread that falls into this category, I suppose this question was meant for me?My answer is no. Wiretapping without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Would you have had any problem of the FBI recording every communication of MLK and holding it "unheard" until they had a suspicion, or the computer filters picked up some "keywords"?

Of course I would. Why are they targeting MLK?

Why are they targeting every American?

They're not.

How, fundamentally, are the actions I gave with my MLK example any different than what the Government is doing here?

 

[Slapdash]

Just checking in to see how long a 5 versus 1 battle could continue. Setting records in this thread!

Tim has been carrying the load largely alone in this thread, but there have been several people earlier in this thread who were on his side. Doctor Detroit, for sure, though he's been smart enough to stay out of the fray. I, for one, think Tim is pragmatically correct though I'm coming from a different philosophical viewpoint.

I didn't really read those posters as on Tim's side, they seemed much more reasonable in their objections...

 

[pittstownkiller]

Why are they targeting every American?

They aren't, and they can't. The resources aren't there. Similarly, traffic cameras aren't targeting every car that passes by, though all cars end up on tape.

Can you say unequivocally that the Government hasn't heard something they should not have, or that traffic cameras haven't been used for things besides seeing red light infractions?

 

[sporthenry]

Live Q&A with Snowden

 

[Slapdash]

Yet you keep carrying water for people who claim: "Yes, I worry about potential government abuse of privacy from a program designed to prevent another 9/11 — abuse that, so far, does not appear to have happened."

Of course some abuse, in some of these programs, is inevitable. I don't think it's major and I don't think that in most cases it's worth not having the program.

Then stop quoting those who who keep asserting it isn't happening.

Why? They're basically saying the same thing that I am. What they're really referring to is deliberate government abuses of the sort the conspiracy theorists are warning about, not anecdotal incidents like the one you posted. I know from your previous posts that the distinction is irrelevant to you, but it isn't to me, or to the people I am quoting.

This is what I think of your distinctions.

 

[Doug B]

How, fundamentally, are the actions I gave with my MLK example any different than what the Government is doing here?

The wiretapping of Dr. King was a direct, targeted listening of an individual, without warrant.

The NSA, in its current flap, isn't listening to anyone specifically. Virtually all of the time, from what I've been reading, the NSA isn't doinng any listening at all. Looks like a few NS jokers have been messing around with the code-word filters and somehow happeniong by titillating conversations. Far, far from cool ... but in itself harmless.

 

[timschochet]

Do people who support the NSA in this, think the FBI wiretapping of Martin Luther King was a good thing?

Since I seem to be the only "people" in this thread that falls into this category, I suppose this question was meant for me?My answer is no. Wiretapping without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Would you have had any problem of the FBI recording every communication of MLK and holding it "unheard" until they had a suspicion, or the computer filters picked up some "keywords"?

Of course I would. Why are they targeting MLK?

Why are they targeting every American?

They're not.

How, fundamentally, are the actions I gave with my MLK example any different than what the Government is doing here?

Are asking me to provide you a new argument that I haven't made before?

 

[Doug B]

Can you say unequivocally that the Government hasn't heard something they should not have, or that traffic cameras haven't been used for things besides seeing red light infractions?

Nope. I take some level of misuse as a given. Can't let it bother me, though, or I'd never leave the house.

 

[Politician Spock]

Whether or not you believe this government is capable of becoming a dictatorship is irrelevant to this discussion, because if it did it wouldn't need data mining in order to violate civil liberties.

The government doesn't need to be able round up Japanese Americans to be a dictatorship either. Yet, when it did, and if it does it again, it is violating civil liberties.

You keep trying to equate evil/grand schemes/conspiracy theories to civil rights violations. These types of governments are not a prerequisite that must be in place before civil rights violations can occur. The government could be the most honest, well intended, good and benevolent government it could possibly be, yet still go too far and violate civil rights. When it does, what the government is, good or bad, DOES NOT MATTER!!!!!

Slapdash, do you believe that violating civil liberties in the form of interning Japanese Americans is a little different than violating civil liberties in the form of data mining? Are you willing to acknowledge that one is a far worse violation of civil liberties than the other?

I'm not Slapdash. But given you asked these in response to my post I will respond.

According to the Bill of Rights they are both civil rights violations. The Bill of Rights makes no distinction that one is worse than the other.

In my personal opinion, one is worse than the other. But my opinion doesn't matter in regards to whether or not they are, or are not, civil rights violations.

You however believe personal opinion does matter, which is why arguments of intent, evil, grand schemes, conspiracy theories, etc, etc... keep being key parts of your argument, and why so many people keep telling you that none of that matters. It's a civil rights violation regardless of all of those considerations.

It's like arguing sins with a religious Christian. A religious Christian will tell you that, in God's eyes, all sins are equal, so that lying to your mom at age 5 is no different from mass murder.Again, the courts do not agree with this sort of absolutist interpretation of the Bill of Rights. I'm glad they don't.

And once again, the 4th amendment does not give people absolute right to privacy. The provision for government to have access to a person's privacy already exists in the 4th amendment, and the government is ignoring it.

And once again, the courts don't agree with you- they allow for circumstances in which the government is able to bypass the 4th Amendment restrictions,without ignoring them. Why keep repeating this? You may not like it, but the facts are on my side here.

The issue of what the government is doing now has never gone before the court. That's why numerous lawsuits are currently being filed given what we've learned in less than two weeks. I believe the ACLU has filed four seperate suits on their own.

 

[timschochet]

How, fundamentally, are the actions I gave with my MLK example any different than what the Government is doing here?

The wiretapping of Dr. King was a direct, targeted listening of an individual, without warrant.

The NSA, in its current flap, isn't listening to anyone specifically. Virtually all of the time, from what I've been reading, the NSA isn't doinng any listening at all. Looks like a few NS jokers have been messing around with the code-word filters and somehow happeniong by titillating conversations. Far, far from cool ... but in itself harmless.

Wow. Refreshing to read this POV in this thread.

 

[timschochet]

Whether or not you believe this government is capable of becoming a dictatorship is irrelevant to this discussion, because if it did it wouldn't need data mining in order to violate civil liberties.

The government doesn't need to be able round up Japanese Americans to be a dictatorship either. Yet, when it did, and if it does it again, it is violating civil liberties.You keep trying to equate evil/grand schemes/conspiracy theories to civil rights violations. These types of governments are not a prerequisite that must be in place before civil rights violations can occur. The government could be the most honest, well intended, good and benevolent government it could possibly be, yet still go too far and violate civil rights. When it does, what the government is, good or bad, DOES NOT MATTER!!!!!

Slapdash, do you believe that violating civil liberties in the form of interning Japanese Americans is a little different than violating civil liberties in the form of data mining? Are you willing to acknowledge that one is a far worse violation of civil liberties than the other?

I'm not Slapdash. But given you asked these in response to my post I will respond.

According to the Bill of Rights they are both civil rights violations. The Bill of Rights makes no distinction that one is worse than the other.

In my personal opinion, one is worse than the other. But my opinion doesn't matter in regards to whether or not they are, or are not, civil rights violations.

You however believe personal opinion does matter, which is why arguments of intent, evil, grand schemes, conspiracy theories, etc, etc... keep being key parts of your argument, and why so many people keep telling you that none of that matters. It's a civil rights violation regardless of all of those considerations.

It's like arguing sins with a religious Christian. A religious Christian will tell you that, in God's eyes, all sins are equal, so that lying to your mom at age 5 is no different from mass murder.Again, the courts do not agree with this sort of absolutist interpretation of the Bill of Rights. I'm glad they don't.

And once again, the 4th amendment does not give people absolute right to privacy. The provision for government to have access to a person's privacy already exists in the 4th amendment, and the government is ignoring it.

And once again, the courts don't agree with you- they allow for circumstances in which the government is able to bypass the 4th Amendment restrictions,without ignoring them. Why keep repeating this? You may not like it, but the facts are on my side here.

The issue of what the government is doing now has never gone before the court. That's why numerous lawsuits are currently being filed given what we've learned in less than two weeks. I believe the ACLU has filed four seperate suits on their own.

I'm glad they did. I'd like to see the courts accept their challenge. Let's decide this once and for all.

 

[sporthenry]

1) More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

 

[Politician Spock]

Whether or not you believe this government is capable of becoming a dictatorship is irrelevant to this discussion, because if it did it wouldn't need data mining in order to violate civil liberties.

The government doesn't need to be able round up Japanese Americans to be a dictatorship either. Yet, when it did, and if it does it again, it is violating civil liberties.You keep trying to equate evil/grand schemes/conspiracy theories to civil rights violations. These types of governments are not a prerequisite that must be in place before civil rights violations can occur. The government could be the most honest, well intended, good and benevolent government it could possibly be, yet still go too far and violate civil rights. When it does, what the government is, good or bad, DOES NOT MATTER!!!!!

Slapdash, do you believe that violating civil liberties in the form of interning Japanese Americans is a little different than violating civil liberties in the form of data mining? Are you willing to acknowledge that one is a far worse violation of civil liberties than the other?

I'm not Slapdash. But given you asked these in response to my post I will respond.

According to the Bill of Rights they are both civil rights violations. The Bill of Rights makes no distinction that one is worse than the other.

In my personal opinion, one is worse than the other. But my opinion doesn't matter in regards to whether or not they are, or are not, civil rights violations.

You however believe personal opinion does matter, which is why arguments of intent, evil, grand schemes, conspiracy theories, etc, etc... keep being key parts of your argument, and why so many people keep telling you that none of that matters. It's a civil rights violation regardless of all of those considerations.

It's like arguing sins with a religious Christian. A religious Christian will tell you that, in God's eyes, all sins are equal, so that lying to your mom at age 5 is no different from mass murder.Again, the courts do not agree with this sort of absolutist interpretation of the Bill of Rights. I'm glad they don't.

And once again, the 4th amendment does not give people absolute right to privacy. The provision for government to have access to a person's privacy already exists in the 4th amendment, and the government is ignoring it.

And once again, the courts don't agree with you- they allow for circumstances in which the government is able to bypass the 4th Amendment restrictions,without ignoring them. Why keep repeating this? You may not like it, but the facts are on my side here.

The issue of what the government is doing now has never gone before the court. That's why numerous lawsuits are currently being filed given what we've learned in less than two weeks. I believe the ACLU has filed four seperate suits on their own.

I'm glad they did. I'd like to see the courts accept their challenge. Let's decide this once and for all.

According to you, they already decided. Which makes me wonder if you even understand what they are being asked to decide on.

 

[The Commish]

It's like arguing sins with a religious Christian. A religious Christian will tell you that, in God's eyes, all sins are equal, so that lying to your mom at age 5 is no different from mass murder.


Again, the courts do not agree with this sort of absolutist interpretation of the Bill of Rights. I'm glad they don't.

It's really nothing like it actually. In that argument, there's a dependency on whether one is talking about their spiritual life or their earthly/societal life. In this case you are talking about one lens, that's it.

 

[Fennis]

Do people who support the NSA in this, think the FBI wiretapping of Martin Luther King was a good thing?

Since I seem to be the only "people" in this thread that falls into this category, I suppose this question was meant for me?My answer is no. Wiretapping without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Would you have had any problem of the FBI recording every communication of MLK and holding it "unheard" until they had a suspicion, or the computer filters picked up some "keywords"?

Of course I would. Why are they targeting MLK?

they thought he was a terrorist (oops sorry used the the 2000's term) communist

 

[sporthenry]

1) More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

2) NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.

Glenn Greenwald follow up: When you say "someone at NSA still has the content of your communications" - what do you mean? Do you mean they have a record of it, or the actual content?

Both. If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets saved for a very long time - and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.

 

[pittstownkiller]

How, fundamentally, are the actions I gave with my MLK example any different than what the Government is doing here?

The wiretapping of Dr. King was a direct, targeted listening of an individual, without warrant.

The NSA, in its current flap, isn't listening to anyone specifically. Virtually all of the time, from what I've been reading, the NSA isn't doinng any listening at all. Looks like a few NS jokers have been messing around with the code-word filters and somehow happeniong by titillating conversations. Far, far from cool ... but in itself harmless.

I specifically said "example" which Tim said he would have a problem with; it was a hypothetical.

 

[Politician Spock]

Just checking in to see how long a 5 versus 1 battle could continue. Setting records in this thread!

Tim has been carrying the load largely alone in this thread, but there have been several people earlier in this thread who were on his side. Doctor Detroit, for sure, though he's been smart enough to stay out of the fray. I, for one, think Tim is pragmatically correct though I'm coming from a different philosophical viewpoint.

I've been debating the issue elsewhere with others, and there are by far better arguments for what the government is doing than what Tim is presenting here. As frustrating as arguing with him is, the benefit of doing so is how much he makes those, who support what the government is doing, look really foolish. But that benefit has probably reached it's limit, or will soon, as less and less people are interested in this thread anymore.

I am however interested in your opinion, as I am in others I've been debating with intellectually (tim doesn't qualify). Would you be okay with a technology that scans a persons car at the moment they are stopped by police for a traffic violation. No person can look at what the technology scanned until warrant or probably cause is met. Since the officer did not have a warrant or probably cause, he could not search through what the scanning technology collected. However, I year later, the driver commits a crime, giving the government warrant and/or probably cause to go back and search what the technology scanned at the traffic stop. Should the evidence collected during the traffic stop be admitted to court to convict the driver of another crime?

Thoughts (from anyone except tim)?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Steve Wozniak: "That's what a king does. A king just goes out, has anyone rounded up, killed, puts them in prison."

Hello black helicopters and tyranny.

Black helicopters?!?

OH, COME ON!!!

Drones are cheaper to operate, and less costly to maintain.

According to Tim you can't have one without the other.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do people who support the NSA in this, think the FBI wiretapping of Martin Luther King was a good thing?

What about wiretapping of Earnest Hemingway, causing him flee to Cuba?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Just checking in to see how long a 5 versus 1 battle could continue. Setting records in this thread!

Tim has been carrying the load largely alone in this thread, but there have been several people earlier in this thread who were on his side. Doctor Detroit, for sure, though he's been smart enough to stay out of the fray. I, for one, think Tim is pragmatically correct though I'm coming from a different philosophical viewpoint.

I've been debating the issue elsewhere with others, and there are by far better arguments for what the government is doing than what Tim is presenting here. As frustrating as arguing with him is, the benefit of doing so is how much he makes those, who support what the government is doing, look really foolish. But that benefit has probably reached it's limit, or will soon, as less and less people are interested in this thread anymore.

I am however interested in your opinion, as I am in others I've been debating with intellectually (tim doesn't qualify). Would you be okay with a technology that scans a persons car at the moment they are stopped by police for a traffic violation. No person can look at what the technology scanned until warrant or probably cause is met. Since the officer did not have a warrant or probably cause, he could not search through what the scanning technology collected. However, I year later, the driver commits a crime, giving the government warrant and/or probably cause to go back and search what the technology scanned at the traffic stop. Should the evidence collected during the traffic stop be admitted to court to convict the driver of another crime?

Thoughts (from anyone except tim)?

I thought the only time that I had to atone for all my actions was going to be on Judgement Day.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Why are they targeting every American?

They aren't, and they can't. The resources aren't there. Similarly, traffic cameras aren't targeting every car that passes by, though all cars end up on tape.

If some other agency or department wants to see a report on Joe-Six-Pack, what oversight or controls are in place from preventing an "analyst" from creating a report of all of Joe-Six-Pack's activity for the past 5 years? Do you not see that as targeting?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

1) More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

[TIM]So long as they are not targeting individuals, there is no problem[/TIM]

 

[Politician Spock]

Just checking in to see how long a 5 versus 1 battle could continue. Setting records in this thread!

Tim has been carrying the load largely alone in this thread, but there have been several people earlier in this thread who were on his side. Doctor Detroit, for sure, though he's been smart enough to stay out of the fray. I, for one, think Tim is pragmatically correct though I'm coming from a different philosophical viewpoint.

I've been debating the issue elsewhere with others, and there are by far better arguments for what the government is doing than what Tim is presenting here. As frustrating as arguing with him is, the benefit of doing so is how much he makes those, who support what the government is doing, look really foolish. But that benefit has probably reached it's limit, or will soon, as less and less people are interested in this thread anymore.

I am however interested in your opinion, as I am in others I've been debating with intellectually (tim doesn't qualify). Would you be okay with a technology that scans a persons car at the moment they are stopped by police for a traffic violation. No person can look at what the technology scanned until warrant or probably cause is met. Since the officer did not have a warrant or probably cause, he could not search through what the scanning technology collected. However, I year later, the driver commits a crime, giving the government warrant and/or probably cause to go back and search what the technology scanned at the traffic stop. Should the evidence collected during the traffic stop be admitted to court to convict the driver of another crime?

Thoughts (from anyone except tim)?

I thought the only time that I had to atone for all my actions was going to be on Judgement Day.

If you are caught being guilty of one thing, then you're probably guilty of a lot more,'cause that's human nature.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Obama says they're not listening. Oh but they are.

Land of the free my ###. This is worse than Russia during the cold war.

lets contrast with 2007...

I implore you to read the Patriot Act. And recognize that parts of the Act is the sacrifice of our civil liberties. Go back and re-read the reasons for the Revolutionary War and the Bill of Rights and see how the War on Terror has impacted the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment. Allowing the gov't to spy on us, seize our personal records, abandon due process, engage in torture...these are areas I'm un-easy with. Even if we could be 100% sure they are only done to people engaged in the planning and execution of terror events. GB and any other mainstream media outlet doesn't have to come out and say "We should give up our rights for national security." They don't have to say it. Programs like we are discussing here are ludicrous. We're supposed to believe that GB and his fictional writer have been given top secret access to newly uncoverd covert plans of al-queda jihaddist who have plans to take over our schools. And do you really think if this were an in-process event the gov't would let him go live on the air with this information. The plan here is to use a day of national sorrow (9/11) and scare people, make them think irrationally. The rights we give up are done quietly. Throughout history people who have won freedoms have also given them up due to irrational fear. For GB and all the other fear mongering media folks. Mission Accomplished.

I'm a busy guy, I don't have time to re-read the whole Patriot Act. I read parts of it previously though. Once again, the government was intercepting phone calls, e-mail and yes hard copy mail, way before the the Patriot Act. What specifically is upsetting you? I'm not saying you don't have a gripe but you are being very vague.

I doubt any of us read the entire Patriot Act.

What are you trying to point out here? The government has always had access to communications via targeted subpoena. Universal access is quite a bit different. I think it would have been hard to see the Patriot Act turning into data mining citizen's private information.

Bullcrap. It was always headed there. Plenty of people pointed it out.

Which is why it was such a controversial and highly criticized law to begin with.

He's full of #### anyway. The technology to do what they are doing now didn't even exist when the Patriot Act was passed. The ability to data mine like this is a relatively new phenomenon.

It was a dangerous and controversial bill at the time, but it's also been stretched quite a bit since then.

Echelon started under the Clinton administration. The technology has obviously advanced since then but all of our calls were being listened to and recorded since the mid 90's at least. Yet SOMEHOW the attack on 9/11/01 happened anyway. I'll let you guys argue it out but it seems Tim is the only one living in denial here.

You can also cherry pick all of my posts as much as you like but take a look at my av. I picked it for two reasons. The first is because he's a funny character. Can you guess the second?

 

[timschochet]

Just checking in to see how long a 5 versus 1 battle could continue. Setting records in this thread!

Tim has been carrying the load largely alone in this thread, but there have been several people earlier in this thread who were on his side. Doctor Detroit, for sure, though he's been smart enough to stay out of the fray. I, for one, think Tim is pragmatically correct though I'm coming from a different philosophical viewpoint.

I've been debating the issue elsewhere with others, and there are by far better arguments for what the government is doing than what Tim is presenting here. As frustrating as arguing with him is, the benefit of doing so is how much he makes those, who support what the government is doing, look really foolish. But that benefit has probably reached it's limit, or will soon, as less and less people are interested in this thread anymore.

I am however interested in your opinion, as I am in others I've been debating with intellectually (tim doesn't qualify). Would you be okay with a technology that scans a persons car at the moment they are stopped by police for a traffic violation. No person can look at what the technology scanned until warrant or probably cause is met. Since the officer did not have a warrant or probably cause, he could not search through what the scanning technology collected. However, I year later, the driver commits a crime, giving the government warrant and/or probably cause to go back and search what the technology scanned at the traffic stop. Should the evidence collected during the traffic stop be admitted to court to convict the driver of another crime?

Thoughts (from anyone except tim)?

 

[Doug B]

If some other agency or department wants to see a report on Joe-Six-Pack, what oversight or controls are in place from preventing an "analyst" from creating a report of all of Joe-Six-Pack's activity for the past 5 years? Do you not see that as targeting?

There's no de facto oversight that prevents that, as far as I'm aware. You're outlining the difference between "pontentially targeting someone" and "targeting someone".

My local bank teller, or a random IRS agent, or a local cop could target me in various ways, and damage me quite a bit. Can't stop the real-life carousel long enough to worry about that kind of stuff for very long.

 

[timschochet]

I'm going to answer your question anyhow, Politician Spock, despite the fact that I'm intellectually not really capable of doing so- but I'll try my best!

It's an interesting hypothetical. My answer is that it would not be acceptable under my understanding of the 4th Amendment. And while it's interesting, it bears absolutely NO relationship to data mining. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, as are discussions about MLK and Ernest Hemingway. But thanks for trying!

 

[timschochet]

Why are they targeting every American?

They aren't, and they can't. The resources aren't there. Similarly, traffic cameras aren't targeting every car that passes by, though all cars end up on tape.

If some other agency or department wants to see a report on Joe-Six-Pack, what oversight or controls are in place from preventing an "analyst" from creating a report of all of Joe-Six-Pack's activity for the past 5 years? Do you not see that as targeting?

But nobody's discussing the "Slippery slope"!

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Why are they targeting every American?

They aren't, and they can't. The resources aren't there. Similarly, traffic cameras aren't targeting every car that passes by, though all cars end up on tape.

If some other agency or department wants to see a report on Joe-Six-Pack, what oversight or controls are in place from preventing an "analyst" from creating a report of all of Joe-Six-Pack's activity for the past 5 years? Do you not see that as targeting?

But nobody's discussing the "Slippery slope"!

You are right, there's no slippery slope (any more), according to Snowden we've already arrived.

 

[Doug B]

Would you be okay with a technology that scans a persons car at the moment they are stopped by police for a traffic violation?

Here's where we may fundamentally differ in our opinions (and where I think I differ from Tim) -- I'm not convinced that my permission or my wishes are even relevant to the issue at hand. Sureveillance is going to happen by hook or by crook, Patriot Act or not. Doesn't matter who we vote in, what judges get appointed, or anything else. I just feel resigned to it ... and meanwhile I've got a job to attend to, a house to pay for, mouths to feed, and so on. Practically everything I deal with in my here-and-now life is a bigger priority than this.

... a technology that scans a persons car at the moment they are stopped by police for a traffic violation? No person can look at what the technology scanned until warrant or probably cause is met. Since the officer did not have a warrant or probably cause, he could not search through what the scanning technology collected. However, I year later, the driver commits a crime, giving the government warrant and/or probably cause to go back and search what the technology scanned at the traffic stop. Should the evidence collected during the traffic stop be admitted to court to convict the driver of another crime?

Thoughts?

Philosophically, the idea is repugnant. Also, executed as written, it IS targeted at an individual (even if five minutes beforehand the officer wasn't looking for this specific person). Also, since this "pre-warrant" search is conducted on a single vehicle, there is no Mt. Everest of data to deter casual perusal -- digging through a single car's search record out of curiosity is pretty quick & easy. At least with the NSA's call-data collection, my actual speech is but one needle in a virtually endless pine forest.

Pragmatically -- if something like you describe went live, I'd do my damnedest to keep my roadway profile whale-schmidt low.

 

[Doug B]

You are right, there's no slippery slope (any more), according to Snowden we've already arrived.

This is essentially where I'm at. The privacy ship sailed long ago.

 

[glumpy]

Can you say unequivocally that the Government hasn't heard something they should not have, or that traffic cameras haven't been used for things besides seeing red light infractions?

Nope. I take some level of misuse as a given. Can't let it bother me, though, or I'd never leave the house.

I've been in and out of this thread just seeing where it's going and deciding how I feel, and this post might reflect my take as well as any post can. Given technology I assume someone is aware of me all the time. Should they take issue with any of it I'll be glad to speak to it. Should they take issue with someone who's got mischief in mind I'll be glad they stopped them. Generally it won't affect me even remotely, and occasionally it even might be of benefit.

 

[mattdaddy]

Can you say unequivocally that the Government hasn't heard something they should not have, or that traffic cameras haven't been used for things besides seeing red light infractions?

Nope. I take some level of misuse as a given. Can't let it bother me, though, or I'd never leave the house.

I've been in and out of this thread just seeing where it's going and deciding how I feel, and this post might reflect my take as well as any post can. Given technology I assume someone is aware of me all the time. Should they take issue with any of it I'll be glad to speak to it. Should they take issue with someone who's got mischief in mind I'll be glad they stopped them. Generally it won't affect me even remotely, and occasionally it even might be of benefit.

If everyone felt this way creativity and innovation would suffer greatly. Storing the communication of private thoughts for future scrutiny is not part of a society that will lead the way to the future. Not to mention that It's just flat out wrong and our own bill of rights addresses the issue. Too bad the people in charge have decided to disregard it. If you are ok with being cataloged without your consent then fine but you should understand why others would not be.

 

[Politician Spock]

Would you be okay with a technology that scans a persons car at the moment they are stopped by police for a traffic violation?

Here's where we may fundamentally differ in our opinions (and where I think I differ from Tim) -- I'm not convinced that my permission or my wishes are even relevant to the issue at hand. Sureveillance is going to happen by hook or by crook, Patriot Act or not. Doesn't matter who we vote in, what judges get appointed, or anything else. I just feel resigned to it ... and meanwhile I've got a job to attend to, a house to pay for, mouths to feed, and so on. Practically everything I deal with in my here-and-now life is a bigger priority than this.

... a technology that scans a persons car at the moment they are stopped by police for a traffic violation? No person can look at what the technology scanned until warrant or probably cause is met. Since the officer did not have a warrant or probably cause, he could not search through what the scanning technology collected. However, I year later, the driver commits a crime, giving the government warrant and/or probably cause to go back and search what the technology scanned at the traffic stop. Should the evidence collected during the traffic stop be admitted to court to convict the driver of another crime?

Thoughts?

Philosophically, the idea is repugnant. Also, executed as written, it IS targeted at an individual (even if five minutes beforehand the officer wasn't looking for this specific person). Also, since this "pre-warrant" search is conducted on a single vehicle, there is no Mt. Everest of data to deter casual perusal -- digging through a single car's search record out of curiosity is pretty quick & easy. At least with the NSA's call-data collection, my actual speech is but one needle in a virtually endless pine forest.

Pragmatically -- if something like you describe went live, I'd do my damnedest to keep my roadway profile whale-schmidt low.

What if the government decided that instead of scanning vehicles at the moment they are stopped for a traffic violation, they instead put the scanners all over our roadway infrastructure. Therefore, no one is being targeted, as data is just being collected on everyone, but no person would ever search through all the data being collected until there is probable cause?

The question I am getting after here is, does the 4th amendment's use of the word "searches" apply only to the behavior of a person representing the government, or does it also apply to property owned by the government that searches for data to collect, whether it be searching to collect the contents of internet traffic, or searching to collect the contents of automobile traffic? From what I understand from most intellectuals (again, tim doesn't qualify) arguing to support what the government is doing, as long as a person is not engaging in search behavior, government property can search to collect data ad infinitum without violating the 4th. Meaning they see the 4th does not apply to what government property does, only what government people do.

 

[The Commish]

I'm going to answer your question anyhow, Politician Spock, despite the fact that I'm intellectually not really capable of doing so- but I'll try my best!

It's an interesting hypothetical. My answer is that it would not be acceptable under my understanding of the 4th Amendment. And while it's interesting, it bears absolutely NO relationship to data mining. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, as are discussions about MLK and Ernest Hemingway. But thanks for trying!

What exactly does "data mining" mean to you?

 

[Slapdash]

I'm going to answer your question anyhow, Politician Spock, despite the fact that I'm intellectually not really capable of doing so- but I'll try my best!

It's an interesting hypothetical. My answer is that it would not be acceptable under my understanding of the 4th Amendment. And while it's interesting, it bears absolutely NO relationship to data mining. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, as are discussions about MLK and Ernest Hemingway. But thanks for trying!

What exactly does "data mining" mean to you?

"literally billions of data"

 

[The Commish]

I'm going to answer your question anyhow, Politician Spock, despite the fact that I'm intellectually not really capable of doing so- but I'll try my best!

It's an interesting hypothetical. My answer is that it would not be acceptable under my understanding of the 4th Amendment. And while it's interesting, it bears absolutely NO relationship to data mining. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, as are discussions about MLK and Ernest Hemingway. But thanks for trying!

What exactly does "data mining" mean to you?

"literally billions of data"

 

[Slapdash]

I'm going to answer your question anyhow, Politician Spock, despite the fact that I'm intellectually not really capable of doing so- but I'll try my best!

It's an interesting hypothetical. My answer is that it would not be acceptable under my understanding of the 4th Amendment. And while it's interesting, it bears absolutely NO relationship to data mining. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, as are discussions about MLK and Ernest Hemingway. But thanks for trying!

What exactly does "data mining" mean to you?

"literally billions of data"

Post #1535

 

[The Commish]

I'm going to answer your question anyhow, Politician Spock, despite the fact that I'm intellectually not really capable of doing so- but I'll try my best!

It's an interesting hypothetical. My answer is that it would not be acceptable under my understanding of the 4th Amendment. And while it's interesting, it bears absolutely NO relationship to data mining. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, as are discussions about MLK and Ernest Hemingway. But thanks for trying!

What exactly does "data mining" mean to you?

"literally billions of data"

Post #1535

I have no idea what that means....Tim?? Can you clarify?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I'm going to answer your question anyhow, Politician Spock, despite the fact that I'm intellectually not really capable of doing so- but I'll try my best!

It's an interesting hypothetical. My answer is that it would not be acceptable under my understanding of the 4th Amendment. And while it's interesting, it bears absolutely NO relationship to data mining. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, as are discussions about MLK and Ernest Hemingway. But thanks for trying!

What exactly does "data mining" mean to you?

"literally billions of data"

Post #1535

I have no idea what that means....Tim?? Can you clarify?

"algorithms"

 

[The Commish]

I'm going to answer your question anyhow, Politician Spock, despite the fact that I'm intellectually not really capable of doing so- but I'll try my best!

It's an interesting hypothetical. My answer is that it would not be acceptable under my understanding of the 4th Amendment. And while it's interesting, it bears absolutely NO relationship to data mining. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, as are discussions about MLK and Ernest Hemingway. But thanks for trying!

What exactly does "data mining" mean to you?

"literally billions of data"

Post #1535

I have no idea what that means....Tim?? Can you clarify?

"algorithms"

doesn't help

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm going to answer your question anyhow, Politician Spock, despite the fact that I'm intellectually not really capable of doing so- but I'll try my best!

It's an interesting hypothetical. My answer is that it would not be acceptable under my understanding of the 4th Amendment. And while it's interesting, it bears absolutely NO relationship to data mining. It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, as are discussions about MLK and Ernest Hemingway. But thanks for trying!

What exactly does "data mining" mean to you?

"literally billions of data"

Post #1535

I have no idea what that means....Tim?? Can you clarify?

"algorithms"

doesn't help

This is why I did not want Tim to answer my question.

Thanks.

 

[glumpy]

Can you say unequivocally that the Government hasn't heard something they should not have, or that traffic cameras haven't been used for things besides seeing red light infractions?

Nope. I take some level of misuse as a given. Can't let it bother me, though, or I'd never leave the house.

I've been in and out of this thread just seeing where it's going and deciding how I feel, and this post might reflect my take as well as any post can. Given technology I assume someone is aware of me all the time. Should they take issue with any of it I'll be glad to speak to it. Should they take issue with someone who's got mischief in mind I'll be glad they stopped them. Generally it won't affect me even remotely, and occasionally it even might be of benefit.

If everyone felt this way creativity and innovation would suffer greatly. Storing the communication of private thoughts for future scrutiny is not part of a society that will lead the way to the future. Not to mention that It's just flat out wrong and our own bill of rights addresses the issue. Too bad the people in charge have decided to disregard it. If you are ok with being cataloged without your consent then fine but you should understand why others would not be.

There are always going to be people who disregard privacy interests, whether for of their own personal gain or on our own so-called behalf. There are already data bases on virtually everyone at least for sales and marketing benefit, There are both controlled and uncontrolled monitoring industries, friendly and adversarial, benign and malicious. There is no law that's going to stop self serving people with innovative electronic skills from taking advantage in pretty much any manner they see advantage from. There is an information 'war' going on all fronts and we have to count on those we like covering our bases against those we don't. This doesn't even speak to the monitoring and protection we expect--and demand--from our governments against other countries who may seek to do us harm. We are in an electronic information race on that front.

It's not something I really feel ok with--but I think it's naive to believe it's not happening, or that it can be stopped. The proverbial genie is out of the bottle. When I want something to remain private I forgo electronic means of communicating which I don't trust to maintain that privacy. Governments spend millions to maintain the security that you would ask me to trust strangers to honor on faith...or legalities.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry for the delay, Commish- sometimes I DO have to work (rarely.)

I don't think my position here is all that hard to understand. It seems to be hard for many of you to agree with. But understand, not really difficult.

Basically a serious civil rights violation occurs when some specific person or group of specific people is targeted. If you want to collect my emails, and only my emails, you had better have a warrant. If you want to collect the emails of every Jew in America, and only the Jews, then you are violating civil rights whether you somehow get a warrant or not. There can be no justifiable reason for targeting a specific group solely based on belief or ethnicity, like Jews or Muslims, etc.

However- if you're going to collect mass data without specificity to person or group, then that can be done without individual warrant IF you can offer a justifiable reason to the courts. Such action would have to be supervised, of course. If the supervision is unsatisfactory, we got a problem. If the data is abused in some anecdotal way, we got a problem. Both of these problems MAY not interfere with the integrity of the program, or they might; we need to no more to determine. If the the data is abused in a deliberate manner, we got a HUGE problem which destroys the integrity of the program. But the act of collection itself is neither a small problem or a huge problem- it is not in my mind a problem at all; it's a necessary tool to fight terrorism. And it's not a violation of the 4th Amendment because, unlike Politician Spock's hypothetical, it doesn't target with specificity. That is the essence of my position.