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

[timschochet]

[SIZE=medium]If you agree with this program then all of the following and a whole lot more is ok with you. Please explain how this is justified in the American system that was built upon the Bill Of Rights.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]1) My doctor has a system whereby I can ask medical questions via a web portal. Until now we both understood that web portal to be secure and confidential. That is not the case according to what we now know.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]2) In the past I have consulted with my attorney through phone and email. We both assumed these conversations were confidential. That is not the case.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Hypothetical:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]3) Let's say I'm an author and I am writing a novel that is a stark criticism of the surveillance state. In it there are tons of buzz words that are on the watch list. I email it to my publisher for review. We both believed this communication was confidential and engaged in a conversation about the subject matter. Without our consent and without any other justification except a stop list run through a computer program our entire conversation was monitored by several people. Keep in mind the stop list can be changed at any time in the future under the veil of secrecy.[/SIZE]

1. In the case of emails and phone calls, the government IMO has made a good argument, via the Patriot Act, as to why these need to be collected en masse, without individual warrants in order to fight terrorism. Personally, I can't come up with a reason why the government would need to have access to your personal health records without a warrant. Unless such a plausible reason occurs, they can't do it. Please keep in mind- the government can't just collect information for no reason. PRISM is a very specific program under Congressional approval.

2. Nobody is reading your emails; they are being scanned to see if they match certain terrorist links. For your purposes, your emails with your attorney remain confidential.

3. I have a very strong feeling that the algorithms are far too sophisticated and specified not to be able to distinguish between a novelist writing about terrorism and an actual terrorist plot. According to the NSA chief, what they are looking for is VERY specific and comes directly from classified intel, which I really doubt you would have access to. But let's assume for the moment that what you're suggesting does happen. The computer would "ding" your emails. Then the NSA would go to the FISA court and get permission to examine your specific emails. Then they would very quickly determine that you are a novelist and not a terrorist. Case closed.

So in response to your opening premise, the answer is no, a whole lot more is NOT OK with me. But I continue to find it amusing that people keep insisting that my flaw is that I'm responding to a slippery slope argument, when virtually every other post in this thread is a slippery slope argument.

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

Quick question: NSA Chief is now claiming that this program has stopped 50 terror attacks since 9/11. I think that's a staggering number.

However, what if it was found that all 50 of those attempts were done by Muslims. Would you then be ok with dropping the surveillance on non-muslims? Or what if it were found that all 50 were done by people who were not born citizens of the US. Would you be ok with dropping surveillance on all people who were born citizens in the US?

You've made the point that you are not ok with targeting groups, but you are ok with targeting EVERYBODY.

However if it became clear that 16 year old girls likely pose no threat to the national security of the country, do you suppose they could be dropped safely from the surveillance program?

Of course I would not be OK with just targeting Muslims.

Regarding your last sentence, sorry but it's absurd. Even if I was able to make this determination, how would I drop 16 girls from the program? The whole key that they get access to everyone's emails and phone calls.

 

[Slapdash]

NSA Chief is now claiming that this program has stopped 50 terror attacks since 9/11. I think that's a staggering number.

Lot of truthiness going on there.

 

[shader]

Tim,

Quick question: NSA Chief is now claiming that this program has stopped 50 terror attacks since 9/11. I think that's a staggering number.

However, what if it was found that all 50 of those attempts were done by Muslims. Would you then be ok with dropping the surveillance on non-muslims? Or what if it were found that all 50 were done by people who were not born citizens of the US. Would you be ok with dropping surveillance on all people who were born citizens in the US?

You've made the point that you are not ok with targeting groups, but you are ok with targeting EVERYBODY.

However if it became clear that 16 year old girls likely pose no threat to the national security of the country, do you suppose they could be dropped safely from the surveillance program?

Of course I would not be OK with just targeting Muslims.

Regarding your last sentence, sorry but it's absurd. Even if I was able to make this determination, how would I drop 16 girls from the program? The whole key that they get access to everyone's emails and phone calls.

It's not absurd at all. It's the same reason it's absurd to frisk 3 year olds at airport security. There are certain groups of people that simply pose no national security threats.

And Muslims was just an example. If the "50" terror attacks that have supposedly been stopped by this program were all committed by the same group/country/organization/religion, I would think dropping all the "wasted surveillance" would allow them to better hone in on the groups that are causing the problems.

 

[shader]

NSA Chief is now claiming that this program has stopped 50 terror attacks since 9/11. I think that's a staggering number.

Lot of truthiness going on there.

Oh I'm sure he's lying or stretching the truth greatly. I don't think anyone doubts that surveillance can stop terror attacks.

But does the targeting of every person in the country stop terror attacks? For instance, if they are wire-tapping the phones of known terrorist groups, and stopping a terrorist attack, is he going to claim that PRISM is stopping that? Because if he does, that's disingenuous to an extreme degree.

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

Quick question: NSA Chief is now claiming that this program has stopped 50 terror attacks since 9/11. I think that's a staggering number.

However, what if it was found that all 50 of those attempts were done by Muslims. Would you then be ok with dropping the surveillance on non-muslims? Or what if it were found that all 50 were done by people who were not born citizens of the US. Would you be ok with dropping surveillance on all people who were born citizens in the US?

You've made the point that you are not ok with targeting groups, but you are ok with targeting EVERYBODY.

However if it became clear that 16 year old girls likely pose no threat to the national security of the country, do you suppose they could be dropped safely from the surveillance program?

Of course I would not be OK with just targeting Muslims.

Regarding your last sentence, sorry but it's absurd. Even if I was able to make this determination, how would I drop 16 girls from the program? The whole key that they get access to everyone's emails and phone calls.

It's not absurd at all. It's the same reason it's absurd to frisk 3 year olds at airport security. There are certain groups of people that simply pose no national security threats.

And Muslims was just an example. If the "50" terror attacks that have supposedly been stopped by this program were all committed by the same group/country/organization/religion, I would think dropping all the "wasted surveillance" would allow them to better hone in on the groups that are causing the problems.

Airport security can decide not to frisk 3 year olds. So far as I know, a computer algorithm cannot decide not to scan the emails of 16 year olds.

And even if they could, it would be far too expensive to install such a program. Just let them scan everyone's, look for the links, and be done with it.

 

[Politician Spock]

1. In the case of emails and phone calls, the government IMO has made a good argument, via the Patriot Act, as to why these need to be collected en masse, without individual warrants in order to fight terrorism. Personally, I can't come up with a reason why the government would need to have access to your personal health records without a warrant.

The Patriot Act is a law. Laws aren't arguments. They are law. Laws must comply with the constitution. If they don't comply with the constitution, then they are unconstitutional. If the government has searched and/or siezed private information without issue of warrant, where the issue of warrant provides the specifics required by the 4th amendment, then the government has violated the constitution. If the Patriot Act supposedly made the government believe behavior was "legal", then the Patriot Act is an unconstitutional law, and the government will argue in court why they believe it is not and can be kept as law. The Patriot Act itself is not their argument.

 

[timschochet]

NSA Chief is now claiming that this program has stopped 50 terror attacks since 9/11. I think that's a staggering number.

Lot of truthiness going on there.

Oh I'm sure he's lying or stretching the truth greatly. I don't think anyone doubts that surveillance can stop terror attacks.

But does the targeting of every person in the country stop terror attacks? For instance, if they are wire-tapping the phones of known terrorist groups, and stopping a terrorist attack, is he going to claim that PRISM is stopping that? Because if he does, that's disingenuous to an extreme degree.

1. Regarding the bolded, that's easy to say, but everytime there is a specific example provided, such as the NY Subway threat, it's been challenged. So yes, I think there are people here who really do doubt that this program works- or at least they don't want it to be true.

2. There is no "targeting of every person". Scanning emails and phone calls is NOT targeting. Nobody is reading them. You (and others) keep repeating this, and it's false.

3. If the use of PRISM led us to the specific people that are being wire-tapped, then it's not disingenuous at all. And that's the claim being made. You guys say we shouldn't believe him, but I have yet to hear a good reason why not, or any evidence at all that he's lying.

 

[Politician Spock]

In the email example, a computer is able to "read" (actually scan) and store all the data. There is no actual person reading each separate email, thus no violation.

So what do you think happens when a computer gets a "hit" on one of their key words after the scan? Is your distinction really that a computer is flagging things rather than an individual? If that's the line, who/what do you think wrote the program to do these scans? Because at that point you're simply suggesting one is ok because they used a computer while the other used the ever evil letter opener.

I don't care who wrote the program, because that person isn't reading your emails.

The 4th amendment is not about protecting against unreasonable reading.

 

[timschochet]

1. In the case of emails and phone calls, the government IMO has made a good argument, via the Patriot Act, as to why these need to be collected en masse, without individual warrants in order to fight terrorism. Personally, I can't come up with a reason why the government would need to have access to your personal health records without a warrant.

The Patriot Act is a law. Laws aren't arguments. They are law. Laws must comply with the constitution. If they don't comply with the constitution, then they are unconstitutional. If the government has searched and/or siezed private information without issue of warrant, where the issue of warrant provides the specifics required by the 4th amendment, then the government has violated the constitution. If the Patriot Act supposedly made the government believe behavior was "legal", then the Patriot Act is an unconstitutional law, and the government will argue in court why they believe it is not and can be kept as law. The Patriot Act itself is not their argument.

1. In a sense, a law is a "won argument"; someone wants to do something; Congress considers it and votes to have it done. Congress was convinced that the Patriot act was a good decision.

2. Thanks for the civics lesson. I had no idea that if laws don't comply with the Constitution, then they were unConstitutional. But now I do.

3. Once again, that is YOUR interpretation of the 4th Amendment. It is not unequivocal. Plenty of Constitutional scholars disagree with you, including the President of the United States. That doesn't make you wrong necessarily, but it does suggest that your pompous and patronizing attitude regarding this issue is a little ridiculous.

 

[Politician Spock]

1. In the case of emails and phone calls, the government IMO has made a good argument, via the Patriot Act, as to why these need to be collected en masse, without individual warrants in order to fight terrorism. Personally, I can't come up with a reason why the government would need to have access to your personal health records without a warrant.

The Patriot Act is a law. Laws aren't arguments. They are law. Laws must comply with the constitution. If they don't comply with the constitution, then they are unconstitutional. If the government has searched and/or siezed private information without issue of warrant, where the issue of warrant provides the specifics required by the 4th amendment, then the government has violated the constitution. If the Patriot Act supposedly made the government believe behavior was "legal", then the Patriot Act is an unconstitutional law, and the government will argue in court why they believe it is not and can be kept as law. The Patriot Act itself is not their argument.

1. In a sense, a law is a "won argument"; someone wants to do something; Congress considers it and votes to have it done. Congress was convinced that the Patriot act was a good decision.2. Thanks for the civics lesson. I had no idea that if laws don't comply with the Constitution, then they were unConstitutional. But now I do.

3. Once again, that is YOUR interpretation of the 4th Amendment. It is not unequivocal. Plenty of Constitutional scholars disagree with you, including the President of the United States. That doesn't make you wrong necessarily, but it does suggest that your pompous and patronizing attitude regarding this issue is a little ridiculous.

Every law that has been ruled unconstitutional was first passed by a legislation, either federal, state or local. Courts don't rule on what legislation hasn't passed yet.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

In the email example, a computer is able to "read" (actually scan) and store all the data. There is no actual person reading each separate email, thus no violation.

So what do you think happens when a computer gets a "hit" on one of their key words after the scan? Is your distinction really that a computer is flagging things rather than an individual? If that's the line, who/what do you think wrote the program to do these scans? Because at that point you're simply suggesting one is ok because they used a computer while the other used the ever evil letter opener.

I don't care who wrote the program, because that person isn't reading your emails.

The 4th amendment is not about protecting against unreasonable reading.

 

[RCon]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?
* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?
* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

 

[shader]

NSA Chief is now claiming that this program has stopped 50 terror attacks since 9/11. I think that's a staggering number.

Lot of truthiness going on there.

Oh I'm sure he's lying or stretching the truth greatly. I don't think anyone doubts that surveillance can stop terror attacks.

But does the targeting of every person in the country stop terror attacks? For instance, if they are wire-tapping the phones of known terrorist groups, and stopping a terrorist attack, is he going to claim that PRISM is stopping that? Because if he does, that's disingenuous to an extreme degree.

1. Regarding the bolded, that's easy to say, but everytime there is a specific example provided, such as the NY Subway threat, it's been challenged. So yes, I think there are people here who really do doubt that this program works- or at least they don't want it to be true.

2. There is no "targeting of every person". Scanning emails and phone calls is NOT targeting. Nobody is reading them. You (and others) keep repeating this, and it's false.

3. If the use of PRISM led us to the specific people that are being wire-tapped, then it's not disingenuous at all. And that's the claim being made. You guys say we shouldn't believe him, but I have yet to hear a good reason why not, or any evidence at all that he's lying.

If your emails and phones are being scanned, you are being targeted. Yes, that means everyone is targeted. That's the crux of the whole issue you've been arguing about for 37 pages.

Regarding point 3, this is what I read on CNN: "Plots to bomb the New York subway system and the New York Stock Exchange were among more than 50 stopped by secret surveillance programs".

What is a "secret surveillance program?" Spying on Al-Qaeda is a secret surveillance program. No one is angry about that. People are angry because the govt is targeting/scanning/sifting through all the communication of its own citizens. Is THAT SPECIFIC PROGRAM the one that led to the foiling of terror plots?

If you see better quotes that the above from him, I'd love to see them. But he's defending prism by using the combined work of all programs, from what I"m seeing.

 

[timschochet]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Why do you keep adding stuff? When did I ever write storing the data permanently? The NSA director testified the PRISM records are destroyed shortly after they are scanned.

Just to be clear, let me repeat: the three points you just made are OK with me IF:

1. The government has a specific search in mind, explained to Congress, approved by Congress, with Congressional oversight.

2. The information is NOT permanently kept.

3. The purpose of the search is a reasonable one designed to enhance the nations' security.

These are not either-ors. All 3 conditions must be met. Now, I assume you have some trap to spring for me, or you would not have asked the same question over and over again. So go ahead and spring your trap.

 

[shader]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent.

It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

 

[timschochet]

NSA Chief is now claiming that this program has stopped 50 terror attacks since 9/11. I think that's a staggering number.

Lot of truthiness going on there.

Oh I'm sure he's lying or stretching the truth greatly. I don't think anyone doubts that surveillance can stop terror attacks.

But does the targeting of every person in the country stop terror attacks? For instance, if they are wire-tapping the phones of known terrorist groups, and stopping a terrorist attack, is he going to claim that PRISM is stopping that? Because if he does, that's disingenuous to an extreme degree.

1. Regarding the bolded, that's easy to say, but everytime there is a specific example provided, such as the NY Subway threat, it's been challenged. So yes, I think there are people here who really do doubt that this program works- or at least they don't want it to be true.

2. There is no "targeting of every person". Scanning emails and phone calls is NOT targeting. Nobody is reading them. You (and others) keep repeating this, and it's false.

3. If the use of PRISM led us to the specific people that are being wire-tapped, then it's not disingenuous at all. And that's the claim being made. You guys say we shouldn't believe him, but I have yet to hear a good reason why not, or any evidence at all that he's lying.

If your emails and phones are being scanned, you are being targeted. Yes, that means everyone is targeted. That's the crux of the whole issue you've been arguing about for 37 pages.

Regarding point 3, this is what I read on CNN: "Plots to bomb the New York subway system and the New York Stock Exchange were among more than 50 stopped by secret surveillance programs".

What is a "secret surveillance program?" Spying on Al-Qaeda is a secret surveillance program. No one is angry about that. People are angry because the govt is targeting/scanning/sifting through all the communication of its own citizens. Is THAT SPECIFIC PROGRAM the one that led to the foiling of terror plots?

If you see better quotes that the above from him, I'd love to see them. But he's defending prism by using the combined work of all programs, from what I"m seeing.

I wasn't aware that he was that unspecific. I would like him to be more specific as well. But regardless, I consider this a worthwhile program, and I do not agree with you about targeting, sorry. Targeting, for me, implies specificity.

 

[timschochet]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent.

It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."

2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.

3. Your analogy sucks!

 

[RCon]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Why do you keep adding stuff? When did I ever write storing the data permanently? The NSA director testified the PRISM records are destroyed shortly after they are scanned.

Just to be clear, let me repeat: the three points you just made are OK with me IF:

1. The government has a specific search in mind, explained to Congress, approved by Congress, with Congressional oversight.

2. The information is NOT permanently kept.

3. The purpose of the search is a reasonable one designed to enhance the nations' security.

These are not either-ors. All 3 conditions must be met. Now, I assume you have some trap to spring for me, or you would not have asked the same question over and over again. So go ahead and spring your trap.

Others have said these records are stored permanently. Quite frankly, I don't believe the NSA director.

I had not read that you said previously you were only OK with this if the data was immediately destroyed. Perhaps I missed it or misread.

And no, no trap. I really am just trying to discover how far your line in the sand extends here. The reason I kept asking was because you kept not answering and/or putting undefined qualifiers on your answer.

 

[Politician Spock]

In the email example, a computer is able to "read" (actually scan) and store all the data. There is no actual person reading each separate email, thus no violation.

So what do you think happens when a computer gets a "hit" on one of their key words after the scan? Is your distinction really that a computer is flagging things rather than an individual? If that's the line, who/what do you think wrote the program to do these scans? Because at that point you're simply suggesting one is ok because they used a computer while the other used the ever evil letter opener.

I don't care who wrote the program, because that person isn't reading your emails.

The 4th amendment is not about protecting against unreasonable reading.

US Citizen: The government searched and seized all my food!

Tim: That's not a violation of the 4th. No person is tasting it. It's just stored somewhere.

US Citizen: The government searched and seized all my old record albums!

Tim: That's not a violation of the 4th. No person is listening to them. They are just stored somewhere.

US Citizen: The government searched and seized all my flowers!

Tim: That's not a violation of the 4th. No person is smelling them They are just stored somewhere.

US Citizen: The government searched and seized all my warm, soft blankets!

Tim: That's not a violation of the 4th. No person is feeling them. They are just stored somewhere.

As long as no person in government is using their five senses on what they've searched and seized, it doesn't violate the 4th.

 

[shader]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent.

It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."

2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.

3. Your analogy sucks!

I came up with the analogy in about 2 minutes, and I'm sure there are major problems with it. But the point is that the kid has no ill intent, but if you surround him with too many temptations, eventually he'll start doing things you wouldn't have thought possible.

The NSA is setting up a system where the gov't has the ability to know everything about everyone. If you allow that system to continue to exist and expand, it becomes remarkably easy for the gov't to take advantage of that system, because it's RIGHT THERE for them. There becomes little need to get warrants and all that other time-consuming crap, because the information is readily available. Saying they aren't evil is obviously up to interpretation. But what if the next administration IS evil or DOES have ill intent? You study history Tim. This happens fairly regularly in human history.

 

[The Commish]

In the email example, a computer is able to "read" (actually scan) and store all the data. There is no actual person reading each separate email, thus no violation.

So what do you think happens when a computer gets a "hit" on one of their key words after the scan? Is your distinction really that a computer is flagging things rather than an individual? If that's the line, who/what do you think wrote the program to do these scans? Because at that point you're simply suggesting one is ok because they used a computer while the other used the ever evil letter opener.

I don't care who wrote the program, because that person isn't reading your emails.

Fair enough....I think this is probably the flimsiest line in the sand I have ever seen here at FBG....congratulations.

 

[timschochet]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Why do you keep adding stuff? When did I ever write storing the data permanently? The NSA director testified the PRISM records are destroyed shortly after they are scanned.

Just to be clear, let me repeat: the three points you just made are OK with me IF:

1. The government has a specific search in mind, explained to Congress, approved by Congress, with Congressional oversight.

2. The information is NOT permanently kept.

3. The purpose of the search is a reasonable one designed to enhance the nations' security.

These are not either-ors. All 3 conditions must be met. Now, I assume you have some trap to spring for me, or you would not have asked the same question over and over again. So go ahead and spring your trap.

Others have said these records are stored permanently. Quite frankly, I don't believe the NSA director.

I had not read that you said previously you were only OK with this if the data was immediately destroyed. Perhaps I missed it or misread.

I've stated it several times. If the NSA director is lying about this, we can shut down the program right now. The whole basis for my personal support is that it's being done for a specific purpose, which means the records cannot be permanently kept. If they are permanently kept, that would then destroy it in my eyes.

 

[timschochet]

In the email example, a computer is able to "read" (actually scan) and store all the data. There is no actual person reading each separate email, thus no violation.

So what do you think happens when a computer gets a "hit" on one of their key words after the scan? Is your distinction really that a computer is flagging things rather than an individual? If that's the line, who/what do you think wrote the program to do these scans? Because at that point you're simply suggesting one is ok because they used a computer while the other used the ever evil letter opener.

I don't care who wrote the program, because that person isn't reading your emails.

The 4th amendment is not about protecting against unreasonable reading.

US Citizen: The government searched and seized all my food!

Tim: That's not a violation of the 4th. No person is tasting it. It's just stored somewhere.

US Citizen: The government searched and seized all my old record albums!

Tim: That's not a violation of the 4th. No person is listening to them. They are just stored somewhere.

US Citizen: The government searched and seized all my flowers!

Tim: That's not a violation of the 4th. No person is smelling them They are just stored somewhere.

US Citizen: The government searched and seized all my warm, soft blankets!

Tim: That's not a violation of the 4th. No person is feeling them. They are just stored somewhere.

As long as no person in government is using their five senses on what they've searched and seized, it doesn't violate the 4th.

Did you read my post about the difference between good sarcasm and bad sarcasm? You should try imitating your evil twin a little better. He knows the funny. This isn't funny, or accurate, or witty. It's just silly. My advice is for you to go back to making straightforward arguments, if you really want to make a point. HTH.

 

[The Commish]

I need one more explanation then I'm done. What does "confidential" mean to you Tim?? Because if I have a program copying all your emails that you send, nothing is confidential anymore. By it being in someone else's hands other than you or your lawyer/doctor/priest whatever it's the very opposite of confidential by it's popular definition.

 

[timschochet]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent.

It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."

2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.

3. Your analogy sucks!

I came up with the analogy in about 2 minutes, and I'm sure there are major problems with it. But the point is that the kid has no ill intent, but if you surround him with too many temptations, eventually he'll start doing things you wouldn't have thought possible.

The NSA is setting up a system where the gov't has the ability to know everything about everyone. If you allow that system to continue to exist and expand, it becomes remarkably easy for the gov't to take advantage of that system, because it's RIGHT THERE for them. There becomes little need to get warrants and all that other time-consuming crap, because the information is readily available. Saying they aren't evil is obviously up to interpretation. But what if the next administration IS evil or DOES have ill intent? You study history Tim. This happens fairly regularly in human history.

No it doesn't. And I have made that point again and again. Access to technology does not help people become more evil. If the next administration is evil or does have evil intent, we will have a lot more to worry about than this program. In such an event, this technology is irrelevant.

 

[timschochet]

In the email example, a computer is able to "read" (actually scan) and store all the data. There is no actual person reading each separate email, thus no violation.

So what do you think happens when a computer gets a "hit" on one of their key words after the scan? Is your distinction really that a computer is flagging things rather than an individual? If that's the line, who/what do you think wrote the program to do these scans? Because at that point you're simply suggesting one is ok because they used a computer while the other used the ever evil letter opener.

I don't care who wrote the program, because that person isn't reading your emails.

Fair enough....I think this is probably the flimsiest line in the sand I have ever seen here at FBG....congratulations.

The reason you think the line in the sand is flimsy is because there isn't one. Either an idea makes sense or it doesn't. We can look at each proposal separately, without having to draw a line in the sand.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent.

It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.

3. Your analogy sucks!

I came up with the analogy in about 2 minutes, and I'm sure there are major problems with it. But the point is that the kid has no ill intent, but if you surround him with too many temptations, eventually he'll start doing things you wouldn't have thought possible.

The NSA is setting up a system where the gov't has the ability to know everything about everyone. If you allow that system to continue to exist and expand, it becomes remarkably easy for the gov't to take advantage of that system, because it's RIGHT THERE for them. There becomes little need to get warrants and all that other time-consuming crap, because the information is readily available. Saying they aren't evil is obviously up to interpretation. But what if the next administration IS evil or DOES have ill intent? You study history Tim. This happens fairly regularly in human history.

I though it was a good analogy.

 

[timschochet]

I need one more explanation then I'm done. What does "confidential" mean to you Tim?? Because if I have a program copying all your emails that you send, nothing is confidential anymore. By it being in someone else's hands other than you or your lawyer/doctor/priest whatever it's the very opposite of confidential by it's popular definition.

Under your broad-based definition, there is no such thing as a confidential email, because the server has access to it.

But legally speaking, it's confidential if (1) the government cannot use it in court against you without a proper warrant and (2) if you can successfully sue a private entity for gaining access to it without your permission.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent.

It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.

3. Your analogy sucks!

I came up with the analogy in about 2 minutes, and I'm sure there are major problems with it. But the point is that the kid has no ill intent, but if you surround him with too many temptations, eventually he'll start doing things you wouldn't have thought possible.

The NSA is setting up a system where the gov't has the ability to know everything about everyone. If you allow that system to continue to exist and expand, it becomes remarkably easy for the gov't to take advantage of that system, because it's RIGHT THERE for them. There becomes little need to get warrants and all that other time-consuming crap, because the information is readily available. Saying they aren't evil is obviously up to interpretation. But what if the next administration IS evil or DOES have ill intent? You study history Tim. This happens fairly regularly in human history.

No it doesn't. And I have made that point again and again. Access to technology does not help people become more evil. If the next administration is evil or does have evil intent, we will have a lot more to worry about than this program. In such an event, this technology is irrelevant.

I will have to keep this in mind when you are in the gun control thread(s).

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent.

It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.

3. Your analogy sucks!

I came up with the analogy in about 2 minutes, and I'm sure there are major problems with it. But the point is that the kid has no ill intent, but if you surround him with too many temptations, eventually he'll start doing things you wouldn't have thought possible.

The NSA is setting up a system where the gov't has the ability to know everything about everyone. If you allow that system to continue to exist and expand, it becomes remarkably easy for the gov't to take advantage of that system, because it's RIGHT THERE for them. There becomes little need to get warrants and all that other time-consuming crap, because the information is readily available. Saying they aren't evil is obviously up to interpretation. But what if the next administration IS evil or DOES have ill intent? You study history Tim. This happens fairly regularly in human history.

No it doesn't. And I have made that point again and again. Access to technology does not help people become more evil. If the next administration is evil or does have evil intent, we will have a lot more to worry about than this program. In such an event, this technology is irrelevant.

I will have to keep this in mind when you are in the gun control thread(s).

Zing

 

[drummer]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent.

It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."

2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.

3. Your analogy sucks!

I came up with the analogy in about 2 minutes, and I'm sure there are major problems with it. But the point is that the kid has no ill intent, but if you surround him with too many temptations, eventually he'll start doing things you wouldn't have thought possible.

The NSA is setting up a system where the gov't has the ability to know everything about everyone. If you allow that system to continue to exist and expand, it becomes remarkably easy for the gov't to take advantage of that system, because it's RIGHT THERE for them. There becomes little need to get warrants and all that other time-consuming crap, because the information is readily available. Saying they aren't evil is obviously up to interpretation. But what if the next administration IS evil or DOES have ill intent? You study history Tim. This happens fairly regularly in human history.

No it doesn't. And I have made that point again and again. Access to technology does not help people become more evil. If the next administration is evil or does have evil intent, we will have a lot more to worry about than this program. In such an event, this technology is irrelevant.

You need to move off the grid into a cabin in the woods, writing your manifestos on a typewriter if you want true anonymity and security, not just from the government, but from technology as whole.

My current ROM on my Android GS3 can send stats to the Devs. I volunteer that of course, and it's limited to only how many are using it as well as for bugs. That's just one part of data my phone sends out. Not counting the many bits of metadata sent by the many apps I use off of Play Store, Google, etc.

How they use it is again volunteered by my purchase and use of my smartphone. Datamining is a way of life now. It always has been in one form or another.

 

[timschochet]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent.

It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."

2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.

3. Your analogy sucks!

I came up with the analogy in about 2 minutes, and I'm sure there are major problems with it. But the point is that the kid has no ill intent, but if you surround him with too many temptations, eventually he'll start doing things you wouldn't have thought possible.

The NSA is setting up a system where the gov't has the ability to know everything about everyone. If you allow that system to continue to exist and expand, it becomes remarkably easy for the gov't to take advantage of that system, because it's RIGHT THERE for them. There becomes little need to get warrants and all that other time-consuming crap, because the information is readily available. Saying they aren't evil is obviously up to interpretation. But what if the next administration IS evil or DOES have ill intent? You study history Tim. This happens fairly regularly in human history.

No it doesn't. And I have made that point again and again. Access to technology does not help people become more evil. If the next administration is evil or does have evil intent, we will have a lot more to worry about than this program. In such an event, this technology is irrelevant.

You need to move off the grid into a cabin in the woods, writing your manifestos on a typewriter if you want true anonymity and security, not just from the government, but from technology as whole.

My current ROM on my Android GS3 can send stats to the Devs. I volunteer that of course, and it's limited to only how many are using it as well as for bugs. That's just one part of data my phone sends out. Not counting the many bits of metadata sent by the many apps I use off of Play Store, Google, etc.

How they use it is again volunteered by my purchase and use of my smartphone. Datamining is a way of life now. It always has been in one form or another.

Don't give 5 Digits any ideas.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently? * Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent. It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.3. Your analogy sucks!

I came up with the analogy in about 2 minutes, and I'm sure there are major problems with it. But the point is that the kid has no ill intent, but if you surround him with too many temptations, eventually he'll start doing things you wouldn't have thought possible. The NSA is setting up a system where the gov't has the ability to know everything about everyone. If you allow that system to continue to exist and expand, it becomes remarkably easy for the gov't to take advantage of that system, because it's RIGHT THERE for them. There becomes little need to get warrants and all that other time-consuming crap, because the information is readily available. Saying they aren't evil is obviously up to interpretation. But what if the next administration IS evil or DOES have ill intent? You study history Tim. This happens fairly regularly in human history.

No it doesn't. And I have made that point again and again. Access to technology does not help people become more evil. If the next administration is evil or does have evil intent, we will have a lot more to worry about than this program. In such an event, this technology is irrelevant.

You need to move off the grid into a cabin in the woods, writing your manifestos on a typewriter if you want true anonymity and security, not just from the government, but from technology as whole. My current ROM on my Android GS3 can send stats to the Devs. I volunteer that of course, and it's limited to only how many are using it as well as for bugs. That's just one part of data my phone sends out. Not counting the many bits of metadata sent by the many apps I use off of Play Store, Google, etc. How they use it is again volunteered by my purchase and use of my smartphone. Datamining is a way of life now. It always has been in one form or another.

It may be, but if it is an invasion of privacy the Government is expressly forbidden from being involved.

 

[timschochet]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent.

It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.

3. Your analogy sucks!

I came up with the analogy in about 2 minutes, and I'm sure there are major problems with it. But the point is that the kid has no ill intent, but if you surround him with too many temptations, eventually he'll start doing things you wouldn't have thought possible.

The NSA is setting up a system where the gov't has the ability to know everything about everyone. If you allow that system to continue to exist and expand, it becomes remarkably easy for the gov't to take advantage of that system, because it's RIGHT THERE for them. There becomes little need to get warrants and all that other time-consuming crap, because the information is readily available. Saying they aren't evil is obviously up to interpretation. But what if the next administration IS evil or DOES have ill intent? You study history Tim. This happens fairly regularly in human history.

No it doesn't. And I have made that point again and again. Access to technology does not help people become more evil. If the next administration is evil or does have evil intent, we will have a lot more to worry about than this program. In such an event, this technology is irrelevant.

I will have to keep this in mind when you are in the gun control thread(s).

You must have me confused with somebody else. I challenge you right now to go looking through that thread, or any other thread in this forum, and if you find a comment from me that access to guns helps people become more evil, or anything even remotely close to it, I will send you $100 immediately.

 

[RCon]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Why do you keep adding stuff? When did I ever write storing the data permanently? The NSA director testified the PRISM records are destroyed shortly after they are scanned.

Just to be clear, let me repeat: the three points you just made are OK with me IF:

1. The government has a specific search in mind, explained to Congress, approved by Congress, with Congressional oversight.

2. The information is NOT permanently kept.

3. The purpose of the search is a reasonable one designed to enhance the nations' security.

These are not either-ors. All 3 conditions must be met. Now, I assume you have some trap to spring for me, or you would not have asked the same question over and over again. So go ahead and spring your trap.

Others have said these records are stored permanently. Quite frankly, I don't believe the NSA director.

I had not read that you said previously you were only OK with this if the data was immediately destroyed. Perhaps I missed it or misread.

I've stated it several times. If the NSA director is lying about this, we can shut down the program right now. The whole basis for my personal support is that it's being done for a specific purpose, which means the records cannot be permanently kept. If they are permanently kept, that would then destroy it in my eyes.

I thought it was common knowledge that the NSA director lied gave the least untruthful answer about the data not being stored. As you continued to argue in favor of the program, I assumed you were in favor of the data being stored. If that's not the case, mea culpa.

Now, I'm still against the program, whether the data is stored or not, and I would still be of the impression that it is a pretty clear violation of the 4th Amendment. However, it would be significantly less objectionable if the data was simply scanned as it passed through, without being stored for future access.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I think I will send my electronic devices on a vacation from time to time.

 

[drummer]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently? * Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent. It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.3. Your analogy sucks!

I came up with the analogy in about 2 minutes, and I'm sure there are major problems with it. But the point is that the kid has no ill intent, but if you surround him with too many temptations, eventually he'll start doing things you wouldn't have thought possible. The NSA is setting up a system where the gov't has the ability to know everything about everyone. If you allow that system to continue to exist and expand, it becomes remarkably easy for the gov't to take advantage of that system, because it's RIGHT THERE for them. There becomes little need to get warrants and all that other time-consuming crap, because the information is readily available. Saying they aren't evil is obviously up to interpretation. But what if the next administration IS evil or DOES have ill intent? You study history Tim. This happens fairly regularly in human history.

No it doesn't. And I have made that point again and again. Access to technology does not help people become more evil. If the next administration is evil or does have evil intent, we will have a lot more to worry about than this program. In such an event, this technology is irrelevant.

You need to move off the grid into a cabin in the woods, writing your manifestos on a typewriter if you want true anonymity and security, not just from the government, but from technology as whole. My current ROM on my Android GS3 can send stats to the Devs. I volunteer that of course, and it's limited to only how many are using it as well as for bugs. That's just one part of data my phone sends out. Not counting the many bits of metadata sent by the many apps I use off of Play Store, Google, etc. How they use it is again volunteered by my purchase and use of my smartphone. Datamining is a way of life now. It always has been in one form or another.

It may be, but if it is an invasion of privacy the Government is expressly forbidden from being involved.

Just how naive are we to not think the Government hasn't been keeping tabs on us even before the new tech?

 

[RCon]

In the email example, a computer is able to "read" (actually scan) and store all the data. There is no actual person reading each separate email, thus no violation.

So what do you think happens when a computer gets a "hit" on one of their key words after the scan? Is your distinction really that a computer is flagging things rather than an individual? If that's the line, who/what do you think wrote the program to do these scans? Because at that point you're simply suggesting one is ok because they used a computer while the other used the ever evil letter opener.

I don't care who wrote the program, because that person isn't reading your emails.

Fair enough....I think this is probably the flimsiest line in the sand I have ever seen here at FBG....congratulations.

The reason you think the line in the sand is flimsy is because there isn't one. Either an idea makes sense or it doesn't. We can look at each proposal separately, without having to draw a line in the sand.

Actually, no we can't. Words need to have meaning, especially when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently?

* Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?

* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent.

It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.

3. Your analogy sucks!

I came up with the analogy in about 2 minutes, and I'm sure there are major problems with it. But the point is that the kid has no ill intent, but if you surround him with too many temptations, eventually he'll start doing things you wouldn't have thought possible.

The NSA is setting up a system where the gov't has the ability to know everything about everyone. If you allow that system to continue to exist and expand, it becomes remarkably easy for the gov't to take advantage of that system, because it's RIGHT THERE for them. There becomes little need to get warrants and all that other time-consuming crap, because the information is readily available. Saying they aren't evil is obviously up to interpretation. But what if the next administration IS evil or DOES have ill intent? You study history Tim. This happens fairly regularly in human history.

No it doesn't. And I have made that point again and again. Access to technology does not help people become more evil. If the next administration is evil or does have evil intent, we will have a lot more to worry about than this program. In such an event, this technology is irrelevant.

I will have to keep this in mind when you are in the gun control thread(s).

You must have me confused with somebody else. I challenge you right now to go looking through that thread, or any other thread in this forum, and if you find a comment from me that access to guns helps people become more evil, or anything even remotely close to it, I will send you $100 immediately.

Here, maybe this will end the confusion:Unless otherwise stated, any comment or statement I make is strictly MY OPINION OF YOUR OPINION, and should not be taken as an implication of fact, no matter how definitive it sounds. I speak for no one but myself.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Just to be clear, you'd be OK with government doing all of the following, and storing that data permanently? * Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail, for both USPS as well as FedEx and other private couriers?* Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?* Automated recording of GPS location data for all cars, phones, tablets, etc.?

Tim is apparently ok with installing all the elements of a police state straight out of 1984 (on steroids), because he's sure that the gov't is good and has no ill intent. It's akin to filling your 16 year old teenage son's room with a fridge full of alcohol, shelves full of illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash and then saying "He's a good kid, he'll never get caught up in drugs and alcohol"

1. I am not OK with that. (And BTW, it may have been sometime since you read 1984 because you really don't seem to understand what exactly are the "elements of a police state."2. I am not sure the government is good and has no ill intent. But I am also fairly confident the government is not evil.3. Your analogy sucks!

I came up with the analogy in about 2 minutes, and I'm sure there are major problems with it. But the point is that the kid has no ill intent, but if you surround him with too many temptations, eventually he'll start doing things you wouldn't have thought possible. The NSA is setting up a system where the gov't has the ability to know everything about everyone. If you allow that system to continue to exist and expand, it becomes remarkably easy for the gov't to take advantage of that system, because it's RIGHT THERE for them. There becomes little need to get warrants and all that other time-consuming crap, because the information is readily available. Saying they aren't evil is obviously up to interpretation. But what if the next administration IS evil or DOES have ill intent? You study history Tim. This happens fairly regularly in human history.

No it doesn't. And I have made that point again and again. Access to technology does not help people become more evil. If the next administration is evil or does have evil intent, we will have a lot more to worry about than this program. In such an event, this technology is irrelevant.

You need to move off the grid into a cabin in the woods, writing your manifestos on a typewriter if you want true anonymity and security, not just from the government, but from technology as whole. My current ROM on my Android GS3 can send stats to the Devs. I volunteer that of course, and it's limited to only how many are using it as well as for bugs. That's just one part of data my phone sends out. Not counting the many bits of metadata sent by the many apps I use off of Play Store, Google, etc. How they use it is again volunteered by my purchase and use of my smartphone. Datamining is a way of life now. It always has been in one form or another.

It may be, but if it is an invasion of privacy the Government is expressly forbidden from being involved.

Just how naive are we to not think the Government hasn't been keeping tabs on us even before the new tech?

I am not naive to the fact that Government is constantly and consistently overstepping their bounds; I am just not ready to concede it as a matter of course.

 

[Doug B]

You need to move off the grid into a cabin in the woods, writing your manifestos on a typewriter if you want true anonymity and security, not just from the government, but from technology as whole.
My current ROM on my Android GS3 can send stats to the Devs. I volunteer that of course, and it's limited to only how many are using it as well as for bugs. That's just one part of data my phone sends out. Not counting the many bits of metadata sent by the many apps I use off of Play Store, Google, etc.

How they use it is again volunteered by my purchase and use of my smartphone. Datamining is a way of life now. It always has been in one form or another.

There's been a lost of interesting things brought up during the debates in this thread. But I've considerd both the "is it constitutional?" and "is it moral?/are you OK with ...?" lines of debate purely academic. None of this stuff is going away. It would still be going on, full-force, warrantless, way underground even under a Rand Paul presidency with Slapdash as NSA director. If any public-face federal executive got too cute publicly about opposing data minnig, they'd just be willfully left in the dark about the program. The public NSA leadership and members of Congressional committees can all be cut out of the information loop as necessary.

 

[Politician Spock]

In the email example, a computer is able to "read" (actually scan) and store all the data. There is no actual person reading each separate email, thus no violation.

So what do you think happens when a computer gets a "hit" on one of their key words after the scan? Is your distinction really that a computer is flagging things rather than an individual? If that's the line, who/what do you think wrote the program to do these scans? Because at that point you're simply suggesting one is ok because they used a computer while the other used the ever evil letter opener.

I don't care who wrote the program, because that person isn't reading your emails.

The 4th amendment is not about protecting against unreasonable reading.

US Citizen: The government searched and seized all my food!

Tim: That's not a violation of the 4th. No person is tasting it. It's just stored somewhere.

US Citizen: The government searched and seized all my old record albums!

Tim: That's not a violation of the 4th. No person is listening to them. They are just stored somewhere.

US Citizen: The government searched and seized all my flowers!

Tim: That's not a violation of the 4th. No person is smelling them They are just stored somewhere.

US Citizen: The government searched and seized all my warm, soft blankets!

Tim: That's not a violation of the 4th. No person is feeling them. They are just stored somewhere.

As long as no person in government is using their five senses on what they've searched and seized, it doesn't violate the 4th.

Did you read my post about the difference between good sarcasm and bad sarcasm? You should try imitating your evil twin a little better. He knows the funny. This isn't funny, or accurate, or witty. It's just silly. My advice is for you to go back to making straightforward arguments, if you really want to make a point. HTH.

It's not sarcasm. It's your argument extrapolated out to the other four human senses. If it is not funny to you, that's because basing your argument on the first human sense isn't funny to you. It's funny to everyone else who can see what a stupid argument it is to say the government isn't violating search/seizure limitations because they do it with their eyes closed.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You need to move off the grid into a cabin in the woods, writing your manifestos on a typewriter if you want true anonymity and security, not just from the government, but from technology as whole.
My current ROM on my Android GS3 can send stats to the Devs. I volunteer that of course, and it's limited to only how many are using it as well as for bugs. That's just one part of data my phone sends out. Not counting the many bits of metadata sent by the many apps I use off of Play Store, Google, etc.

How they use it is again volunteered by my purchase and use of my smartphone. Datamining is a way of life now. It always has been in one form or another.

There's been a lost of interesting things brought up during the debates in this thread. But I've considerd both the "is it constitutional?" and "is it moral?/are you OK with ...?" lines of debate purely academic. None of this stuff is going away. It would still be going on, full-force, warrantless, way underground even under a Rand Paul presidency with Slapdash as NSA director. If any public-face federal executive got too cute publicly about opposing data minnig, they'd just be willfully left in the dark about the program. The public NSA leadership and members of Congressional committees can all be cut out of the information loop as necessary.

There's a significant difference between collecting all data, generating a high level summary report off of it (aka data mining) and then permanently destroying the original data collected and keeping just the report vs. what is going on today where the entire content of the data collected is being stored permanently for future reference, just in case, for reasons that today are not immediately clear, but in the future someone might have a use to search against them or view the entire contents for a specific individual.

This is pretty similar to the whole gun control background check discussion. The pro-gun side is more inclined to accept a background check system where the check is made and the data collected is destroyed within 24-48 hours. What they are not o.k. with is letting this data sit around and be collected and perhaps passed around to different government agencies or remain vulnerable to illegal seizure (meaning getting hacked and used for other potentially illegal purposes).

 

[mattdaddy]

[SIZE=medium]If you agree with this program then all of the following and a whole lot more is ok with you. Please explain how this is justified in the American system that was built upon the Bill Of Rights.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]1) My doctor has a system whereby I can ask medical questions via a web portal. Until now we both understood that web portal to be secure and confidential. That is not the case according to what we now know.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]2) In the past I have consulted with my attorney through phone and email. We both assumed these conversations were confidential. That is not the case.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Hypothetical:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]3) Let's say I'm an author and I am writing a novel that is a stark criticism of the surveillance state. In it there are tons of buzz words that are on the watch list. I email it to my publisher for review. We both believed this communication was confidential and engaged in a conversation about the subject matter. Without our consent and without any other justification except a stop list run through a computer program our entire conversation was monitored by several people. Keep in mind the stop list can be changed at any time in the future under the veil of secrecy.[/SIZE]

1. In the case of emails and phone calls, the government IMO has made a good argument, via the Patriot Act, as to why these need to be collected en masse, without individual warrants in order to fight terrorism. Personally, I can't come up with a reason why the government would need to have access to your personal health records without a warrant. Unless such a plausible reason occurs, they can't do it. Please keep in mind- the government can't just collect information for no reason. PRISM is a very specific program under Congressional approval.

2. Nobody is reading your emails; they are being scanned to see if they match certain terrorist links. For your purposes, your emails with your attorney remain confidential.

3. I have a very strong feeling that the algorithms are far too sophisticated and specified not to be able to distinguish between a novelist writing about terrorism and an actual terrorist plot. According to the NSA chief, what they are looking for is VERY specific and comes directly from classified intel, which I really doubt you would have access to. But let's assume for the moment that what you're suggesting does happen. The computer would "ding" your emails. Then the NSA would go to the FISA court and get permission to examine your specific emails. Then they would very quickly determine that you are a novelist and not a terrorist. Case closed.

So in response to your opening premise, the answer is no, a whole lot more is NOT OK with me. But I continue to find it amusing that people keep insisting that my flaw is that I'm responding to a slippery slope argument, when virtually every other post in this thread is a slippery slope argument.

I don't think you understand what has come to light in regards to the leaks. Unless you think the info in the leaks is fabricated you are not making any sense. But the NSA has yet to say that the leaked documents were incorrect or fabricated. The documents suggest that the data is collected by default and Snowden himself has stated that there is only very loose policy and virtually no technical barriers in place to prevent employees from gaining access to all that data that has been collected on virtually every US Citizen. I do question the oversight. It appears to be extremely poor and there appears to be no accountability or consequences for abuses.

Here is a video with three previous high level NSA employee's that became whistleblower's. William Binney (Former NSA Technical Director),J. Kirk Weibe (Former NSA Senior Anaylst), Thomas Drake (Former NSA Technical Director). They all say there is a major problem with the NSA and what Snowden is claiming now is what they witnessed while they were there. Are they all lying about the accountability of the NSA? Why exactly should we trust this organization with the most private data of all US Citizens? Apparently your answer is because I, Tim, think it's ok. Sorry, but that ain't good enough. Unconditional love for employees of a government orginazation wrapped in secrecy upheld by a secret court is not gonna fly.

http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/nsa-roundtable-did-edward-snowden-do-the-right-thing/botHbWkiQsqR_NRELLHb5A

 

[Politician Spock]

Judge: "Officer Smith... the defense says you did not have a warrant when you collected the evidence being used to incriminate them. Can you response to this?"

Officer Smith; "Yes, your honor. It is true I did not have a search warrant when I collected the evidence. But I collected the evidence from their car with my eyes closed, so the 4th amendment did not limit my behavior of collecting it. It wasn't until I had the warrant that I opened my eyes to read what I gathered and saw it was evidence of their crime."

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Tim has more than twice as many posts in this thread as the second-place guy.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Tim has more than twice as many posts in this thread as the second-place guy.

He slacking; it usually has to get to 3:1 for him to contradict himself.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Tim has more than twice as many posts in this thread as the second-place guy.

The NSA :knows:

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Judge: "Officer Smith... the defense says you did not have a warrant when you collected the evidence being used to incriminate them. Can you response to this?"

Officer Smith; "Yes, your honor. It is true I did not have a search warrant when I collected the evidence. But I collected the evidence from their car with my eyes closed, so the 4th amendment did not limit my behavior of collecting it. It wasn't until I had the warrant that I opened my eyes to read what I gathered and saw it was evidence of their crime."

I like the twist at the end, I was waiting for:

Officer Smith: "Yes, your honor. It is true I did not have a search warrant when I collected the evidence. But I did search every car in the tri-state area equally thoroughly w/o any specificity of which cars I searched before I data mined the contents and then got a search warrant for the cars that contained contraband."