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

[Slapdash]

Who ever said FISA was a rubber stamp was right on. In 2012, they didn't reject a single surveillance request.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf

Bump for Tim.

Going back to 1979, the FISA court has only rejected 11 out of 33,949 applications. I'd call that a rubber stamp.

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

Again, this could tell us that the government is doing its job and not screwing around with this sort of thing. Or it could tell us that FISA is useless and allows the government to do whatever it wants. It really depends on your POV. If you begin with the notion that the government is evil and trying to screw us, I doubt any kind of safeguard is ever going to convince you otherwise.

Either the 4th Amendment matters, or it doesn't. The intent of the government violating it isn't important. The violation itself is.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I understand what you're saying but I find it hard to believe you're really that naive.

I don't think I'm naive at all. I'm not saying we should put our heads in the sand. I'm glad the story was reported, and I think there should be an investigation. If FISA is truly a rubber stamp, then there ought to be more stringent restrictions in place.

But on the other hand, I don't read a story like this and assume that we're immediately heading for Big Brother. I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and I'm not one who believes in creeping government dictatorship advancing slowly over time. Tyrannies don't work that way, as I've pointed out again and again in the gun control thread. NC Commish is absolutely right: our government HAS lied to us, and done some bad things, and we need to keep an eye on them. But personal liberty in this country has not decreased over the years as a result of new technology; it has increased. We live in a better, freer society now than we ever have before, for most things.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Tim, I understand what you're saying but I find it hard to believe you're really that naive.

I don't think I'm naive at all. I'm not saying we should put our heads in the sand. I'm glad the story was reported, and I think there should be an investigation. If FISA is truly a rubber stamp, then there ought to be more stringent restrictions in place.

But on the other hand, I don't read a story like this and assume that we're immediately heading for Big Brother. I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and I'm not one who believes in creeping government dictatorship advancing slowly over time. Tyrannies don't work that way, as I've pointed out again and again in the gun control thread. NC Commish is absolutely right: our government HAS lied to us, and done some bad things, and we need to keep an eye on them. But personal liberty in this country has not decreased over the years as a result of new technology; it has increased. We live in a better, freer society now than we ever have before, for most things.

 

[timschochet]

Who ever said FISA was a rubber stamp was right on. In 2012, they didn't reject a single surveillance request.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf

Bump for Tim.

Going back to 1979, the FISA court has only rejected 11 out of 33,949 applications. I'd call that a rubber stamp.

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

Again, this could tell us that the government is doing its job and not screwing around with this sort of thing. Or it could tell us that FISA is useless and allows the government to do whatever it wants. It really depends on your POV. If you begin with the notion that the government is evil and trying to screw us, I doubt any kind of safeguard is ever going to convince you otherwise.

Either the 4th Amendment matters, or it doesn't. The intent of the government violating it isn't important. The violation itself is.

If you're correct, then this action should be challenged before the Supreme Court. If the judges agree with you, then it will not be allowed. I'm not knowledgeable enough myself to comment intelligently on the 4th Amendment- except that if this really is an issue, then it strikes me as odd that in the several decades that the government has been doing this sort of stuff, the SC hasn't looked at it already.

 

[Slapdash]

Tim, I understand what you're saying but I find it hard to believe you're really that naive.

I don't think I'm naive at all. I'm not saying we should put our heads in the sand. I'm glad the story was reported, and I think there should be an investigation. If FISA is truly a rubber stamp, then there ought to be more stringent restrictions in place.

But on the other hand, I don't read a story like this and assume that we're immediately heading for Big Brother. I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and I'm not one who believes in creeping government dictatorship advancing slowly over time. Tyrannies don't work that way, as I've pointed out again and again in the gun control thread. NC Commish is absolutely right: our government HAS lied to us, and done some bad things, and we need to keep an eye on them. But personal liberty in this country has not decreased over the years as a result of new technology; it has increased. We live in a better, freer society now than we ever have before, for most things.

Yes, that is another example of your willingness to disregard the Constitution.

 

[timschochet]

You laugh, Strike?

I'm aware that some people would find that statement absurd and it doesn't surprise me that you're one of them. But I stand by it. The Internet in particular has advanced personal liberty in so many directions that we're unable to recognize it now. It will take decades for us to properly evaluate the impact of that technology alone.

 

[Slapdash]

Who ever said FISA was a rubber stamp was right on. In 2012, they didn't reject a single surveillance request.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf

Bump for Tim.

Going back to 1979, the FISA court has only rejected 11 out of 33,949 applications. I'd call that a rubber stamp.

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

Again, this could tell us that the government is doing its job and not screwing around with this sort of thing. Or it could tell us that FISA is useless and allows the government to do whatever it wants. It really depends on your POV. If you begin with the notion that the government is evil and trying to screw us, I doubt any kind of safeguard is ever going to convince you otherwise.

Either the 4th Amendment matters, or it doesn't. The intent of the government violating it isn't important. The violation itself is.

If you're correct, then this action should be challenged before the Supreme Court. If the judges agree with you, then it will not be allowed. I'm not knowledgeable enough myself to comment intelligently on the 4th Amendment- except that if this really is an issue, then it strikes me as odd that in the several decades that the government has been doing this sort of stuff, the SC hasn't looked at it already.

Yet groups that have tried to sue are repeated repelled by not having standing to sue over top-secret programs the government can't even acknowledge. FOIA requests are ignored or returned completely blacked out.

None of this would be new to any liberty-minded person following the heoric efforts of the ACLU and EFF to unearth what it happening. Only illegal disclosures have yielded insight.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I understand what you're saying but I find it hard to believe you're really that naive.

I don't think I'm naive at all. I'm not saying we should put our heads in the sand. I'm glad the story was reported, and I think there should be an investigation. If FISA is truly a rubber stamp, then there ought to be more stringent restrictions in place.

But on the other hand, I don't read a story like this and assume that we're immediately heading for Big Brother. I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and I'm not one who believes in creeping government dictatorship advancing slowly over time. Tyrannies don't work that way, as I've pointed out again and again in the gun control thread. NC Commish is absolutely right: our government HAS lied to us, and done some bad things, and we need to keep an eye on them. But personal liberty in this country has not decreased over the years as a result of new technology; it has increased. We live in a better, freer society now than we ever have before, for most things.

Yes, that is another example of your willingness to disregard the Constitution.

I have never disregarded the Constitution and certainly not in regards to my views on gun control. There is not one argument I have ever made in this forum on gun control that isn't completely consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

 

[NCCommish]

Who ever said FISA was a rubber stamp was right on. In 2012, they didn't reject a single surveillance request.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf

Bump for Tim.

Going back to 1979, the FISA court has only rejected 11 out of 33,949 applications. I'd call that a rubber stamp.http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

Again, this could tell us that the government is doing its job and not screwing around with this sort of thing. Or it could tell us that FISA is useless and allows the government to do whatever it wants. It really depends on your POV. If you begin with the notion that the government is evil and trying to screw us, I doubt any kind of safeguard is ever going to convince you otherwise.

Either the 4th Amendment matters, or it doesn't. The intent of the government violating it isn't important. The violation itself is.

If you're correct, then this action should be challenged before the Supreme Court. If the judges agree with you, then it will not be allowed. I'm not knowledgeable enough myself to comment intelligently on the 4th Amendment- except that if this really is an issue, then it strikes me as odd that in the several decades that the government has been doing this sort of stuff, the SC hasn't looked at it already.

Tim you can't sue over stuff you can't prove. The SC already threw out a case because they said the petitioner couldn't prove they had been spied on despite the evidence they had because you couldn't get through the security. Well of course they can't that is why everything is done in secret. Don't tell us to petition an open court when every bit of data has been hidden and everyone that knows anything has been muzzled.And in response to another post you wrote yes creeping government power can certainly mean you wake up in a place one day that you no longer recognize. The price tag for that not happening is coming down like a ton of bricks on overreach wherever you find it and whatever party is doing it.

 

[shader]

Tim, of course the gov't doesn't care that you like the Rolling Stones, that you secretly despise your wife, or that you watch Dancing with the Stars.

The key to the whole thing is that now it's mainstream. Now everyone can see that the gov't has access to everything that you do on the internet. Most of us probably knew that already, but now it's out there in the open and can't be denied.

Whether they will ever do something nefarious with that info, that is another question.

For many of the true paranoid people, this is the type of thing to incite a lot of anger. For instance, there are many people 100% convinced that Obama is planning to take their guns. Despite the fact that there is zero proof of this, they believe it without question. As such, they now know that the gov't probably knows who all the gun owners are, and who all the bigtime gun supporters are, just from the internet.

This will lead to a revolution.

With keyboards. This country is far too lazy to do anything than post extremely angry facebook messages then head back to their Ipads.

 

[timschochet]

Who ever said FISA was a rubber stamp was right on. In 2012, they didn't reject a single surveillance request.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf

Bump for Tim.

Going back to 1979, the FISA court has only rejected 11 out of 33,949 applications. I'd call that a rubber stamp.

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

Again, this could tell us that the government is doing its job and not screwing around with this sort of thing. Or it could tell us that FISA is useless and allows the government to do whatever it wants. It really depends on your POV. If you begin with the notion that the government is evil and trying to screw us, I doubt any kind of safeguard is ever going to convince you otherwise.

Either the 4th Amendment matters, or it doesn't. The intent of the government violating it isn't important. The violation itself is.

If you're correct, then this action should be challenged before the Supreme Court. If the judges agree with you, then it will not be allowed. I'm not knowledgeable enough myself to comment intelligently on the 4th Amendment- except that if this really is an issue, then it strikes me as odd that in the several decades that the government has been doing this sort of stuff, the SC hasn't looked at it already.

Yet groups that have tried to sue are repeated repelled by not having standing to sue over top-secret programs the government can't even acknowledge. FOIA requests are ignored or returned completely blacked out.

None of this would be new to any liberty-minded person following the heoric efforts of the ACLU and EFF to unearth what it happening. Only illegal disclosures have yielded insight.

I'm a huge fan of the ACLU and I send them money from time to time, usually about $100 a year. If your facts are correct then I think that's wrong.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The same politicians who are now outraged are the same politicians who backed these very things under the Bush Administration. The same people who are now outraged are the same people who want to fire everyone in Homeland Security or FBI when a terrorist slips through the cracks. Everyone wants it both ways, every way, all the time.

Some indirect monitoring goes on IMO, I thought we already knew this. If you aren't aiding and abetting terrorists I really don't know what you're worried about. If you accidentally speak a terrorism watch word when talking to your sister about her birthday present, I'm sure NSA files it is non-pertinent when they realize you said "vibrator" and not "Libyan Separatist Movement."

 

[Slapdash]

You laugh, Strike?

I'm aware that some people would find that statement absurd and it doesn't surprise me that you're one of them. But I stand by it. The Internet in particular has advanced personal liberty in so many directions that we're unable to recognize it now. It will take decades for us to properly evaluate the impact of that technology alone.

How does one have freedom on the internet when the government can "quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type” ?

 

[Slapdash]

Who ever said FISA was a rubber stamp was right on. In 2012, they didn't reject a single surveillance request.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf

Bump for Tim.

Going back to 1979, the FISA court has only rejected 11 out of 33,949 applications. I'd call that a rubber stamp.

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

Again, this could tell us that the government is doing its job and not screwing around with this sort of thing. Or it could tell us that FISA is useless and allows the government to do whatever it wants. It really depends on your POV. If you begin with the notion that the government is evil and trying to screw us, I doubt any kind of safeguard is ever going to convince you otherwise.

Either the 4th Amendment matters, or it doesn't. The intent of the government violating it isn't important. The violation itself is.

If you're correct, then this action should be challenged before the Supreme Court. If the judges agree with you, then it will not be allowed. I'm not knowledgeable enough myself to comment intelligently on the 4th Amendment- except that if this really is an issue, then it strikes me as odd that in the several decades that the government has been doing this sort of stuff, the SC hasn't looked at it already.

Yet groups that have tried to sue are repeated repelled by not having standing to sue over top-secret programs the government can't even acknowledge. FOIA requests are ignored or returned completely blacked out.

None of this would be new to any liberty-minded person following the heoric efforts of the ACLU and EFF to unearth what it happening. Only illegal disclosures have yielded insight.

I'm a huge fan of the ACLU and I send them money from time to time, usually about $100 a year. If your facts are correct then I think that's wrong.

Maybe you should spend more time informing yourself and less time making wishy-washy conditional posts then.

 

[Slapdash]

Tim, I understand what you're saying but I find it hard to believe you're really that naive.

I don't think I'm naive at all. I'm not saying we should put our heads in the sand. I'm glad the story was reported, and I think there should be an investigation. If FISA is truly a rubber stamp, then there ought to be more stringent restrictions in place.

But on the other hand, I don't read a story like this and assume that we're immediately heading for Big Brother. I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and I'm not one who believes in creeping government dictatorship advancing slowly over time. Tyrannies don't work that way, as I've pointed out again and again in the gun control thread. NC Commish is absolutely right: our government HAS lied to us, and done some bad things, and we need to keep an eye on them. But personal liberty in this country has not decreased over the years as a result of new technology; it has increased. We live in a better, freer society now than we ever have before, for most things.

Yes, that is another example of your willingness to disregard the Constitution.

I have never disregarded the Constitution and certainly not in regards to my views on gun control. There is not one argument I have ever made in this forum on gun control that isn't completely consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

Then we have very different intrepretations of the bill of rights.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Tim, I understand what you're saying but I find it hard to believe you're really that naive.

I don't think I'm naive at all. I'm not saying we should put our heads in the sand. I'm glad the story was reported, and I think there should be an investigation. If FISA is truly a rubber stamp, then there ought to be more stringent restrictions in place.

But on the other hand, I don't read a story like this and assume that we're immediately heading for Big Brother. I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and I'm not one who believes in creeping government dictatorship advancing slowly over time. Tyrannies don't work that way, as I've pointed out again and again in the gun control thread. NC Commish is absolutely right: our government HAS lied to us, and done some bad things, and we need to keep an eye on them. But personal liberty in this country has not decreased over the years as a result of new technology; it has increased. We live in a better, freer society now than we ever have before, for most things.

[smilie deleted because of the ####ed up board]

Tim is being kind of unreasonable in this thread, but he's right about that part. The internet alone dramatically expanded all of our freedom. On a trivial level it allows us to enjoy unfettered access to pornography without being hassled by local busybodies. On a more important level it gives all of us a much greater ability to access information and voice our opinion without government or corporate interference.

 

[NCCommish]

The same politicians who are now outraged are the same politicians who backed these very things under the Bush Administration. The same people who are now outraged are the same people who want to fire everyone in Homeland Security or FBI when a terrorist slips through the cracks. Everyone wants it both ways, every way, all the time.

Some indirect monitoring goes on IMO, I thought we already knew this. If you aren't aiding and abetting terrorists I really don't know what you're worried about. If you accidentally speak a terrorism watch word when talking to your sister about her birthday present, I'm sure NSA files it is non-pertinent when they realize you said "vibrator" and not "Libyan Separatist Movement."

This whole thing would make the founders roll over in their grave. They specifically wrote the fourth in response to the crown writing wide open writs and then searching anything, anyplace and anytime they wanted. This flies directly in the face of our right to privacy and is government overreach of the highest order. But hey if you are into the imperial presidency then I guess it's all good. I'm not and you should know better.

 

[timschochet]

Who ever said FISA was a rubber stamp was right on. In 2012, they didn't reject a single surveillance request.

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf

Bump for Tim.

Going back to 1979, the FISA court has only rejected 11 out of 33,949 applications. I'd call that a rubber stamp.http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

Again, this could tell us that the government is doing its job and not screwing around with this sort of thing. Or it could tell us that FISA is useless and allows the government to do whatever it wants. It really depends on your POV. If you begin with the notion that the government is evil and trying to screw us, I doubt any kind of safeguard is ever going to convince you otherwise.

Either the 4th Amendment matters, or it doesn't. The intent of the government violating it isn't important. The violation itself is.

If you're correct, then this action should be challenged before the Supreme Court. If the judges agree with you, then it will not be allowed. I'm not knowledgeable enough myself to comment intelligently on the 4th Amendment- except that if this really is an issue, then it strikes me as odd that in the several decades that the government has been doing this sort of stuff, the SC hasn't looked at it already.

Tim you can't sue over stuff you can't prove. The SC already threw out a case because they said the petitioner couldn't prove they had been spied on despite the evidence they had because you couldn't get through the security. Well of course they can't that is why everything is done in secret. Don't tell us to petition an open court when every bit of data has been hidden and everyone that knows anything has been muzzled.And in response to another post you wrote yes creeping government power can certainly mean you wake up in a place one day that you no longer recognize. The price tag for that not happening is coming down like a ton of bricks on overreach wherever you find it and whatever party is doing it.

NC, as I just replied to Slapdash, perhaps you make a good point here. Obviously the need for secrecy is important; in today's world, we can't have total sunshine much as you might desire it. We probably disagree on that point. But that being said, I would like to know more about this. I don't think our government should do anything that violates the Constitution, and if we find out that they are, we should expose and prosecute if necessary. I remain outraged, as I'm betting you are, that the people who committed torture at Guantanamo were not prosecuted. That was wrong. Politics be damned; they should be in prison right now.

As to your second point, I challenge you to come up with a historical example of a dictatorship which "crept up" rather than arose through sudden revolution or through sudden acquiescence of the public. So far as I know, it's never happened.

 

[Slapdash]

The same politicians who are now outraged are the same politicians who backed these very things under the Bush Administration. The same people who are now outraged are the same people who want to fire everyone in Homeland Security or FBI when a terrorist slips through the cracks. Everyone wants it both ways, every way, all the time.

Some indirect monitoring goes on IMO, I thought we already knew this. If you aren't aiding and abetting terrorists I really don't know what you're worried about. If you accidentally speak a terrorism watch word when talking to your sister about her birthday present, I'm sure NSA files it is non-pertinent when they realize you said "vibrator" and not "Libyan Separatist Movement."

It is none of the government's business what I say to my sister.

 

[StrikeS2k]

IvanKaramazov, on 07 Jun 2013 - 12:05, said:

StrikeS2k, on 07 Jun 2013 - 11:55, said:

timschochet, on 07 Jun 2013 - 11:52, said:

MikeIke, on 07 Jun 2013 - 11:46, said:Tim, I understand what you're saying but I find it hard to believe you're really that naive.

I don't think I'm naive at all. I'm not saying we should put our heads in the sand. I'm glad the story was reported, and I think there should be an investigation. If FISA is truly a rubber stamp, then there ought to be more stringent restrictions in place.But on the other hand, I don't read a story like this and assume that we're immediately heading for Big Brother. I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and I'm not one who believes in creeping government dictatorship advancing slowly over time. Tyrannies don't work that way, as I've pointed out again and again in the gun control thread. NC Commish is absolutely right: our government HAS lied to us, and done some bad things, and we need to keep an eye on them. But personal liberty in this country has not decreased over the years as a result of new technology; it has increased. We live in a better, freer society now than we ever have before, for most things.

[smilie deleted because of the ####ed up board]

Tim is being kind of unreasonable in this thread, but he's right about that part. The internet alone dramatically expanded all of our freedom. On a trivial level it allows us to enjoy unfettered access to pornography without being hassled by local busybodies. On a more important level it gives all of us a much greater ability to access information and voice our opinion without government or corporate interference.

I disagree. For one thing I never had an issue with local busybodies bothering me about my porn prior to the Internet. Secondly, I've never an issue with anyone interfering with my ability to express my opinion. I agree that the Internet has greatly increased our ability to access information, although I do wish someone would show Tim how to use it for that purpose, but I don't consider that in and of itself an expansion of my freedom. Even if it is, when balanced against our loss of freedom as evidenced by this and other stories about the gov't overstepping it's bounds, I'd say it's a pretty specious argument that because we have access to more information we have more Liberty.

 

[NCCommish]

Tim, I understand what you're saying but I find it hard to believe you're really that naive.

I don't think I'm naive at all. I'm not saying we should put our heads in the sand. I'm glad the story was reported, and I think there should be an investigation. If FISA is truly a rubber stamp, then there ought to be more stringent restrictions in place. But on the other hand, I don't read a story like this and assume that we're immediately heading for Big Brother. I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and I'm not one who believes in creeping government dictatorship advancing slowly over time. Tyrannies don't work that way, as I've pointed out again and again in the gun control thread. NC Commish is absolutely right: our government HAS lied to us, and done some bad things, and we need to keep an eye on them. But personal liberty in this country has not decreased over the years as a result of new technology; it has increased. We live in a better, freer society now than we ever have before, for most things.

[smilie deleted because of the ####ed up board]

Tim is being kind of unreasonable in this thread, but he's right about that part. The internet alone dramatically expanded all of our freedom. On a trivial level it allows us to enjoy unfettered access to pornography without being hassled by local busybodies. On a more important level it gives all of us a much greater ability to access information and voice our opinion without government or corporate interference.

I disagree. For one thing I never had an issue with local busybodies bothering me about my porn prior to the Internet. Secondly, I've never an issue with anyone interfering with my ability to express my opinion. I agree that the Internet has greatly increased our ability to access information, although I do wish someone would show Tim how to use it for that purpose, but I don't consider than in and of itself an expansion of my freedom. Even if it is, when balanced against our loss of freedom as evidenced by this and other stories about the gov't overstepping it's bounds, I'd say it's a pretty specious argument that because we have access to more information we have more Liberty.

Going to have to agree with Strike here and I never do that lightly.

 

[RCon]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

You're joking, right? It should be not only rational, but near mandatory that the court would deny such large scale requests. There's no probable cause, no justification, no reason at all for the government to be looking at my phone records, and the 4th Amendment specifically prohibits it.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

It is none of the government's business what I say to my sister.

The point is if you want the terrorist who is talking to his sister about blowing up LA, you have to make some sacrifices. It's not my job to determine where that line is drawn, that lies with you and your elected officials.

 

[Slapdash]

Going to have to agree with Strike here and I never do that lightly.

I'm rather enjoying having the chance to agree with posters I normally argue with.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The same politicians who are now outraged are the same politicians who backed these very things under the Bush Administration. The same people who are now outraged are the same people who want to fire everyone in Homeland Security or FBI when a terrorist slips through the cracks. Everyone wants it both ways, every way, all the time.

In fact, most of Congress still seems to be supporting this garbage. Guys like Rand Paul have been against it all along.What we should really be concerned about are the hypochrites like Reid and Feinstein that were once vehemently opposed but have sat by giving their consent and now defend the same practices.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This whole thing would make the founders roll over in their grave. They specifically wrote the fourth in response to the crown writing wide open writs and then searching anything, anyplace and anytime they wanted. This flies directly in the face of our right to privacy and is government overreach of the highest order. But hey if you are into the imperial presidency then I guess it's all good. I'm not and you should know better.

NSA didn't exist then, neither did international terrorism. If you want to evoke the constitution and apply it blindly to something happening 230 years later, that's your prerogative.

Not sure what the last sentence means...

 

[GroveDiesel]

Judicially supervised by the FISA court means less than nothing. They're just rubber stamping any request that comees in.

Both you and NC Commish have asserted the "rubber stamp". How do you know this? Is it an assumption on your part, or is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?

They occasionally release a report on the number of requests the court receives and the number it approves. Those numbers say this court rarely, to never, turns down any request. That strains credulity.

Not necessarily. Again, we're talking about large numbers of group calls, correct? Given the scope of what the NSA is attempting to do here, it seems to me that it would be irrational to deny approval for this sort of large scale monitoring. Wiretapping specific calls is another matter entirely. If you can offer some evidence that, when it came to wiretapping, the FISA court never turned down a request from the NSA no matter how shallow the reasons might be, then I would be more inclined to agree with your charge.

You're joking, right? It should be not only rational, but near mandatory that the court would deny such large scale requests. There's no probable cause, no justification, no reason at all for the government to be looking at my phone records, and the 4th Amendment specifically prohibits it.

Yeah, it's bizarre. He seems to have it totally backwards.

 

[timschochet]

IvanKaramazov, on 07 Jun 2013 - 12:05, said:

StrikeS2k, on 07 Jun 2013 - 11:55, said:

timschochet, on 07 Jun 2013 - 11:52, said:

MikeIke, on 07 Jun 2013 - 11:46, said:

Tim, I understand what you're saying but I find it hard to believe you're really that naive.

I don't think I'm naive at all. I'm not saying we should put our heads in the sand. I'm glad the story was reported, and I think there should be an investigation. If FISA is truly a rubber stamp, then there ought to be more stringent restrictions in place.But on the other hand, I don't read a story like this and assume that we're immediately heading for Big Brother. I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and I'm not one who believes in creeping government dictatorship advancing slowly over time. Tyrannies don't work that way, as I've pointed out again and again in the gun control thread. NC Commish is absolutely right: our government HAS lied to us, and done some bad things, and we need to keep an eye on them. But personal liberty in this country has not decreased over the years as a result of new technology; it has increased. We live in a better, freer society now than we ever have before, for most things.

[smilie deleted because of the ####ed up board]

Tim is being kind of unreasonable in this thread, but he's right about that part. The internet alone dramatically expanded all of our freedom. On a trivial level it allows us to enjoy unfettered access to pornography without being hassled by local busybodies. On a more important level it gives all of us a much greater ability to access information and voice our opinion without government or corporate interference.

I disagree. For one thing I never had an issue with local busybodies bothering me about my porn prior to the Internet. Secondly, I've never an issue with anyone interfering with my ability to express my opinion. I agree that the Internet has greatly increased our ability to access information, although I do wish someone would show Tim how to use it for that purpose, but I don't consider that in and of itself an expansion of my freedom. Even if it is, when balanced against our loss of freedom as evidenced by this and other stories about the gov't overstepping it's bounds, I'd say it's a pretty specious argument that because we have access to more information we have more Liberty.

Every once in a while you slip in a pretty funny comment. Nice one there.

Obviously I take issue with your overall point. I do believe that information = liberty. That has been the progress of human society, and no society has ever had the amount of information we have. You fail to give any specific examples of how your liberty is limited. You claim there are busybodies bothering you about your porn- have they been able to prevent you from accessing it? The answer is no. But they were before. Pornography was banned throughout this country and as late as the 1990s in many states. Political leaders like Edwin Meese were able to restrict your ability to access it. Now anyone with a computer can access it. And that's just one example of thousands.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The same politicians who are now outraged are the same politicians who backed these very things under the Bush Administration. The same people who are now outraged are the same people who want to fire everyone in Homeland Security or FBI when a terrorist slips through the cracks. Everyone wants it both ways, every way, all the time.

In fact, most of Congress still seems to be supporting this garbage. Guys like Rand Paul have been against it all along.

What we should really be concerned about are the hypochrites like Reid and Feinstein that were once vehemently opposed but have sat by giving their consent and now defend the same practices.

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/376

 

[shader]

It is none of the government's business what I say to my sister.

The point is if you want the terrorist who is talking to his sister about blowing up LA, you have to make some sacrifices. It's not my job to determine where that line is drawn, that lies with you and your elected officials.

Jack Bauer agrees

 

[Slapdash]

It is none of the government's business what I say to my sister.

The point is if you want the terrorist who is talking to his sister about blowing up LA, you have to make some sacrifices. It's not my job to determine where that line is drawn, that lies with you and your elected officials.

I'm trying.

 

[NCCommish]

This whole thing would make the founders roll over in their grave. They specifically wrote the fourth in response to the crown writing wide open writs and then searching anything, anyplace and anytime they wanted. This flies directly in the face of our right to privacy and is government overreach of the highest order. But hey if you are into the imperial presidency then I guess it's all good. I'm not and you should know better.

NSA didn't exist then, neither did international terrorism. If you want to evoke the constitution and apply it blindly to something happening 230 years later, that's your prerogative.

Not sure what the last sentence means...

Searching people existed. Opening letters existed and there were certainly secret police that existed. And yeah crazily enough I want to evoke my constitutional rights not to have the government snooping on me. Silly I know.

And the last sentence is pretty clear. Either you want your rights protected or you want an Imperial Executive that will let you know which rights you have and when they'll let you pretend to have them.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

"Even" the WSJ thinks this is no big deal.

 

[Slapdash]

"Even" the WSJ thinks this is no big deal.

The privacy of Americans doesn't impact Wall St.

 

[NCCommish]

Going to have to agree with Strike here and I never do that lightly.

I'm rather enjoying having the chance to agree with posters I normally argue with.

Yeah I was kidding but the automated smilie police got me. Strike and I actually are in about the same place on these kind of issues most of the time.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

"Even" the WSJ thinks this is no big deal.

The privacy of Americans doesn't impact Wall St.

Wall Street practices a different form of terrorism.

 

[NCCommish]

"Even" the WSJ thinks this is no big deal.

The privacy of Americans doesn't impact Wall St.

Wall Street practices a different form of terrorism.

A more effective one. AQ never could've brought the world economy to the brink.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This whole thing would make the founders roll over in their grave. They specifically wrote the fourth in response to the crown writing wide open writs and then searching anything, anyplace and anytime they wanted. This flies directly in the face of our right to privacy and is government overreach of the highest order. But hey if you are into the imperial presidency then I guess it's all good. I'm not and you should know better.

NSA didn't exist then, neither did international terrorism. If you want to evoke the constitution and apply it blindly to something happening 230 years later, that's your prerogative.

Not sure what the last sentence means...

Searching people existed. Opening letters existed and there were certainly secret police that existed. And yeah crazily enough I want to evoke my constitutional rights not to have the government snooping on me. Silly I know.

And the last sentence is pretty clear. Either you want your rights protected or you want an Imperial Executive that will let you know which rights you have and when they'll let you pretend to have them.

You care about this way more than I do, you win.

 

[RCon]

Tim, I understand what you're saying but I find it hard to believe you're really that naive.

I don't think I'm naive at all. I'm not saying we should put our heads in the sand. I'm glad the story was reported, and I think there should be an investigation. If FISA is truly a rubber stamp, then there ought to be more stringent restrictions in place.

But on the other hand, I don't read a story like this and assume that we're immediately heading for Big Brother. I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and I'm not one who believes in creeping government dictatorship advancing slowly over time. Tyrannies don't work that way, as I've pointed out again and again in the gun control thread. NC Commish is absolutely right: our government HAS lied to us, and done some bad things, and we need to keep an eye on them. But personal liberty in this country has not decreased over the years as a result of new technology; it has increased. We live in a better, freer society now than we ever have before, for most things.

[smilie deleted because of the ####ed up board]

Tim is being kind of unreasonable in this thread, but he's right about that part. The internet alone dramatically expanded all of our freedom. On a trivial level it allows us to enjoy unfettered access to pornography without being hassled by local busybodies. On a more important level it gives all of us a much greater ability to access information and voice our opinion without government or corporate interference.

Technology has made it much easier to do stuff, yes. But what we do is now much more easily monitored by the government. I consider the former an increase in convenience, not liberty. The latter is most assuredly a decrease in liberty.

 

[RCon]

Obviously I take issue with your overall point. I do believe that information = liberty. That has been the progress of human society, and no society has ever had the amount of information we have. You fail to give any specific examples of how your liberty is limited. You claim there are busybodies bothering you about your porn- have they been able to prevent you from accessing it? The answer is no. But they were before. Pornography was banned throughout this country and as late as the 1990s in many states. Political leaders like Edwin Meese were able to restrict your ability to access it. Now anyone with a computer can access it. And that's just one example of thousands.

Information does not equal liberty, it equals convenience. That information that you can access over the internet now wasn't prohibited to you by law before; it was just more difficult for you to acquire. Your liberty would only have increased if the laws have changed regarding what you are legally allowed to access.

 

[timschochet]

Obviously I take issue with your overall point. I do believe that information = liberty. That has been the progress of human society, and no society has ever had the amount of information we have. You fail to give any specific examples of how your liberty is limited. You claim there are busybodies bothering you about your porn- have they been able to prevent you from accessing it? The answer is no. But they were before. Pornography was banned throughout this country and as late as the 1990s in many states. Political leaders like Edwin Meese were able to restrict your ability to access it. Now anyone with a computer can access it. And that's just one example of thousands.

Information does not equal liberty, it equals convenience. That information that you can access over the internet now wasn't prohibited to you by law before; it was just more difficult for you to acquire. Your liberty would only have increased if the laws have changed regarding what you are legally allowed to access.

No, that is just not true. True liberty is a broader concept than that which is allowed by law. But for the moment, let's assume your statement is correct. You claim that your liberties have been decreased. Care to give me a specific example?

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I understand what you're saying but I find it hard to believe you're really that naive.

I don't think I'm naive at all. I'm not saying we should put our heads in the sand. I'm glad the story was reported, and I think there should be an investigation. If FISA is truly a rubber stamp, then there ought to be more stringent restrictions in place.

But on the other hand, I don't read a story like this and assume that we're immediately heading for Big Brother. I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and I'm not one who believes in creeping government dictatorship advancing slowly over time. Tyrannies don't work that way, as I've pointed out again and again in the gun control thread. NC Commish is absolutely right: our government HAS lied to us, and done some bad things, and we need to keep an eye on them. But personal liberty in this country has not decreased over the years as a result of new technology; it has increased. We live in a better, freer society now than we ever have before, for most things.

[smilie deleted because of the ####ed up board]

Tim is being kind of unreasonable in this thread, but he's right about that part. The internet alone dramatically expanded all of our freedom. On a trivial level it allows us to enjoy unfettered access to pornography without being hassled by local busybodies. On a more important level it gives all of us a much greater ability to access information and voice our opinion without government or corporate interference.

Technology has made it much easier to do stuff, yes. But what we do is now much more easily monitored by the government. I consider the former an increase in convenience, not liberty. The latter is most assuredly a decrease in liberty.

Can you give a specific example of how the ability of the government to monitor you more easily has decreased your personal liberty?

 

[Gr00vus]

For those of us who are troubled by this, putting our oh so cynical approach to life aside - what can we do about it? I'm serious. I contribute the the ACLU, EFF already. I've written my congressclowns on this before and gotten their apologetic, doublespeak form responses a few times over the last several years. I've voted against the incumbents. What's the next step?

 

[Doug B]

You're joking, right? It should be not only rational, but near mandatory that the court would deny such large scale requests. There's no probable cause, no justification, no reason at all for the government to be looking at my phone records, and the 4th Amendment specifically prohibits it.

I'd fear that the natural reaction to that is for the shadow government to dispense with submitting large-scale requests. Or indeed, any requests at all. And perhaps to act without a paper trail, which is something The Guardian needed to even break this story.

 

[timschochet]

For those of us who are troubled by this, putting our oh so cynical approach to life aside - what can we do about it? I'm serious. I contribute the the ACLU, EFF already. I've written my congressclowns on this before and gotten their apologetic, doublespeak form responses a few times over the last several years. I've voted against the incumbents. What's the next step?

Give more to the ACLU.

Obviously, I'm less concerned about this than you are. But the ACLU fights the good fight. What I love about them is that they will continue to fight for civil liberties even if I disagree with them on a specific issue (which I often do.) They are the protectors of individual freedom.

 

[Doug B]

The point is if you want the terrorist who is talking to his sister about blowing up LA, you have to make some sacrifices. It's not my job to determine where that line is drawn, that lies with you and your elected officials.

I don't have confidence that any elected official has the power to change this kind of stuff.

 

[Doug B]

For those of us who are troubled by this, putting our oh so cynical approach to life aside - what can we do about it? I'm serious. I contribute the the ACLU, EFF already. I've written my congressclowns on this before and gotten their apologetic, doublespeak form responses a few times over the last several years. I've voted against the incumbents. What's the next step?

Slapdash and I were lobbing this around a page back. From what I can tell, there is no true next step. Even with as extreme a response as armed revolution, all that really ends up happening is that you change the individuals who are spying on you. Old boss/new boss. Frying pan/fire. And all that.

Can humanity really do better? Can we? I have my doubts.

 

[Doug B]

Technology has made it much easier to do stuff, yes. But what we do is now much more easily monitored by the government. I consider the former an increase in convenience, not liberty. The latter is most assuredly a decrease in liberty.

Thought question: to impinge upon a person's liberty, is surreptitious observation alone sufficient? Or is further action required?

That's seems to be the line that's being walked, as I read between the lines of statements by public officials.

 

[Fennis]

For those of us who are troubled by this, putting our oh so cynical approach to life aside - what can we do about it? I'm serious. I contribute the the ACLU, EFF already. I've written my congressclowns on this before and gotten their apologetic, doublespeak form responses a few times over the last several years. I've voted against the incumbents. What's the next step?

Slapdash and I were lobbing this around a page back. From what I can tell, there is no true next step. Even with as extreme a response as armed revolution, all that really ends up happening is that you change the individuals who are spying on you. Old boss/new boss. Frying pan/fire. And all that.

Can humanity really do better? Can we? I have my doubts.

There is no instant change form the status quo. It takes years of doing those sort of activities you mention. And then you still may (or may not) end up on the losing side.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Technology has made it much easier to do stuff, yes. But what we do is now much more easily monitored by the government. I consider the former an increase in convenience, not liberty. The latter is most assuredly a decrease in liberty.

Thought question: to impinge upon a person's liberty, is surreptitious observation alone sufficient? Or is further action required?

That's seems to be the line that's being walked, as I read between the lines of statements by public officials.

If just the ability to do something is there you are infringing upon my liberty. It's reasonable to assume the worst when talking about the government. Given all the different types of information they're collecting now, which will only expand going forward and as they add more data centers, they can literally create a timeline of your actions. It should be scary to anyone to think that random people, without following you, can pretty much know exactly what you're doing and where you're going at almost all times. That's where we're headed.