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

[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.

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?

I use Verizon. The government is illegally and unreasonably seizing my data.

 

[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.

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

The ability of the government to do it doesn't decrease my liberty. The fact that they do it does. This should be obvious, no?

 

[RCon]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

 

[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?

The ability of the government to do it doesn't decrease my liberty. The fact that they do it does. This should be obvious, no?

No. Simply acquiring the info doesn't decrease your liberty IMO. They would have to use the info to restrict you in some tangible manner.

 

[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.

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?

You're using "liberty" as a fictional concept. I'm using it as a legal definition.

 

[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.

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

The ability of the government to do it doesn't decrease my liberty. The fact that they do it does. This should be obvious, no?

No. Simply acquiring the info doesn't decrease your liberty IMO. They would have to use the info to restrict you in some tangible manner.

Did you read the 4th Amendment? It's very clear that acquiring the info (i.e. "seizing") absent a warrant based upon probably cause is very much a violation of my 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?

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.

Look Tim, the way this country was set up, it's not the common citizenry's job to justify why the government shouldn't have these kinds of capabilities, powers and laws - it's the government's job to justify that they should have them. And they haven't. Take your war on drugs/crime/terror, your think of the children and all that other nonsense and shove it - none of it justifies things like this. Making it easier for the government to find probable cause, declare people enemy combatants or terrorists by executive office fiat and then as a result have the government be allowed to forgo legal representation and due process for such is a mistake, and makes us, as citizens, less secure in our rights and persons than all the terrorist acts ever conducted against this country ever have. And you want to sit here and say "no big deal, same as it ever was." #### that.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

 

[StrikeS2k]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

Before we infringe upon our rights even more we need to take all steps within the boundaries of what already exists. 9/11 absolutely would NOT have happened if we enforced our immigration laws. Most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't supposed to be in this country but we weren't even looking for them. So, while we continue to ignore immigration law and other laws/efforts that could make us less susceptible to attack we shouldn't be expanding our violations of the constitution.

 

[drummer]

Your naivety is kind of nice but it's time to take off the blinders. Governments exist to accrue power and the only curb on that accrual is sunshine. Too much happening in the dark here for anyone to be comfortable with or accepting of it.

Has a tiping point been reached? Does the (shadow?) U.S. govenment now have enough power to keep the things they want in the dark essentially forever?And if so, how long has this been the case? I'm thinking several decades.

My biggest concern with all of this is how our media has been asleep at the wheel. I expect the government to be corrupt and power hungry. Its our job to rein in that power when it gets out of hand. The media plays a big part in allowing us to do that though.This program is huge, it's been expanding exponentially for seven years, it has tentacles in all three branches of government, it involves dozens of business partners, and it took a British paper to break the story. The US media ought to be completely ashamed and we ought to be seriously concerned about its current state.

The media isn't asleep at the wheel. They are just driving on another Meme freeway.

 

[drummer]

BTW, I called this thread getting legs when tim woke up on the first page of it. Mostly because I knew he would make this topic about him more that the topic itself.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

Before we infringe upon our rights even more we need to take all steps within the boundaries of what already exists. 9/11 absolutely would NOT have happened if we enforced our immigration laws. Most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't supposed to be in this country but we weren't even looking for them. So, while we continue to ignore immigration law and other laws/efforts that could make us less susceptible to attack we shouldn't be expanding our violations of the constitution.

I agree and that's a valid answer.

But how do we do that when there is a massive % of the country who vote for whichever side says they'll allow the illegal friend they have become legal no questions asked?

Its really easy to shoot out answers when you don't have to figure out how to make them really happen. We've all done it.

The question is, how do you actually do it?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

Before we infringe upon our rights even more we need to take all steps within the boundaries of what already exists. 9/11 absolutely would NOT have happened if we enforced our immigration laws. Most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't supposed to be in this country but we weren't even looking for them. So, while we continue to ignore immigration law and other laws/efforts that could make us less susceptible to attack we shouldn't be expanding our violations of the constitution.

How do you figure that? ALL of the 9/11 terrorists were in the U.S. legally. ALL OF THEM.

The failure there was not an immigration failure, it was an intelligence failure. That isn't debatable.

 

[StrikeS2k]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

Before we infringe upon our rights even more we need to take all steps within the boundaries of what already exists. 9/11 absolutely would NOT have happened if we enforced our immigration laws. Most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't supposed to be in this country but we weren't even looking for them. So, while we continue to ignore immigration law and other laws/efforts that could make us less susceptible to attack we shouldn't be expanding our violations of the constitution.

I agree and that's a valid answer.

But how do we do that when there is a massive % of the country who vote for whichever side says they'll allow the illegal friend they have become legal no questions asked?

Its really easy to shoot out answers when you don't have to figure out how to make them really happen. We've all done it.

The question is, how do you actually do it?

I think this country may have passed the point of no return. Politicians don't listen to individuals anyways. I wish I had a solution but I don't.

 

[StrikeS2k]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

Before we infringe upon our rights even more we need to take all steps within the boundaries of what already exists. 9/11 absolutely would NOT have happened if we enforced our immigration laws. Most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't supposed to be in this country but we weren't even looking for them. So, while we continue to ignore immigration law and other laws/efforts that could make us less susceptible to attack we shouldn't be expanding our violations of the constitution.

How do you figure that? ALL of the 9/11 terrorists were in the U.S. legally. ALL OF THEM.

The failure there was not an immigration failure, it was an intelligence failure. That isn't debatable.

Really? So none of them were on expired visas?

 

[drummer]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...

But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?

(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

Before we infringe upon our rights even more we need to take all steps within the boundaries of what already exists. 9/11 absolutely would NOT have happened if we enforced our immigration laws. Most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't supposed to be in this country but we weren't even looking for them. So, while we continue to ignore immigration law and other laws/efforts that could make us less susceptible to attack we shouldn't be expanding our violations of the constitution.

How do you figure that? ALL of the 9/11 terrorists were in the U.S. legally. ALL OF THEM.

The failure there was not an immigration failure, it was an intelligence failure. That isn't debatable.

Really? So none of them were on expired visas?

http://factcheck.org/2013/05/911-hijackers-and-student-visas/

 

[jonessed]

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?

The ability of the government to do it doesn't decrease my liberty. The fact that they do it does. This should be obvious, no?

No. Simply acquiring the info doesn't decrease your liberty IMO. They would have to use the info to restrict you in some tangible manner.

I would consider the government collecting his private information and making it illegal for anyone to tell him what they are doing with it decreasing his liberty.Why are you being such a jackass about this anyway? How the hell is anyone supposed to give you an example of what the government is doing with their private information when what they are doing with it has been classified as top secret? This is information they shouldn't even have access to without a warrant. What kind of backasswards judge orders a nation-wide warrant? Talk about lack of probable cause.

 

[StrikeS2k]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...

But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?

(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

Before we infringe upon our rights even more we need to take all steps within the boundaries of what already exists. 9/11 absolutely would NOT have happened if we enforced our immigration laws. Most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't supposed to be in this country but we weren't even looking for them. So, while we continue to ignore immigration law and other laws/efforts that could make us less susceptible to attack we shouldn't be expanding our violations of the constitution.

How do you figure that? ALL of the 9/11 terrorists were in the U.S. legally. ALL OF THEM.

The failure there was not an immigration failure, it was an intelligence failure. That isn't debatable.

Really? So none of them were on expired visas?

http://factcheck.org/2013/05/911-hijackers-and-student-visas/

That article is about Student Visas. Look for other articles if you want to be informed. But even your own article talks about several of them being in violation of immigration law.

 

[drummer]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...

But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?

(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

Before we infringe upon our rights even more we need to take all steps within the boundaries of what already exists. 9/11 absolutely would NOT have happened if we enforced our immigration laws. Most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't supposed to be in this country but we weren't even looking for them. So, while we continue to ignore immigration law and other laws/efforts that could make us less susceptible to attack we shouldn't be expanding our violations of the constitution.

How do you figure that? ALL of the 9/11 terrorists were in the U.S. legally. ALL OF THEM.

The failure there was not an immigration failure, it was an intelligence failure. That isn't debatable.

Really? So none of them were on expired visas?

http://factcheck.org/2013/05/911-hijackers-and-student-visas/

That article is about Student Visas. Look for other articles if you want to be informed. But even your own article talks about several of them being in violation of immigration law.

The article is about Visas themselves.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

Before we infringe upon our rights even more we need to take all steps within the boundaries of what already exists. 9/11 absolutely would NOT have happened if we enforced our immigration laws. Most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't supposed to be in this country but we weren't even looking for them. So, while we continue to ignore immigration law and other laws/efforts that could make us less susceptible to attack we shouldn't be expanding our violations of the constitution.

How do you figure that? ALL of the 9/11 terrorists were in the U.S. legally. ALL OF THEM.

The failure there was not an immigration failure, it was an intelligence failure. That isn't debatable.

Really? So none of them were on expired visas?

Five of them I believe, but they all entered legally and I think only one of them would have been subject to expulsion had they been caught. So what about the other 14? You didn't think that out before you wrote that did you Glen?

 

[StrikeS2k]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...

But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?

(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

Before we infringe upon our rights even more we need to take all steps within the boundaries of what already exists. 9/11 absolutely would NOT have happened if we enforced our immigration laws. Most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't supposed to be in this country but we weren't even looking for them. So, while we continue to ignore immigration law and other laws/efforts that could make us less susceptible to attack we shouldn't be expanding our violations of the constitution.

How do you figure that? ALL of the 9/11 terrorists were in the U.S. legally. ALL OF THEM.

The failure there was not an immigration failure, it was an intelligence failure. That isn't debatable.

Really? So none of them were on expired visas?

http://factcheck.org/2013/05/911-hijackers-and-student-visas/

That article is about Student Visas. Look for other articles if you want to be informed. But even your own article talks about several of them being in violation of immigration law.

The article is about Visas themselves.

9/11 Hijackers and Student VisasPosted on May 10, 2013
Lawmakers on both sides of the immigration debate have falsely claimed that “some” or “all” of the 9/11 hijackers were in the U.S. on student visas. Only one of the 19 hijackers came to the U.S. on a student visa. The rest arrived here on tourist or business visas.

 

[RCon]

Can we not make this thread about illegal immigration?

 

[StrikeS2k]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

Before we infringe upon our rights even more we need to take all steps within the boundaries of what already exists. 9/11 absolutely would NOT have happened if we enforced our immigration laws. Most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't supposed to be in this country but we weren't even looking for them. So, while we continue to ignore immigration law and other laws/efforts that could make us less susceptible to attack we shouldn't be expanding our violations of the constitution.

How do you figure that? ALL of the 9/11 terrorists were in the U.S. legally. ALL OF THEM.

The failure there was not an immigration failure, it was an intelligence failure. That isn't debatable.

Really? So none of them were on expired visas?

Five of them I believe, but they all entered legally and I think only one of them would have been subject to expulsion had they been caught. So what about the other 14? You didn't think that out before you wrote that did you Glen?

So you have trouble understanding what the word "ALL" means, especially when you enlarge it? I apologize if I said majority and it's a bit less than the majority. but now you're guessing at how many would have been removed from the country after you said "ALL" of them were here legally?

You know, you and I don't get along. I don't reply to your posts to try to avoid stirring things up between us. I figure live and let live. The only reason I responded to this post was because you specifically responded to mine. You won't find me responding to ONE of your posts for at least the last year. I'd prefer if you'd extend me the same courtesy. But you're just as big of an ##### as you always were.

 

[timschochet]

BTW, I called this thread getting legs when tim woke up on the first page of it. Mostly because I knew he would make this topic about him more that the topic itself.

Oh bull####. Just because I express an opinion doesn't make this topic about me.

 

[drummer]

>

9/11 Hijackers and Student VisasPosted on May 10, 2013
Lawmakers on both sides of the immigration debate have falsely claimed that “some” or “all” of the 9/11 hijackers were in the U.S. on student visas. Only one of the 19 hijackers came to the U.S. on a student visa. The rest arrived here on tourist or business visas.

The fact is, only one of the 19 9/11 hijackers came to the U.S. on a student visa, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. That one was Hani Hanjour, a Saudi Arabian terrorist who piloted the plane that was flown into the Pentagon, according to a 2004 staff report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. In his student visa application, Hanjour provided paperwork showing that he was enrolled in an English as a second language program in Oakland, Calif., but he never attended after arriving in America (a fact that would draw scrutiny today). He did not, however, overstay his student visa.

Of the other 18 9/11 hijackers, 14 came to the United States on six-month tourist visas and four came on business visas, according to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Once in the U.S., two of the hijack pilots applied to have their immigration status changed to vocational student, but neither used such a visa on their subsequent re-entry into the country.

What Fact Check is trying to do here is to show you issues about Visas, and the misinformation you feed off of. There is only a few instances of student visa here, one with the 9/11 hi-jackers, the others the friends of the Boston bombers.

I know you're a self professed wingnut, but try to at least understand a premise.

 

[drummer]

BTW, I called this thread getting legs when tim woke up on the first page of it. Mostly because I knew he would make this topic about him more that the topic itself.

Oh bull####. Just because I express an opinion doesn't make this topic about me.

I blew through a few pages where of course you did make this about you. You also "applauded" my consistency about this in the first or second page.

Thanks for the kudos, but this isn't about me, or you.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Can we not make this thread about illegal immigration?

It's a fair point in relation to this topic. I'm not trying to single out immigration though. There were a lot of things that weren't being done at the time of 9/11 that we should be doing that have nothing to do with this level of data mining and rights infringement. Immigration is just one very clear one that you'd think we'd be on top of but we're worse off than we were at the time of 9/11.

 

[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?

The ability of the government to do it doesn't decrease my liberty. The fact that they do it does. This should be obvious, no?

No. Simply acquiring the info doesn't decrease your liberty IMO. They would have to use the info to restrict you in some tangible manner.

Did you read the 4th Amendment? It's very clear that acquiring the info (i.e. "seizing") absent a warrant based upon probably cause is very much a violation of my liberty.

Actually it is NOT very clear. There are a lot of very intelligent people who disagree with you on this, who do not regard data mining as a violation of the 4th Amendment. That doesn't mean that they're right or that you're wrong. But it's an open question and not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Personally, I still don't see how your liberty has been violated in effect.

 

[Doug B]

Well ... one way to rationalize it:

If you decrease my liberty, but I have no idea that you've decreased my liberty, am I harmed? :shrugged:

 

[StrikeS2k]

What Fact Check is trying to do here is to show you issues about Visas, and the misinformation you feed off of. There is only a few instances of student visa here, one with the 9/11 hi-jackers, the others the friends of the Boston bombers.

I know you're a self professed wingnut, but try to at least understand a premise.

No they're not. The entire article is about how politicians are incorrectly identifying the type of Visa the terrorists had as Student when most had other types. Heck, the TITLE of the piece is "9/11 Hijackers and Student Visas". Not that it matters. The bottom line is at least 4 or 5 of them were in the country illegally at the time of 9/11.

 

[timschochet]

Immigration is absolutely a important issue to discuss, and Strike is correct to bring it up (though I disagree with his conclusions.) There are basically two ways to fight terrorism: either through greater intelligence, or through added law enforcement measures overall, such as increasing border protections and more security at public events, etc. Make no mistake- both ways potentially can threaten individual liberties if they are abused. IMO, the latter solution is a far greater threat to liberties than the former, and less effective as well.

 

[timschochet]

Well ... one way to rationalize it:

If you decrease my liberty, but I have no idea that you've decreased my liberty, am I harmed? :shrugged:

My answer is no. And if you're not harmed, then I haven't decreased your liberty.

As I wrote earlier, I'm no expert on the 4th Amendment, but I think there's a reasonable distinction between the police hammering on your door and invading your house without a warrant, and a phone call you made being one of several million that are scrutinized by the NSA in search of terrorist code words. It makes no sense to me to treat both of these as equal violations of one's privacy.

 

[drummer]

Every

What Fact Check is trying to do here is to show you issues about Visas, and the misinformation you feed off of. There is only a few instances of student visa here, one with the 9/11 hi-jackers, the others the friends of the Boston bombers.

I know you're a self professed wingnut, but try to at least understand a premise.

No they're not. The entire article is about how politicians are incorrectly identifying the type of Visa the terrorists had as Student when most had other types. Heck, the TITLE of the piece is "9/11 Hijackers and Student Visas". Not that it matters. The bottom line is at least 4 or 5 of them were in the country illegally at the time of 9/11.

It's parsing out the mis-information of what kind of visas the hi-jackers had, and how some legislators used that.

 

[phrozen]

taking bets

current line is page 11 when Tim realizes he is wrong about decreased liberty and does a 180

 

[Doctor Detroit]

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

That's the text of the 4th Amendment. It pretty clearly spells out that searching or seizing this type of data (call records of every Verizon customer, internet history, etc.) is illegal absent a warrant based upon probable cause. That the government does so is clearly a violation of my liberty. I really don't see how anyone could even attempt to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that what they're doing is right/good...

But is there a tipping point in the number of thwarted attacks that you would be ok with them seizing this data to stop?

Let's say in a hypothetical world you see an alternate reality where they don't do this and America has had 5,000 terrorist bombings since 9/11 killing over a million Americans (just on American soil not including anything overseas)... Would you be ok with them doing this if it stopped all of that?

(I realize its a purely hypothetical question, and I don't like that they did this... But its something that I wonder about when I think about this issue)

Before we infringe upon our rights even more we need to take all steps within the boundaries of what already exists. 9/11 absolutely would NOT have happened if we enforced our immigration laws. Most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't supposed to be in this country but we weren't even looking for them. So, while we continue to ignore immigration law and other laws/efforts that could make us less susceptible to attack we shouldn't be expanding our violations of the constitution.

How do you figure that? ALL of the 9/11 terrorists were in the U.S. legally. ALL OF THEM.

The failure there was not an immigration failure, it was an intelligence failure. That isn't debatable.

Really? So none of them were on expired visas?

Five of them I believe, but they all entered legally and I think only one of them would have been subject to expulsion had they been caught. So what about the other 14? You didn't think that out before you wrote that did you Glen?

So you have trouble understanding what the word "ALL" means, especially when you enlarge it? I apologize if I said majority and it's a bit less than the majority. but now you're guessing at how many would have been removed from the country after you said "ALL" of them were here legally?

You know, you and I don't get along. I don't reply to your posts to try to avoid stirring things up between us. I figure live and let live. The only reason I responded to this post was because you specifically responded to mine. You won't find me responding to ONE of your posts for at least the last year. I'd prefer if you'd extend me the same courtesy. But you're just as big of an ##### as you always were.

All of them were in the U.S. legally, you're the one who doesn't understand that. You probably also don;t understand why no one cared that a few of them ran long on their visas, because Saudi nationals were among the best in abiding by the laws and rarely ran past their visa stays. You also don't understand how much work it would or does take in running down these people that exceed their stay. You want smaller government but also want an Army of Homeland Security agents chasing down students who have overstayed their visas by a week. Like I said earlier, people want it both ways all the time.

I responded to you because as per usual, you make horrendous statements like 9/11 could have been prevented if we enforced our immigration policies. No mention that 15 or so of the hijackers would have remained, none. Just a blanket statement of stupidity. I would have asked you to unpack that statement but I know what I'll get,

For a guy who pretty much does nothing but post a lot of and pick on Tim, it's funny to me that you even post here anymore. You should do what Ponyboy and Tommygilmore finally did and quit the internet. No reason to even say goodbye, just leave. Do it for the benefit of all of us.

 

[RCon]

Well ... one way to rationalize it:

If you decrease my liberty, but I have no idea that you've decreased my liberty, am I harmed? :shrugged:

My answer is no. And if you're not harmed, then I haven't decreased your liberty.

As I wrote earlier, I'm no expert on the 4th Amendment, but I think there's a reasonable distinction between the police hammering on your door and invading your house without a warrant, and a phone call you made being one of several million that are scrutinized by the NSA in search of terrorist code words. It makes no sense to me to treat both of these as equal violations of one's privacy.

When did you become insane?

 

[timschochet]

taking bets

current line is page 11 when Tim realizes he is wrong about decreased liberty and does a 180

I've been wrong plenty in the past. I don't mind being wrong, especially when new facts are presented to me. That's how I learn.

This, however, is more like a philosophical question, so I suspect I won't change my mind about it. I have already stated that I am concerned about this issue because it could potentially decrease liberty, and therefore it's worthy of examination. But the idea that it decreases liberty in itself, without further action, is something I don't accept.

 

[timschochet]

Well ... one way to rationalize it:

If you decrease my liberty, but I have no idea that you've decreased my liberty, am I harmed? :shrugged:

My answer is no. And if you're not harmed, then I haven't decreased your liberty.

As I wrote earlier, I'm no expert on the 4th Amendment, but I think there's a reasonable distinction between the police hammering on your door and invading your house without a warrant, and a phone call you made being one of several million that are scrutinized by the NSA in search of terrorist code words. It makes no sense to me to treat both of these as equal violations of one's privacy.

When did you become insane?

About age 13. When I had my Bar-Mitzvah.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Well ... one way to rationalize it:

If you decrease my liberty, but I have no idea that you've decreased my liberty, am I harmed? :shrugged:

My answer is no. And if you're not harmed, then I haven't decreased your liberty.

As I wrote earlier, I'm no expert on the 4th Amendment, but I think there's a reasonable distinction between the police hammering on your door and invading your house without a warrant, and a phone call you made being one of several million that are scrutinized by the NSA in search of terrorist code words. It makes no sense to me to treat both of these as equal violations of one's privacy.

When did you become insane?

Do you mean insanely awesome?

 

[drummer]

Well ... one way to rationalize it:

If you decrease my liberty, but I have no idea that you've decreased my liberty, am I harmed? :shrugged:

My answer is no. And if you're not harmed, then I haven't decreased your liberty.

As I wrote earlier, I'm no expert on the 4th Amendment, but I think there's a reasonable distinction between the police hammering on your door and invading your house without a warrant, and a phone call you made being one of several million that are scrutinized by the NSA in search of terrorist code words. It makes no sense to me to treat both of these as equal violations of one's privacy.

When did you become insane?

About age 13. When I had my Bar-Mitzvah.

I thought that's when you become a MAN?

 

[timschochet]

Well ... one way to rationalize it:

If you decrease my liberty, but I have no idea that you've decreased my liberty, am I harmed? :shrugged:

My answer is no. And if you're not harmed, then I haven't decreased your liberty.

As I wrote earlier, I'm no expert on the 4th Amendment, but I think there's a reasonable distinction between the police hammering on your door and invading your house without a warrant, and a phone call you made being one of several million that are scrutinized by the NSA in search of terrorist code words. It makes no sense to me to treat both of these as equal violations of one's privacy.

When did you become insane?

About age 13. When I had my Bar-Mitzvah.

I thought that's when you become a MAN?

Exactly.

 

[timschochet]

Well ... one way to rationalize it:

If you decrease my liberty, but I have no idea that you've decreased my liberty, am I harmed? :shrugged:

My answer is no. And if you're not harmed, then I haven't decreased your liberty.

As I wrote earlier, I'm no expert on the 4th Amendment, but I think there's a reasonable distinction between the police hammering on your door and invading your house without a warrant, and a phone call you made being one of several million that are scrutinized by the NSA in search of terrorist code words. It makes no sense to me to treat both of these as equal violations of one's privacy.

When did you become insane?

Do you mean insanely awesome?

hey thanks DD

 

[RCon]

taking bets current line is page 11 when Tim realizes he is wrong about decreased liberty and does a 180

I've been wrong plenty in the past. I don't mind being wrong, especially when new facts are presented to me. That's how I learn. This, however, is more like a philosophical question, so I suspect I won't change my mind about it. I have already stated that I am concerned about this issue because it could potentially decrease liberty, and therefore it's worthy of examination. But the idea that it decreases liberty in itself, without further action, is something I don't accept.

You're wrong in that increases and decreases in liberty are not a philosophical question. They are a legal question, and there are real answers. When the government takes away rights, it decreases liberty. This is not up for debate. Sometimes the taking is justified, but the liberty is lost just the same. You can argue that the government is justified in collecting metadata on calls, and that the lost liberty is worth the price, but you cannot credibly argue that the liberty is not lost.

 

[Slapdash]

taking bets

current line is page 11 when Tim realizes he is wrong about decreased liberty and does a 180

I've been wrong plenty in the past. I don't mind being wrong, especially when new facts are presented to me. That's how I learn.

This, however, is more like a philosophical question, so I suspect I won't change my mind about it. I have already stated that I am concerned about this issue because it could potentially decrease liberty, and therefore it's worthy of examination. But the idea that it decreases liberty in itself, without further action, is something I don't accept.

Your problem is that increases and decreases in liberty are not a philosophical question. They are a legal question, and there are real answers.

When the government takes away rights, it decreases liberty. This is not up for debate. Sometimes the taking is justified, but the liberty is lost just the same.

You can argue that the government is justified in collecting metadata on calls, and that the lost liberty is worth the price, but you cannot credibly argue that the liberty is not lost.

Worth mentioning, again, the NSA is engaged in must more invasive activity than this. Tim prefers to only acknowledge this piece, but it is a strawman.

 

[RCon]

taking bets

current line is page 11 when Tim realizes he is wrong about decreased liberty and does a 180

I've been wrong plenty in the past. I don't mind being wrong, especially when new facts are presented to me. That's how I learn.

This, however, is more like a philosophical question, so I suspect I won't change my mind about it. I have already stated that I am concerned about this issue because it could potentially decrease liberty, and therefore it's worthy of examination. But the idea that it decreases liberty in itself, without further action, is something I don't accept.

Your problem is that increases and decreases in liberty are not a philosophical question. They are a legal question, and there are real answers.

When the government takes away rights, it decreases liberty. This is not up for debate. Sometimes the taking is justified, but the liberty is lost just the same.

You can argue that the government is justified in collecting metadata on calls, and that the lost liberty is worth the price, but you cannot credibly argue that the liberty is not lost.

Worth mentioning, again, the NSA is engaged in must more invasive activity than this. Tim prefers to only acknowledge this piece, but it is a strawman.

Certainly. I stuck with this since it's the original thread topic.

 

[timschochet]

taking bets

current line is page 11 when Tim realizes he is wrong about decreased liberty and does a 180

I've been wrong plenty in the past. I don't mind being wrong, especially when new facts are presented to me. That's how I learn.

This, however, is more like a philosophical question, so I suspect I won't change my mind about it. I have already stated that I am concerned about this issue because it could potentially decrease liberty, and therefore it's worthy of examination. But the idea that it decreases liberty in itself, without further action, is something I don't accept.

Your problem is that increases and decreases in liberty are not a philosophical question. They are a legal question, and there are real answers.

When the government takes away rights, it decreases liberty. This is not up for debate. Sometimes the taking is justified, but the liberty is lost just the same.

You can argue that the government is justified in collecting metadata on calls, and that the lost liberty is worth the price, but you cannot credibly argue that the liberty is not lost.

Yes I can, because the liberty you're speaking of is intangible. Which is one reason why the courts disagree with you on this, if I understand correctly.

Again, if a policeman opens your front door and searches your home without a warrant, that is a violation of your liberty. If a government agency scans your phone conversations and then uses them to persecute you in some manner, that is a violation of your liberty. If a government agency scans your phone conversations as part of an effort to scan millions of phone conversations, looking for a terrorist needle in a haystack, that is not, IMO a violation of your liberty. (Or, to be more precise, it's the equivalent of a security guard looking through your backpack before you enter a football stadium. It's such a minor infringement by itself that it's hardly worth complaining about.)

 

[timschochet]

taking bets

current line is page 11 when Tim realizes he is wrong about decreased liberty and does a 180

I've been wrong plenty in the past. I don't mind being wrong, especially when new facts are presented to me. That's how I learn.

This, however, is more like a philosophical question, so I suspect I won't change my mind about it. I have already stated that I am concerned about this issue because it could potentially decrease liberty, and therefore it's worthy of examination. But the idea that it decreases liberty in itself, without further action, is something I don't accept.

Your problem is that increases and decreases in liberty are not a philosophical question. They are a legal question, and there are real answers.

When the government takes away rights, it decreases liberty. This is not up for debate. Sometimes the taking is justified, but the liberty is lost just the same.

You can argue that the government is justified in collecting metadata on calls, and that the lost liberty is worth the price, but you cannot credibly argue that the liberty is not lost.

Worth mentioning, again, the NSA is engaged in must more invasive activity than this. Tim prefers to only acknowledge this piece, but it is a strawman.

It's not that I prefer mentioning it, but it's what we're discussing here. I may have a different take on other NSA activities, depending.

 

[Slapdash]

taking bets

current line is page 11 when Tim realizes he is wrong about decreased liberty and does a 180

I've been wrong plenty in the past. I don't mind being wrong, especially when new facts are presented to me. That's how I learn.

This, however, is more like a philosophical question, so I suspect I won't change my mind about it. I have already stated that I am concerned about this issue because it could potentially decrease liberty, and therefore it's worthy of examination. But the idea that it decreases liberty in itself, without further action, is something I don't accept.

Your problem is that increases and decreases in liberty are not a philosophical question. They are a legal question, and there are real answers.

When the government takes away rights, it decreases liberty. This is not up for debate. Sometimes the taking is justified, but the liberty is lost just the same.

You can argue that the government is justified in collecting metadata on calls, and that the lost liberty is worth the price, but you cannot credibly argue that the liberty is not lost.

Yes I can, because the liberty you're speaking of is intangible. Which is one reason why the courts disagree with you on this, if I understand correctly.

Again, if a policeman opens your front door and searches your home without a warrant, that is a violation of your liberty. If a government agency scans your phone conversations and then uses them to persecute you in some manner, that is a violation of your liberty. If a government agency scans your phone conversations as part of an effort to scan millions of phone conversations, looking for a terrorist needle in a haystack, that is not, IMO a violation of your liberty. (Or, to be more precise, it's the equivalent of a security guard looking through your backpack before you enter a football stadium. It's such a minor infringement by itself that it's hardly worth complaining about.)

To be precise, this anology is bull####.

 

[Slapdash]

taking bets

current line is page 11 when Tim realizes he is wrong about decreased liberty and does a 180

I've been wrong plenty in the past. I don't mind being wrong, especially when new facts are presented to me. That's how I learn.

This, however, is more like a philosophical question, so I suspect I won't change my mind about it. I have already stated that I am concerned about this issue because it could potentially decrease liberty, and therefore it's worthy of examination. But the idea that it decreases liberty in itself, without further action, is something I don't accept.

Your problem is that increases and decreases in liberty are not a philosophical question. They are a legal question, and there are real answers.

When the government takes away rights, it decreases liberty. This is not up for debate. Sometimes the taking is justified, but the liberty is lost just the same.

You can argue that the government is justified in collecting metadata on calls, and that the lost liberty is worth the price, but you cannot credibly argue that the liberty is not lost.

Worth mentioning, again, the NSA is engaged in must more invasive activity than this. Tim prefers to only acknowledge this piece, but it is a strawman.

It's not that I prefer mentioning it, but it's what we're discussing here. I may have a different take on other NSA activities, depending.

I have brought up the other activities several times which you have not acknowledged.

 

[timschochet]

Really? Searching the backpack is far more invasive, IMO, than datamining a million phone calls.