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

[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.

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.)

There you go again with liberty as a philosophical concept rather than a legal construct.

The football stadium search is not at all the same thing. I consent to the security guard search before entering the stadium. I never consented to the phone scan.

 

[Slapdash]

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

A football stadium is a public place. My phone calls are not public.

 

[RCon]

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

A football stadium is a public place. My phone calls are not public.

More to the point, you consent to the backpack search. I don't remember consenting to having the government review all my phone calls, wireless or otherwise.

 

[phrozen]

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

when I go to fedex field and watch the redskins play, I know I am going to have to be patted down.

when I access my personal e-mail account and do my normal activities online, I was not aware that the government was acquiring all of this information so that they could do with it whatever they please.

completely different

 

[Slapdash]

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

when I go to fedex field and watch the redskins play, I know I am going to have to be patted down.

when I access my personal e-mail account and do my normal activities online, I was not aware that the government was acquiring all of this information so that they could do with it whatever they please.

completely different

Make sure to cut off one strap of your backpack if you want to bring it in!

 

[phrozen]

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

when I go to fedex field and watch the redskins play, I know I am going to have to be patted down.

when I access my personal e-mail account and do my normal activities online, I was not aware that the government was acquiring all of this information so that they could do with it whatever they please.

completely different

Make sure to cut off one strap of your backpack if you want to bring it in!

 

[Doctor Detroit]

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

when I go to fedex field and watch the redskins play, I know I am going to have to be patted down.

when I access my personal e-mail account and do my normal activities online, I was not aware that the government was acquiring all of this information so that they could do with it whatever they please.

completely different

At the Orioles game the chicks will pat your junk if you play it right.

And that's after you get through security!!!!

 

[jonessed]

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

They are data mining his personal phone calls. Just because he is one among many doesn't change that fact or diminish it.

 

[phrozen]

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

when I go to fedex field and watch the redskins play, I know I am going to have to be patted down.

when I access my personal e-mail account and do my normal activities online, I was not aware that the government was acquiring all of this information so that they could do with it whatever they please.

completely different

At the Orioles game the chicks will pat your junk if you play it right.

And that's after you get through security!!!!

I never leave home with out my codpiece when going to the O's game hun

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Give me liberty, or give my junk a good pat down!

 

[timschochet]

I understand you guys making the distinction between consent and non-consent, but that really wasn't the point of my analogy. My point is that both instances (data-mining and having your backpack checked) are IMO such minor intrusions of personal liberty that they're not 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.

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

Sorry. If you're referring to the email accounts, then it's pretty much the same argument- mass data-mining searches which IMO are not any more invasive.If you're referring to something else altogether then I missed it. I didn't mean not to acknowledge something.

 

[Slapdash]

I understand you guys making the distinction between consent and non-consent, but that really wasn't the point of my analogy. My point is that both instances (data-mining and having your backpack checked) are IMO such minor intrusions of personal liberty that they're not worth complaining about.

Tracking all of my communications is not a minor ####### intrusion.

 

[phrozen]

I understand you guys making the distinction between consent and non-consent, but that really wasn't the point of my analogy. My point is that both instances (data-mining and having your backpack checked) are IMO such minor intrusions of personal liberty that they're not worth complaining about.

Tracking all of my communications is not a minor ####### intrusion.

 

[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.

Sorry. If you're referring to the email accounts, then it's pretty much the same argument- mass data-mining searches which IMO are not any more invasive.If you're referring to something else altogether then I missed it. I didn't mean not to acknowledge something.

Email, Chat, Skype, videos, photos, credit card use, web traffic, social networking use, etc.... No big deal that any electronic communication you make is stored and analyzed?

 

[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.

Sorry. If you're referring to the email accounts, then it's pretty much the same argument- mass data-mining searches which IMO are not any more invasive.If you're referring to something else altogether then I missed it. I didn't mean not to acknowledge something.

Email, Chat, Skype, videos, photos, credit card use, web traffic, social networking use, etc.... No big deal that any electronic communication you make is stored and analyzed?

What about when the gov't is using PRISM via Microsoft's Xbox One Kinect to access the camera and microphone in your living room? The one that can monitor your heart rate? Is that not invasive?

 

[jonessed]

I understand you guys making the distinction between consent and non-consent, but that really wasn't the point of my analogy. My point is that both instances (data-mining and having your backpack checked) are IMO such minor intrusions of personal liberty that they're not worth complaining about.

Tracking all of my communications is not a minor ####### intrusion.

Seriously. Even if you are fine with the data mining, this point really should be obvious.

 

[jonessed]

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.

Sorry. If you're referring to the email accounts, then it's pretty much the same argument- mass data-mining searches which IMO are not any more invasive.If you're referring to something else altogether then I missed it. I didn't mean not to acknowledge something.

Email, Chat, Skype, videos, photos, credit card use, web traffic, social networking use, etc.... No big deal that any electronic communication you make is stored and analyzed?

What about when the gov't is using PRISM via Microsoft's Xbox One Kinect to access the camera and microphone in your living room? The one that can monitor your heart rate? Is that not invasive?

We aren't that far off from a centralized repository for everybody's health records. They have been building it for about four years.That data is already being data mined, but it's fragmented.That's a different debate though

 

[timschochet]

I understand you guys making the distinction between consent and non-consent, but that really wasn't the point of my analogy. My point is that both instances (data-mining and having your backpack checked) are IMO such minor intrusions of personal liberty that they're not worth complaining about.

Tracking all of my communications is not a minor ####### intrusion.

Seriously. Even if you are fine with the data mining, this point really should be obvious.

Sorry, it's not to me. Not if they're looking through millions of stuff for some code phrase that has nothing to do with you. I just don't see it in itself as a big deal. Potentially? Of course. But not alone by itself.

 

[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.

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

Sorry. If you're referring to the email accounts, then it's pretty much the same argument- mass data-mining searches which IMO are not any more invasive.If you're referring to something else altogether then I missed it. I didn't mean not to acknowledge something.

Email, Chat, Skype, videos, photos, credit card use, web traffic, social networking use, etc.... No big deal that any electronic communication you make is stored and analyzed?

What about when the gov't is using PRISM via Microsoft's Xbox One Kinect to access the camera and microphone in your living room? The one that can monitor your heart rate? Is that not invasive?

That would be a much greater intrusion, and I would think should be unlawful without a specific warrant. Is the government involved in this sort of warrantless activity right now? Because that is far more invasive, and would bother me greatly.

 

[phrozen]

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.

Sorry. If you're referring to the email accounts, then it's pretty much the same argument- mass data-mining searches which IMO are not any more invasive.If you're referring to something else altogether then I missed it. I didn't mean not to acknowledge something.

Email, Chat, Skype, videos, photos, credit card use, web traffic, social networking use, etc.... No big deal that any electronic communication you make is stored and analyzed?

What about when the gov't is using PRISM via Microsoft's Xbox One Kinect to access the camera and microphone in your living room? The one that can monitor your heart rate? Is that not invasive?

That would be a much greater intrusion, and I would think should be unlawful without a specific warrant. Is the government involved in this sort of warrantless activity right now? Because that is far more invasive, and would bother me greatly.

what's the difference from them accessing your e-mail versus them accessing your xbox? both store information on local drives and servers? why the outrage over the xbox and the malase over the others?

 

[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.

Sorry. If you're referring to the email accounts, then it's pretty much the same argument- mass data-mining searches which IMO are not any more invasive.If you're referring to something else altogether then I missed it. I didn't mean not to acknowledge something.

Email, Chat, Skype, videos, photos, credit card use, web traffic, social networking use, etc.... No big deal that any electronic communication you make is stored and analyzed?

What about when the gov't is using PRISM via Microsoft's Xbox One Kinect to access the camera and microphone in your living room? The one that can monitor your heart rate? Is that not invasive?

That would be a much greater intrusion, and I would think should be unlawful without a specific warrant. Is the government involved in this sort of warrantless activity right now? Because that is far more invasive, and would bother me greatly.

Why don't you submit a FOIA and see what they say?

 

[Slapdash]

Relevant article I filed away earlier this week: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-05/states-hospital-data-for-sale-puts-privacy-in-jeopardy.html

Email, Chat, Skype, videos, photos, credit card use, web traffic, social networking use, etc.... No big deal that any electronic communication you make is stored and analyzed?

What about when the gov't is using PRISM via Microsoft's Xbox One Kinect to access the camera and microphone in your living room? The one that can monitor your heart rate? Is that not invasive?

We aren't that far off from a centralized repository for everybody's health records. They have been building it for about four years.

That data is already being data mined, but it's fragmented.

That's a different debate though

 

[jonessed]

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.

Sorry. If you're referring to the email accounts, then it's pretty much the same argument- mass data-mining searches which IMO are not any more invasive.If you're referring to something else altogether then I missed it. I didn't mean not to acknowledge something.

Email, Chat, Skype, videos, photos, credit card use, web traffic, social networking use, etc.... No big deal that any electronic communication you make is stored and analyzed?

What about when the gov't is using PRISM via Microsoft's Xbox One Kinect to access the camera and microphone in your living room? The one that can monitor your heart rate? Is that not invasive?

That would be a much greater intrusion, and I would think should be unlawful without a specific warrant. Is the government involved in this sort of warrantless activity right now? Because that is far more invasive, and would bother me greatly.

How would anybody even know? The faux court system is in place. Brief a few members of Congress and you have your legal path. The technology to do it already exists.

 

[Slapdash]

I understand you guys making the distinction between consent and non-consent, but that really wasn't the point of my analogy. My point is that both instances (data-mining and having your backpack checked) are IMO such minor intrusions of personal liberty that they're not worth complaining about.

Tracking all of my communications is not a minor ####### intrusion.

Seriously. Even if you are fine with the data mining, this point really should be obvious.

Sorry, it's not to me. Not if they're looking through millions of stuff for some code phrase that has nothing to do with you. I just don't see it in itself as a big deal. Potentially? Of course. But not alone by itself.

You keep making qualifiers about how they are using this data when you really have zero clue.

If you don't see the danger in mapping together all of your electornic activity, there is no helping you. No way this could be used to intimidate political movements like Occupy Wall Street or the Tea Party. There is certainly no evidence of that happening!

 

[jonessed]

Relevant article I filed away earlier this week: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-05/states-hospital-data-for-sale-puts-privacy-in-jeopardy.html

Email, Chat, Skype, videos, photos, credit card use, web traffic, social networking use, etc.... No big deal that any electronic communication you make is stored and analyzed?

What about when the gov't is using PRISM via Microsoft's Xbox One Kinect to access the camera and microphone in your living room? The one that can monitor your heart rate? Is that not invasive?

We aren't that far off from a centralized repository for everybody's health records. They have been building it for about four years.

That data is already being data mined, but it's fragmented.

That's a different debate though

I have worked with data mining in the healthcare industry and done some consulting work on California's health exchange. I have accepted the fact that anybody in the industry could find out my health history with very little effort. Right now a lot of it is specific to hospital group access, but that's changing rapidly.

 

[Slapdash]

That would be a much greater intrusion, and I would think should be unlawful without a specific warrant. Is the government involved in this sort of warrantless activity right now? Because that is far more invasive, and would bother me greatly.

what's the difference from them accessing your e-mail versus them accessing your xbox? both store information on local drives and servers? why the outrage over the xbox and the malase over the others?

Or the camera and mic on your laptop, phone, tablet, or Smart TV. They are just data-mining, what could be intrusive about that?

 

[jonessed]

I understand you guys making the distinction between consent and non-consent, but that really wasn't the point of my analogy. My point is that both instances (data-mining and having your backpack checked) are IMO such minor intrusions of personal liberty that they're not worth complaining about.

Tracking all of my communications is not a minor ####### intrusion.

Seriously. Even if you are fine with the data mining, this point really should be obvious.

Sorry, it's not to me. Not if they're looking through millions of stuff for some code phrase that has nothing to do with you. I just don't see it in itself as a big deal. Potentially? Of course. But not alone by itself.

You keep making qualifiers about how they are using this data when you really have zero clue. If you don't see the danger in mapping together all of your electornic activity, there is no helping you. No way this could be used to intimidate political movements like Occupy Wall Street or the Tea Party. There is certainly no evidence of that happening!

How could you even suggest such a thing? An administration would never use private information or a government intelligence agency to target an adversary or opposition group.

 

[Slapdash]

Total information awareness?

I'm finding myself increasingly distressed at this week's revelations about government surveillance of citizens' communications and Internet activity. First was the revelation in the Guardian of a wholesale FISA court order to Verizon to provide all customer "meta-data" for a three-month period -- and the clarification that this order is simply a renewal of orders that have been in place since 2007. (One would certainly assume that there are similar orders for other communications providers.) And commentators are now spelling out how comprehensive this data is about each of us -- who we call, who those people call, when, where, … This comprehensive data collection permits the mother of all social network analysis projects -- to reconstruct the widening circles of persons with whom person X is associated. This is its value from an intelligence point of view; but it is also a dark, brooding risk to the constitutional rights and liberties of all of us.

Second is the even more shocking disclosure -- also in the Guardian -- of an NSA program called PRISM that claims (based on the secret powerpoint training document published by the Guardian) to have reached agreements with the major Internet companies to permit direct government access to their servers, without the intermediary of warrants and requests for specific information. (The companies have denied knowledge of such a program; but it's hard to see how the Guardian document could be a simple fake.) And the document claims that the program gives the intelligence agencies direct access to users' emails, videos, chats, search histories, and other forms of Internet activity.

Among the political rights that we hold most basic are the rights of political expression and association. It doesn't matter much if a government agency is able to work out the network graph of people with whom I am associated around the project of youth soccer in my neighborhood. But if I were an Occupy Wall Street organizer, I would be VERY concerned about the fact that government is able to work out the full graph of my associates, their associates, and times and place of communication. At the least this fact has a chilling effect on political organization and protest -- both of which are constitutionally protected rights of US citizens. At the worst it makes possible police intervention and suppression based on the "intelligence" that is gathered. And the activities of the FBI in the 1960s against legal Civil Rights organizations make it clear that agencies are fully capable of undertaking actions in excess of their legal mandate. For that matter, the rogue activities of an IRS office with respect to the tax-exempt status of conservative political organizations illustrates the same point in the same news cycle!

The whole point of a constitution is to express clearly and publicly what rights citizens have, and to place bright-line limits on the scope of government action. But the revelations of this week make one doubt whether a constitutional limitation has any meaning anymore. These data collection and surveillance programs are wrapped in tight secrecy -- providers are not permitted to make public the requests that have been presented to them. So the public has no legitimate way of knowing what kind of information collection, surveillance, and intelligence activity is being undertaken with respect to their activities. In the name of homeland security, the evidence says that government is prepared to transgress what we thought of as "rights" with abandon, and with massive force. (The NSA data center under construction in Utah gives some sense of the massiveness of these data collection efforts.)

We are assured by government spokespersons that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure and preserve the constitutional rights of all of us. But there are two problems with those assurances, both having to do with secrecy. Citizens are not provided with any account by government about how these programs are designed to work, and what safeguards are incorporated. And citizens are prevented from knowing what the exercise and effects of these programs are -- by the prohibition against telecom providers of giving any public information about the nature of requests that are being made under these programs. So secrecy prevents the very possibility of citizen knowledge and believable judicial oversight. By design there is no transparency about these crucial new tools and data collection methods.

All of this makes one think that the science and technology of encryption is politically crucial in the Internet age, for preserving some of our most basic rights of legal political activity. Being able to securely encrypt one's communications so only the intended recipients can gain access to them sounds like a crucial right of self-protection against the surveillance state. And being able to anonymize one's location and IP address -- through services like TOR router systems -- also seems like an important ability that everyone ought to consider making use of. Voice services like Skype seem to be fully compromised -- Microsoft, the owner of Skype, was the first company to accept the PRISM program, according to the secret powerpoint. But perhaps new Internet-based voice technologies using "trust no one" encryption and TOR routers will return the balance to the user. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies sometimes suggest that only people with something to hide would use an anonymizer in their interactions on the Web. But given the MASSIVE personalized data collection that government is engaged in, it would seem that every citizen has an interest in preserving his or her privacy to whatever extent possible. Privacy is an important human value in general; and it is a crucial value when it comes to the exercise of our constitutional rights of expression and association.

Government has surely overstepped through creation of these programs of data collection and surveillance; and it is hard to see how to put the genie back in the bottle. One step would be the creation of much more stringent legal limits on the data collection capacity of agencies like NSA (and commercial agencies, for that matter). But how can we trust that those limits will be respected by agencies that are accustomed to working in the dark?

This guy hits the nail on the head. http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2013/06/total-information-awareness.html

 

[timschochet]

Slapdash, you mischaracterized my position. I AM concerned. I think this is worthy of judicial review. I don't want the government using these things in the way you're talking about. But I'm also (a) not as fearful as you are and (b) convinced that we need to have good intelligence to fight terrorism.

Find me a better way to fight terrorism as effectively and I'll jump all over it.

 

[grateful zed]

verison just dropped my friend because he owed them 4 cents.

 

[RCon]

Slapdash, you mischaracterized my position. I AM concerned. I think this is worthy of judicial review. I don't want the government using these things in the way you're talking about. But I'm also (a) not as fearful as you are and (b) convinced that we need to have good intelligence to fight terrorism.

Find me a better way to fight terrorism as effectively and I'll jump all over it.

Privacy is a right in and of itself, is it not? Data mining breaches that right.

 

[StrikeS2k]

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.

You can keep repeating that and each time you do you'll be wrong. But if you've got proof post a link. They may have entered legally but some of them had overstayed their Visas. Not to mention that their visa applications weren't complete and they shouldn't have been granted Visas in the first place. I suspect tracking down those with expired Visas, which seems like a no brainer in this day and age, would be much more fruitful in fighting terrorism than these data mining operations that keep expanding. And THAT was the point of this whole tangent.

 

[Fennis]

Slapdash, you mischaracterized my position. I AM concerned. I think this is worthy of judicial review. I don't want the government using these things in the way you're talking about. But I'm also (a) not as fearful as you are and (b) convinced that we need to have good intelligence to fight terrorism.

Find me a better way to fight terrorism as effectively and I'll jump all over it.

Completely seal the borders, deport everyone who cant trace their lineage back to US born citizens in the 1920s or before. Jail anyone who speaks any ill harm of the government or any American.

 

[Slapdash]

Slapdash, you mischaracterized my position. I AM concerned. I think this is worthy of judicial review. I don't want the government using these things in the way you're talking about. But I'm also (a) not as fearful as you are and (b) convinced that we need to have good intelligence to fight terrorism. Find me a better way to fight terrorism as effectively and I'll jump all over it.

You're not very concerned if you keep calling it a minor intrusion. You also don't seem to grasp how the secretive nature of these programs prevents effective oversight.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Slapdash, you mischaracterized my position. I AM concerned. I think this is worthy of judicial review. I don't want the government using these things in the way you're talking about. But I'm also (a) not as fearful as you are and (b) convinced that we need to have good intelligence to fight terrorism.

Find me a better way to fight terrorism as effectively and I'll jump all over it.

Completely seal the borders, deport everyone who cant trace their lineage back to US born citizens in the 1920s or before. Jail anyone who speaks any ill harm of the government or any American.

Just ask every citizen to eat a McRib.

 

[Fennis]

Just ask every citizen to eat a McRib.

We've tossed the 4th, might as well get rid of the 8th.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I understand you guys making the distinction between consent and non-consent, but that really wasn't the point of my analogy. My point is that both instances (data-mining and having your backpack checked) are IMO such minor intrusions of personal liberty that they're not worth complaining about.

Tracking all of my communications is not a minor ####### intrusion.

It really doesn't take much imagination to see how these data can be misused, and yes, it is a serious intrusion.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Tracking all of my communications is not a minor ####### intrusion.

It really doesn't take much imagination to see how these data can be misused, and yes, it is a serious intrusion.

Hey IK, you were in favor of FISA back in the old thread. Are you still in favor of it?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Tracking all of my communications is not a minor ####### intrusion.

It really doesn't take much imagination to see how these data can be misused, and yes, it is a serious intrusion.

Hey IK, you were in favor of FISA back in the old thread. Are you still in favor of it?

I've never been happy with FISA because I don't like this kind of secrecy. Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, I understand why this system exists -- there is a legitimate need for a "secure" court that can deal with classified information promptly. When we're talking about surveillance of people oversees, that's maybe a reasonable compromise between no judicial oversight at all and the regular civilian court system. But scooping up every piece of information about your phone and internet activity is way over the line of what can reasonably be handled with this kind of opaque system.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Another good passage on all this...

I can't figure out why anyone would be [surprised]. Obama voted for the 2008 FISA amendments, a position that outraged liberals at the time. He continued the Bush-era surveillance of communications networks. He ramped up the war in Afghanistan. He vastly increased drone use overseas. He's declared a war on leakers. He participated in the assault on Libya. He's approved the assassination of American citizens abroad. His DOJ has aggressively made use of the state secrets privilege. He's fought relentlessly to block lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

Basically, Obama's record on national security and civil liberties issues has been crystal clear for a long time: He falls squarely into the mainstream of the elite, bipartisan, Beltway consensus on this stuff. He always has, just like every president before him. This isn't the fourth term of the George Bush presidency, as so many people like to put it, but more like the 16th term of the Eisenhower presidency.

 

[timschochet]

Another good passage on all this...

I can't figure out why anyone would be [surprised]. Obama voted for the 2008 FISA amendments, a position that outraged liberals at the time. He continued the Bush-era surveillance of communications networks. He ramped up the war in Afghanistan. He vastly increased drone use overseas. He's declared a war on leakers. He participated in the assault on Libya. He's approved the assassination of American citizens abroad. His DOJ has aggressively made use of the state secrets privilege. He's fought relentlessly to block lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

Basically, Obama's record on national security and civil liberties issues has been crystal clear for a long time: He falls squarely into the mainstream of the elite, bipartisan, Beltway consensus on this stuff. He always has, just like every president before him. This isn't the fourth term of the George Bush presidency, as so many people like to put it, but more like the 16th term of the Eisenhower presidency.

Great point here. However, while I'm sure this gives some progressives and more extremist Libertarians concern, it actually makes me reassured.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Find me a better way to fight terrorism as effectively and I'll jump all over it.

Trading rights for "warm and fuzzies" ! "Show me your papers" is just fine as long as government doesn't actually ask to see your papers?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Another good passage on all this...

I can't figure out why anyone would be [surprised]. Obama voted for the 2008 FISA amendments, a position that outraged liberals at the time. He continued the Bush-era surveillance of communications networks. He ramped up the war in Afghanistan. He vastly increased drone use overseas. He's declared a war on leakers. He participated in the assault on Libya. He's approved the assassination of American citizens abroad. His DOJ has aggressively made use of the state secrets privilege. He's fought relentlessly to block lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

Basically, Obama's record on national security and civil liberties issues has been crystal clear for a long time: He falls squarely into the mainstream of the elite, bipartisan, Beltway consensus on this stuff. He always has, just like every president before him. This isn't the fourth term of the George Bush presidency, as so many people like to put it, but more like the 16th term of the Eisenhower presidency.

Great point here. However, while I'm sure this gives some progressives and more extremist Libertarians concern, it actually makes me reassured.

"warm and fuzzies"

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Given the past abuses and the incredible power of the new technology I'm not comforted at all.

But it is true that no one that's truly opposed this sort of stuff has ever managed to win the Presidency.

 

[Slapdash]

Another good passage on all this...

I can't figure out why anyone would be [surprised]. Obama voted for the 2008 FISA amendments, a position that outraged liberals at the time. He continued the Bush-era surveillance of communications networks. He ramped up the war in Afghanistan. He vastly increased drone use overseas. He's declared a war on leakers. He participated in the assault on Libya. He's approved the assassination of American citizens abroad. His DOJ has aggressively made use of the state secrets privilege. He's fought relentlessly to block lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses. Basically, Obama's record on national security and civil liberties issues has been crystal clear for a long time: He falls squarely into the mainstream of the elite, bipartisan, Beltway consensus on this stuff. He always has, just like every president before him. This isn't the fourth term of the George Bush presidency, as so many people like to put it, but more like the 16th term of the Eisenhower presidency.

Kevin Drum is one of my favorites.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Given the past abuses and the incredible power of the new technology I'm not comforted at all.

But it is true that no one that's truly opposed this sort of stuff has ever managed to win the Presidency.

Americans have been conditioned to be afraid. That is how the modern robber barons get us to buy more and more defense.

 

[Fennis]

Given the past abuses and the incredible power of the new technology I'm not comforted at all.

But it is true that no one that's truly opposed this sort of stuff has ever managed to win the Presidency.

The Obama administration is worse than the Bush administration.

 

[MikeIke]

The whole thing just sickens me. I voted for Obama (twice) because I honestly thought he'd restore some integrity and responsibility to the White House. Needless to say, I've been severely let down.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Given the past abuses and the incredible power of the new technology I'm not comforted at all.

But it is true that no one that's truly opposed this sort of stuff has ever managed to win the Presidency.

The Obama administration is worse than the Bush administration.

They have certainly ramped up the actual fight against terrorism. And everything that it entails.