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

[Greco]

That's not mine.

/austinpowers

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's true there's no way to stop it. And I agree with you that it's intuitively uncomfortable.

BUt where I disagree with you and DougB is that it's necessarily a bad thing. There's a flip side, as I have tried to point out over and over- that the very same technology which makes us theoretically more vulnerable actually makes us freer than our ancestors ever could imagine, with more rights and abilities.

Though data mining is a new topic, the overall theme of this discussion is not new to me, despite Politician Spock's continual claims that I have no idea what I am writing. I had mentioned that back in college at UC Irvine I took a class on technology and society; it was part of a graduate seminar on the subject, which explored how technology could be used to either further or repress human freedom. Though the specific issue of data mining was not envisaged, there was a robust debate about the benefits of technological advancement vs. the ability to increase the police power of the state.

Since I was much more of a traditional libertarian then, and much more suspicious of government in general, I entered those discussions firmly convinced that civil liberties were fragile and that we had to fight the government every step of the way lest we lose a single inch. I get these arguments and I sympathize with them, because I used to make them myself. But I've changed over time.

 

[tom22406]

Live Q&A with Snowden

Thanks for posting this.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

Thoughts?

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

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

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

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

Damn, I'm still not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Did you mean this to be an insult? Please explain.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

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

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

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

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

If there is no oversight, who is to say if the data collected is abused? Snowden is telling us it is being abused, he is risking his life in sharing this with us. The fact that analysts, analysts that have been with the NSA for only a short period of time have direct access to this data by merely searching by an email address is abuse. Who defines terrorism? Would you say the definition is constantly evolving? Let's say there's a terrorist watchlist which I'm pretty sure there is. Who's to say there isn't a Jew watchlist, etc...the ease in which these lists can be generated as well as the ease in which an analyst can pull up a complete profile of an individual is ridiculously easy. Anything this easy with, no oversight, no balances in place to control how this data is used, and the fact that the data collected is not anonymous but can be directly tied to an individual via a piece of data as easy to associate with an individual as an email address is easily prone to abuse. It's the equivalent of storing credit card numbers and social security numbers in plain text in a database on a server.

 

[Doug B]

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

To me, this less worrisome than your original scenario. In comparing the two poposals, I like the advantage of my specific personal information being able to blend in like so many grains of sand on the beach.

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

The area covered here is getting very gray. For instance, while a "dumb" trawl of phone-call meta-data by remote computer may not raise too many concerns, the deployment of (say) miniature robotic houseflies to perform warrantless searches would be widely seen as crossing the line.

The text of the 4th Amendment can be picked at in other ways, as well. The exact words:

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.

An enterprising NSA attorney might argue, for instance, that his agency is neither searching a describable, specific place nor a describable, specific person and that therefore the 4th Amendment does not hold.

Another tack might be to focus in on the phrase "... unreasonable searches ...". Perhaps a dichotomy would be presented between a clearly unreasonable search (a cop saying nothing, jacking you up against a wall, rifling through your pockets & wallet, and then leaving the scene) and a posited "reasonable search" (the aforementioned "dumb trawl" through meta-data).

Yet another tack might to interpret the words "papers and effects" narrowly and argue that it only applies to tangible property, as the Founders clearly had no concept of non-physical communication 50 years before the electric telegraph.Given that interpretation, the 4th Amendment could conceivably be seen as not applying to electronic communication at all.

 

[Politician Spock]

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

To me, this less worrisome than your original scenario. In comparing the two poposals, I like the advantage of my specific personal information being able to blend in like so many grains of sand on the beach.

I understand the advantage. However, does the removal of the "targeting" that exists when the scan is done only during a traffic stop, make government property searching for data any less of a violation of the 4th than a targetted scan is?

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

The area covered here is getting very gray. For instance, while a "dumb" trawl of phone-call meta-data by remote computer may not raise too many concerns, the deployment of (say) miniature robotic houseflies to perform warrantless searches would be widely seen as crossing the line.

The text of the 4th Amendment can be picked at in other ways, as well. The exact words:

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.

An enterprising NSA attorney might argue, for instance, that his agency is neither searching a describable, specific place nor a describable, specific person and that therefore the 4th Amendment does not hold.

"particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" are requirements that must exist for a warrant to issue. Without them, "NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE"! That does not mean that because government is neither searching a describable, specific place nor a descriable, specific person, then they have the right to search. In fact, it means if they don't have those, they don't have the support to issue warrant for their search, which means they have NOT met the requirement to reasonably search persons, houses, papaers and effects.

Another tack might be to focus in on the phrase "... unreasonable searches ...". Perhaps a dichotomy would be presented between a clearly unreasonable search (a cop saying nothing, jacking you up against a wall, rifling through your pockets & wallet, and then leaving the scene) and a posited "reasonable search" (the aforementioned "dumb trawl" through meta-data).

The question I am presenting is not whether government has reasonable cause to search through the collected data, but whether government property has reasonable cause to search for data to collect. Your example addresses the former, not the later.

Yet another tack might to interpret the words "papers and effects" narrowly and argue that it only applies to tangible property, as the Founders clearly had no concept of non-physical communication 50 years before the electric telegraph.Given that interpretation, the 4th Amendment could conceivably be seen as not applying to electronic communication at all.

I'm not asking about digital information here. I'm asking can government property scan the physical contents of your car, which would include papers and effects" legally under the 4th amendment, assuming the technology existed to do so, as long as everyone who passed under their scanners on our roadway infrastructure were scanned.

 

[Politician Spock]

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

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

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

Thoughts?

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

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

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

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

Damn, I'm still not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Did you mean this to be an insult? Please explain.

Go away.

 

[The Commish]

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

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

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

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

I didn't ask you your philosophy on this subject. I asked you what you meant by the term "data mining" as you are using it. That is a technical term above and beyond this situation.

 

[mattdaddy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I deal with companies I have a choice if I want to do business with them. If a large company such as Google or Microsoft willfully denied storing any data for marketing benefit let's say. I would expect that an employee in the know would blow the whistle and he/she wouldn't fear being imprisoned for such an act. That very fact makes it especially difficult for large companies to keep big secrets. Not to mention they have to tell there advertisers where the magic comes from. I was fully aware of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc... practices in regard to advertising. How could you use the product and not be aware of the targeted advertising. But it is my choice to put up with that or go somewhere else. When the NSA sucks in all of the data directly from the routers and what it cannot get it obtains by compelling companies to comply with court orders or by establishing a data exchange program with said companies then that is data collection that I have not consented to and cannot opt out of.

People on Facebook for the most part self-censor because they are aware that they are on a social network. Putting the average citizen in a state where they believe that their private conversations i.e (phone conversations,email, and IM) are no longer private and there is nothing they can do about it is a horrible state of affairs for this country. There is nothing wrong with the 4th admendment and it should have been followed. What possible reason can the government have to collect and store the conversations of 100's of millions of Americans?

(The above argument disregards encryption - but come on, how in the hell could I get my mom to understand how to encrypt something)

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

Thoughts?

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

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

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

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

Damn, I'm still not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Did you mean this to be an insult? Please explain.

Go away.

Sorry, I do not intend to do so. Please stop being rude.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

I didn't ask you your philosophy on this subject. I asked you what you meant by the term "data mining" as you are using it. That is a technical term above and beyond this situation.

It means the collection of mass information for the purposes of searching through it, in this case, to find terrorist links.

 

[The Commish]

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

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

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

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

I didn't ask you your philosophy on this subject. I asked you what you meant by the term "data mining" as you are using it. That is a technical term above and beyond this situation.

It means the collection of mass information for the purposes of searching through it, in this case, to find terrorist links.

Ok, can you stop using "data mining" to describe that event please? Data mining is a methodology of going through large amounts of data that has already been collected and subject matter is irrelevant. What you're describing is more like "mass data collection". It makes it even harder to understand your position when you're using terms that mean something other than how you're using them. My

 

[RCon]

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

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

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

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

By that logic, wouldn't that make a mass search of all postal mail, recording of all wired telephone conversations, mass implant of GPS chips at birth, or mass search of homes not a violation either?

I don't understand the idea that it's OK to violate civil liberties as long as you do it to everyone equally.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

I didn't ask you your philosophy on this subject. I asked you what you meant by the term "data mining" as you are using it. That is a technical term above and beyond this situation.

It means the collection of mass information for the purposes of searching through it, in this case, to find terrorist links.

Ok, can you stop using "data mining" to describe that event please? Data mining is a methodology of going through large amounts of data that has already been collected and subject matter is irrelevant. What you're describing is more like "mass data collection". It makes it even harder to understand your position when you're using terms that mean something other than how you're using them. My

That's fine. I really don't understand the distinction between what I wrote and you wrote. I get that that subject matter is irrelevant, which is why I used the phrase "in this case"- but if you would prefer me not to use the phrase at all, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

By that logic, wouldn't that make a mass search of all postal mail, recording of all wired telephone conversations, mass implant of GPS chips at birth, or mass search of homes not a violation either?

I don't understand the idea that it's OK to violate civil liberties as long as you do it to everyone equally.

I know.

Either you or someone else raised this question before. I can't recall at this point. My answer is the same as it was then: regarding postal mail, it's a question of logistics. If the government had a way to have a computer system scan/read mail without physically opening it and reading it, then I have no problem. The act of actually physically opening one's mail, which would require having individuals actual read through it (assuming you could find the billions of hours and manpower it would take to do so) would be a violation of the 4th, because the government is actually reading each piece of the mail than simply searching through it with a computer. Similarly, if the government searches through homes without a warrant, that would also violate the 4th because there are people actively searching through something. I don't think either of these examples is especially analogous to collecting emails and phone calls.

So my answer to you is that it's not merely a question of numbers, but also the form of the search.

 

[timschochet]

Missed your point about implantation of GPS chips at birth. Talk about your slippery slope. I honestly don't believe this is something you need fear.

 

[shader]

Missed your point about implantation of GPS chips at birth. Talk about your slippery slope. I honestly don't believe this is something you need fear.

Yeah, there is no need to implant GPS chips. Instead they've done it to all Americans with their phones.

 

[RCon]

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

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

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

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

By that logic, wouldn't that make a mass search of all postal mail, recording of all wired telephone conversations, mass implant of GPS chips at birth, or mass search of homes not a violation either?

I don't understand the idea that it's OK to violate civil liberties as long as you do it to everyone equally.

I know.

Either you or someone else raised this question before. I can't recall at this point. My answer is the same as it was then: regarding postal mail, it's a question of logistics. If the government had a way to have a computer system scan/read mail without physically opening it and reading it, then I have no problem. The act of actually physically opening one's mail, which would require having individuals actual read through it (assuming you could find the billions of hours and manpower it would take to do so) would be a violation of the 4th, because the government is actually reading each piece of the mail than simply searching through it with a computer. Similarly, if the government searches through homes without a warrant, that would also violate the 4th because there are people actively searching through something. I don't think either of these examples is especially analogous to collecting emails and phone calls.

So my answer to you is that it's not merely a question of numbers, but also the form of the search.

You're switching back and forth between multiple positions here. Pick one:

1. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as it does so to everyone equally.

2. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive" (we'll get to how we define "prohibitive" a little later).

3. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as both A) it does do to everyone equally, and B) the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive".

 

[The Commish]

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

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

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

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

I didn't ask you your philosophy on this subject. I asked you what you meant by the term "data mining" as you are using it. That is a technical term above and beyond this situation.

It means the collection of mass information for the purposes of searching through it, in this case, to find terrorist links.

Ok, can you stop using "data mining" to describe that event please? Data mining is a methodology of going through large amounts of data that has already been collected and subject matter is irrelevant. What you're describing is more like "mass data collection". It makes it even harder to understand your position when you're using terms that mean something other than how you're using them. My

That's fine. I really don't understand the distinction between what I wrote and you wrote. I get that that subject matter is irrelevant, which is why I used the phrase "in this case"- but if you would prefer me not to use the phrase at all, I don't have a problem with that.

It's an important distinction because you and the others here disagree on a pretty major point and I'm not even sure you realize it. You're focused on the queries of the data and what they are looking for in the data. They are focused on the collection of the data in the first place. In the mining analogy, it's the mountain (data) most have an issue with...not what they are looking (mining) for in the mountain. This becomes clear to me when someone offers other "non digital" examples like going through the mail. You seem to have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand using technology.

 

[Nikki2200]

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

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

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

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

By that logic, wouldn't that make a mass search of all postal mail, recording of all wired telephone conversations, mass implant of GPS chips at birth, or mass search of homes not a violation either?

I don't understand the idea that it's OK to violate civil liberties as long as you do it to everyone equally.

I know.

Either you or someone else raised this question before. I can't recall at this point. My answer is the same as it was then: regarding postal mail, it's a question of logistics. If the government had a way to have a computer system scan/read mail without physically opening it and reading it, then I have no problem. The act of actually physically opening one's mail, which would require having individuals actual read through it (assuming you could find the billions of hours and manpower it would take to do so) would be a violation of the 4th, because the government is actually reading each piece of the mail than simply searching through it with a computer. Similarly, if the government searches through homes without a warrant, that would also violate the 4th because there are people actively searching through something. I don't think either of these examples is especially analogous to collecting emails and phone calls.

So my answer to you is that it's not merely a question of numbers, but also the form of the search.

IDGI. So the fact that it is a computer is what makes it OK?

You've said over and over again that the government is searching through all of our communications for "terrorist code words" whatever that means and I'm not even sure it has been acknowledged or confirmed by the government that they are actually doing this. Of course I really have no idea what they are actually doing but that's a different story altogether.

So this computer is searching our data looking for something. What happens when they find the "something"? They go get a rubber stamp warrant in a secret court so they can dig deeper - I think. But you don't find the whole premise that they found the something by searching through my communications without a warrant a violation of the Fourth Amendment? And that the "warrant" they are obtaining in secret is based on searching me illegally in the first place? Do you think this method would fly in a non-secret court of law?

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

By that logic, wouldn't that make a mass search of all postal mail, recording of all wired telephone conversations, mass implant of GPS chips at birth, or mass search of homes not a violation either?

I don't understand the idea that it's OK to violate civil liberties as long as you do it to everyone equally.

I know.

Either you or someone else raised this question before. I can't recall at this point. My answer is the same as it was then: regarding postal mail, it's a question of logistics. If the government had a way to have a computer system scan/read mail without physically opening it and reading it, then I have no problem. The act of actually physically opening one's mail, which would require having individuals actual read through it (assuming you could find the billions of hours and manpower it would take to do so) would be a violation of the 4th, because the government is actually reading each piece of the mail than simply searching through it with a computer. Similarly, if the government searches through homes without a warrant, that would also violate the 4th because there are people actively searching through something. I don't think either of these examples is especially analogous to collecting emails and phone calls.

So my answer to you is that it's not merely a question of numbers, but also the form of the search.

You're switching back and forth between multiple positions here. Pick one:

1. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as it does so to everyone equally.

2. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive" (we'll get to how we define "prohibitive" a little later).

3. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as both A) it does do to everyone equally, and B) the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive".

First off, it is NEVER OK for our government to violate civil liberties.

Rather, it is OK for our government to infringe upon the specific terms of the 4th Amendment, if it does so in a way that does NOT violate civil liberties.

I believe that so long as there is no specific targeting or people or groups, and so long as there is no specific searching being performed (such as each piece of mail being opened and read), the program under discussion manages to infringe upon the 4th Amendment, within permissible limits, and without violating civil liberties.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

I didn't ask you your philosophy on this subject. I asked you what you meant by the term "data mining" as you are using it. That is a technical term above and beyond this situation.

It means the collection of mass information for the purposes of searching through it, in this case, to find terrorist links.

Ok, can you stop using "data mining" to describe that event please? Data mining is a methodology of going through large amounts of data that has already been collected and subject matter is irrelevant. What you're describing is more like "mass data collection". It makes it even harder to understand your position when you're using terms that mean something other than how you're using them. My

That's fine. I really don't understand the distinction between what I wrote and you wrote. I get that that subject matter is irrelevant, which is why I used the phrase "in this case"- but if you would prefer me not to use the phrase at all, I don't have a problem with that.

It's an important distinction because you and the others here disagree on a pretty major point and I'm not even sure you realize it. You're focused on the queries of the data and what they are looking for in the data. They are focused on the collection of the data in the first place. In the mining analogy, it's the mountain (data) most have an issue with...not what they are looking (mining) for in the mountain. This becomes clear to me when someone offers other "non digital" examples like going through the mail. You seem to have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand using technology.

I apologize for any confusion; it's because I'm attempting to answer 2 questions at once. The first question is whether this program is a violation of the 4th Amendment and civil liberties. Most here say it is; I say it isn't. The second question is whether this program is a good idea for the government to be doing. Most here say it isn't, though to some that question is irrelevant since they don't want to move beyond the first question. I say it is a good idea. The subject matter of what they are looking for in the data falls under the 2nd question.

 

[Doug B]

I understand the advantage. However, does the removal of the "targeting" that exists when the scan is done only during a traffic stop, make government property searching for data any less of a violation of the 4th than a targetted scan is?

Realizing that we're speaking of hypothetical technology, and that you're not asking for a firm right/wrong determination but for an evaluation of degree:

From the perspective of an indvidual, I think the removal of targeting makes this kind of monitoring less of a violation because the person is still essentially secure (to borrow phrasing from the 4th Amendment's text) after a dumb trawl of his car's contents.

"particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" are requirements that must exist for a warrant to issue. Without them, "NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE"! That does not mean that because government is neither searching a describable, specific place nor a descriable, specific person, then they have the right to search. In fact, it means if they don't have those, they don't have the support to issue warrant for their search, which means they have NOT met the requirement to reasonably search persons, houses, papaers and effects.

I hear you. The hypothetical attorney is asking the court to disregard the 4th because "We're not searching anyplace. We're not searching anyone".

Another tack might be to focus in on the phrase "... unreasonable searches ...". Perhaps a dichotomy would be presented between a clearly unreasonable search (a cop saying nothing, jacking you up against a wall, rifling through your pockets & wallet, and then leaving the scene) and a posited "reasonable search" (the aforementioned "dumb trawl" through meta-data).

The question I am presenting is not whether government has reasonable cause to search through the collected data, but whether government property has reasonable cause to search for data to collect. Your example addresses the former, not the later.

Don't know. In this hypothtical, the attorney is attempting to ferret out slack in a reasonableness standard: "The 4th only specifically deals with unreasonable searches".

Yet another tack might to interpret the words "papers and effects" narrowly and argue that it only applies to tangible property, as the Founders clearly had no concept of non-physical communication 50 years before the electric telegraph.Given that interpretation, the 4th Amendment could conceivably be seen as not applying to electronic communication at all.

I'm not asking about digital information here. I'm asking can government property scan the physical contents of your car, which would include papers and effects" legally under the 4th amendment, assuming the technology existed to do so, as long as everyone who passed under their scanners on our roadway infrastructure were scanned.

The results of such a scan necessarily have to be digital information, even if the scan is advanced enough to render some kind of hi-res 3-D photographic model of the inside of the vehicle. That's not the same as someone/something seeing the items or physically removing items from the vehicle and dropping them into evidence bags. The images are not the items. Your line of questioning here does touch on the reliability of such a scan -- what kind of positive determinations could truly be made?.

 

[RCon]

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

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

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

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

By that logic, wouldn't that make a mass search of all postal mail, recording of all wired telephone conversations, mass implant of GPS chips at birth, or mass search of homes not a violation either?

I don't understand the idea that it's OK to violate civil liberties as long as you do it to everyone equally.

I know.

Either you or someone else raised this question before. I can't recall at this point. My answer is the same as it was then: regarding postal mail, it's a question of logistics. If the government had a way to have a computer system scan/read mail without physically opening it and reading it, then I have no problem. The act of actually physically opening one's mail, which would require having individuals actual read through it (assuming you could find the billions of hours and manpower it would take to do so) would be a violation of the 4th, because the government is actually reading each piece of the mail than simply searching through it with a computer. Similarly, if the government searches through homes without a warrant, that would also violate the 4th because there are people actively searching through something. I don't think either of these examples is especially analogous to collecting emails and phone calls.

So my answer to you is that it's not merely a question of numbers, but also the form of the search.

You're switching back and forth between multiple positions here. Pick one:

1. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as it does so to everyone equally.

2. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive" (we'll get to how we define "prohibitive" a little later).

3. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as both A) it does do to everyone equally, and B) the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive".

First off, it is NEVER OK for our government to violate civil liberties.

Rather, it is OK for our government to infringe upon the specific terms of the 4th Amendment, if it does so in a way that does NOT violate civil liberties.

I believe that so long as there is no specific targeting or people or groups, and so long as there is no specific searching being performed (such as each piece of mail being opened and read), the program under discussion manages to infringe upon the 4th Amendment, within permissible limits, and without violating civil liberties.

Fine, rephrase it as below. What I'm trying to get at here is where your line is drawn, but your answer isn't really an answer. It's too wishy-washy and instead leaves me with a "I know it when I see it" feeling. I don't want "I know it when I see it" when I'm talking about my civil liberties; I want something concrete.

1. Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as the search extends to everyone equally.

2. Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive" (we'll get to how we define "prohibitive" a little later).

3. Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive".

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

By that logic, wouldn't that make a mass search of all postal mail, recording of all wired telephone conversations, mass implant of GPS chips at birth, or mass search of homes not a violation either?

I don't understand the idea that it's OK to violate civil liberties as long as you do it to everyone equally.

I know.

Either you or someone else raised this question before. I can't recall at this point. My answer is the same as it was then: regarding postal mail, it's a question of logistics. If the government had a way to have a computer system scan/read mail without physically opening it and reading it, then I have no problem. The act of actually physically opening one's mail, which would require having individuals actual read through it (assuming you could find the billions of hours and manpower it would take to do so) would be a violation of the 4th, because the government is actually reading each piece of the mail than simply searching through it with a computer. Similarly, if the government searches through homes without a warrant, that would also violate the 4th because there are people actively searching through something. I don't think either of these examples is especially analogous to collecting emails and phone calls.

So my answer to you is that it's not merely a question of numbers, but also the form of the search.

IDGI. So the fact that it is a computer is what makes it OK?

You've said over and over again that the government is searching through all of our communications for "terrorist code words" whatever that means and I'm not even sure it has been acknowledged or confirmed by the government that they are actually doing this. Of course I really have no idea what they are actually doing but that's a different story altogether.

So this computer is searching our data looking for something. What happens when they find the "something"? They go get a rubber stamp warrant in a secret court so they can dig deeper - I think. But you don't find the whole premise that they found the something by searching through my communications without a warrant a violation of the Fourth Amendment? And that the "warrant" they are obtaining in secret is based on searching me illegally in the first place? Do you think this method would fly in a non-secret court of law?

1. Then they get a warrant from the FISA court and use it to investigate further and stop terrorism. According to the NSA director, we've already stopped dozens of terrorists acts through this method, most notably the attempt to blow up New York's subway system. If this is true, then perhaps thousands of innocent lives have been saved.

2. No, I do not. Apparently, neither do the courts (but we'll see what happens when this get's challenged."

3. No I don't see it that way.

4. Yes I do think it would fly.

 

[Nikki2200]

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

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

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

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

By that logic, wouldn't that make a mass search of all postal mail, recording of all wired telephone conversations, mass implant of GPS chips at birth, or mass search of homes not a violation either?

I don't understand the idea that it's OK to violate civil liberties as long as you do it to everyone equally.

I know.

Either you or someone else raised this question before. I can't recall at this point. My answer is the same as it was then: regarding postal mail, it's a question of logistics. If the government had a way to have a computer system scan/read mail without physically opening it and reading it, then I have no problem. The act of actually physically opening one's mail, which would require having individuals actual read through it (assuming you could find the billions of hours and manpower it would take to do so) would be a violation of the 4th, because the government is actually reading each piece of the mail than simply searching through it with a computer. Similarly, if the government searches through homes without a warrant, that would also violate the 4th because there are people actively searching through something. I don't think either of these examples is especially analogous to collecting emails and phone calls.

So my answer to you is that it's not merely a question of numbers, but also the form of the search.

You're switching back and forth between multiple positions here. Pick one:

1. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as it does so to everyone equally.

2. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive" (we'll get to how we define "prohibitive" a little later).

3. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as both A) it does do to everyone equally, and B) the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive".

First off, it is NEVER OK for our government to violate civil liberties.

Rather, it is OK for our government to infringe upon the specific terms of the 4th Amendment, if it does so in a way that does NOT violate civil liberties.

I believe that so long as there is no specific targeting or people or groups, and so long as there is no specific searching being performed (such as each piece of mail being opened and read), the program under discussion manages to infringe upon the 4th Amendment, within permissible limits, and without violating civil liberties.

How is that even possible? How can a right you are afforded in the Bill of Rights be infringed upon without violating your civil liberties?

The right is the civil liberty. Isn't the definition of a civil liberty referring the items that are outlined in the Bill of Rights???

 

[The Commish]

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

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

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

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

I didn't ask you your philosophy on this subject. I asked you what you meant by the term "data mining" as you are using it. That is a technical term above and beyond this situation.

It means the collection of mass information for the purposes of searching through it, in this case, to find terrorist links.

Ok, can you stop using "data mining" to describe that event please? Data mining is a methodology of going through large amounts of data that has already been collected and subject matter is irrelevant. What you're describing is more like "mass data collection". It makes it even harder to understand your position when you're using terms that mean something other than how you're using them. My

That's fine. I really don't understand the distinction between what I wrote and you wrote. I get that that subject matter is irrelevant, which is why I used the phrase "in this case"- but if you would prefer me not to use the phrase at all, I don't have a problem with that.

It's an important distinction because you and the others here disagree on a pretty major point and I'm not even sure you realize it. You're focused on the queries of the data and what they are looking for in the data. They are focused on the collection of the data in the first place. In the mining analogy, it's the mountain (data) most have an issue with...not what they are looking (mining) for in the mountain. This becomes clear to me when someone offers other "non digital" examples like going through the mail. You seem to have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand using technology.

I apologize for any confusion; it's because I'm attempting to answer 2 questions at once. The first question is whether this program is a violation of the 4th Amendment and civil liberties. Most here say it is; I say it isn't. The second question is whether this program is a good idea for the government to be doing. Most here say it isn't, though to some that question is irrelevant since they don't want to move beyond the first question. I say it is a good idea. The subject matter of what they are looking for in the data falls under the 2nd question.

So, going back to the mail analogy. What if the USPS was tasked with photocopying any and all correspondence going through their facilities then passing it on to the individuals. Where does that fall for you?

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

By that logic, wouldn't that make a mass search of all postal mail, recording of all wired telephone conversations, mass implant of GPS chips at birth, or mass search of homes not a violation either?

I don't understand the idea that it's OK to violate civil liberties as long as you do it to everyone equally.

I know.

Either you or someone else raised this question before. I can't recall at this point. My answer is the same as it was then: regarding postal mail, it's a question of logistics. If the government had a way to have a computer system scan/read mail without physically opening it and reading it, then I have no problem. The act of actually physically opening one's mail, which would require having individuals actual read through it (assuming you could find the billions of hours and manpower it would take to do so) would be a violation of the 4th, because the government is actually reading each piece of the mail than simply searching through it with a computer. Similarly, if the government searches through homes without a warrant, that would also violate the 4th because there are people actively searching through something. I don't think either of these examples is especially analogous to collecting emails and phone calls.

So my answer to you is that it's not merely a question of numbers, but also the form of the search.

You're switching back and forth between multiple positions here. Pick one:

1. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as it does so to everyone equally.

2. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive" (we'll get to how we define "prohibitive" a little later).

3. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as both A) it does do to everyone equally, and B) the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive".

First off, it is NEVER OK for our government to violate civil liberties.

Rather, it is OK for our government to infringe upon the specific terms of the 4th Amendment, if it does so in a way that does NOT violate civil liberties.

I believe that so long as there is no specific targeting or people or groups, and so long as there is no specific searching being performed (such as each piece of mail being opened and read), the program under discussion manages to infringe upon the 4th Amendment, within permissible limits, and without violating civil liberties.

Fine, rephrase it as below. What I'm trying to get at here is where your line is drawn, but your answer isn't really an answer. It's too wishy-washy and instead leaves me with a "I know it when I see it" feeling. I don't want "I know it when I see it" when I'm talking about my civil liberties; I want something concrete.

1. Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as the search extends to everyone equally.

2. Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive" (we'll get to how we define "prohibitive" a little later).

3. Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive".

None, because it's not really a government search as I would define a targeted search, and prohibitve is not a correct word either. I'm not trying to frustrate you, but what you have written here does not match what I am saying. What I wrote above (bolded) is pretty clear, it doesn't really need too much interpretation IMO.

Again:

I believe that so long as there is no specific targeting or people or groups, and so long as there is no specific searching being performed (such as each piece of mail being opened and read), the program under discussion manages to infringe upon the 4th Amendment, within permissible limits, and without violating civil liberties.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

By that logic, wouldn't that make a mass search of all postal mail, recording of all wired telephone conversations, mass implant of GPS chips at birth, or mass search of homes not a violation either?

I don't understand the idea that it's OK to violate civil liberties as long as you do it to everyone equally.

I know.

Either you or someone else raised this question before. I can't recall at this point. My answer is the same as it was then: regarding postal mail, it's a question of logistics. If the government had a way to have a computer system scan/read mail without physically opening it and reading it, then I have no problem. The act of actually physically opening one's mail, which would require having individuals actual read through it (assuming you could find the billions of hours and manpower it would take to do so) would be a violation of the 4th, because the government is actually reading each piece of the mail than simply searching through it with a computer. Similarly, if the government searches through homes without a warrant, that would also violate the 4th because there are people actively searching through something. I don't think either of these examples is especially analogous to collecting emails and phone calls.

So my answer to you is that it's not merely a question of numbers, but also the form of the search.

You're switching back and forth between multiple positions here. Pick one:

1. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as it does so to everyone equally.

2. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive" (we'll get to how we define "prohibitive" a little later).

3. It is OK for government to violate civil liberties as long as both A) it does do to everyone equally, and B) the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive".

First off, it is NEVER OK for our government to violate civil liberties.

Rather, it is OK for our government to infringe upon the specific terms of the 4th Amendment, if it does so in a way that does NOT violate civil liberties.

I believe that so long as there is no specific targeting or people or groups, and so long as there is no specific searching being performed (such as each piece of mail being opened and read), the program under discussion manages to infringe upon the 4th Amendment, within permissible limits, and without violating civil liberties.

How is that even possible? How can a right you are afforded in the Bill of Rights be infringed upon without violating your civil liberties?

The right is the civil liberty. Isn't the definition of a civil liberty referring the items that are outlined in the Bill of Rights???

We've discussed this before but- if I make a law that says it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, that is very clearly an infringement upon your rights under the 1st Amendment. But according to the Supreme Court, it is an acceptable infringement, because it does not violate your essential right to freedom of speech.

I regard this program, from what we know about it, as very clearly an infringement of your rights under the 4th Amendment, but an acceptable infringement because it does not violate your essential right to privacy.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

I didn't ask you your philosophy on this subject. I asked you what you meant by the term "data mining" as you are using it. That is a technical term above and beyond this situation.

It means the collection of mass information for the purposes of searching through it, in this case, to find terrorist links.

Ok, can you stop using "data mining" to describe that event please? Data mining is a methodology of going through large amounts of data that has already been collected and subject matter is irrelevant. What you're describing is more like "mass data collection". It makes it even harder to understand your position when you're using terms that mean something other than how you're using them. My

That's fine. I really don't understand the distinction between what I wrote and you wrote. I get that that subject matter is irrelevant, which is why I used the phrase "in this case"- but if you would prefer me not to use the phrase at all, I don't have a problem with that.

It's an important distinction because you and the others here disagree on a pretty major point and I'm not even sure you realize it. You're focused on the queries of the data and what they are looking for in the data. They are focused on the collection of the data in the first place. In the mining analogy, it's the mountain (data) most have an issue with...not what they are looking (mining) for in the mountain. This becomes clear to me when someone offers other "non digital" examples like going through the mail. You seem to have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand using technology.

I apologize for any confusion; it's because I'm attempting to answer 2 questions at once. The first question is whether this program is a violation of the 4th Amendment and civil liberties. Most here say it is; I say it isn't. The second question is whether this program is a good idea for the government to be doing. Most here say it isn't, though to some that question is irrelevant since they don't want to move beyond the first question. I say it is a good idea. The subject matter of what they are looking for in the data falls under the 2nd question.

So, going back to the mail analogy. What if the USPS was tasked with photocopying any and all correspondence going through their facilities then passing it on to the individuals. Where does that fall for you?

That would be a violation of the 4th Amendment under current technology, because they somebody would have to open the mail and somebody would have to read through it in order to photocopy it.

But, if technology was developed which allowed them to scan and photocopy the mail without opening it, then if it were done under this existing program (meaning within the law and with proper supervision) it would not necessarily violate the 4th Amendment.

 

[Nikki2200]

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

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

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

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

By that logic, wouldn't that make a mass search of all postal mail, recording of all wired telephone conversations, mass implant of GPS chips at birth, or mass search of homes not a violation either?

I don't understand the idea that it's OK to violate civil liberties as long as you do it to everyone equally.

I know.

Either you or someone else raised this question before. I can't recall at this point. My answer is the same as it was then: regarding postal mail, it's a question of logistics. If the government had a way to have a computer system scan/read mail without physically opening it and reading it, then I have no problem. The act of actually physically opening one's mail, which would require having individuals actual read through it (assuming you could find the billions of hours and manpower it would take to do so) would be a violation of the 4th, because the government is actually reading each piece of the mail than simply searching through it with a computer. Similarly, if the government searches through homes without a warrant, that would also violate the 4th because there are people actively searching through something. I don't think either of these examples is especially analogous to collecting emails and phone calls.

So my answer to you is that it's not merely a question of numbers, but also the form of the search.

IDGI. So the fact that it is a computer is what makes it OK?

You've said over and over again that the government is searching through all of our communications for "terrorist code words" whatever that means and I'm not even sure it has been acknowledged or confirmed by the government that they are actually doing this. Of course I really have no idea what they are actually doing but that's a different story altogether.

So this computer is searching our data looking for something. What happens when they find the "something"? They go get a rubber stamp warrant in a secret court so they can dig deeper - I think. But you don't find the whole premise that they found the something by searching through my communications without a warrant a violation of the Fourth Amendment? And that the "warrant" they are obtaining in secret is based on searching me illegally in the first place? Do you think this method would fly in a non-secret court of law?

1. Then they get a warrant from the FISA court and use it to investigate further and stop terrorism. According to the NSA director, we've already stopped dozens of terrorists acts through this method, most notably the attempt to blow up New York's subway system. If this is true, then perhaps thousands of innocent lives have been saved.

2. No, I do not. Apparently, neither do the courts (but we'll see what happens when this get's challenged."

3. No I don't see it that way.

4. Yes I do think it would fly.

No. It would not. If this method of collecting evidence was carried out in a normal criminal proceeding, you'd have a hard time finding a judge in the world who would allow the evidence to be admitted.

Edit. meant country. not world.

 

[timschochet]

Gotta run, guys! Politician Spock, you get your wish! For now. (I'll be back later, though.)

 

[RCon]

What I'm trying to get at here is where your line is drawn, but your answer isn't really an answer. It's too wishy-washy and instead leaves me with a "I know it when I see it" feeling. I don't want "I know it when I see it" when I'm talking about my civil liberties; I want something concrete.1. Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as the search extends to everyone equally.

2. Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive" (we'll get to how we define "prohibitive" a little later).

3. Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) the effort expended and technology used are not "prohibitive".

None, because it's not really a government search as I would define a targeted search, and prohibitve is not a correct word either. I'm not trying to frustrate you, but what you have written here does not match what I am saying. What I wrote above (bolded) is pretty clear, it doesn't really need too much interpretation IMO.

Again:

I believe that so long as there is no specific targeting or people or groups, and so long as there is no specific searching being performed (such as each piece of mail being opened and read), the program under discussion manages to infringe upon the 4th Amendment, within permissible limits, and without violating civil liberties.

Your term of "targeted search" appears to match identically my criteria of "as long as the search extends to everyone equally", no?

I do not understand your criteria of "specific searching". It seems to me that you're going for "computers do the work rather than people"?

 

[Politician Spock]

I understand the advantage. However, does the removal of the "targeting" that exists when the scan is done only during a traffic stop, make government property searching for data any less of a violation of the 4th than a targetted scan is?

Realizing that we're speaking of hypothetical technology, and that you're not asking for a firm right/wrong determination but for an evaluation of degree:

From the perspective of an indvidual, I think the removal of targeting makes this kind of monitoring less of a violation because the person is still essentially secure (to borrow phrasing from the 4th Amendment's text) after a dumb trawl of his car's contents.

A person still being secure AFTER government property searched the car is NOT an enumerated state that allows for the issue of warrant to search. The person could be in a state of happy, sad, angry or gleeful after the search has occured. They are states that are no more applicable to the government's right to search withuot warrant than the state of still being secure.

"particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" are requirements that must exist for a warrant to issue. Without them, "NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE"! That does not mean that because government is neither searching a describable, specific place nor a descriable, specific person, then they have the right to search. In fact, it means if they don't have those, they don't have the support to issue warrant for their search, which means they have NOT met the requirement to reasonably search persons, houses, papaers and effects.

I hear you. The hypothetical attorney is asking the court to disregard the 4th because "We're not searching anyplace. We're not searching anyone".

They MUST be searching for a particularly described place and person, or else they have failed to establish what is necessary to issue warrant for the search.

Another tack might be to focus in on the phrase "... unreasonable searches ...". Perhaps a dichotomy would be presented between a clearly unreasonable search (a cop saying nothing, jacking you up against a wall, rifling through your pockets & wallet, and then leaving the scene) and a posited "reasonable search" (the aforementioned "dumb trawl" through meta-data).

The question I am presenting is not whether government has reasonable cause to search through the collected data, but whether government property has reasonable cause to search for data to collect. Your example addresses the former, not the later.

Don't know. In this hypothtical, the attorney is attempting to ferret out slack in a reasonableness standard: "The 4th only specifically deals with unreasonable searches".

I agree. However, the only slack I've heard anyone present is that government PEOPLE are not searching the collected data UNTIL a reasonable search has been established. No one has yet to present an argument that government PROPERTY has reasonable cause to search for data to collect for later use by government PEOPLE to search with reasonable cause.

Yet another tack might to interpret the words "papers and effects" narrowly and argue that it only applies to tangible property, as the Founders clearly had no concept of non-physical communication 50 years before the electric telegraph.Given that interpretation, the 4th Amendment could conceivably be seen as not applying to electronic communication at all.

I'm not asking about digital information here. I'm asking can government property scan the physical contents of your car, which would include papers and effects" legally under the 4th amendment, assuming the technology existed to do so, as long as everyone who passed under their scanners on our roadway infrastructure were scanned.

The results of such a scan necessarily have to be digital information, even if the scan is advanced enough to render some kind of hi-res 3-D photographic model of the inside of the vehicle. That's not the same as someone/something seeing the items or physically removing items from the vehicle and dropping them into evidence bags. The images are not the items. Your line of questioning here does touch on the reliability of such a scan -- what kind of positive determinations could truly be made?.

The results do not exist until after the government property searched to produce digital information representing what it found by searching.

 

[17seconds]

How many pages of this thread are tim explaining himself? jesus

 

[RCon]

That would be a violation of the 4th Amendment under current technology, because they somebody would have to open the mail and somebody would have to read through it in order to photocopy it.But, if technology was developed which allowed them to scan and photocopy the mail without opening it, then if it were done under this existing program (meaning within the law and with proper supervision) it would not necessarily violate the 4th Amendment.

What if technology existed that could open, scan to digital storage, close, and reseal?

Second, assume said technology existed; would it be acceptable to you that government does this to mail sent via FedEx, UPS, and other private couriers as well as USPS?

 

[phrozen]

Gotta run, guys! Politician Spock, you get your wish! For now. (I'll be back later, though.)

quick change the locks!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I believe that so long as there is no specific targeting or people or groups, and so long as there is no specific searching being performed (such as each piece of mail being opened and read), the program under discussion manages to infringe upon the 4th Amendment, within permissible limits, and without violating civil liberties.

To me "all men are bald" is preferable to the below logic-So it is inappropriate to gather and search through data for 1 person

And it is inappropriate to gather and search through data for n persons in a group(s)

But at some point it is appropriate to gather and search through data for n+1 persons?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Tim has gotta be

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Maybe he is hung up with profiling prior to collecting data = bad

but profiling after collecting data = good

That's about as dumbed-down as I could go, I really don't think he has a grasp (and power) of the technology being used.

 

[Doug B]

A person still being secure AFTER government property searched the car is NOT an enumerated state that allows for the issue of warrant to search. The person could be in a state of happy, sad, angry or gleeful after the search has occured. They are states that are no more applicable to the government's right to search withuot warrant than the state of still being secure.

You were asking which was the greater violation, yes? The targeted search by robotic scan after a traffic stop, or the dumb scan from some eye in the sky? I chose the targeted search.as the greater violation because during the stop, I likely won't feel free to leave at any point on my own volition (though I may well be). My person is not secure when I am in a de facto roadside detention, however brief. At least with the eye in the sky, at all points on my journey I travel unimpeded under my own volition.

But saying that I take one case as a greater violation and the other case as a lesser violation does not mean that I believe one case is a violation and one case isn't..

They MUST be searching for a particularly described place and person, or else they have failed to establish what is necessary to issue warrant for the search.

Might be talking past each other here -- when I first brought up the hypothetical NSA attorney, I was thinking about how he might defend the phone-call meta-data collection efforts. I don't think the "it's not a search" defense works to defend hypothetical devices that can image the contents of vehicles from afar.

I agree. However, the only slack I've heard anyone present is that government PEOPLE are not searching the collected data UNTIL a reasonable search has been established. No one has yet to present an argument that government PROPERTY has reasonable cause to search for data to collect for later use by government PEOPLE to search with reasonable cause.

The hypothetical argument might be that automated phone-traffic data collection (distinct from phone conversation monitoring) is inherently reasonable. It might be put forth in such a way that takes the "cause" question completely out of the picture: "We don't need a specific reason to conduct a reasonable 'search' -- if you even want to call it a 'search', You Honor". Sounds convoluted, but someone smarter than I might be able to come up with a better nuanced angle.

The [digital] results [of the hypothetical automated vehicle sanners] do not exist until after the government property searched to produce digital information representing what it found by searching.

Yes, this would be true.

 

[RCon]

A person still being secure AFTER government property searched the car is NOT an enumerated state that allows for the issue of warrant to search. The person could be in a state of happy, sad, angry or gleeful after the search has occured. They are states that are no more applicable to the government's right to search withuot warrant than the state of still being secure.

You were asking which was the greater violation, yes? The targeted search by robotic scan after a traffic stop, or the dumb scan from some eye in the sky? I chose the targeted search.as the greater violation because during the stop, I likely won't feel free to leave at any point on my own volition (though I may well be). My person is not secure when I am in a de facto roadside detention, however brief. At least with the eye in the sky, at all points on my journey I travel unimpeded under my own volition.

But saying that I take one case as a greater violation and the other case as a lesser violation does not mean that I believe one case is a violation and one case isn't..

They MUST be searching for a particularly described place and person, or else they have failed to establish what is necessary to issue warrant for the search.

Might be talking past each other here -- when I first brought up the hypothetical NSA attorney, I was thinking about how he might defend the phone-call meta-data collection efforts. I don't think the "it's not a search" defense works to defend hypothetical devices that can image the contents of vehicles from afar.

I agree. However, the only slack I've heard anyone present is that government PEOPLE are not searching the collected data UNTIL a reasonable search has been established. No one has yet to present an argument that government PROPERTY has reasonable cause to search for data to collect for later use by government PEOPLE to search with reasonable cause.

The hypothetical argument might be that automated phone-traffic data collection (distinct from phone conversation monitoring) is inherently reasonable. It might be put forth in such a way that takes the "cause" question completely out of the picture: "We don't need a specific reason to conduct a reasonable 'search' -- if you even want to call it a 'search', You Honor". Sounds convoluted, but someone smarter than I might be able to come up with a better nuanced angle.

The [digital] results [of the hypothetical automated vehicle sanners] do not exist until after the government property searched to produce digital information representing what it found by searching.

Yes, this would be true.

See, I look at the word Seizure here more than the word Search in the hypotheticals. In a situation where government is obtaining and cataloging data for later use, you might get away with "We're not really searching anything, your Honor." I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that data isn't being seized, however.

 

[Doug B]

See, I look at the word Seizure here more than the word Search in the hypotheticals. In a situation where government is obtaining and cataloging data for later use, you might get away with "We're not really searching anything, your Honor." I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that data isn't being seized, however.

Enter the concept of "reasonable seizure" ? Or an argument that "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects" aren't being seized?

Not sure what arguments the NSA attorneys will actually make. But the bullets will start flying once the ACLU's cases are heard in District Court ... someone's going to have to come up with something.

 

[The Commish]

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

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

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

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

I didn't ask you your philosophy on this subject. I asked you what you meant by the term "data mining" as you are using it. That is a technical term above and beyond this situation.

It means the collection of mass information for the purposes of searching through it, in this case, to find terrorist links.

Ok, can you stop using "data mining" to describe that event please? Data mining is a methodology of going through large amounts of data that has already been collected and subject matter is irrelevant. What you're describing is more like "mass data collection". It makes it even harder to understand your position when you're using terms that mean something other than how you're using them. My

That's fine. I really don't understand the distinction between what I wrote and you wrote. I get that that subject matter is irrelevant, which is why I used the phrase "in this case"- but if you would prefer me not to use the phrase at all, I don't have a problem with that.

It's an important distinction because you and the others here disagree on a pretty major point and I'm not even sure you realize it. You're focused on the queries of the data and what they are looking for in the data. They are focused on the collection of the data in the first place. In the mining analogy, it's the mountain (data) most have an issue with...not what they are looking (mining) for in the mountain. This becomes clear to me when someone offers other "non digital" examples like going through the mail. You seem to have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand using technology.

I apologize for any confusion; it's because I'm attempting to answer 2 questions at once. The first question is whether this program is a violation of the 4th Amendment and civil liberties. Most here say it is; I say it isn't. The second question is whether this program is a good idea for the government to be doing. Most here say it isn't, though to some that question is irrelevant since they don't want to move beyond the first question. I say it is a good idea. The subject matter of what they are looking for in the data falls under the 2nd question.

So, going back to the mail analogy. What if the USPS was tasked with photocopying any and all correspondence going through their facilities then passing it on to the individuals. Where does that fall for you?

That would be a violation of the 4th Amendment under current technology, because they somebody would have to open the mail and somebody would have to read through it in order to photocopy it.

But, if technology was developed which allowed them to scan and photocopy the mail without opening it, then if it were done under this existing program (meaning within the law and with proper supervision) it would not necessarily violate the 4th Amendment.

So, what's the difference between opening an electronic packet (to get at the data) to store it and opening a physical piece of mail? It's just the difference between methodology. I don't get the distinction you think you're making here.

 

[Politician Spock]

A person still being secure AFTER government property searched the car is NOT an enumerated state that allows for the issue of warrant to search. The person could be in a state of happy, sad, angry or gleeful after the search has occured. They are states that are no more applicable to the government's right to search withuot warrant than the state of still being secure.

You were asking which was the greater violation, yes?

No. I am asking why a targeted search is a violation but a non- targeted search is not. I don't see either as a greater violation than the other. They are both violations to me. I want to know why they both aren't violations to you.

The targeted search by robotic scan after a traffic stop, or the dumb scan from some eye in the sky? I chose the targeted search.as the greater violation because during the stop, I likely won't feel free to leave at any point on my own volition (though I may well be). My person is not secure when I am in a de facto roadside detention, however brief. At least with the eye in the sky, at all points on my journey I travel unimpeded under my own volition. But saying that I take one case as a greater violation and the other case as a lesser violation does not mean that I believe one case is a violation and one case isn't..

Good to hear that. Consider however why I choose a traffic stop as my example for a targeted search. You are being held because of your traffic violation, not because of a search. The stop is just an opportunity for a search no different than driving underneath the eye in the sky is an opportunity.

They MUST be searching for a particularly described place and person, or else they have failed to establish what is necessary to issue warrant for the search.

Might be talking past each other here -- when I first brought up the hypothetical NSA attorney, I was thinking about how he might defend the phone-call meta-data collection efforts. I don't think the "it's not a search" defense works to defend hypothetical devices that can image the contents of vehicles from afar.

Good to hear.

I agree. However, the only slack I've heard anyone present is that government PEOPLE are not searching the collected data UNTIL a reasonable search has been established. No one has yet to present an argument that government PROPERTY has reasonable cause to search for data to collect for later use by government PEOPLE to search with reasonable cause.

The hypothetical argument might be that automated phone-traffic data collection (distinct from phone conversation monitoring) is inherently reasonable. It might be put forth in such a way that takes the "cause" question completely out of the picture: "We don't need a specific reason to conduct a reasonable 'search' -- if you even want to call it a 'search', You Honor". Sounds convoluted, but someone smarter than I might be able to come up with a better nuanced angle.

I agree that people believe the 4th does not address reasonable searches and is only addressing unreasonable searches. I however disagree with that belief for 2 reasons:

1) they defined what is reasonable in the 4th. It is defined by "warrant". Warrant is justification. To warrant means to justify. Where there is warrant, there is reason. Where there is justification, there is reason. The 4th says first there must be warrant (justification... The reason) and second it must be targeted to location and persons. Anything else is unreasonable.

2) the writers were not stupid. They would not take such effort to limit government from unreasonable searches and leave reasonable searches up to somewhere outside of the constitution to be defined. They weren't stupid. They defined what is reasonable in the 4th. People who believe otherwise are assuming the writers were stupid.

 

[Politician Spock]

See, I look at the word Seizure here more than the word Search in the hypotheticals. In a situation where government is obtaining and cataloging data for later use, you might get away with "We're not really searching anything, your Honor." I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that data isn't being seized, however.

Enter the concept of "reasonable seizure" ? Or an argument that "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects" aren't being seized? Not sure what arguments the NSA attorneys will actually make. But the bullets will start flying once the ACLU's cases are heard in District Court ... someone's going to have to come up with something.

The data is being copied. In order to copy it, they have to have access to it. It cannot be copied without being seized, even if it is seized for only a millisecond for the copy to occur.

 

[shader]

Question Tim:

Would you be ok with the US selectively targeting ant

 

[pittstownkiller]

Missed your point about implantation of GPS chips at birth. Talk about your slippery slope. I honestly don't believe this is something you need fear.

Yeah, there is no need to implant GPS chips. Instead they've done it to all Americans with their phones.

...and the reality that pay phones are non-existent, makes your communications traceable.

 

[timschochet]

How many pages of this thread are tim explaining himself? jesus

People keep asking me questions. It would be rude to ignore them.