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

[timschochet]

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"?

The whole point is that right now nobody is going around reading your emails. There's a computer scanning them, looking for certain patterns. Nobody is looking through your ####. That's why it's not a violation.

In every "what if" example you and others keep throwing at me, somebody is actually looking through your ####. That's when it becomes a violation.

 

[timschochet]

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?

It is never appropriate for anything other than a computer program to gather and search through mass data without a warrant. The minute a human does it, and is actually reading the stuff, it's a violation.

 

[timschochet]

Tim has gotta be

No I'm not.

 

[pittstownkiller]

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"?

The whole point is that right now nobody is going around reading your emails. There's a computer scanning them, looking for certain patterns. Nobody is looking through your ####. That's why it's not a violation.In every "what if" example you and others keep throwing at me, somebody is actually looking through your ####. That's when it becomes a violation.

You get accused of a crime, they investigate you and get search warrants - all fine; here they collect information about you and store it, to be used against you if you are ever accused of a crime - not quite so good.

 

[timschochet]

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.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you. Not only have I explained my position several times, but I've also pasted numerous very intelligent people, not working for the government, who support my position. For you (and Politician Spock as well) to behave as if anyone who disagrees with you on this must be an idiot is extremely insulting.

 

[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.

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.

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

 

[timschochet]

Question Tim:

Would you be ok with the US selectively targeting ant

Sorry I don't understand.

 

[timschochet]

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"?

The whole point is that right now nobody is going around reading your emails. There's a computer scanning them, looking for certain patterns. Nobody is looking through your ####. That's why it's not a violation.In every "what if" example you and others keep throwing at me, somebody is actually looking through your ####. That's when it becomes a violation.

You get accused of a crime, they investigate you and get search warrants - all fine; here they collect information about you and store it, to be used against you if you are ever accused of a crime - not quite so good.

According to the director of the NSA, they destroy the information. That is one of the conditions that is important to me. The information gathered can be used for data mining, but not for anything else.

 

[timschochet]

Hopefully I've responded to everyone.

 

[pittstownkiller]

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"?

The whole point is that right now nobody is going around reading your emails. There's a computer scanning them, looking for certain patterns. Nobody is looking through your ####. That's why it's not a violation.In every "what if" example you and others keep throwing at me, somebody is actually looking through your ####. That's when it becomes a violation.

You get accused of a crime, they investigate you and get search warrants - all fine; here they collect information about you and store it, to be used against you if you are ever accused of a crime - not quite so good.

According to the director of the NSA, they destroy the information. That is one of the conditions that is important to me. The information gathered can be used for data mining, but not for anything else.

Do you have any concerns that an outside agency could subpoena this information now that it exists?

 

[timschochet]

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"?

The whole point is that right now nobody is going around reading your emails. There's a computer scanning them, looking for certain patterns. Nobody is looking through your ####. That's why it's not a violation.In every "what if" example you and others keep throwing at me, somebody is actually looking through your ####. That's when it becomes a violation.

You get accused of a crime, they investigate you and get search warrants - all fine; here they collect information about you and store it, to be used against you if you are ever accused of a crime - not quite so good.

According to the director of the NSA, they destroy the information. That is one of the conditions that is important to me. The information gathered can be used for data mining, but not for anything else.

Do you have any concerns that an outside agency could subpoena this information now that it exists?

I have all kinds of concerns. Right now they're not big concerns, though. I want to know more about the program; hopefully we will. I think the question of privacy vs. security is a debate we need to have in the open, in public, as much as possible.

 

[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.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you. Not only have I explained my position several times, but I've also pasted numerous very intelligent people, not working for the government, who support my position. For you (and Politician Spock as well) to behave as if anyone who disagrees with you on this must be an idiot is extremely insulting.

I was being honest. You seem to be hung up on the (human) profiling before the act and are ignoring the (human) profiling that happens after the act. By recording everything and linking it together using an easily identifiable key like email address and giving access to perform these queries to analysts (a low level worker for the NSA) either by key (email address) or by any criteria they want (profile data) removes the "computer is just data mining" argument you keep using.

Also without oversight the NSA can use any definition they choose to identify what they consider a "domestic" terrorist.

 

[RCon]

Question Tim:

Would you be ok with the US selectively targeting ant

Sorry I don't understand.

What's so complex? Are you or are you not OK with the government recording data about the migratory patterns of ants?

 

[timschochet]

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.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you. Not only have I explained my position several times, but I've also pasted numerous very intelligent people, not working for the government, who support my position. For you (and Politician Spock as well) to behave as if anyone who disagrees with you on this must be an idiot is extremely insulting.

I was being honest. You seem to be hung up on the (human) profiling before the act and are ignoring the (human) profiling that happens after the act. By recording everything and linking it together using an easily identifiable key like email address and giving access to perform these queries to analysts (a low level worker for the NSA) either by key (email address) or by any criteria they want (profile data) removes the "computer is just data mining" argument you keep using.

Also without oversight the NSA can use any definition they choose to identify what they consider a "domestic" terrorist.

Without oversight there's really nothing the NSA can't do, I suppose. Whatever gave you the idea that there was no oversight?

 

[timschochet]

Question Tim:

Would you be ok with the US selectively targeting ant

Sorry I don't understand.

What's so complex? Are you or are you not OK with the government recording data about the migratory patterns of ants?

Is that was he's talking about? Or is he talking about selectively targeting ants- red ants, Jewish aunts, etc.?

 

[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"?

The whole point is that right now nobody is going around reading your emails. There's a computer scanning them, looking for certain patterns. Nobody is looking through your ####. That's why it's not a violation.

In every "what if" example you and others keep throwing at me, somebody is actually looking through your ####. That's when it becomes a violation.

So if I modified the last one to...

"Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) data is searched and collected only by non-human automated processes."

...do I have an accurate portrayal of your position?

 

[RCon]

Question Tim:

Would you be ok with the US selectively targeting ant

Sorry I don't understand.

What's so complex? Are you or are you not OK with the government recording data about the migratory patterns of ants?

Is that was he's talking about? Or is he talking about selectively targeting ants- red ants, Jewish aunts, etc.?

I'm assuming army ants. Those ####ers have been looking to take over this country for ages.

 

[timschochet]

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"?

The whole point is that right now nobody is going around reading your emails. There's a computer scanning them, looking for certain patterns. Nobody is looking through your ####. That's why it's not a violation.

In every "what if" example you and others keep throwing at me, somebody is actually looking through your ####. That's when it becomes a violation.

So if I modified the last one to...

"Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) data is searched and collected only by non-human automated processes."

...do I have an accurate portrayal of your position?

Pretty much, yeah. I think that's accurate. I want a good reason for the mass search, and I want oversight.

 

[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.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you. Not only have I explained my position several times, but I've also pasted numerous very intelligent people, not working for the government, who support my position. For you (and Politician Spock as well) to behave as if anyone who disagrees with you on this must be an idiot is extremely insulting.

I was being honest. You seem to be hung up on the (human) profiling before the act and are ignoring the (human) profiling that happens after the act. By recording everything and linking it together using an easily identifiable key like email address and giving access to perform these queries to analysts (a low level worker for the NSA) either by key (email address) or by any criteria they want (profile data) removes the "computer is just data mining" argument you keep using.

Also without oversight the NSA can use any definition they choose to identify what they consider a "domestic" terrorist.

Without oversight there's really nothing the NSA can't do, I suppose. Whatever gave you the idea that there was no oversight?

oversight and transparency are pretty much the same thing right? Snowden did what he did since there was no transparency with NSA's activities.

"There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency."

 

[Politician Spock]

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"?

The whole point is that right now nobody is going around reading your emails. There's a computer scanning them, looking for certain patterns. Nobody is looking through your ####. That's why it's not a violation.In every "what if" example you and others keep throwing at me, somebody is actually looking through your ####. That's when it becomes a violation.

Did the computer magically program itself?

 

[Politician Spock]

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?

It is never appropriate for anything other than a computer program to gather and search through mass data without a warrant. The minute a human does it, and is actually reading the stuff, it's a violation.

Please explain how the Bill of Rights limits what government people can do, but does not limit what government property can do, especially given the property does not do anything without a person telling it what to do.

 

[Politician Spock]

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.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you. Not only have I explained my position several times, but I've also pasted numerous very intelligent people, not working for the government, who support my position. For you (and Politician Spock as well) to behave as if anyone who disagrees with you on this must be an idiot is extremely insulting.

Please stop grouping people. You are an idiot all by yourself.

 

[timschochet]

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?

It is never appropriate for anything other than a computer program to gather and search through mass data without a warrant. The minute a human does it, and is actually reading the stuff, it's a violation.

Please explain how the Bill of Rights limits what government people can do, but does not limit what government property can do, especially given the property does not do anything without a person telling it what to do.

Do you really want me to explain?

 

[Politician Spock]

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?

It is never appropriate for anything other than a computer program to gather and search through mass data without a warrant. The minute a human does it, and is actually reading the stuff, it's a violation.

Please explain how the Bill of Rights limits what government people can do, but does not limit what government property can do, especially given the property does not do anything without a person telling it what to do.

Do you really want me to explain?

Not if your explanation requires it's own explanation. That downward spiraling process represents over 80% of the posts in this thread.

 

[timschochet]

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?

It is never appropriate for anything other than a computer program to gather and search through mass data without a warrant. The minute a human does it, and is actually reading the stuff, it's a violation.

Please explain how the Bill of Rights limits what government people can do, but does not limit what government property can do, especially given the property does not do anything without a person telling it what to do.

Do you really want me to explain?

Not if your explanation requires it's own explanation. That downward spiraling process represents over 80% of the posts in this thread.

Your question is irrelevant. And inaccurate as to my point. The Bill of Rights limits both.

 

[RCon]

So if I modified the last one to..."Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) data is searched and collected only by non-human automated processes."

...do I have an accurate portrayal of your position?

Pretty much, yeah. I think that's accurate. I want a good reason for the mass search, and I want oversight.

Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail would be OK, then? Also, if OK, OK to do for FedEx and other private couriers, or just USPS?

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

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

 

[timschochet]

So if I modified the last one to..."Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) data is searched and collected only by non-human automated processes."

...do I have an accurate portrayal of your position?

Pretty much, yeah. I think that's accurate. I want a good reason for the mass search, and I want oversight.

Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail would be OK, then? Also, if OK, OK to do for FedEx and other private couriers, or just USPS?

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

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

It depends on the program, and the reason and the oversight. But if you're asking me if the principle involved is the same, it is. We're probably heading toward all of this anyhow. In about 30-50 years there may not be any physical mail.

 

[Slapdash]

Please explain how the Bill of Rights limits what government people can do, but does not limit what government property can do, especially given the property does not do anything without a person telling it what to do.

It must be the little know robot exception that James Madison implied.

 

[Politician Spock]

Please explain how the Bill of Rights limits what government people can do, but does not limit what government property can do, especially given the property does not do anything without a person telling it what to do.

It must be the little know robot exception that James Madison implied.

A very forward thinking man he was.

 

[RCon]

So if I modified the last one to..."Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) data is searched and collected only by non-human automated processes."

...do I have an accurate portrayal of your position?

Pretty much, yeah. I think that's accurate. I want a good reason for the mass search, and I want oversight.

Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail would be OK, then? Also, if OK, OK to do for FedEx and other private couriers, or just USPS?

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

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

It depends on the program, and the reason and the oversight. But if you're asking me if the principle involved is the same, it is. We're probably heading toward all of this anyhow. In about 30-50 years there may not be any physical mail.

Program: Patriot Act

Reason: To stop terrorists, of course.

Oversight: Same as now, or in other words, virtually none.

All OK?

 

[timschochet]

So if I modified the last one to...

"Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) data is searched and collected only by non-human automated processes."

...do I have an accurate portrayal of your position?

Pretty much, yeah. I think that's accurate. I want a good reason for the mass search, and I want oversight.

Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail would be OK, then? Also, if OK, OK to do for FedEx and other private couriers, or just USPS?Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

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

It depends on the program, and the reason and the oversight. But if you're asking me if the principle involved is the same, it is. We're probably heading toward all of this anyhow. In about 30-50 years there may not be any physical mail.

Program: Patriot ActReason: To stop terrorists, of course.

Oversight: Same as now, or in other words, virtually none.

All OK?

Can you prove the "virtually none?" The NSA director says otherwise. My answer to your question is no. I want good oversight.

 

[Slapdash]

Please explain how the Bill of Rights limits what government people can do, but does not limit what government property can do, especially given the property does not do anything without a person telling it what to do.

It must be the little know robot exception that James Madison implied.

A very forward thinking man he was.

Certainly can't compare with the intellectual titans of today like Thomas Friedman.

 

[Politician Spock]

Please explain how the Bill of Rights limits what government people can do, but does not limit what government property can do, especially given the property does not do anything without a person telling it what to do.

It must be the little know robot exception that James Madison implied.

A very forward thinking man he was.

Certainly can't compare with the intellectual titans of today like Thomas Friedman.

I find Thomas Friedman's opinion on the Madison robot exception to be the least unsubstantiated opinion on the matter I have ever not unheard.

 

[RCon]

So if I modified the last one to...

"Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) data is searched and collected only by non-human automated processes."

...do I have an accurate portrayal of your position?

Pretty much, yeah. I think that's accurate. I want a good reason for the mass search, and I want oversight.

Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail would be OK, then? Also, if OK, OK to do for FedEx and other private couriers, or just USPS?Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

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

It depends on the program, and the reason and the oversight. But if you're asking me if the principle involved is the same, it is. We're probably heading toward all of this anyhow. In about 30-50 years there may not be any physical mail.

Program: Patriot ActReason: To stop terrorists, of course.

Oversight: Same as now, or in other words, virtually none.

All OK?

Can you prove the "virtually none?" The NSA director says otherwise.My answer to your question is no. I want good oversight.

Are you trying to avoid the questions? Assume they are all part the same program as what we currently know of PRISM. I'm really just trying to find a line here where it becomes "not OK". I'm assuming you have one.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Tim's line is now: must be greater than "no oversight"

 

[tommyboy]

So if I modified the last one to...

"Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) data is searched and collected only by non-human automated processes."

...do I have an accurate portrayal of your position?

Pretty much, yeah. I think that's accurate. I want a good reason for the mass search, and I want oversight.

Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail would be OK, then? Also, if OK, OK to do for FedEx and other private couriers, or just USPS?Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

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

It depends on the program, and the reason and the oversight. But if you're asking me if the principle involved is the same, it is. We're probably heading toward all of this anyhow. In about 30-50 years there may not be any physical mail.

Program: Patriot ActReason: To stop terrorists, of course.

Oversight: Same as now, or in other words, virtually none.

All OK?

Can you prove the "virtually none?" The NSA director says otherwise.My answer to your question is no. I want good oversight.

James Clapper, he of the "least untruthful" response. Yeah, I believe everything he says.

 

[timschochet]

Please explain how the Bill of Rights limits what government people can do, but does not limit what government property can do, especially given the property does not do anything without a person telling it what to do.

It must be the little know robot exception that James Madison implied.

A very forward thinking man he was.

Certainly can't compare with the intellectual titans of today like Thomas Friedman.

OK now see that was funny. So many people who attempt sarcasm fail because they have no sense of humor. Strike wouldn't know funny if it bit him in the ###. (And no Strike, that was NOT a personal insult).

 

[tommyboy]

beyond the rights violation part of the NSA scandal, I'm also concerned about future abuse by different branches of gov't that may and probably will try to tap into this information for any of a number of reasons.

I'm also concerned this archive of information can be hacked by people or groups outside the control of our gov't

 

[Nikki2200]

Obama is talking about this on Charlie Rose right now. He makes me mad because I start to believe him and then I get mad at myself for getting sucked in by his charm.

 

[timschochet]

So if I modified the last one to...

"Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) data is searched and collected only by non-human automated processes."

...do I have an accurate portrayal of your position?

Pretty much, yeah. I think that's accurate. I want a good reason for the mass search, and I want oversight.

Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail would be OK, then? Also, if OK, OK to do for FedEx and other private couriers, or just USPS?Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

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

It depends on the program, and the reason and the oversight. But if you're asking me if the principle involved is the same, it is. We're probably heading toward all of this anyhow. In about 30-50 years there may not be any physical mail.

Program: Patriot ActReason: To stop terrorists, of course.

Oversight: Same as now, or in other words, virtually none.

All OK?

Can you prove the "virtually none?" The NSA director says otherwise.My answer to your question is no. I want good oversight.

Are you trying to avoid the questions? Assume they are all part the same program as what we currently know of PRISM. I'm really just trying to find a line here where it becomes "not OK". I'm assuming you have one.

Have I yet tried to avoid one of your questions? But I can only answer the same question so many times. I e told you what's important to me to make it not a violation and what would. There's noagical line in the sand. Each example would have to be judged on its own merits. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I can define a violation of civil liberties but I know it when I see it. PRISM ain't it.

 

[timschochet]

Obama is talking about this on Charlie Rose right now. He makes me mad because I start to believe him and then I get mad at myself for getting sucked in by his charm.

Dammit! How come you don't get sucked in by MY charm?

 

[drummer]

Obama is talking about this on Charlie Rose right now. He makes me mad because I start to believe him and then I get mad at myself for getting sucked in by his charm.

Dammit! How come you don't get sucked in by MY charm?

*sigh*......Still making this about you.....*rolleyes*

 

[Nikki2200]

Obama is talking about this on Charlie Rose right now. He makes me mad because I start to believe him and then I get mad at myself for getting sucked in by his charm.

Dammit! How come you don't get sucked in by MY charm?

I'm not sure I'd call what you're sporting "charm", there Tim.

 

[Politician Spock]

Obama is talking about this on Charlie Rose right now. He makes me mad because I start to believe him and then I get mad at myself for getting sucked in by his charm.

Dammit! How come you don't get sucked in by MY charm?

*sigh*......Still making this about you.....*rolleyes*

 

[The Commish]

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

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

 

[RCon]

So if I modified the last one to...

"Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) data is searched and collected only by non-human automated processes."

...do I have an accurate portrayal of your position?

Pretty much, yeah. I think that's accurate. I want a good reason for the mass search, and I want oversight.

Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail would be OK, then? Also, if OK, OK to do for FedEx and other private couriers, or just USPS?Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

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

It depends on the program, and the reason and the oversight. But if you're asking me if the principle involved is the same, it is. We're probably heading toward all of this anyhow. In about 30-50 years there may not be any physical mail.

Program: Patriot ActReason: To stop terrorists, of course.

Oversight: Same as now, or in other words, virtually none.

All OK?

Can you prove the "virtually none?" The NSA director says otherwise.My answer to your question is no. I want good oversight.

Are you trying to avoid the questions? Assume they are all part the same program as what we currently know of PRISM. I'm really just trying to find a line here where it becomes "not OK". I'm assuming you have one.

Have I yet tried to avoid one of your questions? But I can only answer the same question so many times. I e told you what's important to me to make it not a violation and what would. There's noagical line in the sand. Each example would have to be judged on its own merits. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I can define a violation of civil liberties but I know it when I see it. PRISM ain't it.

So would those three examples be violations or not?

 

[timschochet]

So if I modified the last one to...

"Government searches do not violate civil liberties as long as both A) the search extends to everyone equally, and B) data is searched and collected only by non-human automated processes."

...do I have an accurate portrayal of your position?

Pretty much, yeah. I think that's accurate. I want a good reason for the mass search, and I want oversight.

Automated opening, scanning, closing, and resealing of physical mail would be OK, then? Also, if OK, OK to do for FedEx and other private couriers, or just USPS?Automated recording of all phone calls (wired or wireless), domestic and international?

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

It depends on the program, and the reason and the oversight. But if you're asking me if the principle involved is the same, it is. We're probably heading toward all of this anyhow. In about 30-50 years there may not be any physical mail.

Program: Patriot ActReason: To stop terrorists, of course.

Oversight: Same as now, or in other words, virtually none.

All OK?

Can you prove the "virtually none?" The NSA director says otherwise.My answer to your question is no. I want good oversight.

Are you trying to avoid the questions? Assume they are all part the same program as what we currently know of PRISM. I'm really just trying to find a line here where it becomes "not OK". I'm assuming you have one.

Have I yet tried to avoid one of your questions? But I can only answer the same question so many times. I e told you what's important to me to make it not a violation and what would. There's noagical line in the sand. Each example would have to be judged on its own merits. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I can define a violation of civil liberties but I know it when I see it. PRISM ain't it.

So would those three examples be violations or not?

For a specific purpose approved of by Congress, with proper oversight, yes.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

 

[mattdaddy]

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

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

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

[SIZE=medium]Hypothetical:[/SIZE]

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

 

[shader]

Tim,

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

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

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

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