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

[Redwes25]

He has to be fishing and I think everyone has been caught. It is painful to read this.

 

[RCon]

Nothing is stopping the information from getting into the wrong hands. On the other hand, nothing the government is currently doing makes it more likely that the information will get into the wrong hands.

Collecting it in the first place makes it infinitely more likely it will get into the wrong hands, than if it didn't exist at all.

 

[timschochet]

He has to be fishing and I think everyone has been caught. It is painful to read this.

It isn't, and it's a little astonishing to me how many people accuse me of this, when millions of Americans, along with so many of our leaders in both political parties, seem to agree with me.

But whatever. I'm going to do what Politician Spock wants- I'm leaving this alone for a while, unless something extraordinary happens. The truth is, the whole topic kind of bores me. There's plenty of other political issues I would love to discuss (immigration, anyone?)

 

[Politician Spock]

2. Yes, so long as everyone is subject to the same thing. I'm truly indifferent. Let them have all my emails, phone calls, mail, whatever. They'll never read it. If it helps them keep us safe, good.

Doesn't sound like you think there is any point to having a 4th Amendment at all. Your position is that we have no right to keep any communication or behavior private from the government

As I've repeated a dozen times or more, I don't believe the 4th Amendment applies to mass information searches. Of course it applies to individual searches. So you're wrong again. Getting to be a habit.

You've established that argument from the government's right to collect phone numbers dialed without warrant.

Yet you ignore the fact that when it was established that the government had that right, it was limited to the phone number that was dialed. That is to say, the conversation of the phone call itself was still off limits.

Yet you leap from that premise to nothing is off limits as long as it is done from mass. The idea that the government can do anything as long as it does it in mass has not been supported by anything you've provided in 44 pages of this thread. You're whole argument is based on a weak premise and a huge leap to the conclussion.

I never wrote "nothing is off limits." I wrote that I don't believe that what's currently being done is off limits. I never wrote that the "government can do anything", I wrote that the government can do THIS (what they're currently doing.) And I have supported it; it's not an argument I originated.

Define what you think "THIS" is

No, you define it.

I did. THIS = EVERYTHING.

The burden is on you to show this /= everything.

 

[Redwes25]

He has to be fishing and I think everyone has been caught. It is painful to read this.

It isn't, and it's a little astonishing to me how many people accuse me of this, when millions of Americans, along with so many of our leaders in both political parties, seem to agree with me.

But whatever. I'm going to do what Politician Spock wants- I'm leaving this alone for a while, unless something extraordinary happens. The truth is, the whole topic kind of bores me. There's plenty of other political issues I would love to discuss (immigration, anyone?)

You make statement they can do "This". And when people ask you what that means you refuse to respond. You did this on three things in this thread today. Seems like you are just posting to get people annoyed/response out of them. Seems like fishing to me...

 

[Sand]

It just gets even better - despite the claims that all their activity goes through the secret court they have now been busted for breaking privacy rules thousands of times a year for at least 5 years. And, even better, the court says its ability to monitor and control these activities is limited.

This is just what is known. It is almost certainly happening a lot more than that and certainly at more agencies than this.

 

[drummer]

He has to be fishing and I think everyone has been caught. It is painful to read this.

It isn't, and it's a little astonishing to me how many people accuse me of this, when millions of Americans, along with so many of our leaders in both political parties, seem to agree with me.

But whatever. I'm going to do what Politician Spock wants- I'm leaving this alone for a while, unless something extraordinary happens. The truth is, the whole topic kind of bores me. There's plenty of other political issues I would love to discuss (immigration, anyone?)

 

[drummer]

I am totally outnumbered here. Usually at least SOMEBODy agrees with me. De. Dwtroit, who is extremely knowledgeable about this sort of stuff, seemed to share my POV but he's long since fled- probably doesn't have the patience to deal with all of you.

Anyhow, there's one guy that agrees with me 100% on this issue, and that's Barack Obama!

Our privacy and civil liberties depends on you!

Just wish you knew that the hell you're talking about...

Exactly. The reason he is overwhelmed in here is that he keeps making up things that he can't or refuses to support. Very LHUCKS like.

I suppose I can bring up how sensors and radios in a smartphone, like humidity, accelerometers , GPS, WiFi and data, as well as anything tethered to you to measure your physical being used as data that can ultimately not be considered yours via the gutless Supreme Court. Technology is being disguised as serving you, via servers and apps that aren't yours. You just need to depend on them for they to have value. Technology is created by people smarter than we are, and the more data they have on us, the more smarter the tech becomes.

tim posts that this isn't a big deal, but that's because he is a slave to a message board. So already technology is determining his value with his worth via a simple, old way to enter data that is logged. The more he posts useless words, the more value he brings via web traffic. To think that this is a truly free exercise without thinking of how it's gamed with a totally bought FCC killing free market ISP's, broadcast networks, radio, etc., (thus Comcast and Clear Channel) without even thinking about how this works, as well as who controls the connectivity and how they have the money to control and dominate the marketplace ultimately wastes you time arguing with him. Yet the more you try, the more value it has to this forum.

JuniorNB, tim, and LHUCKS are all the same. Even I can do this. Hottie threads do this. There is no copyright to any of our posts here. If our data isn't ours, then it can be used in any means. Intstagram tried to challenge that, but that data actually had personal tangibility where they couldn't own it via how that data was determined, and that was due to backlash by the market, not the Supreme Court. If our data is being determined by the technology, then it can be argued that it isn't ours because we voluntarily use said technology. If we don't personally own our data, then anybody can use it. What better shadow government like the NSA, who has more authority above what our country is based on, to know how much our data that we don't own is worth?

 

[Slapdash]

It just gets even better - despite the claims that all their activity goes through the secret court they have now been busted for breaking privacy rules thousands of times a year for at least 5 years. And, even better, the court says its ability to monitor and control these activities is limited.

This is just what is known. It is almost certainly happening a lot more than that and certainly at more agencies than this.

[Tim] Of course some abuse, in some of these programs, is inevitable. I don't think it's major and I don't think that in most cases it's worth not having the program. [/Tim]

 

[Slapdash]

“The FISC is forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Court,” its chief, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, said in a written statement to The Washington Post. “The FISC does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance, and in that respect the FISC is in the same position as any other court when it comes to enforcing [government] compliance with its orders.”

So, really, there is no oversight at all.

 

[The Commish]

He has to be fishing and I think everyone has been caught. It is painful to read this.

It isn't, and it's a little astonishing to me how many people accuse me of this, when millions of Americans, along with so many of our leaders in both political parties, seem to agree with me.

But whatever. I'm going to do what Politician Spock wants- I'm leaving this alone for a while, unless something extraordinary happens. The truth is, the whole topic kind of bores me. There's plenty of other political issues I would love to discuss (immigration, anyone?)

If you didn't know anything else about this (as you claim) the bold should be plenty to give you pause on your position.

 

[Slapdash]

He has to be fishing and I think everyone has been caught. It is painful to read this.

It isn't, and it's a little astonishing to me how many people accuse me of this, when millions of Americans, along with so many of our leaders in both political parties, seem to agree with me.

But whatever. I'm going to do what Politician Spock wants- I'm leaving this alone for a while, unless something extraordinary happens. The truth is, the whole topic kind of bores me. There's plenty of other political issues I would love to discuss (immigration, anyone?)

If you didn't know anything else about this (as you claim) the bold should be plenty to give you pause on your position.

It should always be a red flag when you start arguing that millions of people who probably care little about something agree with you.

 

[timschochet]

He has to be fishing and I think everyone has been caught. It is painful to read this.

It isn't, and it's a little astonishing to me how many people accuse me of this, when millions of Americans, along with so many of our leaders in both political parties, seem to agree with me.But whatever. I'm going to do what Politician Spock wants- I'm leaving this alone for a while, unless something extraordinary happens. The truth is, the whole topic kind of bores me. There's plenty of other political issues I would love to discuss (immigration, anyone?)

If you didn't know anything else about this (as you claim) the bold should be plenty to give you pause on your position.

It should always be a red flag when you start arguing that millions of people who probably care little about something agree with you.

I return to this thread just to point out that you and the Commish are absolutely right about this. I don't like discussing what the public likes, it does make me nervous, and I NEVER use it to validate my own POV. Contrary to your assertion I did not do so here. I only even mentioned it in order to show that I was not fishing. And even then I hesitated because I feared being misconstrued.

 

[Doug B]

I am totally outnumbered here. Usually at least SOMEBODy agrees with me. De. Dwtroit, who is extremely knowledgeable about this sort of stuff, seemed to share my POV but he's long since fled- probably doesn't have the patience to deal with all of you.

Anyhow, there's one guy that agrees with me 100% on this issue, and that's Barack Obama!

From a strict Constitutional perspective, your line of reasoning is a non-starter. Distrust of governmental power is inherent in the Constitution. So you're going to go down in an honest debate every time.

(Now, turn your gaze 180 degrees ...)

From the perspective of "what can we do about it?" and "do we have to live with it?" ... I think you can make a lot more hay. Concede that the actions are constitutionally wrong and morally reprehensible ... but submit that the barn door was opened a long time ago and will never be closed again.

 

[Doug B]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread.

What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

 

[Slapdash]

He has to be fishing and I think everyone has been caught. It is painful to read this.

It isn't, and it's a little astonishing to me how many people accuse me of this, when millions of Americans, along with so many of our leaders in both political parties, seem to agree with me.But whatever. I'm going to do what Politician Spock wants- I'm leaving this alone for a while, unless something extraordinary happens. The truth is, the whole topic kind of bores me. There's plenty of other political issues I would love to discuss (immigration, anyone?)

If you didn't know anything else about this (as you claim) the bold should be plenty to give you pause on your position.

It should always be a red flag when you start arguing that millions of people who probably care little about something agree with you.

I return to this thread just to point out that you and the Commish are absolutely right about this. I don't like discussing what the public likes, it does make me nervous, and I NEVER use it to validate my own POV. Contrary to your assertion I did not do so here. I only even mentioned it in order to show that I was not fishing. And even then I hesitated because I feared being misconstrued.

I'd rather you have returned to give you thoughts on new revelations around widespread abuse and lack of oversight.

 

[timschochet]

He has to be fishing and I think everyone has been caught. It is painful to read this.

It isn't, and it's a little astonishing to me how many people accuse me of this, when millions of Americans, along with so many of our leaders in both political parties, seem to agree with me.But whatever. I'm going to do what Politician Spock wants- I'm leaving this alone for a while, unless something extraordinary happens. The truth is, the whole topic kind of bores me. There's plenty of other political issues I would love to discuss (immigration, anyone?)

If you didn't know anything else about this (as you claim) the bold should be plenty to give you pause on your position.

It should always be a red flag when you start arguing that millions of people who probably care little about something agree with you.

I return to this thread just to point out that you and the Commish are absolutely right about this. I don't like discussing what the public likes, it does make me nervous, and I NEVER use it to validate my own POV. Contrary to your assertion I did not do so here. I only even mentioned it in order to show that I was not fishing. And even then I hesitated because I feared being misconstrued.

I'd rather you have returned to give you thoughts on new revelations around widespread abuse and lack of oversight.

The lack of oversight, if true, bothers me greatly. Not because I fear deliberate malevolent government action, but because it will increase the chance of mistakes and abuse which will result in more anecdotal outrages.

What I want is for the NSA to go to a court and say, "We want to perform a mass search through these emails- we're looking for this specific thing." And the whole thing is carefully monitored. That's the claim that Obama and the NSA director have made. If that's not happening, then I have a real problem with it. But my problem is, in that instance, very different from yours, because you see the whole idea as an unnecessary violation of your privacy. I do not.

 

[The Commish]

He has to be fishing and I think everyone has been caught. It is painful to read this.

It isn't, and it's a little astonishing to me how many people accuse me of this, when millions of Americans, along with so many of our leaders in both political parties, seem to agree with me.But whatever. I'm going to do what Politician Spock wants- I'm leaving this alone for a while, unless something extraordinary happens. The truth is, the whole topic kind of bores me. There's plenty of other political issues I would love to discuss (immigration, anyone?)

If you didn't know anything else about this (as you claim) the bold should be plenty to give you pause on your position.

It should always be a red flag when you start arguing that millions of people who probably care little about something agree with you.

I return to this thread just to point out that you and the Commish are absolutely right about this. I don't like discussing what the public likes, it does make me nervous, and I NEVER use it to validate my own POV. Contrary to your assertion I did not do so here. I only even mentioned it in order to show that I was not fishing. And even then I hesitated because I feared being misconstrued.

I'd rather you have returned to give you thoughts on new revelations around widespread abuse and lack of oversight.

The lack of oversight, if true, bothers me greatly. Not because I fear deliberate malevolent government action, but because it will increase the chance of mistakes and abuse which will result in more anecdotal outrages.

What I want is for the NSA to go to a court and say, "We want to perform a mass search through these emails- we're looking for this specific thing." And the whole thing is carefully monitored. That's the claim that Obama and the NSA director have made. If that's not happening, then I have a real problem with it. But my problem is, in that instance, very different from yours, because you see the whole idea as an unnecessary violation of your privacy. I do not.

My problem is the storing of the data more than anything. There's no reason to store all of it by default. Plenty of monitoring tools out there smart enough to only store off what's necessary.

 

[Slapdash]

He has to be fishing and I think everyone has been caught. It is painful to read this.

It isn't, and it's a little astonishing to me how many people accuse me of this, when millions of Americans, along with so many of our leaders in both political parties, seem to agree with me.But whatever. I'm going to do what Politician Spock wants- I'm leaving this alone for a while, unless something extraordinary happens. The truth is, the whole topic kind of bores me. There's plenty of other political issues I would love to discuss (immigration, anyone?)

If you didn't know anything else about this (as you claim) the bold should be plenty to give you pause on your position.

It should always be a red flag when you start arguing that millions of people who probably care little about something agree with you.

I return to this thread just to point out that you and the Commish are absolutely right about this. I don't like discussing what the public likes, it does make me nervous, and I NEVER use it to validate my own POV. Contrary to your assertion I did not do so here. I only even mentioned it in order to show that I was not fishing. And even then I hesitated because I feared being misconstrued.

I'd rather you have returned to give you thoughts on new revelations around widespread abuse and lack of oversight.

The lack of oversight, if true, bothers me greatly. Not because I fear deliberate malevolent government action, but because it will increase the chance of mistakes and abuse which will result in more anecdotal outrages.

What I want is for the NSA to go to a court and say, "We want to perform a mass search through these emails- we're looking for this specific thing." And the whole thing is carefully monitored. That's the claim that Obama and the NSA director have made. If that's not happening, then I have a real problem with it. But my problem is, in that instance, very different from yours, because you see the whole idea as an unnecessary violation of your privacy. I do not.

Why would the head of the FISA court lie?

You shouldn't talk about the chance of abuses now that thousands have come to light. You should talk about the reality of abuses.

 

[RCon]

The lack of oversight, if true, bothers me greatly. Not because I fear deliberate malevolent government action, but because it will increase the chance of mistakes and abuse which will result in more anecdotal outrages.What I want is for the NSA to go to a court and say, "We want to perform a mass search through these emails- we're looking for this specific thing." And the whole thing is carefully monitored. That's the claim that Obama and the NSA director have made. If that's not happening, then I have a real problem with it. But my problem is, in that instance, very different from yours, because you see the whole idea as an unnecessary violation of your privacy. I do not.

What about our government's history, and human nature in general, keeps leading you to A) believe what Obama says, and B) believe that the government will not continually expand the use of this to ever more mundane purposes (i.e. "not terrorism").

Also, how many "anecdotal outrages" are too many? It seems that when you're against something (see: "racism"), one is a disaster and indicative of systemic problems, yet when you're for something, you're happy to lump dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more into an unimportant anecdotal bucket.

 

[timschochet]

The lack of oversight, if true, bothers me greatly. Not because I fear deliberate malevolent government action, but because it will increase the chance of mistakes and abuse which will result in more anecdotal outrages.What I want is for the NSA to go to a court and say, "We want to perform a mass search through these emails- we're looking for this specific thing." And the whole thing is carefully monitored. That's the claim that Obama and the NSA director have made. If that's not happening, then I have a real problem with it. But my problem is, in that instance, very different from yours, because you see the whole idea as an unnecessary violation of your privacy. I do not.

What about our government's history, and human nature in general, keeps leading you to A) believe what Obama says, and B) believe that the government will not continually expand the use of this to ever more mundane purposes (i.e. "not terrorism").

Also, how many "anecdotal outrages" are too many? It seems that when you're against something (see: "racism"), one is a disaster and indicative of systemic problems, yet when you're for something, you're happy to lump dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more into an unimportant anecdotal bucket.

I have to again compliment you for always somehow finding the most piercing contradictions in my arguments. However, while I do believe racism is systemic, I don't see it as result of deliberate government policy- in fact, quite the opposite. In this situation, any significant problems would have to originate with the government, so that's a whole different can of worms. So in the final analysis, I don't think I'm being contradictory. But I appreciate the comparison.

To answer your question: I don't believe that Obama is deliberately lying, because IMO I haven't seen any evidence that he is a particular liar. It may be naive of me (I'm sure you'll think so) but I happen to believe that most politicians on both sides are relatively honest, and that the dishonest ones are usually pretty quickly exposed.

Now, the other question you raise as to whether or not the government will continuously expand the use of this for more mundane purposes- I don't know. It's certainly possible. The collection of the information is inevitable. The government using it to fight terrorism is inevitable (and a good thing IMO). We need safeguards to hopefully prevent it from being used for bad things. That's all we can do.

 

[timschochet]

I apologize. I keep getting sucked into this argument and I don't want to do it anymore. I honestly am very troubled by some of the revelations that Slapdash and others have revealed. I am not typically a "trust the government" sort of guy, I just draw a distinction between malevolence and ineptitude, and I do tend to trust them more on matters of national security. i have very little patience in conspiracy theories of any stripe. All of these factors contributed to my attitude in this thread, and I've gone way out on a limb defending stuff that I don't really know anything about. I'm not going to keep doing that.

 

[tommyboy]

so to summarize where we are in this country, right now.

we have massive government spying on private citizens phone, email and personal computing information.

we have virtually zero oversight

we have a President and Congress that seem to want this, and have ignored their constitutional duties

we have NSA director that has and continues to lie to Congress

we have cooperation between the Federal Gov't and major computer corporations ie Apple, Microsoft and Google, making transfer of private information easy and limitless for our gov't.

Tim doesn't have a problem with this.

reminder:

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.[1]

 

[Doug B]

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.[1]

Having it codified is great. What if no one gives a rip enough to uphold it anymore?

It's not in question (I hope) that the NSA programs et al are unconstitutional. If we grant that, what's a realistic next step? I take it as a given that the programs will continue in some form no matter who's elected, no matter what's done, etc.I'd go so far as to say that the programs are self-actualized, and do not need the sanctioning of the American government or the American people.

 

[Politician Spock]

We shouldn't forget the difference between the ability of our government to collect information online, under strict guidelines and for narrow purposes, and the willingness of some other governments to throw their own citizens in prison for what they say online.

So the executive branch can violate the constitution as long as we are reminded that what they are doing isn't as bad as governments in other countries?

Oh, I hadn't thought about it that way before. Now I understand how you think Tim.

And yes it's as whacked out as I feared.

Oh, by the way Tim... Brandon Raub was arrested and held for over a week by Obama's executive branch because of what he said online. It was not until a judge was willing to fast track his case and rule that the government had NO grounds for their actions that he was finally let go.

So I'm having a hard time distinguishing between Obama's government and the willingness of other governments to jail people for what they say on line. If there is a line between them, it's a thin line.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread.

What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

 

[B-Deep]

I saw this movie!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/

 

[Politician Spock]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

 

[Doug B]

A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

No one's arguing otherwise.

Question: if the NSA-type programs were all publicly halted ... how would you ever know -- truly know -- that it's not still going on under even deeper cover?

 

[Doug B]

Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

Privacy statements are noble, and unquestionably represent the way things should be. The challenge is to enforce them.

 

[tommyboy]

seems to me we had a president that promised hope and change, and a "transformation" of this country.

pretty sure those that voted for him weren't betting on this, 5 years later. How sad.

 

[Doug B]

seems to me we had a president that promised hope and change, and a "transformation" of this country.

pretty sure those that voted for him weren't betting on this, 5 years later. How sad.

Obama doesn't have the power to put a dent in this stuff, anyway.

Should someone like Rand Paul ever get into office, they'll be in for a rude awakening to the way things actually work behind the curtain.

 

[drummer]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

It's data, period.

 

[Politician Spock]

Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

Privacy statements are noble, and unquestionably represent the way things should be. The challenge is to enforce them.

It's a bigger challenge enforcing them when the Fed ignores the Constituion than when it doesn't.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

It's data, period.

I disagree.

There is data that is meant to be shared - message board posts, facebook, instagram, etc...

Then there is data that is meant to be private, i.e. telephone conversations, emails, instant messages, skype calls, banking transactions, web purchases, etc...

You can make the argument that some of the protocols used for the private data is not secure enough and therefore the government has every right to collect this data, but you would be wrong.

 

[Politician Spock]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

It's data, period.

What exists on my papers is just data, yet my papers are constitutionally protected.

Why does the form of data storage matter?

Should the writers of the 4th amendment have had the burden of having the foresight to include the words "digital storage", or is the burden on us in this future day and age to recognize that the intent of the 4th amendment was protecting the personal information, and not the defining of what forms the data can exist in that are not searchable leaving all future forms searchable as they begin to be invented and used?

 

[The Commish]

so to summarize where we are in this country, right now.

we have massive government spying on private citizens phone, email and personal computing information.

we have virtually zero oversight

we have a President and Congress that seem to want this, and have ignored their constitutional duties

we have NSA director that has and continues to lie to Congress

we have cooperation between the Federal Gov't and major computer corporations ie Apple, Microsoft and Google, making transfer of private information easy and limitless for our gov't.

Tim doesn't have a problem with this.

reminder:

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1

been this way for the better part of a couple decades by my estimation.

 

[Politician Spock]

so to summarize where we are in this country, right now.

we have massive government spying on private citizens phone, email and personal computing information.

we have virtually zero oversight

we have a President and Congress that seem to want this, and have ignored their constitutional duties

we have NSA director that has and continues to lie to Congress

we have cooperation between the Federal Gov't and major computer corporations ie Apple, Microsoft and Google, making transfer of private information easy and limitless for our gov't.

Tim doesn't have a problem with this.

reminder:

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.[1]

been this way for the better part of a couple decades by my estimation.

Why did we end slavery? It had been that way for the better part of a couple centuries by my estimation.

The length of time an entity has been doing something wrong has no bearing on whether or not it's wrong and needs to stop.

I'm perfectly fine within the argument that it can't be stopped. That's an issue in itself. But it's an issue of not being able to stop something that should be stopped.

There are people who believe this shouldn't be stopped. That's ridiculous. Of course it should. It may not be stoppable. But it should be stopped.

 

[drummer]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

It's data, period.

I disagree.

There is data that is meant to be shared - message board posts, facebook, instagram, etc...

Then there is data that is meant to be private, i.e. telephone conversations, emails, instant messages, skype calls, banking transactions, web purchases, etc...

You can make the argument that some of the protocols used for the private data is not secure enough and therefore the government has every right to collect this data, but you would be wrong.

It's not the government I'm really worried about. It's how other people are using technology to snoop on you, like the Ars Technica articles I have posted in this thread. I forgot where I read a particular article where as a test, the subject wore a wrist device to track his physical stats (like heart rate, at a particular time of day), and knew when that person was having sex, just due to that data. Another article had posted how a home lighting system could be easily hacked.

The more technology is designed to become more personal in our lives, and maybe make us more dependent on it, is valuable data to others. I'm not trying to sound tin foil hat here. My only question is do we really own our own data, and how can we protect ourselves if it's determined that we don't.

I just find that interesting to think about.

 

[The Commish]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

There's a difference between sharing content and unknowingly broadcasting content that is then collected under the guise of "it's just being broadcast to everyone. i've chosen to collect it" arguments. A perfect example, and I'm surprised it hasn't hit the FFA yet, is that of a simple picture. Depending on the medium, me taking a picture of my child can give anyone willing to search for it the location of my child....in some cases down to the specific street address.

 

[The Commish]

so to summarize where we are in this country, right now.

we have massive government spying on private citizens phone, email and personal computing information.

we have virtually zero oversight

we have a President and Congress that seem to want this, and have ignored their constitutional duties

we have NSA director that has and continues to lie to Congress

we have cooperation between the Federal Gov't and major computer corporations ie Apple, Microsoft and Google, making transfer of private information easy and limitless for our gov't.

Tim doesn't have a problem with this.

reminder:

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.[1]

been this way for the better part of a couple decades by my estimation.

Why did we end slavery? It had been that way for the better part of a couple centuries by my estimation.

The length of time an entity has been doing something wrong has no bearing on whether or not it's wrong and needs to stop.

I'm perfectly fine within the argument that it can't be stopped. That's an issue in itself. But it's an issue of not being able to stop something that should be stopped.

There are people who believe this shouldn't be stopped. That's ridiculous. Of course it should. It may not be stoppable. But it should be stopped.

ok?

 

[Sand]

“The FISC is forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Court,” its chief, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, said in a written statement to The Washington Post. “The FISC does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance, and in that respect the FISC is in the same position as any other court when it comes to enforcing [government] compliance with its orders.”

So, really, there is no oversight at all.

Pretty much.

 

[drummer]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

It's data, period.

What exists on my papers is just data, yet my papers are constitutionally protected.

Why does the form of data storage matter?

Should the writers of the 4th amendment have had the burden of having the foresight to include the words "digital storage", or is the burden on us in this future day and age to recognize that the intent of the 4th amendment was protecting the personal information, and not the defining of what forms the data can exist in that are not searchable leaving all future forms searchable as they begin to be invented and used?

Again, it's data. We're beyond just being physical beings now. We are numbers. Data.

 

[Politician Spock]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

There's a difference between sharing content and unknowingly broadcasting content that is then collected under the guise of "it's just being broadcast to everyone. i've chosen to collect it" arguments. A perfect example, and I'm surprised it hasn't hit the FFA yet, is that of a simple picture. Depending on the medium, me taking a picture of my child can give anyone willing to search for it the location of my child....in some cases down to the specific street address.

That's a red herring. One has nothing to do with the other.

It's no different than when people cry their freedom of speech is being violated when a forum admin deletes their forum post. Freedom of speech and posting on an internet forum have nothing to do with each other. The bill of rights doesn't apply to a website.

If a mail a letter to a corporation, and they publish my letter for all to see... the government can see it just as anyone else can. That's an issue between me and the corporation, not between me and the government.

But if I mail a letter to a corporation, and they do NOT publish my letter for all to see, yet the government collects the contents of that letter from the corporation, because it's collecting ALL contents of ALL letters sent to ALL corporations (thank you timschochet), then that is a 4th ammendment issue between me and the government, as well as an issue between me and the corporation.

Making that same information electronic in it's form of storage and delivery doesn't make a difference.

 

[Politician Spock]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

It's data, period.

What exists on my papers is just data, yet my papers are constitutionally protected.

Why does the form of data storage matter?

Should the writers of the 4th amendment have had the burden of having the foresight to include the words "digital storage", or is the burden on us in this future day and age to recognize that the intent of the 4th amendment was protecting the personal information, and not the defining of what forms the data can exist in that are not searchable leaving all future forms searchable as they begin to be invented and used?

Again, it's data. We're beyond just being physical beings now. We are numbers. Data.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120205054558/memoryalpha/en/images/1/13/Data,_2364.jpg

 

[drummer]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

It's data, period.

What exists on my papers is just data, yet my papers are constitutionally protected.

Why does the form of data storage matter?

Should the writers of the 4th amendment have had the burden of having the foresight to include the words "digital storage", or is the burden on us in this future day and age to recognize that the intent of the 4th amendment was protecting the personal information, and not the defining of what forms the data can exist in that are not searchable leaving all future forms searchable as they begin to be invented and used?

Again, it's data. We're beyond just being physical beings now. We are numbers. Data.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120205054558/memoryalpha/en/images/1/13/Data,_2364.jpg

KHAN!!!

 

[The Commish]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

There's a difference between sharing content and unknowingly broadcasting content that is then collected under the guise of "it's just being broadcast to everyone. i've chosen to collect it" arguments. A perfect example, and I'm surprised it hasn't hit the FFA yet, is that of a simple picture. Depending on the medium, me taking a picture of my child can give anyone willing to search for it the location of my child....in some cases down to the specific street address.

That's a red herring. One has nothing to do with the other.

It's no different than when people cry their freedom of speech is being violated when a forum admin deletes their forum post. Freedom of speech and posting on an internet forum have nothing to do with each other. The bill of rights doesn't apply to a website.

If a mail a letter to a corporation, and they publish my letter for all to see... the government can see it just as anyone else can. That's an issue between me and the corporation, not between me and the government.

But if I mail a letter to a corporation, and they do NOT publish my letter for all to see, yet the government collects the contents of that letter from the corporation, because it's collecting ALL contents of ALL letters sent to ALL corporations (thank you timschochet), then that is a 4th ammendment issue between me and the government, as well as an issue between me and the corporation.

Making that same information electronic in it's form of storage and delivery doesn't make a difference.

What do you mean by "publish"? You need to be careful here because one could easily argue that by the corporation and you not doing everything in your power to keep things encrypted that it is indeed broadcast for all. That would make Tim correct that it's broadcast for anyone interested in listening. I'm not sure why you think it's a red herring....seems to be one of the major tenets of the discussion.

Simply put, the argument that you are sending things electronically for all to see is really no different than you posting the letter for all to see

 

[Politician Spock]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

There's a difference between sharing content and unknowingly broadcasting content that is then collected under the guise of "it's just being broadcast to everyone. i've chosen to collect it" arguments. A perfect example, and I'm surprised it hasn't hit the FFA yet, is that of a simple picture. Depending on the medium, me taking a picture of my child can give anyone willing to search for it the location of my child....in some cases down to the specific street address.

That's a red herring. One has nothing to do with the other.

It's no different than when people cry their freedom of speech is being violated when a forum admin deletes their forum post. Freedom of speech and posting on an internet forum have nothing to do with each other. The bill of rights doesn't apply to a website.

If a mail a letter to a corporation, and they publish my letter for all to see... the government can see it just as anyone else can. That's an issue between me and the corporation, not between me and the government.

But if I mail a letter to a corporation, and they do NOT publish my letter for all to see, yet the government collects the contents of that letter from the corporation, because it's collecting ALL contents of ALL letters sent to ALL corporations (thank you timschochet), then that is a 4th ammendment issue between me and the government, as well as an issue between me and the corporation.

Making that same information electronic in it's form of storage and delivery doesn't make a difference.

What do you mean by "publish"? You need to be careful here because one could easily argue that by the corporation and you not doing everything in your power to keep things encrypted that it is indeed broadcast for all. That would make Tim correct that it's broadcast for anyone interested in listening. I'm not sure why you think it's a red herring....seems to be one of the major tenets of the discussion. Simply put, the argument that you are sending things electronically for all to see is really no different than you posting the letter for all to see

I don't have to be careful because its a BS argument.

When I write a letter to someone and send it via the US mail, fed ex, ups, or whatever, my choice to write in plain English instead of wrting it encrypted does not reflect my intent that it can be broadcasted for all. The company will have to have a better reason of intent to publish than just my choice of not writing encrypted letters with the ink on the paper.

The idea that the sending that same information via a digital format, without encrypting it, becomes a broadcast for all right is ridiculous. If it were true, then the same applies to written letters. Encryption isn't mutually exclusive to electronic communication.

 

[The Commish]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

There's a difference between sharing content and unknowingly broadcasting content that is then collected under the guise of "it's just being broadcast to everyone. i've chosen to collect it" arguments. A perfect example, and I'm surprised it hasn't hit the FFA yet, is that of a simple picture. Depending on the medium, me taking a picture of my child can give anyone willing to search for it the location of my child....in some cases down to the specific street address.

That's a red herring. One has nothing to do with the other.

It's no different than when people cry their freedom of speech is being violated when a forum admin deletes their forum post. Freedom of speech and posting on an internet forum have nothing to do with each other. The bill of rights doesn't apply to a website.

If a mail a letter to a corporation, and they publish my letter for all to see... the government can see it just as anyone else can. That's an issue between me and the corporation, not between me and the government.

But if I mail a letter to a corporation, and they do NOT publish my letter for all to see, yet the government collects the contents of that letter from the corporation, because it's collecting ALL contents of ALL letters sent to ALL corporations (thank you timschochet), then that is a 4th ammendment issue between me and the government, as well as an issue between me and the corporation.

Making that same information electronic in it's form of storage and delivery doesn't make a difference.

What do you mean by "publish"? You need to be careful here because one could easily argue that by the corporation and you not doing everything in your power to keep things encrypted that it is indeed broadcast for all. That would make Tim correct that it's broadcast for anyone interested in listening. I'm not sure why you think it's a red herring....seems to be one of the major tenets of the discussion. Simply put, the argument that you are sending things electronically for all to see is really no different than you posting the letter for all to see

I don't have to be careful because its a BS argument.

When I write a letter to someone and send it via the US mail, fed ex, ups, or whatever, my choice to write in plain English instead of wrting it encrypted does not reflect my intent that it can be broadcasted for all. The company will have to have a better reason of intent to publish than just my choice of not writing encrypted letters with the ink on the paper.

The idea that the sending that same information via a digital format, without encrypting it, becomes a broadcast for all right is ridiculous. If it were true, then the same applies to written letters. Encryption isn't mutually exclusive to electronic communication.

Your analogy is way off...as for the letter, it being in an envelope you can't see through tells you the intent. Most transmissions over the net are as if you just put a letter in the mail in a see through envelope. It's there for anyone to read. You can ignore that all you want, but it's not any more complicated than that. Doesn't really matter what "language" it's written in. You never answered my question by what you meant by "publish"

 

[Politician Spock]

Drummer's post #2208 needs to be read by all participants in this thread. What he's saying indirectly is that we are almost certainly living in a post-privacy world, whether we explicitly agreed to it or not. The cost of being connected, plugged in, able to use virtual currency, etc. -- the cover charge we must pay to play -- is our privacy.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

It is. And it's also Nearly every website worth its salt has a privacy statement detailing what information given to the website can and cannot be shared with third parties. Pretty much all technology services provide the same privacy statement. To suggest that we are now in a post privacy world where the government is immune to such privacy statement third party restrictions is not only defeatist, it's ridiculous. A post privacy world is a non-Constitutional world. We used to live in a non-Constitutional world. It's not progression. it's regression.

There's a difference between sharing content and unknowingly broadcasting content that is then collected under the guise of "it's just being broadcast to everyone. i've chosen to collect it" arguments. A perfect example, and I'm surprised it hasn't hit the FFA yet, is that of a simple picture. Depending on the medium, me taking a picture of my child can give anyone willing to search for it the location of my child....in some cases down to the specific street address.

That's a red herring. One has nothing to do with the other.

It's no different than when people cry their freedom of speech is being violated when a forum admin deletes their forum post. Freedom of speech and posting on an internet forum have nothing to do with each other. The bill of rights doesn't apply to a website.

If a mail a letter to a corporation, and they publish my letter for all to see... the government can see it just as anyone else can. That's an issue between me and the corporation, not between me and the government.

But if I mail a letter to a corporation, and they do NOT publish my letter for all to see, yet the government collects the contents of that letter from the corporation, because it's collecting ALL contents of ALL letters sent to ALL corporations (thank you timschochet), then that is a 4th ammendment issue between me and the government, as well as an issue between me and the corporation.

Making that same information electronic in it's form of storage and delivery doesn't make a difference.

What do you mean by "publish"? You need to be careful here because one could easily argue that by the corporation and you not doing everything in your power to keep things encrypted that it is indeed broadcast for all. That would make Tim correct that it's broadcast for anyone interested in listening. I'm not sure why you think it's a red herring....seems to be one of the major tenets of the discussion. Simply put, the argument that you are sending things electronically for all to see is really no different than you posting the letter for all to see

I don't have to be careful because its a BS argument.

When I write a letter to someone and send it via the US mail, fed ex, ups, or whatever, my choice to write in plain English instead of wrting it encrypted does not reflect my intent that it can be broadcasted for all. The company will have to have a better reason of intent to publish than just my choice of not writing encrypted letters with the ink on the paper.

The idea that the sending that same information via a digital format, without encrypting it, becomes a broadcast for all right is ridiculous. If it were true, then the same applies to written letters. Encryption isn't mutually exclusive to electronic communication.

Your analogy is way off...as for the letter, it being in an envelope you can't see through tells you the intent. Most transmissions over the net are as if you just put a letter in the mail in a see through envelope. It's there for anyone to read. You can ignore that all you want, but it's not any more complicated than that. Doesn't really matter what "language" it's written in. You never answered my question by what you meant by "publish"

The fact that you are talking about an issue that exists before the company even received the letter is why you don't understand what I mean by publish.

The whole format of how electronic data is transmitted is another issue. I'm talking about a company having received my letter, whether via paper delivery or digital transmition, making the letter visable to all... even the government. I don't care how. Choose any mether you like. They all end up with the same point. At that point the issue has absolutely nothing to do with the 4th, because the government is seeing the same thing everyone can see. My issue is with the company and the company alone.

If however the company received my letter, whether via paper delivery or digital transmission, and did NOT make it visable to all... then government collecting the contents of it FROM THE COMPANY (again, not from packet sniffers on collecting unencrypted packets on the internet), even if the collection of the content of my letter is part of a mass collection (to satisfy timschochet), that is a 4th amendment issue, as well as an issue I have with the company.

HOW the company got the letter from me, even if they received it via unencrypted digital transmission doesn't change the fact that the government is violating the fourth getting me letter FROM THE COMPANY. This is the issue, because Snowden showed us the government is collecting the information FROM THE COMPANIES!!! and even showed the dates that each company got added to the program.

The fact that the government could put sniffers on the internet and collect all the packets, and read the unencrypted ones has nothing to do with this. They might be doing that. They might not be doing that. But according to Snowden, they are collecting information FROM THE COMPANIES!!!!