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

[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But if I mail a letter to a corporation, and they do NOT publish my letter for all to see, yet the government collects the contents of that letter from the corporation, because it's collecting ALL contents of ALL letters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"

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!!!!

Why are you putting this all on the receiver of the information? You're right, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you broadcast it out for all to see, regardless of medium chosen, it's out there for all to see. I don't see what the company receiving it has to do with the equation. I think you're drawing a dubious line if you're saying the government is violating the 4th amendment by acquiring data that I broadcast for all to see simply because they went to the company to get it. I get being outraged with both or being ok with both...I don't get being ok with one but not the other.

If you are talking about instances where I do everything in my power to keep things encrypted, the company decrypts and goes against their Terms of Service and publishes it, I can see the point as well. I didn't get the impression that was what you were talking about though. I doubt many people go to the trouble or even know how to go to the trouble to keep things secure.

 

[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!!!!

Why are you putting this all on the receiver of the information? You're right, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you broadcast it out for all to see, regardless of medium chosen, it's out there for all to see. I don't see what the company receiving it has to do with the equation. I think you're drawing a dubious line if you're saying the government is violating the 4th amendment by acquiring data that I broadcast for all to see simply because they went to the company to get it. I get being outraged with both or being ok with both...I don't get being ok with one but not the other. If you are talking about instances where I do everything in my power to keep things encrypted, the company decrypts and goes against their Terms of Service and publishes it, I can see the point as well. I didn't get the impression that was what you were talking about though. I doubt many people go to the trouble or even know how to go to the trouble to keep things secure.

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

 

[Slapdash]

Lavabit.com owner: 'I could be arrested' for resisting surveillance order: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/13/20008036-lavabitcom-owner-i-could-be-arrested-for-resisting-surveillance-order?lite

 

[The Commish]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

 

[Politician Spock]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

So the company's privacy statements are meaningless because the burden is all mine to encrypt everything I don't want them to share with third parties, even the stuff their privacy statement says they won't.

 

[RCon]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

If we're talking about e-mail, the information isn't really broadcast. Well-designed SMTP servers connect directly from sender to receiver without sending the information between middlemen. Yes, there are routers, firewalls, etc. in between, but short of packet sniffers directly on those devices, there's nothing being "broadcast", even for unencrypted messages.

 

[The Commish]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

So the company's privacy statements are meaningless because the burden is all mine to encrypt everything I don't want them to share with third parties, even the stuff their privacy statement says they won't.

All privacy statements are different. Talking about them in general is pointless. I know our privacy statements make no promise about data the consumer passes to us outside of our infrastructure. All communications made within our apps (like system mail) are guaranteed. And as I said before, if they promise to keep it private, then it's on them, but this is moving the goal posts from the initial discussion. I don't know many companies that promise to keep an inquiry email private for example. Perhaps we are talking about different scenarios. I'm not sure at this point. Events like this are what I am talking about. This is the type of activity that gets to me....much more so than the NSA going to companies to get information that anyone could have gotten at the time it was sent.

 

[The Commish]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

If we're talking about e-mail, the information isn't really broadcast. Well-designed SMTP servers connect directly from sender to receiver without sending the information between middlemen. Yes, there are routers, firewalls, etc. in between, but short of packet sniffers directly on those devices, there's nothing being "broadcast", even for unencrypted messages.

Once this information hits the internet it's broadcast and fair game to anyone else on the internet IMO. This is the position my company takes as well a lot of others in our industry and it's why we take the precautions to keep the packets safe for sensitive information.

 

[Politician Spock]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

So the company's privacy statements are meaningless because the burden is all mine to encrypt everything I don't want them to share with third parties, even the stuff their privacy statement says they won't.

All privacy statements are different. Talking about them in general is pointless. I know our privacy statements make no promise about data the consumer passes to us outside of our infrastructure. All communications made within our apps (like system mail) are guaranteed. And as I said before, if they promise to keep it private, then it's on them, but this is moving the goal posts from the initial discussion. I don't know many companies that promise to keep an inquiry email private for example. Perhaps we are talking about different scenarios. I'm not sure at this point. Events like this are what I am talking about. This is the type of activity that gets to me....much more so than the NSA going to companies to get information that anyone could have gotten at the time it was sent.

The bolded is a load of BS!

This discussion you and I have been engaged in for the past page or two started with you in post #2240 responding to my post #2228.

In post 2228 I said:

"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. "

The whole context of our discussion has been the issue of the government being immune to the privacy statements companies make with us regarding the info we give them. If you have been talking outside of that context, then you have been talking past me the entire time and this exchange has been an entire waste of energy.

If you think privacy statements are pointless, then doesn't that open the door that they exist to deceive?

 

[Slapdash]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

If we're talking about e-mail, the information isn't really broadcast. Well-designed SMTP servers connect directly from sender to receiver without sending the information between middlemen. Yes, there are routers, firewalls, etc. in between, but short of packet sniffers directly on those devices, there's nothing being "broadcast", even for unencrypted messages.

Once this information hits the internet it's broadcast and fair game to anyone else on the internet IMO. This is the position my company takes as well a lot of others in our industry and it's why we take the precautions to keep the packets safe for sensitive information.

Doesn't this still mean that most data a person creates/sends/stores online is in insecure packets? Particularly since we know the gov't is engaged in packet sniffing on a massive scale.

This is just setting aside evidence that the gov't collects and decrypts secure communications as well (see: Lavabit).

 

[The Commish]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

If we're talking about e-mail, the information isn't really broadcast. Well-designed SMTP servers connect directly from sender to receiver without sending the information between middlemen. Yes, there are routers, firewalls, etc. in between, but short of packet sniffers directly on those devices, there's nothing being "broadcast", even for unencrypted messages.

Once this information hits the internet it's broadcast and fair game to anyone else on the internet IMO. This is the position my company takes as well a lot of others in our industry and it's why we take the precautions to keep the packets safe for sensitive information.

Doesn't this still mean that most data a person creates/sends/stores online is in insecure packets? Particularly since we know the gov't is engaged in packet sniffing on a massive scale.

This is just setting aside evidence that the gov't collects and decrypts secure communications as well (see: Lavabit).

99% of it is probably insecure. That's by choice though and why I don't really have a problem with the government going to companies for data that's broadcast for all to see in the first place.

 

[The Commish]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

So the company's privacy statements are meaningless because the burden is all mine to encrypt everything I don't want them to share with third parties, even the stuff their privacy statement says they won't.

All privacy statements are different. Talking about them in general is pointless. I know our privacy statements make no promise about data the consumer passes to us outside of our infrastructure. All communications made within our apps (like system mail) are guaranteed. And as I said before, if they promise to keep it private, then it's on them, but this is moving the goal posts from the initial discussion. I don't know many companies that promise to keep an inquiry email private for example. Perhaps we are talking about different scenarios. I'm not sure at this point. Events like this are what I am talking about. This is the type of activity that gets to me....much more so than the NSA going to companies to get information that anyone could have gotten at the time it was sent.

The bolded is a load of BS!

This discussion you and I have been engaged in for the past page or two started with you in post #2240 responding to my post #2228.

In post 2228 I said:

"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. "

The whole context of our discussion has been the issue of the government being immune to the privacy statements companies make with us regarding the info we give them. If you have been talking outside of that context, then you have been talking past me the entire time and this exchange has been an entire waste of energy.

If you think privacy statements are pointless, then doesn't that open the door that they exist to deceive?

Then perhaps we should talk about a specific privacy statement from a specific company because I know of no company that promises to keep private the things you broadcast to them on the open internet. Any privacy statement I have ever seen addresses communications that they have complete control over and to my knowledge, Snowden has not given us incidents where the government has demanded that type of data. I readily admit that I haven't followed this very closely the last few weeks, so I could be wrong. The most recent release of information from Snowden was around the government basically eavesdropping on network chatter and collecting unsecured data as a result. If there's evidence of the government collecting data from internal messaging/alerting tools that a lot of these companies use, I'd like to see it and read about it.

 

[Sand]

Lavabit.com owner: 'I could be arrested' for resisting surveillance order: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/13/20008036-lavabitcom-owner-i-could-be-arrested-for-resisting-surveillance-order?lite

Wow - complete and utter bull####. Infuriating what the govt. is doing here.

 

[Politician Spock]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

So the company's privacy statements are meaningless because the burden is all mine to encrypt everything I don't want them to share with third parties, even the stuff their privacy statement says they won't.

All privacy statements are different. Talking about them in general is pointless. I know our privacy statements make no promise about data the consumer passes to us outside of our infrastructure. All communications made within our apps (like system mail) are guaranteed. And as I said before, if they promise to keep it private, then it's on them, but this is moving the goal posts from the initial discussion. I don't know many companies that promise to keep an inquiry email private for example. Perhaps we are talking about different scenarios. I'm not sure at this point. Events like this are what I am talking about. This is the type of activity that gets to me....much more so than the NSA going to companies to get information that anyone could have gotten at the time it was sent.

The bolded is a load of BS!

This discussion you and I have been engaged in for the past page or two started with you in post #2240 responding to my post #2228.

In post 2228 I said:

"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. "

The whole context of our discussion has been the issue of the government being immune to the privacy statements companies make with us regarding the info we give them. If you have been talking outside of that context, then you have been talking past me the entire time and this exchange has been an entire waste of energy.

If you think privacy statements are pointless, then doesn't that open the door that they exist to deceive?

Then perhaps we should talk about a specific privacy statement from a specific company because I know of no company that promises to keep private the things you broadcast to them on the open internet. Any privacy statement I have ever seen addresses communications that they have complete control over and to my knowledge, Snowden has not given us incidents where the government has demanded that type of data. I readily admit that I haven't followed this very closely the last few weeks, so I could be wrong. The most recent release of information from Snowden was around the government basically eavesdropping on network chatter and collecting unsecured data as a result. If there's evidence of the government collecting data from internal messaging/alerting tools that a lot of these companies use, I'd like to see it and read about it.

Snowden showed a chart of nine major companies that entered into the NSA Prism program, and the date they each entered. Facebook entered on 6/3/2009. This is copied and pasted from Facebook's privacy statement:

While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have:

received your permission;

given you notice, such as by telling you about it in this policy; or

removed your name or any other personally identifying information from it.

Pointless?

 

[Slapdash]

Glenn Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow airport for nine hours: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

 

[The Commish]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

So the company's privacy statements are meaningless because the burden is all mine to encrypt everything I don't want them to share with third parties, even the stuff their privacy statement says they won't.

All privacy statements are different. Talking about them in general is pointless. I know our privacy statements make no promise about data the consumer passes to us outside of our infrastructure. All communications made within our apps (like system mail) are guaranteed. And as I said before, if they promise to keep it private, then it's on them, but this is moving the goal posts from the initial discussion. I don't know many companies that promise to keep an inquiry email private for example. Perhaps we are talking about different scenarios. I'm not sure at this point. Events like this are what I am talking about. This is the type of activity that gets to me....much more so than the NSA going to companies to get information that anyone could have gotten at the time it was sent.

The bolded is a load of BS!

This discussion you and I have been engaged in for the past page or two started with you in post #2240 responding to my post #2228.

In post 2228 I said:

"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. "

The whole context of our discussion has been the issue of the government being immune to the privacy statements companies make with us regarding the info we give them. If you have been talking outside of that context, then you have been talking past me the entire time and this exchange has been an entire waste of energy.

If you think privacy statements are pointless, then doesn't that open the door that they exist to deceive?

Then perhaps we should talk about a specific privacy statement from a specific company because I know of no company that promises to keep private the things you broadcast to them on the open internet. Any privacy statement I have ever seen addresses communications that they have complete control over and to my knowledge, Snowden has not given us incidents where the government has demanded that type of data. I readily admit that I haven't followed this very closely the last few weeks, so I could be wrong. The most recent release of information from Snowden was around the government basically eavesdropping on network chatter and collecting unsecured data as a result. If there's evidence of the government collecting data from internal messaging/alerting tools that a lot of these companies use, I'd like to see it and read about it.

Snowden showed a chart of nine major companies that entered into the NSA Prism program, and the date they each entered. Facebook entered on 6/3/2009. This is copied and pasted from Facebook's privacy statement:

While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have:

received your permission;

given you notice, such as by telling you about it in this policy; or

removed your name or any other personally identifying information from it.

Pointless?

As it pertains to Facebook I wouldn't call it pointless, but it IS pretty hollow. So they'll tell you they don't share information in their privacy links, but then have default settings set to where you are basically approving that they share your information (if that makes sense). With that said, there is little "private" information on social media sites in the first place. Virtually none of it is encrypted. Most of it is broadcast to whomever is interested in listening to/for it.

 

[The Commish]

Glenn Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow airport for nine hours: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

The devil's in the details of these "Acts" the government comes up with isn't it?? I'll never understand all the ra ra cheering about these kinds of legislation.

 

[Politician Spock]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

So the company's privacy statements are meaningless because the burden is all mine to encrypt everything I don't want them to share with third parties, even the stuff their privacy statement says they won't.

All privacy statements are different. Talking about them in general is pointless. I know our privacy statements make no promise about data the consumer passes to us outside of our infrastructure. All communications made within our apps (like system mail) are guaranteed. And as I said before, if they promise to keep it private, then it's on them, but this is moving the goal posts from the initial discussion. I don't know many companies that promise to keep an inquiry email private for example. Perhaps we are talking about different scenarios. I'm not sure at this point. Events like this are what I am talking about. This is the type of activity that gets to me....much more so than the NSA going to companies to get information that anyone could have gotten at the time it was sent.

The bolded is a load of BS!

This discussion you and I have been engaged in for the past page or two started with you in post #2240 responding to my post #2228.

In post 2228 I said:

"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. "

The whole context of our discussion has been the issue of the government being immune to the privacy statements companies make with us regarding the info we give them. If you have been talking outside of that context, then you have been talking past me the entire time and this exchange has been an entire waste of energy.

If you think privacy statements are pointless, then doesn't that open the door that they exist to deceive?

Then perhaps we should talk about a specific privacy statement from a specific company because I know of no company that promises to keep private the things you broadcast to them on the open internet. Any privacy statement I have ever seen addresses communications that they have complete control over and to my knowledge, Snowden has not given us incidents where the government has demanded that type of data. I readily admit that I haven't followed this very closely the last few weeks, so I could be wrong. The most recent release of information from Snowden was around the government basically eavesdropping on network chatter and collecting unsecured data as a result. If there's evidence of the government collecting data from internal messaging/alerting tools that a lot of these companies use, I'd like to see it and read about it.

Snowden showed a chart of nine major companies that entered into the NSA Prism program, and the date they each entered. Facebook entered on 6/3/2009. This is copied and pasted from Facebook's privacy statement:

While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have:

received your permission;

given you notice, such as by telling you about it in this policy; or

removed your name or any other personally identifying information from it.

Pointless?

As it pertains to Facebook I wouldn't call it pointless, but it IS pretty hollow. So they'll tell you they don't share information in their privacy links, but then have default settings set to where you are basically approving that they share your information (if that makes sense). With that said, there is little "private" information on social media sites in the first place. Virtually none of it is encrypted. Most of it is broadcast to whomever is interested in listening to/for it.

I understand the "broadcast" nature of network packets. I've been an IT consultant for nearly 20 years now. I can even explain how token ring could have the argument that it is NOT "broadcast" in nature like ethernet is. The point is, that Privacy Statement by Facebook is not just limited to digital based communication between them and I. If I send them a sealed letter in the mail, it is just as much covered in a court of law by that Privacy Statement as anything I sent them via a computer network. If they have my information, regardless of how I chose to communicate it to them, they have stated in detail of their policy of when the information they have on me can and cannot be shared.

I understand that the government, or anyone for that matter could spy on information I send to them via a computer network far easier than they could spy on information I send to them via paper letters in the mail. That doesn't make a difference at all. If Facebook has any information about me that I've sent, their privacy statement covers it, REGARDLESS of how they obtained it.

If the government, or any third party, wants that information, they need to intercept it in route, because once Facebook has it, they can't share it unless it complies to the details they stated in their privacy statement. So either, Privacy Statements like these are pointless (which leads to the question of are they misleading the people), or the government is immune to them because we live in the "post-privacy world" that was suggested earlier. If it really is a post-privacy world, then not only are company Privacy Statements pointless, but so is the 4th Amendment.

 

[The Commish]

Because they have responsibility. Why are you taking the position that they have none?

I've outlined the scenarios where I believe they have responsibility. To say my position is that they have none is being willfully ignorant. I don't think it's a big problem for the government to acquire data from companies in cases where you choose to broadcast it to everyone in the first place especially if they make no promise to privatize that information after they receive it.

So the company's privacy statements are meaningless because the burden is all mine to encrypt everything I don't want them to share with third parties, even the stuff their privacy statement says they won't.

All privacy statements are different. Talking about them in general is pointless. I know our privacy statements make no promise about data the consumer passes to us outside of our infrastructure. All communications made within our apps (like system mail) are guaranteed. And as I said before, if they promise to keep it private, then it's on them, but this is moving the goal posts from the initial discussion. I don't know many companies that promise to keep an inquiry email private for example. Perhaps we are talking about different scenarios. I'm not sure at this point. Events like this are what I am talking about. This is the type of activity that gets to me....much more so than the NSA going to companies to get information that anyone could have gotten at the time it was sent.

The bolded is a load of BS!

This discussion you and I have been engaged in for the past page or two started with you in post #2240 responding to my post #2228.

In post 2228 I said:

"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. "

The whole context of our discussion has been the issue of the government being immune to the privacy statements companies make with us regarding the info we give them. If you have been talking outside of that context, then you have been talking past me the entire time and this exchange has been an entire waste of energy.

If you think privacy statements are pointless, then doesn't that open the door that they exist to deceive?

Then perhaps we should talk about a specific privacy statement from a specific company because I know of no company that promises to keep private the things you broadcast to them on the open internet. Any privacy statement I have ever seen addresses communications that they have complete control over and to my knowledge, Snowden has not given us incidents where the government has demanded that type of data. I readily admit that I haven't followed this very closely the last few weeks, so I could be wrong. The most recent release of information from Snowden was around the government basically eavesdropping on network chatter and collecting unsecured data as a result. If there's evidence of the government collecting data from internal messaging/alerting tools that a lot of these companies use, I'd like to see it and read about it.

Snowden showed a chart of nine major companies that entered into the NSA Prism program, and the date they each entered. Facebook entered on 6/3/2009. This is copied and pasted from Facebook's privacy statement:

While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have:

received your permission;

given you notice, such as by telling you about it in this policy; or

removed your name or any other personally identifying information from it.

Pointless?

As it pertains to Facebook I wouldn't call it pointless, but it IS pretty hollow. So they'll tell you they don't share information in their privacy links, but then have default settings set to where you are basically approving that they share your information (if that makes sense). With that said, there is little "private" information on social media sites in the first place. Virtually none of it is encrypted. Most of it is broadcast to whomever is interested in listening to/for it.

I understand the "broadcast" nature of network packets. I've been an IT consultant for nearly 20 years now. I can even explain how token ring could have the argument that it is NOT "broadcast" in nature like ethernet is. The point is, that Privacy Statement by Facebook is not just limited to digital based communication between them and I. If I send them a sealed letter in the mail, it is just as much covered in a court of law by that Privacy Statement as anything I sent them via a computer network. If they have my information, regardless of how I chose to communicate it to them, they have stated in detail of their policy of when the information they have on me can and cannot be shared.

I understand that the government, or anyone for that matter could spy on information I send to them via a computer network far easier than they could spy on information I send to them via paper letters in the mail. That doesn't make a difference at all. If Facebook has any information about me that I've sent, their privacy statement covers it, REGARDLESS of how they obtained it.

If the government, or any third party, wants that information, they need to intercept it in route, because once Facebook has it, they can't share it unless it complies to the details they stated in their privacy statement. So either, Privacy Statements like these are pointless (which leads to the question of are they misleading the people), or the government is immune to them because we live in the "post-privacy world" that was suggested earlier. If it really is a post-privacy world, then not only are company Privacy Statements pointless, but so is the 4th Amendment.

I took to their privacy statement yesterday after you posted them as an example and you've asserted some pretty unique things (like their online user privacy rules applying to all communications...not just online). Where is that coming from exactly? Can't find it here. Any company I have worked for or with has had privacy policies per medium...usually it lumps all the online access (including telephony) in one statement, but they have other statements specific to call centers and hand written communications.

 

[Politician Spock]

I took to their privacy statement yesterday after you posted them as an example and you've asserted some pretty unique things (like their online user privacy rules applying to all communications...not just online). Where is that coming from exactly? Can't find it here. Any company I have worked for or with has had privacy policies per medium...usually it lumps all the online access (including telephony) in one statement, but they have other statements specific to call centers and hand written communications.

Where are you getting that their privacy policy is labled as an "online" policy? The closest I can assume you are getting that is there use of calling it a "Data Use Policy", and perhaps "data" to you is inferring "online" or perhaps digital.

If it is their use of the word "data", data can be stored in many different formats, one of which is digital, which of course can be online or offline. Data can also be in paper format. We haven't gone to a completely paperless society. There are still many companies with files and filing cabinets full of data in paper form.

If it's not their use of the word "data" that is leading to you refering to it as an "online" policy, then what is it? Does Facebook actually use the word "online" in their policy, and in such a way that the policy is limited to the scope of data that is stored digitally and online?

 

[timschochet]

You know what? I'm just a glutton for punishment and a complete sucker, so I'm going to try this again. Politician Spock, Slapdash, Rich Conway, any of the rest of you who have taken strong issue with me- let's forget everything I've argued and start over. Please answer this question:

Let's suppose that you are the President of the United States, and you want to put an end to this stuff because you believe that it violates the 4th Amendment and privacy rights and it's just not something the government should be doing. But before you can issue an executive order canceling the program, you are visited by the heads of the NSA, CIA, Homeland Security, and the FBI. These men all tell you that in their opinion, this program is vital to national security. They tell you that there is no way that they can get the information they need to stop terrorism without searching through phone calls, emails, etc., with algorithms. They tell you that they have to search through literally millions of emails and calls every day and there is no way they can do this if they have to obtain an separate search warrant for each email. They also reveal to you a dozen cases or so in which they have already foiled terrorist plots through this method.

After their visit is over, you then consult with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice Roberts informs you that in his firm opinion, a mass search (for which a mass warrant is issued by FISA) would not violate the 4th Amendment. He tells you that he considers such a search to be a reasonable exception to the 4th Amendment.

Would any of this change your mind? If not, how would you respond to these men?

 

[Politician Spock]

You know what? I'm just a glutton for punishment and a complete sucker, so I'm going to try this again. Politician Spock, Slapdash, Rich Conway, any of the rest of you who have taken strong issue with me- let's forget everything I've argued and start over. Please answer this question:

Let's suppose that you are the President of the United States, and you want to put an end to this stuff because you believe that it violates the 4th Amendment and privacy rights and it's just not something the government should be doing. But before you can issue an executive order canceling the program, you are visited by the heads of the NSA, CIA, Homeland Security, and the FBI. These men all tell you that in their opinion, this program is vital to national security. They tell you that there is no way that they can get the information they need to stop terrorism without searching through phone calls, emails, etc., with algorithms. They tell you that they have to search through literally millions of emails and calls every day and there is no way they can do this if they have to obtain an separate search warrant for each email. They also reveal to you a dozen cases or so in which they have already foiled terrorist plots through this method.

After their visit is over, you then consult with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice Roberts informs you that in his firm opinion, a mass search (for which a mass warrant is issued by FISA) would not violate the 4th Amendment. He tells you that he considers such a search to be a reasonable exception to the 4th Amendment.

Would any of this change your mind? If not, how would you respond to these men?

As the president, if Justice Roberts told me that, then no I would not take action to end it. Which is why being opposed to this isn't some personal attack on Obama, or on either party. It doesn't matter who the president is, or what party they are from. The government is going to go in this direction unless a force of greater authority stops them.

The fact that so many heads of agencies, the president and the Chief Justice believe the 4th is not being violated does not mean it is not. Conversations in and among themselves are not how it is decided. The system provides the mechanism for that decision to be made. When the people believe the government is violating their 4th amendment rights, they sue the government, and it is decided by the Judiciary Branch. Granted, at this point we know one vote already believes it to be Constitutional, but the decision is not made by one vote.

This system however, is not perfect. It is flawed. The flaw is that the people can't sue the government for violating their rights without being able to prove they have been violated. Government secrecy is the source of the flaw. As long as the government can violate constitutional rights in secret, then the system provides no process for it to stop. And all evidence that is needed for the people to prove in court that the government is violating their rights is protected under this veil of the same national security that is the motivation for them to violate the rights in the first place.

Thus national security, however the government defines it, is more powerful than the constitution. We no longer live in a "Constitutional Republic". We live in a "National Security... uh... um... Whatever".

 

[timschochet]

You know what? I'm just a glutton for punishment and a complete sucker, so I'm going to try this again. Politician Spock, Slapdash, Rich Conway, any of the rest of you who have taken strong issue with me- let's forget everything I've argued and start over. Please answer this question:

Let's suppose that you are the President of the United States, and you want to put an end to this stuff because you believe that it violates the 4th Amendment and privacy rights and it's just not something the government should be doing. But before you can issue an executive order canceling the program, you are visited by the heads of the NSA, CIA, Homeland Security, and the FBI. These men all tell you that in their opinion, this program is vital to national security. They tell you that there is no way that they can get the information they need to stop terrorism without searching through phone calls, emails, etc., with algorithms. They tell you that they have to search through literally millions of emails and calls every day and there is no way they can do this if they have to obtain an separate search warrant for each email. They also reveal to you a dozen cases or so in which they have already foiled terrorist plots through this method.

After their visit is over, you then consult with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice Roberts informs you that in his firm opinion, a mass search (for which a mass warrant is issued by FISA) would not violate the 4th Amendment. He tells you that he considers such a search to be a reasonable exception to the 4th Amendment.

Would any of this change your mind? If not, how would you respond to these men?

As the president, if Justice Roberts told me that, then no I would not take action to end it. Which is why being opposed to this isn't some personal attack on Obama, or on either party. It doesn't matter who the president is, or what party they are from. The government is going to go in this direction unless a force of greater authority stops them.

The fact that so many heads of agencies, the president and the Chief Justice believe the 4th is not being violated does not mean it is not. Conversations in and among themselves are not how it is decided. The system provides the mechanism for that decision to be made. When the people believe the government is violating their 4th amendment rights, they sue the government, and it is decided by the Judiciary Branch. Granted, at this point we know one vote already believes it to be Constitutional, but the decision is not made by one vote.

This system however, is not perfect. It is flawed. The flaw is that the people can't sue the government for violating their rights without being able to prove they have been violated. Government secrecy is the source of the flaw. As long as the government can violate constitutional rights in secret, then the system provides no process for it to stop. And all evidence that is needed for the people to prove in court that the government is violating their rights is protected under this veil of the same national security that is the motivation for them to violate the rights in the first place.

Thus national security, however the government defines it, is more powerful than the constitution. We no longer live in a "Constitutional Republic". We live in a "National Security... uh... um... Whatever".

This is a reasonable response. Pretty sure I disagree with your final conclusion, but it's very thoughtful all the same. Thanks.

 

[timschochet]

Politician Spock, you would agree that it's necessary for the government to keep some things secret, though, correct?

For example, there was an episode of The West Wing in which it was believe that some cattle in Texas was affected by Mad Cow disease. Revealing this to the public would destroy beef prices, ruin ranchers, kill off steak restaurants, etc. So they decided not to say anything until they were sure. And it turned out to be negative. But it was a good example of why the govt. needs to keep things secret at times.

 

[The Commish]

I took to their privacy statement yesterday after you posted them as an example and you've asserted some pretty unique things (like their online user privacy rules applying to all communications...not just online). Where is that coming from exactly? Can't find it here. Any company I have worked for or with has had privacy policies per medium...usually it lumps all the online access (including telephony) in one statement, but they have other statements specific to call centers and hand written communications.

Where are you getting that their privacy policy is labled as an "online" policy? The closest I can assume you are getting that is there use of calling it a "Data Use Policy", and perhaps "data" to you is inferring "online" or perhaps digital.

If it is their use of the word "data", data can be stored in many different formats, one of which is digital, which of course can be online or offline. Data can also be in paper format. We haven't gone to a completely paperless society. There are still many companies with files and filing cabinets full of data in paper form.

If it's not their use of the word "data" that is leading to you refering to it as an "online" policy, then what is it? Does Facebook actually use the word "online" in their policy, and in such a way that the policy is limited to the scope of data that is stored digitally and online?

I didn't say it was an online only policy (didn't mean to anyway). I do see how you can take it that way. Let me rephrase (like their user privacy rules applying to all communications...not just online) I don't see where it mentions any other mediums in that link other than online though. That's why I asked the question. Everything on that page points to your interactions with them online. That coupled with the fact that most companies have a few different privacy policies based on medium makes me think if facebook was different from everyone else they'd mention it in their comments.

 

[Politician Spock]

Politician Spock, you would agree that it's necessary for the government to keep some things secret, though, correct?

For example, there was an episode of The West Wing in which it was believe that some cattle in Texas was affected by Mad Cow disease. Revealing this to the public would destroy beef prices, ruin ranchers, kill off steak restaurants, etc. So they decided not to say anything until they were sure. And it turned out to be negative. But it was a good example of why the govt. needs to keep things secret at times.

When the government is not being sued, of course secrecy is a moral imparative for the government to engage in, in many regards.

When the government is being sued, I don't believe the government should be able to hide evidence because of the need for secrecy. I believe the legal system does, or can provide, the level of secrecy necessary for evidence to be given to the court by the government. If this is in fact NOT possible, then the government can do anything as long as they say they are doing it for national security.

 

[The Commish]

You know what? I'm just a glutton for punishment and a complete sucker, so I'm going to try this again. Politician Spock, Slapdash, Rich Conway, any of the rest of you who have taken strong issue with me- let's forget everything I've argued and start over. Please answer this question:

Let's suppose that you are the President of the United States, and you want to put an end to this stuff because you believe that it violates the 4th Amendment and privacy rights and it's just not something the government should be doing. But before you can issue an executive order canceling the program, you are visited by the heads of the NSA, CIA, Homeland Security, and the FBI. These men all tell you that in their opinion, this program is vital to national security. They tell you that there is no way that they can get the information they need to stop terrorism without searching through phone calls, emails, etc., with algorithms. They tell you that they have to search through literally millions of emails and calls every day and there is no way they can do this if they have to obtain an separate search warrant for each email. They also reveal to you a dozen cases or so in which they have already foiled terrorist plots through this method.

After their visit is over, you then consult with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice Roberts informs you that in his firm opinion, a mass search (for which a mass warrant is issued by FISA) would not violate the 4th Amendment. He tells you that he considers such a search to be a reasonable exception to the 4th Amendment.

Would any of this change your mind? If not, how would you respond to these men?

This is pretty simple to mitigate. The first step is to get a documented ruling from the court. The second is to tell the NSA, CIA, HS, and FBI that if this is a necessity, audit trail is essential as are brief retention periods. It's easy to be relatively transparent with this and keep the secrecy to the method.

 

[timschochet]

Politician Spock, you would agree that it's necessary for the government to keep some things secret, though, correct?

For example, there was an episode of The West Wing in which it was believe that some cattle in Texas was affected by Mad Cow disease. Revealing this to the public would destroy beef prices, ruin ranchers, kill off steak restaurants, etc. So they decided not to say anything until they were sure. And it turned out to be negative. But it was a good example of why the govt. needs to keep things secret at times.

When the government is not being sued, of course secrecy is a moral imparative for the government to engage in, in many regards.

When the government is being sued, I don't believe the government should be able to hide evidence because of the need for secrecy. I believe the legal system does, or can provide, the level of secrecy necessary for evidence to be given to the court by the government. If this is in fact NOT possible, then the government can do anything as long as they say they are doing it for national security.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure how to resolve it.

 

[Politician Spock]

I took to their privacy statement yesterday after you posted them as an example and you've asserted some pretty unique things (like their online user privacy rules applying to all communications...not just online). Where is that coming from exactly? Can't find it here. Any company I have worked for or with has had privacy policies per medium...usually it lumps all the online access (including telephony) in one statement, but they have other statements specific to call centers and hand written communications.

Where are you getting that their privacy policy is labled as an "online" policy? The closest I can assume you are getting that is there use of calling it a "Data Use Policy", and perhaps "data" to you is inferring "online" or perhaps digital.

If it is their use of the word "data", data can be stored in many different formats, one of which is digital, which of course can be online or offline. Data can also be in paper format. We haven't gone to a completely paperless society. There are still many companies with files and filing cabinets full of data in paper form.

If it's not their use of the word "data" that is leading to you refering to it as an "online" policy, then what is it? Does Facebook actually use the word "online" in their policy, and in such a way that the policy is limited to the scope of data that is stored digitally and online?

I didn't say it was an online only policy. I do see how you can take it that way. Let me rephrase (like their user privacy rules applying to all communications...not just online) I don't see where it mentions any other mediums in that link other than online though. That's why I asked the question. Everything on that page points to your interactions with them online. That coupled with the fact that most companies have a few different privacy policies based on medium makes me think if facebook was different from everyone else they'd mention it in their comments.

You are making assumptions that are only supported by insinuations. I could retort, but it's not worth the effort to hash that out. Let's go with your route and assume the policy only covers data I sent them via a digital protocol.If I do not choose to encrypt that transfer, then the whole policy they state is moot, because according to you, my lack of effort to encrypt what I sent them is my decision to make what I send them public. So anything I sent them without encyption, and then after the fact I set using their tools to be "private" information about me is STILL public, and can be shared today and in the future, because they received it from me unencrypted. Do I have your position correct?

If so, I sincerly pray that people who think like you are NOT the majority of this country.

 

[Politician Spock]

Politician Spock, you would agree that it's necessary for the government to keep some things secret, though, correct?

For example, there was an episode of The West Wing in which it was believe that some cattle in Texas was affected by Mad Cow disease. Revealing this to the public would destroy beef prices, ruin ranchers, kill off steak restaurants, etc. So they decided not to say anything until they were sure. And it turned out to be negative. But it was a good example of why the govt. needs to keep things secret at times.

When the government is not being sued, of course secrecy is a moral imparative for the government to engage in, in many regards.

When the government is being sued, I don't believe the government should be able to hide evidence because of the need for secrecy. I believe the legal system does, or can provide, the level of secrecy necessary for evidence to be given to the court by the government. If this is in fact NOT possible, then the government can do anything as long as they say they are doing it for national security.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure how to resolve it.

It is far more progressive to expense energy that leads to that resolve in the years to come, than it is to expense energy to regress the country back to pre-Bill of Rights years.

 

[The Commish]

Quotes got all mixed up so I'm gonna start a new:

You are making assumptions that are only supported by insinuations. I could retort, but it's not worth the effort to hash that out. Let's go with your route and assume the policy only covers data I sent them via a digital protocol.

If I do not choose the encrypt that transfer, then the whole policy they state is moot, because according to you, my lack of effort to encrypt what I sent them is my decision to make what I send them public. So anything I sent them without encyption, and then after the fact I set using their tools to be "private" information about me is STILL public, and can be shared today and in the future, because they received it from me unencrypted. Do I have your position correct?

If so, I sincerly pray that people who think like you are NOT the majority of this country.

My assumptions are based on the SOP of just about every company I've ever worked with/for. There was one exception where they wrapped everything into one policy. What I have outlined is the position companies take when it comes to approach on how to secure their data. Companies can do what they want with their data...they can only "protect" one side of the conversation though (unless they force people to use mail/message systems that they create), Folks need to understand what they are broadcasting and how it's being broadcast. I think it's unreasonable for someone to take the position that a company is responsible for protecting them when #1. The company hasn't promised to protect them in that way and #2 the company CAN'T protect them that way.

I simply can't understand the "outrage" of the government going to a company for data that they could easily get without going to the company. That's really my point to this discussion. All the private information they can't readily get and those situations, I understand completely and you get no argument from me. But the former I just don't get. What does it matter if the company gives the IP address / email address etc vs the government monitoring for it?? That's what I don't understand fuly.

 

[Politician Spock]

Quotes got all mixed up so I'm gonna start a new:

You are making assumptions that are only supported by insinuations. I could retort, but it's not worth the effort to hash that out. Let's go with your route and assume the policy only covers data I sent them via a digital protocol.

If I do not choose the encrypt that transfer, then the whole policy they state is moot, because according to you, my lack of effort to encrypt what I sent them is my decision to make what I send them public. So anything I sent them without encyption, and then after the fact I set using their tools to be "private" information about me is STILL public, and can be shared today and in the future, because they received it from me unencrypted. Do I have your position correct?

If so, I sincerly pray that people who think like you are NOT the majority of this country.

My assumptions are based on the SOP of just about every company I've ever worked with/for. There was one exception where they wrapped everything into one policy. What I have outlined is the position companies take when it comes to approach on how to secure their data. Companies can do what they want with their data...they can only "protect" one side of the conversation though (unless they force people to use mail/message systems that they create), Folks need to understand what they are broadcasting and how it's being broadcast. I think it's unreasonable for someone to take the position that a company is responsible for protecting them when #1. The company hasn't promised to protect them in that way and #2 the company CAN'T protect them that way.

I simply can't understand the "outrage" of the government going to a company for data that they could easily get without going to the company. That's really my point to this discussion. All the private information they can't readily get and those situations, I understand completely and you get no argument from me. But the former I just don't get. What does it matter if the company gives the IP address / email address etc vs the government monitoring for it?? That's what I don't understand fuly.

You are still talking past me and talking within your own context of experience to reach the conclusion you want. Either stop it or just move on. It's getting old and I'm really getting sick of it.

Imagine you're just an average American. You started using Facebook a few months ago. You start hearing about strangers learning about you on Facebook. So you read Facebook's Privacy Statement and see that you can set what you've shared with them as private. You spend a good hour setting it the way you want. You also decide to quit posting on Facebook because you don't want to give them any more info about you, but you keep the account to keep reading what your friends snd family post. Is that information that Facebook already has about you right now still shareable by Facebook because when you gave that info to them you chose not to do to everything in your power to encrypt the transfer, meaning you just wasted an hour, and the privacy statement is pointless?

 

[The Commish]

Quotes got all mixed up so I'm gonna start a new:

You are making assumptions that are only supported by insinuations. I could retort, but it's not worth the effort to hash that out. Let's go with your route and assume the policy only covers data I sent them via a digital protocol.

If I do not choose the encrypt that transfer, then the whole policy they state is moot, because according to you, my lack of effort to encrypt what I sent them is my decision to make what I send them public. So anything I sent them without encyption, and then after the fact I set using their tools to be "private" information about me is STILL public, and can be shared today and in the future, because they received it from me unencrypted. Do I have your position correct?

If so, I sincerly pray that people who think like you are NOT the majority of this country.

My assumptions are based on the SOP of just about every company I've ever worked with/for. There was one exception where they wrapped everything into one policy. What I have outlined is the position companies take when it comes to approach on how to secure their data. Companies can do what they want with their data...they can only "protect" one side of the conversation though (unless they force people to use mail/message systems that they create), Folks need to understand what they are broadcasting and how it's being broadcast. I think it's unreasonable for someone to take the position that a company is responsible for protecting them when #1. The company hasn't promised to protect them in that way and #2 the company CAN'T protect them that way.

I simply can't understand the "outrage" of the government going to a company for data that they could easily get without going to the company. That's really my point to this discussion. All the private information they can't readily get and those situations, I understand completely and you get no argument from me. But the former I just don't get. What does it matter if the company gives the IP address / email address etc vs the government monitoring for it?? That's what I don't understand fuly.

You are still talking past me and talking within your own context of experience to reach the conclusion you want. Either stop it or just move on. It's getting old and I'm really getting sick of it.

Imagine you're just an average American. You started using Facebook a few months ago. You start hearing about strangers learning about you on Facebook. So you read Facebook's Privacy Statement and see that you can set what you've shared with them as private. You spend a good hour setting it the way you want. You also decide to quit posting on Facebook because you don't want to give them any more info about you, but you keep the account to keep reading what your friends snd family post. Is that information that Facebook already has about you right now still shareable by Facebook because when you gave that info to them you chose not to do to everything in your power to encrypt the transfer, meaning you just wasted an hour, and the privacy statement is pointless?

If it's me, I assume that the only way to possibly get rid of any info I don't want on facebook is to delete the account and then assume that there are still lingering pieces of data on me in their systems. I don't dump this all on the companies. I have personal accountabilities that I understand. It's not the "conclusion that I want" it's the reality of the technology world we've been living in for the better part of the last two decades. The only difference now is more folks are beginning to see that reality and getting all bent out of shape about it. From where I'm sitting, we can either get all pissy and deflect our part of the blame or we can own it and change our patterns. I assure you the later is the only way this is going to change substantially.

 

[The Commish]

PS,

I guess to me, I don't hold a company to any higher a standard than I do myself. If a company makes a promise that they aren't going to share data they shouldn't share the data, but I find it hard to get worked up over them sharing data that I've freely posted for all to see in the first place. I see a difference there that you don't I guess. That's what this boils down to. So in a sense, the privacy links are pointless TO ME because I know that if someone really wanted the data, the nature of technology tells us they will get it. Perhaps that is what drummer was saying earlier, I'm not sure, but that's the reality we live under today.

 

[RCon]

You know what? I'm just a glutton for punishment and a complete sucker, so I'm going to try this again. Politician Spock, Slapdash, Rich Conway, any of the rest of you who have taken strong issue with me- let's forget everything I've argued and start over. Please answer this question:

Let's suppose that you are the President of the United States, and you want to put an end to this stuff because you believe that it violates the 4th Amendment and privacy rights and it's just not something the government should be doing. But before you can issue an executive order canceling the program, you are visited by the heads of the NSA, CIA, Homeland Security, and the FBI. These men all tell you that in their opinion, this program is vital to national security. They tell you that there is no way that they can get the information they need to stop terrorism without searching through phone calls, emails, etc., with algorithms. They tell you that they have to search through literally millions of emails and calls every day and there is no way they can do this if they have to obtain an separate search warrant for each email. They also reveal to you a dozen cases or so in which they have already foiled terrorist plots through this method.

After their visit is over, you then consult with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice Roberts informs you that in his firm opinion, a mass search (for which a mass warrant is issued by FISA) would not violate the 4th Amendment. He tells you that he considers such a search to be a reasonable exception to the 4th Amendment.

Would any of this change your mind? If not, how would you respond to these men?

I don't believe any of those things happened.

However, even if we suppose a make believe world where those things did happen, that doesn't make the program legal. First off, were I president, I wouldn't visit the Chief Justice to ask him this to begin with. Second, I don't see anything in your hypothesis suggesting that the government needs to store the data permanently.

Let's ask you a question: considering the government has already publicly lied about this topic a half dozen times, what makes you so certain they're telling the truth now? That these programs are "necessary"? That they have foiled a dozen attacks? That the government doesn't access the data willy-nilly?

 

[tommyboy]

The biggest concern for me is our own governments irrational desire to know everything about all of us.

Thats not the proper relationship of citizen to state, in this country.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

If not, how would you respond to these men?

I don't see anything in your hypothesis suggesting that the government needs to store the data permanently.

Similar to firearm background checks there is absolutely no reason this data should ever be stored permanently unless you are o.k. with the data later to be used for nefarious purposes OR if you are o.k. with the data becoming compromised (read: stolen, hacked, used inappropriately by the wrong people/departments).

 

[tom22406]

Glenn Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow airport for nine hours: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

And the US was given a heads up that this was going down

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/greenwald-partner-detained/index.html

Journalists are now under attack for the reporting they are doing?

 

[Slapdash]

Glenn Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow airport for nine hours: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

And the US was given a heads up that this was going down

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/greenwald-partner-detained/index.html

Journalists are now under attack for the reporting they are doing?

That much has been obvious under the Obama administration.

 

[tom22406]

Glenn Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow airport for nine hours: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

And the US was given a heads up that this was going down

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/greenwald-partner-detained/index.html

Journalists are now under attack for the reporting they are doing?

That much has been obvious under the Obama administration.

I have seen a few outlets in the media slamming this action taken but not many.

Any legitimate journalist should be outraged at this.

 

[tom22406]

Glenn Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow airport for nine hours: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

And the US was given a heads up that this was going down

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/greenwald-partner-detained/index.html

Journalists are now under attack for the reporting they are doing?

That much has been obvious under the Obama administration.

I have seen a few outlets in the media slamming this action taken but not many.

Any legitimate journalist should be outraged at this.

Just ran into this done by Rachel Maddow and I have to say she is spot on with what is going on here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrnIkXZq4Sc

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Latest Leak: NSA Can Spy On Almost Anything, Gets To Set Its Own Filters

Binney states that ALL internet traffic is captured and stored, and has been for the last ten years at least

Jacob Applebaum said that the facility was to store all of this data for at least 100 years

 

[Slapdash]

Clegg backed Heywood Guardian move21 August 2013

Nick Clegg backed the decision to send top civil servant Sir Jeremy Heywood to urge the Guardian to destroy classified data because it was "preferable" to taking legal action.

The Deputy Prime Minister was "keen to protect" the newspaper's freedom to publish while safeguarding national security, his spokesman said. Mr Clegg agreed to the move on the understanding that destruction of the material would not impinge on the Guardian's ability to publish articles, he added.

It emerged last night that Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy was directed by Prime Minister David Cameron, backed by Mr Clegg, to contact the Guardian about classified material handed over by Edward Snowden.

A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minster said: "We understand the concerns about recent events, particularly around issues of freedom of the press and civil liberties. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is already looking into the circumstances around the detention of David Miranda and we will wait to see his findings.

"On the specific issue of records held by the Guardian, the Deputy Prime Minister thought it was reasonable for the Cabinet Secretary to request that the Guardian destroyed data that would represent a serious threat to national security if it was to fall into the wrong hands.

"The Deputy Prime Minister felt this was a preferable approach to taking legal action. He was keen to protect the Guardian's freedom to publish, whilst taking the necessary steps to safeguard security. It was agreed to on the understanding that the purpose of the destruction of the material would not impinge on the Guardian's ability to publish articles about the issue, but would help as a precautionary measure to protect lives and security."

The intervention ordered by No 10 came to light following the detention at Heathrow Airport under terror laws of David Miranda, partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who has worked with Snowden on a series of security services exposes. Scotland Yard and the Home Office have insisted the actions of officers at the airport were proper.

Home Secretary Theresa May confirmed on Tuesday that she had been briefed in advance about the possible detention of Mr Miranda and a spokesman said No 10 was "kept abreast of the operation in the usual way". It is understood Mr Clegg was not notified in advance.

Mrs May told the BBC: "If it is believed that somebody has in their possession highly-sensitive stolen information which could help terrorists, which could lead to a loss of lives, then it is right that the police act and that is what the law enables them to do."

Mr Miranda was detained at Heathrow Airport under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 as he changed planes on a journey from Berlin to his home in Brazil. He claimed he was held for nine hours by agents, who questioned him about his "entire life" and took his "computer, video game, mobile phone, my memory card - everything". Schedule 7 applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allowing officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/clegg-backed-heywood-guardian-move-29514651.html

 

[Doug B]

If it's me, I assume that the only way to possibly get rid of any info I don't want on facebook is to delete the account and then assume that there are still lingering pieces of data on me in their systems. I don't dump this all on the companies. I have personal accountabilities that I understand. It's not the "conclusion that I want" it's the reality of the technology world we've been living in for the better part of the last two decades. The only difference now is more folks are beginning to see that reality and getting all bent out of shape about it. From where I'm sitting, we can either get all pissy and deflect our part of the blame or we can own it and change our patterns. I assure you the later is the only way this is going to change substantially.

So in a sense, the privacy links are pointless TO ME because I know that if someone really wanted the data, the nature of technology tells us they will get it. Perhaps that is what drummer was saying earlier, I'm not sure, but that's the reality we live under today

Excellent points.

In addition, courts can't really do anything to help privacy advocates. The offending agencies don't need blessings or permiossion of the courts -- they are free to ignore whoever may oppose them.

The 4th Amendment may as well be stricken for all the good it can do the citizens of 21st century America.

 

[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.

That sounds very defeatist to me.

So be it. What's the alternative?

 

[Politician Spock]

The 4th Amendment may as well be stricken for all the good it can do the citizens of 21st century America.

Remember the good old days when the country hated Bush for illegal wire tapping and wanted change.

 

[The Commish]

If it's me, I assume that the only way to possibly get rid of any info I don't want on facebook is to delete the account and then assume that there are still lingering pieces of data on me in their systems. I don't dump this all on the companies. I have personal accountabilities that I understand. It's not the "conclusion that I want" it's the reality of the technology world we've been living in for the better part of the last two decades. The only difference now is more folks are beginning to see that reality and getting all bent out of shape about it. From where I'm sitting, we can either get all pissy and deflect our part of the blame or we can own it and change our patterns. I assure you the later is the only way this is going to change substantially.

So in a sense, the privacy links are pointless TO ME because I know that if someone really wanted the data, the nature of technology tells us they will get it. Perhaps that is what drummer was saying earlier, I'm not sure, but that's the reality we live under today

Excellent points.

In addition, courts can't really do anything to help privacy advocates. The offending agencies don't need blessings or permiossion of the courts -- they are free to ignore whoever may oppose them.

The 4th Amendment may as well be stricken for all the good it can do the citizens of 21st century America.

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution. Tim gave us a hypothetical above asking us what we'd do if we were President and a series of things happened and were presented to us. The biggest part of this whole thing to me is retention. In the data mining world the longer you can hold onto data the more invasive the program can be. I'd have far less of a problem with this kind of "listening" if it was just that. But these programs are collecting data and retaining it for years and years and years that's going far beyond what's required if you're doing it for the reasons you claim. Simply put, if the NSA were just using this data to sniff out terror concerns, keeping this data for even 10 years is way too long. The longer that data sits there the more it can potentially be used for something it wasn't collected for.

It will be interesting to see how people change their internet habits (if they do) after they come to the realization of how wide spread this issue is and if new "security" markets open in the technology world because of this.

 

[timschochet]

Several of you have raised the issue of retention. I'm not going to pretend that it's nothing to be concerned about; it is worrisome because no explanation has been offered. There are, so far as I can see, 3 possibilities:

1. There is a reasonable explanation for retaining the records, which really does have to do with national security, and it hasn't been offered yet due to an unnecessary (in this case) obsession with secrecy.

2. There is no explanation for retaining the records. Like so much the government does, nobody can explain anything once it starts. Perhaps the information is being retained because nobody has considered destroying it. Perhaps it's because nobody knows what becomes of it. Perhaps somebody (or a lot of people) screwed up.

3. The information is being retained so that the government can use it for wrongful purposes- this is part of a deliberate intent to make the government more powerful, and possibly impose tyranny if need be.

Of the 3 possible explanations, I think (and hope) that #1 is the most plausible. However, I would not be surprised by #2. I get that some of you here believe that #3 is likely; I don't.

 

[Slapdash]

Several of you have raised the issue of retention. I'm not going to pretend that it's nothing to be concerned about; it is worrisome because no explanation has been offered. There are, so far as I can see, 3 possibilities:

1. There is a reasonable explanation for retaining the records, which really does have to do with national security, and it hasn't been offered yet due to an unnecessary (in this case) obsession with secrecy.

2. There is no explanation for retaining the records. Like so much the government does, nobody can explain anything once it starts. Perhaps the information is being retained because nobody has considered destroying it. Perhaps it's because nobody knows what becomes of it. Perhaps somebody (or a lot of people) screwed up.

3. The information is being retained so that the government can use it for wrongful purposes- this is part of a deliberate intent to make the government more powerful, and possibly impose tyranny if need be.

Of the 3 possible explanations, I think (and hope) that #1 is the most plausible. However, I would not be surprised by #2. I get that some of you here believe that #3 is likely; I don't.

#2 is completely implausible. This has to be done intentionally otherwise the budget could not accomodate such an expensive endevour.

 

[The Commish]

Several of you have raised the issue of retention. I'm not going to pretend that it's nothing to be concerned about; it is worrisome because no explanation has been offered. There are, so far as I can see, 3 possibilities:

1. There is a reasonable explanation for retaining the records, which really does have to do with national security, and it hasn't been offered yet due to an unnecessary (in this case) obsession with secrecy.

2. There is no explanation for retaining the records. Like so much the government does, nobody can explain anything once it starts. Perhaps the information is being retained because nobody has considered destroying it. Perhaps it's because nobody knows what becomes of it. Perhaps somebody (or a lot of people) screwed up.

3. The information is being retained so that the government can use it for wrongful purposes- this is part of a deliberate intent to make the government more powerful, and possibly impose tyranny if need be.

Of the 3 possible explanations, I think (and hope) that #1 is the most plausible. However, I would not be surprised by #2. I get that some of you here believe that #3 is likely; I don't.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on possibility #4 which is, the government needs to keep it that long because they haven't figured out how to effectively mine the data or possibility #5, they started this program for the reasons they claim and have since realized they might need the data for something in the future but they don't know what yet. #5 is the most troublesome to me whether the "something" is wrapped in good intentions or bad.