Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (2 Viewers)

[Doug B]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

 

[Doug B]

It will be interesting to see ... if new "security" markets open in the technology world because of this.

I am wondering if it's technologically possible to have a kind of an alternate, underground "Internet" that people can use freely without privacy concerns. Seems like a pipe dream, though I haven't thought all the angles through. Just seems like packets can always be intercepted, encryptions can always be defeated, etc.

 

[Slapdash]

It will be interesting to see ... if new "security" markets open in the technology world because of this.

I am wondering if it's technologically possible to have a kind of an alternate, underground "Internet" that people can use freely without privacy concerns. Seems like a pipe dream, though I haven't thought all the angles through. Just seems like packets can always be intercepted, encryptions can always be defeated, etc.

It is possible, but the government will inevitably break through. Some one posted earlier about how the government has been installing malware on computers to infiltrate the TOR network.

 

[Politician Spock]

It will be interesting to see ... if new "security" markets open in the technology world because of this.

I am wondering if it's technologically possible to have a kind of an alternate, underground "Internet" that people can use freely without privacy concerns. Seems like a pipe dream, though I haven't thought all the angles through. Just seems like packets can always be intercepted, encryptions can always be defeated, etc.

The solution is simple. All of us opposed to this type of government should get in boats and sail across the ocean to the new world. And when this government follows us there, we revolt against it and defeat it to protect our country from it. We then establish a constitutional rebublic that restricts government from doing things like this to the people of the country.

Oh.... wait.... ####.....

 

[Doug B]

It is possible, but the government will inevitably break through. Some one posted earlier about how the government has been installing malware on computers to infiltrate the TOR network.

Someone posted something interesting way back in this thread about having a means to throw off tons of false data about someone's Internet use. IOW, instead of trying to keep all the real stuff private/encrypted, your machine instead throw out loads of BS data to "mask" your real stuff.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind. But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

 

[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

I'm sure no one in govt has thought about deleting the data, must have been a mistake.

It's SO much easier to store all Internet traffic, encrypted or otherwise for 10-100 years.

 

[Doug B]

The solution is simple. All of us opposed to this type of government should get in boats and sail across the ocean to the new world. And when this government follows us there, we revolt against it and defeat it to protect our country from it. We then establish a constitutional rebublic that restricts government from doing things like this to the people of the country.Oh.... wait.... ####.....

Funny you say that. It's been occuring to me that, in the modern world, all conceivable forms of human government may trend toward totalitarianism. Changing the players (voting in new people, armed coup, etc.) doesn't seem likely to change outcomes.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

 

[Politician Spock]

The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

This things still makes me laugh every time you repeat it.

It makes me think as they were writing up the bill of rights, one asked, shouldn't we make it more specific that in the 21st century this 4th amendment doesn't apply to papers the people share amongst each other in digital form? And the guy with the pen responded, oh will you please stop with that argument. My wrist is tried from writing. They will obviously see that to be true in what I've already penned. If not timschochet will be there to beat the point to death.

 

[RCon]

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.

4. Because they can.

Very closely related to #3, but not exactly. Basically, they don't know if they'll ever have a use for it, but just in case, they keep it. This is not necessarily nefarious at this time, but it is deliberate.

 

[RCon]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

 

[Politician Spock]

The solution is simple. All of us opposed to this type of government should get in boats and sail across the ocean to the new world. And when this government follows us there, we revolt against it and defeat it to protect our country from it. We then establish a constitutional rebublic that restricts government from doing things like this to the people of the country.

Oh.... wait.... ####.....

Funny you say that. It's been occuring to me that, in the modern world, all conceivable forms of human government may trend toward totalitarianism. Changing the players (voting in new people, armed coup, etc.) doesn't seem likely to change outcomes.

That may have just occurred to you, but it occured to the founding fathers over two centuries ago, and is why our constitution is written the way it is. If you believe the constitution is powerless to stop this, then millions of people who have served, and swore to uphold and defend the Constituion Did so in vain. I hope you seriously consider their lives before you conclude the government can just do this, especially given you readily admit the idea that government may naturally trend towards totalarianism is something that just started occurring to you. I hope some time in your future, as your occurring leads you to the same result the founding fathers came to, that in the mean time you didn't flush, what they handed to you to stop it, down the toilet.

 

[Doug B]

Spock -- I cannot unilaterally enforce the tenets of the Constitution. The Constitution is a set of ideals -- if I decide that those ideals are worthwhile to uphold, but a vastly more powerful self-perpetuating quasi-governmental entity decides otherwise ... what's the play?

The lives of those who died for the country is a red herring, because those that uphold and carry out the snooping programs really don't care.

 

[cstu]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

Link

Which brings us to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). As we noted previously, the DEA has a secret division called the Special Operations Division or SOD. The SOD receives intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records from its partner agencies, of which the NSA is just one, to distribute to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans. The SOD gets information from the NSA and shares it with, among other agencies, the IRS.

And this is where things get truly ugly. When agents receive SOD information and rely on it to trigger investigations, they are directed to omit the SOD’s involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use “normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD.” IRS agents receiving SOD data, which presumably can include information from the NSA, have been similarly instructed. They are instructed, in other words, to create a fake investigative file, and to lie. To lie, in particular, to defense lawyers and to judges, about the source of the evidence used in criminal prosecutions.

By hiding the fact that information comes from NSA surveillance, the government both masks the extent to which NSA’s domestic spying is used to trigger investigations of Americans, and prevents legal challenges to highly questionable surveillance practices like bulk phone record collection, warrantless access to American communications with friends and family overseas, and retention and use of illegally obtained domestic calls and emails.

 

[cstu]

Watch the documentary "Terms and Conditions May Apply".

Link to the website TACMA.net

Privacy tools

 

[timschochet]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

Which part of what I wrote is false? Are you suggesting that the government will start prosecuting people without obtaining legal warrants?

 

[timschochet]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

Link

Which brings us to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). As we noted previously, the DEA has a secret division called the Special Operations Division or SOD. The SOD receives intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records from its partner agencies, of which the NSA is just one, to distribute to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans. The SOD gets information from the NSA and shares it with, among other agencies, the IRS.

And this is where things get truly ugly. When agents receive SOD information and rely on it to trigger investigations, they are directed to omit the SOD’s involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use “normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD.” IRS agents receiving SOD data, which presumably can include information from the NSA, have been similarly instructed. They are instructed, in other words, to create a fake investigative file, and to lie. To lie, in particular, to defense lawyers and to judges, about the source of the evidence used in criminal prosecutions.

By hiding the fact that information comes from NSA surveillance, the government both masks the extent to which NSA’s domestic spying is used to trigger investigations of Americans, and prevents legal challenges to highly questionable surveillance practices like bulk phone record collection, warrantless access to American communications with friends and family overseas, and retention and use of illegally obtained domestic calls and emails.

If you can prove this, especially the bolded part, then it's certainly worth a special prosecutor as the article suggests. But just because the article claims it's happening doesn't make it so.

 

[whoknew]

If you can prove this, especially the bolded part, then it's certainly worth a special prosecutor as the article suggests. But just because the article claims it's happening doesn't make it so.

Why do you still give the NSA the benefit of the doubt when we have all seen the Director flat out lie to Congress?

 

[RCon]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

Which part of what I wrote is false? Are you suggesting that the government will start prosecuting people without obtaining legal warrants?

I'm suggesting they already do. I'm also suggesting that even if they get a warrant, they shouldn't be allowed to retroactively search my stuff. The government shouldn't be allowed to get a warrant today, then search something that they seized prior to obtaining the warrant. The 4th applies to both searches AND seizures, not just seizures. If the government came to us thirty years ago and said, we're going to open every piece of mail, photocopy it, store the photocopy in a secure location, reseal and deliver the mail, but only search the mail later with a warrant, you would have laughed at them. What they're doing now is literally identical to that.

And I call BS on your "it was never meant to apply to a collective search" argument. It very clearly was, and is still, meant to apply, else it would be perfectly legal for the government to open your mail. Your insistence that digital content is somehow different is mind-boggling. Your argument seems to boil down to "it's illegal if it's a pain in the ###, but it's kosher as long as it's easy to do".

 

[whoknew]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

Which part of what I wrote is false? Are you suggesting that the government will start prosecuting people without obtaining legal warrants?

So your position is that the gov't can collect, analyze and keep data - but not use it? If that's so, what's the point of collecting, analyzing and keeping?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If you can prove this, especially the bolded part, then it's certainly worth a special prosecutor as the article suggests. But just because the article claims it's happening doesn't make it so.

Why do you still give the NSA the benefit of the doubt when we have all seen the Director flat out lie to Congress?

Because, Tim.

 

[Politician Spock]

Spock -- I cannot unilaterally enforce the tenets of the Constitution. The Constitution is a set of ideals -- if I decide that those ideals are worthwhile to uphold, but a vastly more powerful self-perpetuating quasi-governmental entity decides otherwise ... what's the play?

The lives of those who died for the country is a red herring, because those that uphold and carry out the snooping programs really don't care.

The Constituion is law. And not just any law, it is the law of the land. I will not engage in a discussion with someone who believes otherwise. To do so is a stupid endeavor, and I will be beat by the experience of the one who took me there.

 

[The Commish]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

That's not unique to the 4th Amendment though. That applies to any law/concept. Reality is, our laws are only as good as the people living under/by them. Agreed?

 

[The Commish]

It will be interesting to see ... if new "security" markets open in the technology world because of this.

I am wondering if it's technologically possible to have a kind of an alternate, underground "Internet" that people can use freely without privacy concerns. Seems like a pipe dream, though I haven't thought all the angles through. Just seems like packets can always be intercepted, encryptions can always be defeated, etc.

One can make it infinitely more difficult to acquire the information, but it's like hackers. You patch a hole and secure a back door, they'll find another....it's the circle of technology.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

That's not unique to the 4th Amendment though. That applies to any law/concept. Reality is, our laws are only as good as the people living under/by them. Agreed?

I am glad SOMEBODY around here understands this. This is the reason why the slippery slope arguments fail.

 

[whoknew]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

That's not unique to the 4th Amendment though. That applies to any law/concept. Reality is, our laws are only as good as the people living under/by them. Agreed?

I am glad SOMEBODY around here understands this. This is the reason why the slippery slope arguments fail.

Ok. So once again - why are you still giving the benefit of the doubt to the NSA?

 

[timschochet]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

Which part of what I wrote is false? Are you suggesting that the government will start prosecuting people without obtaining legal warrants?

I'm suggesting they already do. I'm also suggesting that even if they get a warrant, they shouldn't be allowed to retroactively search my stuff. The government shouldn't be allowed to get a warrant today, then search something that they seized prior to obtaining the warrant. The 4th applies to both searches AND seizures, not just seizures. If the government came to us thirty years ago and said, we're going to open every piece of mail, photocopy it, store the photocopy in a secure location, reseal and deliver the mail, but only search the mail later with a warrant, you would have laughed at them. What they're doing now is literally identical to that.

And I call BS on your "it was never meant to apply to a collective search" argument. It very clearly was, and is still, meant to apply, else it would be perfectly legal for the government to open your mail. Your insistence that digital content is somehow different is mind-boggling. Your argument seems to boil down to "it's illegal if it's a pain in the ###, but it's kosher as long as it's easy to do".

We're going around and around in the same circle here, and we're not getting anywhere.

All I can tell you is that if the government needs to be able to search through a billion emails in order to hopefully find some clue that MIGHT help them prevent the next act of terrorism, I don't want them to be forced to obtain a warrant for every individual email. No matter how many times you argue the point, that makes no sense to me. IMO, it has nothing to do with what the Founding Fathers intended for the 4th Amendment. It's a ludicrous, absolutist interpretation of the Constitution will will stop us from fighting these crimes. That's unacceptable to me.

 

[The Commish]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

Which part of what I wrote is false? Are you suggesting that the government will start prosecuting people without obtaining legal warrants?

Do you really believe it impossible for something like the following to occur:

1. Tim suspected of X crime.

2. Local law enforcement calls up the NSA and says, "Hey, you know all that data you've been collecting? While, I need a "mass search" done to see if I can find a pattern on this guy Tim so I can obtain a search warrant"

3. NSA ponies up the data behind the scenes with a select few knowing.

4. Cops show up with a warrant to do a thorough search of Tim's house, car, work, technology and can OFFICIALLY go to the NSA and ask for the data.

5. Tim's screwed.

I believe this to be real. I believe it happens today. What's worse, the government has everyone believing that they have these programs to prevent terrorism so few question them. The worst of all is we can't question them to find out the truth. Why this isn't an issue for more people is beyond me. At this point my only recourse is to make sure I'm ok with whatever I put out on the internet because I have to assume someone is watching.

 

[Doug B]

That's not unique to the 4th Amendment though. That applies to any law/concept. Reality is, our laws are only as good as the people living under/by them. Agreed?

Absolutely.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

That's not unique to the 4th Amendment though. That applies to any law/concept. Reality is, our laws are only as good as the people living under/by them. Agreed?

I am glad SOMEBODY around here understands this. This is the reason why the slippery slope arguments fail.

Ok. So once again - why are you still giving the benefit of the doubt to the NSA?

Because I don't believe they're evil. Because I believe they are trying to fight terrorism. Because they're on my side, and I want to win that fight.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

Link

Which brings us to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). As we noted previously, the DEA has a secret division called the Special Operations Division or SOD. The SOD receives intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records from its partner agencies, of which the NSA is just one, to distribute to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans. The SOD gets information from the NSA and shares it with, among other agencies, the IRS.

And this is where things get truly ugly. When agents receive SOD information and rely on it to trigger investigations, they are directed to omit the SOD’s involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use “normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD.” IRS agents receiving SOD data, which presumably can include information from the NSA, have been similarly instructed. They are instructed, in other words, to create a fake investigative file, and to lie. To lie, in particular, to defense lawyers and to judges, about the source of the evidence used in criminal prosecutions.

By hiding the fact that information comes from NSA surveillance, the government both masks the extent to which NSA’s domestic spying is used to trigger investigations of Americans, and prevents legal challenges to highly questionable surveillance practices like bulk phone record collection, warrantless access to American communications with friends and family overseas, and retention and use of illegally obtained domestic calls and emails.

If you can prove this, especially the bolded part, then it's certainly worth a special prosecutor as the article suggests. But just because the article claims it's happening doesn't make it so.

I'm getting a big kick out of your head in the sand shtick.

 

[The Commish]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

That's not unique to the 4th Amendment though. That applies to any law/concept. Reality is, our laws are only as good as the people living under/by them. Agreed?

I am glad SOMEBODY around here understands this. This is the reason why the slippery slope arguments fail.

Ok. So once again - why are you still giving the benefit of the doubt to the NSA?

Exactly....there is NOTHING our government has showed me that leads me to believe they are on the up and up. For me, given our government's bleak history, they will always be guilty until proven otherwise. Problem is, they answer to no one and citizens will never know the full truth of government activities that they could ever "prove otherwise"

 

[whoknew]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

That's not unique to the 4th Amendment though. That applies to any law/concept. Reality is, our laws are only as good as the people living under/by them. Agreed?

I am glad SOMEBODY around here understands this. This is the reason why the slippery slope arguments fail.

Ok. So once again - why are you still giving the benefit of the doubt to the NSA?

Because I don't believe they're evil. Because I believe they are trying to fight terrorism. Because they're on my side, and I want to win that fight.

While you may believe that, we KNOW they lie to Congress. And therefore, the people who are "on your side" and are trying to fight terrorism, break the laws they are supposed to uphold.

If laws are only as good as the people living under/by them - what does it mean when those people who are supposed to live by them, break those laws?

 

[timschochet]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

Which part of what I wrote is false? Are you suggesting that the government will start prosecuting people without obtaining legal warrants?

Do you really believe it impossible for something like the following to occur:

1. Tim suspected of X crime.

2. Local law enforcement calls up the NSA and says, "Hey, you know all that data you've been collecting? While, I need a "mass search" done to see if I can find a pattern on this guy Tim so I can obtain a search warrant"

3. NSA ponies up the data behind the scenes with a select few knowing.

4. Cops show up with a warrant to do a thorough search of Tim's house, car, work, technology and can OFFICIALLY go to the NSA and ask for the data.

5. Tim's screwed.

I believe this to be real. I believe it happens today. What's worse, the government has everyone believing that they have these programs to prevent terrorism so few question them. The worst of all is we can't question them to find out the truth. Why this isn't an issue for more people is beyond me. At this point my only recourse is to make sure I'm ok with whatever I put out on the internet because I have to assume someone is watching.

If that happens today (and I have no evidence of it, do you?) then it shouldn't.

As you correctly pointed out, the main element of a free society which operates under the rule of law is not the Constitution (which, in the final analysis, is only a piece of paper) but the willingness of the people to abide by it- specifically, judges. So long as we have an independent, honest judiciary (and I believe that for the most part we do), it will prevent the sort of thing you're talking about. Any judge worth their salt would look at the situation you described and throw out all evidence obtained as part of the "poison fruit", since it was illegally obtained in the first place. Does this happen every time? Probably not. I'm sure people can come up with anecdotes that show screw-ups or even deliberate misapplications of police power which are allowed by judges. Are these anecdotes enough to condemn the overall idea of what the NSA is doing? I don't believe they are.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

That's not unique to the 4th Amendment though. That applies to any law/concept. Reality is, our laws are only as good as the people living under/by them. Agreed?

I am glad SOMEBODY around here understands this. This is the reason why the slippery slope arguments fail.

Ok. So once again - why are you still giving the benefit of the doubt to the NSA?

Because I don't believe they're evil. Because I believe they are trying to fight terrorism. Because they're on my side, and I want to win that fight.

While you may believe that, we KNOW they lie to Congress. And therefore, the people who are "on your side" and are trying to fight terrorism, break the laws they are supposed to uphold.

If laws are only as good as the people living under/by them - what does it mean when those people who are supposed to live by them, break those laws?

1. What specific lie was made to Congress?

2. What specific law has been broken?

 

[timschochet]

All I can tell you is that if the government needs to be able to search through a billion emails in order to hopefully find some clue that MIGHT help them prevent the next act of terrorism, I don't want them to be forced to obtain a warrant for every individual email. No matter how many times you argue the point, that makes no sense to me. IMO, it has nothing to do with what the Founding Fathers intended for the 4th Amendment. It's a ludicrous, absolutist interpretation of the Constitution will will stop us from fighting these crimes. That's unacceptable to me.

 

[shader]

This has turned into the worst thread on the board. Everyone arguing with Tim. We get it. Tim doesn't mind gov't surveillance and isn't changing his mind.

 

[RCon]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

Which part of what I wrote is false? Are you suggesting that the government will start prosecuting people without obtaining legal warrants?

I'm suggesting they already do. I'm also suggesting that even if they get a warrant, they shouldn't be allowed to retroactively search my stuff. The government shouldn't be allowed to get a warrant today, then search something that they seized prior to obtaining the warrant. The 4th applies to both searches AND seizures, not just seizures. If the government came to us thirty years ago and said, we're going to open every piece of mail, photocopy it, store the photocopy in a secure location, reseal and deliver the mail, but only search the mail later with a warrant, you would have laughed at them. What they're doing now is literally identical to that.

And I call BS on your "it was never meant to apply to a collective search" argument. It very clearly was, and is still, meant to apply, else it would be perfectly legal for the government to open your mail. Your insistence that digital content is somehow different is mind-boggling. Your argument seems to boil down to "it's illegal if it's a pain in the ###, but it's kosher as long as it's easy to do".

We're going around and around in the same circle here, and we're not getting anywhere.

All I can tell you is that if the government needs to be able to search through a billion emails in order to hopefully find some clue that MIGHT help them prevent the next act of terrorism, I don't want them to be forced to obtain a warrant for every individual email. No matter how many times you argue the point, that makes no sense to me. IMO, it has nothing to do with what the Founding Fathers intended for the 4th Amendment. It's a ludicrous, absolutist interpretation of the Constitution will will stop us from fighting these crimes. That's unacceptable to me.

We don't get anywhere because you completely ignore every argument except "OMG terror1sm!!"

No one has ever argued that the government should have to obtain a warrant for every individual e-mail. I see no reason to treat this differently than wiretapping phones. Government wants to wiretap John Doe's phone? No problem, get a warrant. Government wants to search or seize John Doe's e-mail? No problem, get a warrant. Government seizes John Doe's e-mail without a warrant in 2013, then in 2014 obtains a warrant and wants to search the stuff obtained prior? Clear violation, and frankly, I don't see how any rational thought process could suggest otherwise.

Explain how collecting and storing digital data is any different, in a legal sense, from photocopying every piece of mail. Here's a hint: "because it's easy" doesn't count.

Explain why you continue to give the government the benefit of the doubt when everything they've said about this program so far has been a lie.

Explain how "the people" and "persons" (exact words from the 4th) don't apply to collective searches.

 

[timschochet]

This has turned into the worst thread on the board. Everyone arguing with Tim. We get it. Tim doesn't mind gov't surveillance and isn't changing his mind.

I have changed my mind on several specific points regarding this issue, thanks to this thread.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

Which part of what I wrote is false? Are you suggesting that the government will start prosecuting people without obtaining legal warrants?

I'm suggesting they already do. I'm also suggesting that even if they get a warrant, they shouldn't be allowed to retroactively search my stuff. The government shouldn't be allowed to get a warrant today, then search something that they seized prior to obtaining the warrant. The 4th applies to both searches AND seizures, not just seizures. If the government came to us thirty years ago and said, we're going to open every piece of mail, photocopy it, store the photocopy in a secure location, reseal and deliver the mail, but only search the mail later with a warrant, you would have laughed at them. What they're doing now is literally identical to that.

And I call BS on your "it was never meant to apply to a collective search" argument. It very clearly was, and is still, meant to apply, else it would be perfectly legal for the government to open your mail. Your insistence that digital content is somehow different is mind-boggling. Your argument seems to boil down to "it's illegal if it's a pain in the ###, but it's kosher as long as it's easy to do".

We're going around and around in the same circle here, and we're not getting anywhere.

All I can tell you is that if the government needs to be able to search through a billion emails in order to hopefully find some clue that MIGHT help them prevent the next act of terrorism, I don't want them to be forced to obtain a warrant for every individual email. No matter how many times you argue the point, that makes no sense to me. IMO, it has nothing to do with what the Founding Fathers intended for the 4th Amendment. It's a ludicrous, absolutist interpretation of the Constitution will will stop us from fighting these crimes. That's unacceptable to me.

We don't get anywhere because you completely ignore every argument except "OMG terror1sm!!"

No one has ever argued that the government should have to obtain a warrant for every individual e-mail. I see no reason to treat this differently than wiretapping phones. Government wants to wiretap John Doe's phone? No problem, get a warrant. Government wants to search or seize John Doe's e-mail? No problem, get a warrant. Government seizes John Doe's e-mail without a warrant in 2013, then in 2014 obtains a warrant and wants to search the stuff obtained prior? Clear violation, and frankly, I don't see how any rational thought process could suggest otherwise.

Explain how collecting and storing digital data is any different, in a legal sense, from photocopying every piece of mail. Here's a hint: "because it's easy" doesn't count.

Explain why you continue to give the government the benefit of the doubt when everything they've said about this program so far has been a lie.

Explain how "the people" and "persons" (exact words from the 4th) don't apply to collective searches.

NSA comes to you and says, "Somebody, somewhere is posting an email right now about a plan to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge, with the code phrase xyj678444449. We don't know who, but somebody is sending that message. We need a copy of every email sent in the last month so that we can search to see if that code phrase shows up."

Rich Conway's response: "If you want to search through those emails, get a warrant for each and every email."

NSA: "That's impossible. We're talking about millions of emails."

Rich Conway: "Too ####### bad. Get a warrant for each one. That's what the 4th Amendment says."

If you don't understand how completely unreasonable your approach is, there's no way I can explain it to you.

 

[RCon]

1. What specific lie was made to Congress?2. What specific law has been broken?

Clapper specifically told Congress that the NSA was not collecting data on US citizens, did he not?

 

[timschochet]

1. What specific lie was made to Congress?2. What specific law has been broken?

Clapper specifically told Congress that the NSA was not collecting data on US citizens, did he not?

I don't know. Do you have a link? (Not challenging you on this; I honestly don't recall what he specifically said.)

 

[The Commish]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

Which part of what I wrote is false? Are you suggesting that the government will start prosecuting people without obtaining legal warrants?

Do you really believe it impossible for something like the following to occur:

1. Tim suspected of X crime.

2. Local law enforcement calls up the NSA and says, "Hey, you know all that data you've been collecting? While, I need a "mass search" done to see if I can find a pattern on this guy Tim so I can obtain a search warrant"

3. NSA ponies up the data behind the scenes with a select few knowing.

4. Cops show up with a warrant to do a thorough search of Tim's house, car, work, technology and can OFFICIALLY go to the NSA and ask for the data.

5. Tim's screwed.

I believe this to be real. I believe it happens today. What's worse, the government has everyone believing that they have these programs to prevent terrorism so few question them. The worst of all is we can't question them to find out the truth. Why this isn't an issue for more people is beyond me. At this point my only recourse is to make sure I'm ok with whatever I put out on the internet because I have to assume someone is watching.

If that happens today (and I have no evidence of it, do you?) then it shouldn't.

As you correctly pointed out, the main element of a free society which operates under the rule of law is not the Constitution (which, in the final analysis, is only a piece of paper) but the willingness of the people to abide by it- specifically, judges. So long as we have an independent, honest judiciary (and I believe that for the most part we do), it will prevent the sort of thing you're talking about. Any judge worth their salt would look at the situation you described and throw out all evidence obtained as part of the "poison fruit", since it was illegally obtained in the first place. Does this happen every time? Probably not. I'm sure people can come up with anecdotes that show screw-ups or even deliberate misapplications of police power which are allowed by judges. Are these anecdotes enough to condemn the overall idea of what the NSA is doing? I don't believe they are.

This is what you don't get.....there isn't a way to prove it was obtained illegally if done correctly. I'm not talking about the times where a zealous cop does something stupid, it comes to light and is dismissed. I'm talking about the carefully orchestrated dance between local authorities and federal authorities. We know a substantial relationship exists between these groups just look how quickly the FBI, CIA etc got their hands on all the images from the cameras for the Boston Marathon bombings.

 

[RCon]

NSA comes to you and says, "Somebody, somewhere is posting an email right now about a plan to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge, with the code phrase xyj678444449. We don't know who, but somebody is sending that message. We need a copy of every email sent in the last month so that we can search to see if that code phrase shows up."

Rich Conway's response: "If you want to search through those emails, get a warrant for each and every email."

NSA: "That's impossible. We're talking about millions of emails."

Rich Conway: "Too ####### bad. Get a warrant for each one. That's what the 4th Amendment says."

If you don't understand how completely unreasonable your approach is, there's no way I can explain it to you.

If you don't understand how completely unrealistic your hypothetical is, there's no way I can explain it to you. And you're the one who rails on and on about black helicopters and paranoids...

 

[timschochet]

I don't think we have to strike the 4th Amendment from the Constitution .

Of course not ... but with the existence of powerful extra-legal entities (e.g. the NSA, deeper-cover agencies) that won't ever uphold the Constitution and cannot be made to do so, the 4th is pretty toothless when it comes to Internet-era privacy concerns.

Only in terms of mass searches, and in those cases I don't mind.But this doesn't need to apply to individual searches. Let's say that the local police are suspicious that you are a drug dealer. They can't just ask the NSA, "Let's have a look at Doug B's emails". They still need to get a warrant. And if they did attempt to use emails obtained without a warrant to prosecute you for a crime, the judge would throw it out. So I disagree with your entire premise. The 4th Amendment is as powerful as its ever been. It was never meant to apply to this sort of collective search through millions of emails, because such a thing wasn't possible before now.

How do you know that any of what you wrote is true? Pretty much everything the government has told you so far about the program has turned out to be a lie.

Which part of what I wrote is false? Are you suggesting that the government will start prosecuting people without obtaining legal warrants?

Do you really believe it impossible for something like the following to occur:

1. Tim suspected of X crime.

2. Local law enforcement calls up the NSA and says, "Hey, you know all that data you've been collecting? While, I need a "mass search" done to see if I can find a pattern on this guy Tim so I can obtain a search warrant"

3. NSA ponies up the data behind the scenes with a select few knowing.

4. Cops show up with a warrant to do a thorough search of Tim's house, car, work, technology and can OFFICIALLY go to the NSA and ask for the data.

5. Tim's screwed.

I believe this to be real. I believe it happens today. What's worse, the government has everyone believing that they have these programs to prevent terrorism so few question them. The worst of all is we can't question them to find out the truth. Why this isn't an issue for more people is beyond me. At this point my only recourse is to make sure I'm ok with whatever I put out on the internet because I have to assume someone is watching.

If that happens today (and I have no evidence of it, do you?) then it shouldn't.

As you correctly pointed out, the main element of a free society which operates under the rule of law is not the Constitution (which, in the final analysis, is only a piece of paper) but the willingness of the people to abide by it- specifically, judges. So long as we have an independent, honest judiciary (and I believe that for the most part we do), it will prevent the sort of thing you're talking about. Any judge worth their salt would look at the situation you described and throw out all evidence obtained as part of the "poison fruit", since it was illegally obtained in the first place. Does this happen every time? Probably not. I'm sure people can come up with anecdotes that show screw-ups or even deliberate misapplications of police power which are allowed by judges. Are these anecdotes enough to condemn the overall idea of what the NSA is doing? I don't believe they are.

This is what you don't get.....there isn't a way to prove it was obtained illegally if done correctly. I'm not talking about the times where a zealous cop does something stupid, it comes to light and is dismissed. I'm talking about the carefully orchestrated dance between local authorities and federal authorities. We know a substantial relationship exists between these groups just look how quickly the FBI, CIA etc got their hands on all the images from the cameras for the Boston Marathon bombings.

But I WANT that "substantial relationship" to exist. I have no evidence that anything illegal took place. Do you?

 

[The Commish]

1. What specific lie was made to Congress?2. What specific law has been broken?

Clapper specifically told Congress that the NSA was not collecting data on US citizens, did he not?

I don't know. Do you have a link? (Not challenging you on this; I honestly don't recall what he specifically said.)

 

[RCon]

1. What specific lie was made to Congress?2. What specific law has been broken?

Clapper specifically told Congress that the NSA was not collecting data on US citizens, did he not?

I don't know. Do you have a link? (Not challenging you on this; I honestly don't recall what he specifically said.)

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/this_man_is_still_lying_to_america/

 

[cstu]

This has turned into the worst thread on the board. Everyone arguing with Tim. We get it. Tim doesn't mind gov't surveillance and isn't changing his mind.

I have changed my mind on several specific points regarding this issue, thanks to this thread.

Does it bother you at all that everything you do online or off with a paper trail is going to be stored here indefinitely?

 

[timschochet]

NSA comes to you and says, "Somebody, somewhere is posting an email right now about a plan to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge, with the code phrase xyj678444449. We don't know who, but somebody is sending that message. We need a copy of every email sent in the last month so that we can search to see if that code phrase shows up."

Rich Conway's response: "If you want to search through those emails, get a warrant for each and every email."

NSA: "That's impossible. We're talking about millions of emails."

Rich Conway: "Too ####### bad. Get a warrant for each one. That's what the 4th Amendment says."

If you don't understand how completely unreasonable your approach is, there's no way I can explain it to you.

If you don't understand how completely unrealistic your hypothetical is, there's no way I can explain it to you. And you're the one who rails on and on about black helicopters and paranoids...

My "hypothetical" is EXACTLY what the NSA says it's doing, and why it says it's doing it. The difference between this and the black helicopter crowd is 180 degrees: this is what the government SAYS is going on. It's why, from the beginning, I've made the distinction of defending the IDEA of this program in principle. I am not, nor have I ever, attempted to defend what is actually happening because I don't know what is actually happening. Nobody does. But the idea, as defended by Obama and the NSA, seems reasonable to me, and I will continue to defend the idea.