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

[Jojo the circus boy]

After thinking about it at length, my answer is: dammit, no. I am NOT missing anything. The NSA is collecting data at an incredibly large rate. It may or may not be a violation of the 4th Amendment, but there is a logical reason for what they are doing. I think it's an acceptable price to pay to fight terrorism.

Keep believing the lies Tim. The NSA spied on Brazilian oil giant for economic purposes.

Pagliusi points to signs that this is part of systematic spying. “You don’t obtain all of this in a single run. From what I see, this is a very consistent system that yields powerful results; it’s a very efficient form of spying,” he says.

Pagliusi concludes that this has been going on for a while: “There’s no place for amateurs in this area.”

The yearly profits of Petrobras are over 280 billion reais – US$ 120 billion. More than the GDP of many countries. And there are plenty of motives for spies to want access to the company’s protected network.

Petrobras has two supercomputers, used mainly for seismic research – which evaluate oil reserves from samples collected at sea. This is how the company mapped the Pre-salt layer, the largest discovery of new oil reserves in the world in recent years.

There is no information on the extent of the spying, nor if it managed to access the data contained in the company’s computers. It’s clear Petrobras was a target, but no documents show exactly what information the NSA searched for. But at any rate, Petrobras has strategic knowledge of deals involving billions of dollars.

For example, the details of each lot in an auction set for next month: for exploration of the Libra Field, in the Bay of Santos, part of the Pre-salt. Whether the spies had access to this information is one of the questions the Brazilian government will have to put to the United States.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If someone applied for a job at the NSA do you think they pull their "NSA" file?

What about the CIA?

Secret Service?

Presidential nominees?

Congress?

All in the name of terrorism, right?

 

[The Commish]

After thinking about it at length, my answer is: dammit, no. I am NOT missing anything. The NSA is collecting data at an incredibly large rate. It may or may not be a violation of the 4th Amendment, but there is a logical reason for what they are doing. I think it's an acceptable price to pay to fight terrorism.

Sorry Tim...can't have it both ways. There's either nothing wrong with it or there is a price to pay. Which is it?? There's a logical reason for me to become a peeping tom around the America's next top model house too, but I suspect I'd still get thrown in jail for doing so.

 

[tom22406]

After thinking about it at length, my answer is: dammit, no. I am NOT missing anything. The NSA is collecting data at an incredibly large rate. It may or may not be a violation of the 4th Amendment, but there is a logical reason for what they are doing. I think it's an acceptable price to pay to fight terrorism.

Sorry Tim...can't have it both ways. There's either nothing wrong with it or there is a price to pay. Which is it?? There's a logical reason for me to become a peeping tom around the America's next top model house too, but I suspect I'd still get thrown in jail for doing so.

I wonder if he was ok with the NSA spying on Obama?

Was he considered a terrorist threat?

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-nsa-spied-on-barack-obama-2004-russ-tice-2013-6

But I'm positive he will spin this as well into nothing to see at all,

 

[tom22406]

A decent read

If You Argue that the NSA Data Has Not Been Misused, You Must Know Something the NSA Doesn’t Which isn’t much these days…In light of the revelations of a massive data collection and snooping effort by the NSA, one response has been to suggest that privacy advocates are overreacting, and that, as a friend put it, “the scale of abuses reported is minimal/nonexistent” so this is not that big of a deal.

That the abuses of this massive data trove that we know of are very few is true—but that should not be a comfort as this hides a huge, uncomfortable problem. We don’t know what we don’t know, and not just in some abstract, philosophical sense that there will always be “unknown unknowns,” but very specifically in that what we know of the NSA’s data management practices strongly suggests that the NSA itself doesn’t really know how the data it is collecting is being used.

In a nutshell, here’s what we’ve learned, or has been highlighted, as a result of Edward Snowden’s leaks: Almost all major software companies as well as telecommunications giants have created mechanisms by which the NSA has access to traffic and user information that goes through that company. We have also learned that NSA has been deliberately weakening internet security so that it can eavesdrop easier on it all. We learned that NSA also taps into internet’s physical backbone and listens in to the traffic directly.

In short, the NSA is collecting a massive amount of data from multiple, varied sources. Each of these data surveillance methods produces massive amounts of complex, incongruous data in nonstop fashion. Just managing data storage at this scale is a humongous challenge, let along categorizing and sorting it all, and then retrieving it on demand.

To manage this data beast, the NSA seems to have relied on highly-competent “sysadmins”—in effect super users. The powerful wizards. What is increasingly clear that it did not do, however, is find a way to provide an effective oversight of these sysadmins, the custodians of it all.

In a dramatic failure of quis custodiet ipsos custodes, the NSA has all but admitted it doesn’t really know what Edward Snowden took, or how exactly. Snowden, as sysadmin, seems to have had access to both user identities of more powerful users as well as his own logs, which meant he could snoop freely and delete his tracks all the while sitting pretty in Hawaii. He could pose as a very authorized person, gather the data and hide his tracks. Forensics on systems that are manipulated by a competent and powerful sysadmin are very hard. In the physical world, it’s hard to be somewhere without shedding any DNA, hair or some sort of trace. In the digital world, with the right set of permissions and access, it is possible to be traceless for all practical purposes.

The NSA, it seems, is now trying to reconstruct Snowden’s digital footsteps within the agency’s computers through indirect methods such as looking for incongruous logins (a user on vacation logs in; password resets that a user cannot recall) but these methods will only take them so far if logs were erased and written over.

Other examples of the “scarcity” of abuses are no more comforting. We know, for example, that there have been abuses of this data in few instances by NSA employers stalking their exes (jokingly called LOVEINT, the way signal intelligence is called SIGINT and human sourced intelligence is called HUMINT). As far as the NSA knows, these instances were few; but the reality is the NSA doesn’t know because these violations were not uncovered by NSA tracking but by employees who confessed. In other words, there is no strong oversight that catches every instance of a scorned NSA employee snooping on their object of obsession or affection. Given the security clearance requirements, it seems quite unlikely that a whole bunch of NSA employees were dating people whose profiles were very easy to confuse with potential terrorists and that’s why these gross violations weren’t detected. Ordinary people’s data was snooped on and the NSA was no wiser for it until the employees ‘fessed up.

Other parts of the NSA data management system also seem creaky. When ProPublica filed a FOIA request with the NSA to search for emails between its employees and a TV channel that had aired a puff piece documentary on the NSA, the response it got from the NSA was that they did not have the technical capability to bulk scan their email as their system was “a little antiquated and archaic” and thus they had “no central method to search an email at this time with the way our records are set up.” (Such bulk searches are fairly common in the corporate world). In case you are wondering how a top level agency that deals with digital data can have a creaky system, this is often the result of being an very early adopter—they likely had a burgeoning intranet before most anyone else, and this is probably still run on some old creaky, antiquated code the author of which has long retired, and which has been patched repeatedly through the years to the point that nobody can really touch it anymore short of scrapping it all and starting over.

Given this reality, can anyone truly deny the possibility that a malevolent Snowden or a foreign government that might have placed a sysadmin mole into NSA has NOT scooped up personal information on influential and important politicians and is now (or will in the future) blackmailing them? Can we be sure that there is not already massive “unauthorized” snooping at lower levels? There is already a whistle blower who claims Barack Obama was wiretapped by the NSA along with a whole number of high-level US politicians. The possibilities for mischief—ranging from the small potatoes cases of scorned lovers to significant political and personal blackmail and deep privacy violations—is vast. And the scary truth is that nobody really knows for sure what has already happened, nor can anyone claim or guarantee that it won’t. Not the pundits, not the NSA itself, and not any individual sysadmin because, as I’ve already argued, digital unknowns can stay buried forever if tracks are covered with expertise and root access.

The NSA has responded to criticisms of its data management practices by claiming that it was going to fire 90% of its 1,000 sysadmins and automate their duties. If their duties were so easily automatable, there wouldn’t be a need for 1,000 of them. It also said that it will implement “two-person” administrative requirements for the most secret documents, which merely raise the bar but do not prevent silent, significant abuse of very sensitive data. (In any case, it never said that the two person rule would apply to accessing personal data, just sensitive documents that can be leaked). The NSA can also take other steps to make the data a little more secure, but given the realities of the size, complexity and nature of the data, they will always need “ad hoc” management of their surveillance system, and all such “ad hoc” systems are “hackable” from the inside.

So, next time someone tells you that there have been very few abuses of the NSA’s massive data trove, ask them how they know because they are claiming to know something the NSA itself doesn’t. And these days, that’s not much.

https://medium.com/editors-picks/85a6e531fec4

 

[Slapdash]

Good find tom22406. The degree of incompetence in governing this data described in that piece is unacceptable.

 

[RCon]

So I've been thinking about this in great detail this weekend. This issue has never been of great interest to me. It's not something I've felt passionate about one way or the other. But on the other hand, it is rather unique that of all the political issues I've debated in this forum, this is the only one in which I find myself nearly completely alone. Everybody here seems to think I'm an idiot, or ignorant, or a troll, or crazy. It's been suggested that I be put on ignore.

I don't think you're an idiot, ignorant, a troll, or crazy. I think you're a well meaning, mostly interesting poster. I think your biggest issue is that you have a very hard time discarding personal biases when looking at issues, and your own biases inform your opinions far more than they should. This is extremely evident when you post opinion pieces, containing no actual facts, and proclaim that they prove your point (you do this a lot).

What really troubles me are the reactions of Slapdash and Rich Conway. I disagree with them on a host of issues, and Slapdash doesn't seem to like me at all, but I consider the two of them among the most intelligent people in this forum. And they seem to agree with everyone else that I am not just wrong on this issue but idiotic or crazy as well. That makes me think: if two such smart people feel this way am I really missing something here?

There are lots of posters more intelligent than me here. Maurile, Ivan, Yankee, fatguy, and scooby, just to name a few. However, I suspect they all agree that you're dead wrong on this particular issue. If so, that should really trouble you and your thought process on this one.

After thinking about it at length, my answer is: dammit, no. I am NOT missing anything. The NSA is collecting data at an incredibly large rate. It may or may not be a violation of the 4th Amendment, but there is a logical reason for what they are doing. I think it's an acceptable price to pay to fight terrorism. I also believe that none of the information collected will be used in such a way as to interfere with our private lives (at least, in any manner that we will ever be aware of.) Every new revelation is basically the same: they're collecting this, they're collecting that. There may be instances of NSA employees reading stuff they shouldn't, and of course THAT is troubling. But we are also told that security measures are in place to prevent this from happening. In any case, there are no instances that I'm aware of that the information collected is being used for nefarious purposes. I STRONGLY doubt that, outside of anecdotes that will no doubt be reported from time to time, there ever will be.

You can stop right at the point of "may or may not be a violation of the 4th amendment". If it is a violation, then the price is not acceptable, by definition. You then state "I also believe that none of the information collected will be used in such a way as to interfere with our private lives", but we already know that there have been thousands of instances where the information was used in this way. Remember, these are only the instances we've been made aware of. I don't understand your comment "outside of anecdotes". What's the cutoff line for anecdotes versus systemic or typical? Is it four times? Twenty-eight times per year? Ten thousand times? In one instance we've learned about, it was so frequent that the NSA operators had an in-house code word for it.

When I use the word "anecdote" I am NOT referring to the collection or storage of information, only the use of it for wrongful purposes. I get that some (most) of you regard simply the collection of the information as wrongful. I do not. I submit to you that none of your lives will EVER be affected by this. What I mean by "affected" is that the government comes to your door to question you, or uses the information against you in a negative way. Just the collection of the information in itself is not affecting you. It is the proverbial tree falling in the empty forest. If you didn't read about it after the Snowden revelations, you'd never have been aware of it. And for all it will change your life, you might as well never be aware of it. To 99.99% of us, it's absolutely meaningless. And to the very few people that it WILL affect, in most cases, hopefully, it's justified.

Well, yeah, we feel the collection itself is wrongful, because the 4th amendment tells us it's wrongful. My life isn't affected if the police break down a random person's door in North Dakota and haul them away without due process, but I still don't want it happening. I probably wouldn't be aware of it either, unless someone leaked it to the press, but I still don't want it happening, and I think the government would be wrong for doing it.

 

[Slapdash]

After thinking about it at length, my answer is: dammit, no. I am NOT missing anything. The NSA is collecting data at an incredibly large rate. It may or may not be a violation of the 4th Amendment, but there is a logical reason for what they are doing. I think it's an acceptable price to pay to fight terrorism.

Sorry Tim...can't have it both ways. There's either nothing wrong with it or there is a price to pay. Which is it?? There's a logical reason for me to become a peeping tom around the America's next top model house too, but I suspect I'd still get thrown in jail for doing so.

I wonder if he was ok with the NSA spying on Obama?

Was he considered a terrorist threat?

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-nsa-spied-on-barack-obama-2004-russ-tice-2013-6

But I'm positive he will spin this as well into nothing to see at all,

Just anecdotal.

 

[RCon]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

 

[Slapdash]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

The angle of how programs like SIGINT and BULLRUN make our data less secure to everyone needs to be addressed also.

 

[The Commish]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

The angle of how programs like SIGINT and BULLRUN make our data less secure to everyone needs to be addressed also.

What is hacked from our systems is unacceptable as it is. Fortunately, this type of data is of little interest to most. They'd rather get their hands on our military secrets or something that's going to put serious in their pockets instantly. So this data is probably a little safer just for that fact alone.

 

[timschochet]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

 

[The Commish]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's a concern over the government's PROTECTION of it that is an issue. Data collection and retention is an important part of this puzzle that's being overlooked. I can assure you, the longer it's kept, the less safe it becomes. You're trying to shift the goal posts here and use the "but it's safer than if Verizon has it". Problem here is #1. Verizon doesn't generally keep this kind of detailed information and #2. They certainly don't keep what data they do have for as long as the government is. Your examples simply aren't true unless we choose to be lazy. "Private conversation" is as private as you and I are willing to make it. I will concede that technology allows us to snoop more easily. That shouldn't be a question, but there are also things we can do that make that snooping more difficult. We just choose not to do it. This notion that we throw up our hands and just "accept" we are probably being watched because technology allows it seems like a bizarre place to draw the line.

 

[RCon]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's less safe existing at all than not existing. Verizon doesn't store this information permanently. Google doesn't store e-mails that I have deleted forever.

The information is also more safe when bits and pieces of it exist separately. That is, my complete "profile" is more private when a small portion of it belongs to Verizon, another small portion to Google, another piece with Yahoo, etc. The NSA compiles all of it together.

 

[The Commish]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's less safe existing at all than not existing. Verizon doesn't store this information permanently. Google doesn't store e-mails that I have deleted forever.

As far as we know

 

[RCon]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's less safe existing at all than not existing. Verizon doesn't store this information permanently. Google doesn't store e-mails that I have deleted forever.

As far as we know

This is another good point, actually. Google says they don't store my deleted e-mails permanently. If I discover that they are, I can sue them to make them stop. Even better, I can start a class action suit to make them stop. Not so much with the NSA. Prior to Snowden, the NSA didn't even tell us they had this information, much less how long it was being kept.

 

[The Commish]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's less safe existing at all than not existing. Verizon doesn't store this information permanently. Google doesn't store e-mails that I have deleted forever.

As far as we know

This is another good point, actually. Google says they don't store my deleted e-mails permanently. If I discover that they are, I can sue them to make them stop. Even better, I can start a class action suit to make them stop. Not so much with the NSA. Prior to Snowden, the NSA didn't even tell us they had this information, much less how long it was being kept.

Agreed....and it's infinitely more easy to discover google doing something like this than the NSA. That's my biggest problem with this whole thing. We have a judge, jury, executioner style legal system. The problem here is the people in question are all three.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

How to foil NSA sabotage: use a dead man's switch

 

[Slapdash]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's less safe existing at all than not existing. Verizon doesn't store this information permanently. Google doesn't store e-mails that I have deleted forever.

The information is also more safe when bits and pieces of it exist separately. That is, my complete "profile" is more private when a small portion of it belongs to Verizon, another small portion to Google, another piece with Yahoo, etc. The NSA compiles all of it together.

[SIZE=10.5pt]It is important to keep in mind that there are strong incentives for companies to protect the privacy of their users that just don't exist for the government. Mismanaging user data would lead to reputational and legal risk that the government is immune to. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Being pretty familiar with how large companies manage data, I can't imagine the conditions mentioned in the earlier piece happening here. Sure there are issues everywhere, but that is straight up incompetence. Very dangerous which speaks to how Snowden is bringing to bear such a wealth of information. [/SIZE]

 

[Psychopav]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's a concern over the government's PROTECTION of it that is an issue. Data collection and retention is an important part of this puzzle that's being overlooked. I can assure you, the longer it's kept, the less safe it becomes. You're trying to shift the goal posts here and use the "but it's safer than if Verizon has it". Problem here is #1. Verizon doesn't generally keep this kind of detailed information and #2. They certainly don't keep what data they do have for as long as the government is. Your examples simply aren't true unless we choose to be lazy. "Private conversation" is as private as you and I are willing to make it. I will concede that technology allows us to snoop more easily. That shouldn't be a question, but there are also things we can do that make that snooping more difficult. We just choose not to do it. This notion that we throw up our hands and just "accept" we are probably being watched because technology allows it seems like a bizarre place to draw the line.

Keeping the data with the source companies instead of aggregating it for hypothetical use is a great way to protect it. The government could simply require via record retention statutes that certain companies retain certain data for as long as the congress think it necessary. And the government can access and compile as needed and WARRANTed (as vetted and approved by a court of law). This would preserve the data for use if needed while not violating our fourth amendment rights. And quite honestly it doesn't matter to me if it turns out what the NSA is doing is allowed under the fourth amendment. It's wrong and congress should put a stop to it.

(O my gosh! Pav just said that the Constitution <> government doing the right thing! )

 

[timschochet]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's a concern over the government's PROTECTION of it that is an issue. Data collection and retention is an important part of this puzzle that's being overlooked. I can assure you, the longer it's kept, the less safe it becomes. You're trying to shift the goal posts here and use the "but it's safer than if Verizon has it". Problem here is #1. Verizon doesn't generally keep this kind of detailed information and #2. They certainly don't keep what data they do have for as long as the government is. Your examples simply aren't true unless we choose to be lazy. "Private conversation" is as private as you and I are willing to make it. I will concede that technology allows us to snoop more easily. That shouldn't be a question, but there are also things we can do that make that snooping more difficult. We just choose not to do it. This notion that we throw up our hands and just "accept" we are probably being watched because technology allows it seems like a bizarre place to draw the line.

Keeping the data with the source companies instead of aggregating it for hypothetical use is a great way to protect it. The government could simply require via record retention statutes that certain companies retain certain data for as long as the congress think it necessary. And the government can access and compile as needed and WARRANTed (as vetted and approved by a court of law). This would preserve the data for use if needed while not violating our fourth amendment rights. And quite honestly it doesn't matter to me if it turns out what the NSA is doing is allowed under the fourth amendment. It's wrong and congress should put a stop to it.

(O my gosh! Pav just said that the Constitution <> government doing the right thing! )

In principle, I would have no problem with this idea. But the warrants have to be collective. If the NSA needs to run an algorithm through several million emails, they can't be required to have to obtain a separate warrant for each email. Instead, they would go to a court and explain the need for the algorithm, and request ONE mass warrant for all of the emails. And the entire process, including all court records, would have to be secret, in order to protect national security.

 

[The Commish]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's a concern over the government's PROTECTION of it that is an issue. Data collection and retention is an important part of this puzzle that's being overlooked. I can assure you, the longer it's kept, the less safe it becomes. You're trying to shift the goal posts here and use the "but it's safer than if Verizon has it". Problem here is #1. Verizon doesn't generally keep this kind of detailed information and #2. They certainly don't keep what data they do have for as long as the government is. Your examples simply aren't true unless we choose to be lazy. "Private conversation" is as private as you and I are willing to make it. I will concede that technology allows us to snoop more easily. That shouldn't be a question, but there are also things we can do that make that snooping more difficult. We just choose not to do it. This notion that we throw up our hands and just "accept" we are probably being watched because technology allows it seems like a bizarre place to draw the line.

Keeping the data with the source companies instead of aggregating it for hypothetical use is a great way to protect it. The government could simply require via record retention statutes that certain companies retain certain data for as long as the congress think it necessary. And the government can access and compile as needed and WARRANTed (as vetted and approved by a court of law). This would preserve the data for use if needed while not violating our fourth amendment rights. And quite honestly it doesn't matter to me if it turns out what the NSA is doing is allowed under the fourth amendment. It's wrong and congress should put a stop to it.

(O my gosh! Pav just said that the Constitution <> government doing the right thing! )

In principle, I would have no problem with this idea. But the warrants have to be collective. If the NSA needs to run an algorithm through several million emails, they can't be required to have to obtain a separate warrant for each email. Instead, they would go to a court and explain the need for the algorithm, and request ONE mass warrant for all of the emails. And the entire process, including all court records, would have to be secret, in order to protect national security.

What does the secrecy of the warrant have to do with national security?

 

[RCon]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's a concern over the government's PROTECTION of it that is an issue. Data collection and retention is an important part of this puzzle that's being overlooked. I can assure you, the longer it's kept, the less safe it becomes. You're trying to shift the goal posts here and use the "but it's safer than if Verizon has it". Problem here is #1. Verizon doesn't generally keep this kind of detailed information and #2. They certainly don't keep what data they do have for as long as the government is. Your examples simply aren't true unless we choose to be lazy. "Private conversation" is as private as you and I are willing to make it. I will concede that technology allows us to snoop more easily. That shouldn't be a question, but there are also things we can do that make that snooping more difficult. We just choose not to do it. This notion that we throw up our hands and just "accept" we are probably being watched because technology allows it seems like a bizarre place to draw the line.

Keeping the data with the source companies instead of aggregating it for hypothetical use is a great way to protect it. The government could simply require via record retention statutes that certain companies retain certain data for as long as the congress think it necessary. And the government can access and compile as needed and WARRANTed (as vetted and approved by a court of law). This would preserve the data for use if needed while not violating our fourth amendment rights. And quite honestly it doesn't matter to me if it turns out what the NSA is doing is allowed under the fourth amendment. It's wrong and congress should put a stop to it.

(O my gosh! Pav just said that the Constitution <> government doing the right thing! )

In principle, I would have no problem with this idea. But the warrants have to be collective. If the NSA needs to run an algorithm through several million emails, they can't be required to have to obtain a separate warrant for each email. Instead, they would go to a court and explain the need for the algorithm, and request ONE mass warrant for all of the emails. And the entire process, including all court records, would have to be secret, in order to protect national security.

Or, in other words, the NSA needs to be able to search anything, anywhere, anytime, without justifying its need to perform said search.

 

[Psychopav]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's a concern over the government's PROTECTION of it that is an issue. Data collection and retention is an important part of this puzzle that's being overlooked. I can assure you, the longer it's kept, the less safe it becomes. You're trying to shift the goal posts here and use the "but it's safer than if Verizon has it". Problem here is #1. Verizon doesn't generally keep this kind of detailed information and #2. They certainly don't keep what data they do have for as long as the government is. Your examples simply aren't true unless we choose to be lazy. "Private conversation" is as private as you and I are willing to make it. I will concede that technology allows us to snoop more easily. That shouldn't be a question, but there are also things we can do that make that snooping more difficult. We just choose not to do it. This notion that we throw up our hands and just "accept" we are probably being watched because technology allows it seems like a bizarre place to draw the line.

Keeping the data with the source companies instead of aggregating it for hypothetical use is a great way to protect it. The government could simply require via record retention statutes that certain companies retain certain data for as long as the congress think it necessary. And the government can access and compile as needed and WARRANTed (as vetted and approved by a court of law). This would preserve the data for use if needed while not violating our fourth amendment rights. And quite honestly it doesn't matter to me if it turns out what the NSA is doing is allowed under the fourth amendment. It's wrong and congress should put a stop to it.

(O my gosh! Pav just said that the Constitution <> government doing the right thing! )

In principle, I would have no problem with this idea. But the warrants have to be collective. If the NSA needs to run an algorithm through several million emails, they can't be required to have to obtain a separate warrant for each email. Instead, they would go to a court and explain the need for the algorithm, and request ONE mass warrant for all of the emails. And the entire process, including all court records, would have to be secret, in order to protect national security.

Or, in other words, the NSA needs to be able to search anything, anywhere, anytime, without justifying its need to perform said search.

The warrant would have to have a basis in that it would need to be tied to a specific user or communication justifying it's existence. So if they know that Suspect X is involved in money laundering to funnel funds to a terrorist organization, they could subpoena all of the phone records and voice recordings of that user over a period of time. That search may result in a new request for a warrant if they uncover information leading them to another suspect or communication trail. What it wouldn't do would be to allow them to retain the data, use it outside of the confines of the warrant, or expand their investigation beyond the scope of that intended by the warrant. Just because Suspect X called to check on his dry cleaning, they can't go on to get the dry cleaner's e-mail records unless they go back for a new warrant (as opposed to what they can do now, apparently).

 

[RCon]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's a concern over the government's PROTECTION of it that is an issue. Data collection and retention is an important part of this puzzle that's being overlooked. I can assure you, the longer it's kept, the less safe it becomes. You're trying to shift the goal posts here and use the "but it's safer than if Verizon has it". Problem here is #1. Verizon doesn't generally keep this kind of detailed information and #2. They certainly don't keep what data they do have for as long as the government is. Your examples simply aren't true unless we choose to be lazy. "Private conversation" is as private as you and I are willing to make it. I will concede that technology allows us to snoop more easily. That shouldn't be a question, but there are also things we can do that make that snooping more difficult. We just choose not to do it. This notion that we throw up our hands and just "accept" we are probably being watched because technology allows it seems like a bizarre place to draw the line.

Keeping the data with the source companies instead of aggregating it for hypothetical use is a great way to protect it. The government could simply require via record retention statutes that certain companies retain certain data for as long as the congress think it necessary. And the government can access and compile as needed and WARRANTed (as vetted and approved by a court of law). This would preserve the data for use if needed while not violating our fourth amendment rights. And quite honestly it doesn't matter to me if it turns out what the NSA is doing is allowed under the fourth amendment. It's wrong and congress should put a stop to it.

(O my gosh! Pav just said that the Constitution <> government doing the right thing! )

In principle, I would have no problem with this idea. But the warrants have to be collective. If the NSA needs to run an algorithm through several million emails, they can't be required to have to obtain a separate warrant for each email. Instead, they would go to a court and explain the need for the algorithm, and request ONE mass warrant for all of the emails. And the entire process, including all court records, would have to be secret, in order to protect national security.

Or, in other words, the NSA needs to be able to search anything, anywhere, anytime, without justifying its need to perform said search.

The warrant would have to have a basis in that it would need to be tied to a specific user or communication justifying it's existence. So if they know that Suspect X is involved in money laundering to funnel funds to a terrorist organization, they could subpoena all of the phone records and voice recordings of that user over a period of time. That search may result in a new request for a warrant if they uncover information leading them to another suspect or communication trail. What it wouldn't do would be to allow them to retain the data, use it outside of the confines of the warrant, or expand their investigation beyond the scope of that intended by the warrant. Just because Suspect X called to check on his dry cleaning, they can't go on to get the dry cleaner's e-mail records unless they go back for a new warrant (as opposed to what they can do now, apparently).

What you've described is exactly what timschochet says isn't sufficient. According to him, the NSA needs to be able to search ALL e-mails, from everyone, for specific words or phrases. That, combined with a secret, rubber-stamp court, effectively grants the NSA to search anything, anywhere, anytime.

 

[timschochet]

Rich, just because a court is secret doesn't mean it's rubber stamp. In one fall swoop you've managed to eliminate the possibility of an independent judiciary- apparently it doesn't exist to you, simply because you as a private citizen aren't allowed access to what they're doing.

Let's extrapolate your argument for a moment: since 1946 we've had the CIA. Much of what they do is secret. The public can't know about it until years afterward. Does this mean the CIA has, at times, abused this trust? Or course. Have there been incidents of both gross negligence and even deliberate wrongful action by the CIA over the years? Certainly. Do these incidents justify abolishing the CIA or never having it in the first place? They do not, because in the big picture, the CIA has been a necessary tool to protect us.

Except that if you, Rich, were in charge in 1946, you'd have never allowed the CIA to exist, because you would have argued that it's secret nature means it can do anything at anytime, and you would have perceived it as a violation of your rights. And as a result, we would have been far less safe, IMO.

Secrecy does not necessarily equal license.

 

[timschochet]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's a concern over the government's PROTECTION of it that is an issue. Data collection and retention is an important part of this puzzle that's being overlooked. I can assure you, the longer it's kept, the less safe it becomes. You're trying to shift the goal posts here and use the "but it's safer than if Verizon has it". Problem here is #1. Verizon doesn't generally keep this kind of detailed information and #2. They certainly don't keep what data they do have for as long as the government is. Your examples simply aren't true unless we choose to be lazy. "Private conversation" is as private as you and I are willing to make it. I will concede that technology allows us to snoop more easily. That shouldn't be a question, but there are also things we can do that make that snooping more difficult. We just choose not to do it. This notion that we throw up our hands and just "accept" we are probably being watched because technology allows it seems like a bizarre place to draw the line.

Keeping the data with the source companies instead of aggregating it for hypothetical use is a great way to protect it. The government could simply require via record retention statutes that certain companies retain certain data for as long as the congress think it necessary. And the government can access and compile as needed and WARRANTed (as vetted and approved by a court of law). This would preserve the data for use if needed while not violating our fourth amendment rights. And quite honestly it doesn't matter to me if it turns out what the NSA is doing is allowed under the fourth amendment. It's wrong and congress should put a stop to it.

(O my gosh! Pav just said that the Constitution <> government doing the right thing! )

In principle, I would have no problem with this idea. But the warrants have to be collective. If the NSA needs to run an algorithm through several million emails, they can't be required to have to obtain a separate warrant for each email. Instead, they would go to a court and explain the need for the algorithm, and request ONE mass warrant for all of the emails. And the entire process, including all court records, would have to be secret, in order to protect national security.

Or, in other words, the NSA needs to be able to search anything, anywhere, anytime, without justifying its need to perform said search.

The warrant would have to have a basis in that it would need to be tied to a specific user or communication justifying it's existence. So if they know that Suspect X is involved in money laundering to funnel funds to a terrorist organization, they could subpoena all of the phone records and voice recordings of that user over a period of time. That search may result in a new request for a warrant if they uncover information leading them to another suspect or communication trail. What it wouldn't do would be to allow them to retain the data, use it outside of the confines of the warrant, or expand their investigation beyond the scope of that intended by the warrant. Just because Suspect X called to check on his dry cleaning, they can't go on to get the dry cleaner's e-mail records unless they go back for a new warrant (as opposed to what they can do now, apparently).

This doesn't work. As I wrote, there needs to be a mass warrant for millions of people being searched together. Otherwise there's no way to narrow it down to one person in the first place.

 

[The Commish]

In principle, I would have no problem with this idea. But the warrants have to be collective. If the NSA needs to run an algorithm through several million emails, they can't be required to have to obtain a separate warrant for each email. Instead, they would go to a court and explain the need for the algorithm, and request ONE mass warrant for all of the emails. And the entire process, including all court records, would have to be secret, in order to protect national security.

What does the secrecy of the warrant have to do with national security?

bump

 

[RCon]

Rich, just because a court is secret doesn't mean it's rubber stamp. In one fall swoop you've managed to eliminate the possibility of an independent judiciary- apparently it doesn't exist to you, simply because you as a private citizen aren't allowed access to what they're doing.

Let's extrapolate your argument for a moment: since 1946 we've had the CIA. Much of what they do is secret. The public can't know about it until years afterward. Does this mean the CIA has, at times, abused this trust? Or course. Have there been incidents of both gross negligence and even deliberate wrongful action by the CIA over the years? Certainly. Do these incidents justify abolishing the CIA or never having it in the first place? They do not, because in the big picture, the CIA has been a necessary tool to protect us.

Except that if you, Rich, were in charge in 1946, you'd have never allowed the CIA to exist, because you would have argued that it's secret nature means it can do anything at anytime, and you would have perceived it as a violation of your rights. And as a result, we would have been far less safe, IMO.

Secrecy does not necessarily equal license.

Perhaps in rainbow and unicorn land, your secret court isn't a rubber stamp. Here in the US, FISA has been a rubber stamp. Here in the US, where the persons responsible for populating the secret court are also the persons desiring universal access, the secret court will necessarily tend towards a rubber stamp over time.

 

[timschochet]

In principle, I would have no problem with this idea. But the warrants have to be collective. If the NSA needs to run an algorithm through several million emails, they can't be required to have to obtain a separate warrant for each email. Instead, they would go to a court and explain the need for the algorithm, and request ONE mass warrant for all of the emails. And the entire process, including all court records, would have to be secret, in order to protect national security.

What does the secrecy of the warrant have to do with national security?

bump

It may be necessary to explain certain NSA procedures to the court, such as the nature of the algorithm and how and why it is necessary, in order to justify the warrant. This is information that should not be accessible to the public, because you don't want the bad guys aware of what it is the government is looking for.

 

[The Commish]

This doesn't work. As I wrote, there needs to be a mass warrant for millions of people being searched together. Otherwise there's no way to narrow it down to one person in the first place.

This brings up another question....do you think these massive amounts of data are really the starting place for the NSA?? You seem to be under the impression that they'd come here looking for clues on where to start. If that's the case, I seriously doubt it is but if it is, that's a problem in and of itself. Most likely (99.99999999% of the time) this data is used as supporting documentation to take an action. It's not a "hmmm....well, let's see what we can find in all this data that might help us catch someone today" or "let's see what kind of patterns we can piece together today based on user usage" kind of scenario. It doesn't work that way. It's more of a "well, X is at it again...let's see if we can find more information to verify our suspicions" function.

 

[The Commish]

In principle, I would have no problem with this idea. But the warrants have to be collective. If the NSA needs to run an algorithm through several million emails, they can't be required to have to obtain a separate warrant for each email. Instead, they would go to a court and explain the need for the algorithm, and request ONE mass warrant for all of the emails. And the entire process, including all court records, would have to be secret, in order to protect national security.

What does the secrecy of the warrant have to do with national security?

bump

It may be necessary to explain certain NSA procedures to the court, such as the nature of the algorithm and how and why it is necessary, in order to justify the warrant. This is information that should not be accessible to the public, because you don't want the bad guys aware of what it is the government is looking for.

So keep those specific pieces of information classified...no need to keep the entire thing secret. Regardless, I don't think that kind of information goes into a warrant anyway.

 

[timschochet]

Rich, just because a court is secret doesn't mean it's rubber stamp. In one fall swoop you've managed to eliminate the possibility of an independent judiciary- apparently it doesn't exist to you, simply because you as a private citizen aren't allowed access to what they're doing.

Let's extrapolate your argument for a moment: since 1946 we've had the CIA. Much of what they do is secret. The public can't know about it until years afterward. Does this mean the CIA has, at times, abused this trust? Or course. Have there been incidents of both gross negligence and even deliberate wrongful action by the CIA over the years? Certainly. Do these incidents justify abolishing the CIA or never having it in the first place? They do not, because in the big picture, the CIA has been a necessary tool to protect us.

Except that if you, Rich, were in charge in 1946, you'd have never allowed the CIA to exist, because you would have argued that it's secret nature means it can do anything at anytime, and you would have perceived it as a violation of your rights. And as a result, we would have been far less safe, IMO.

Secrecy does not necessarily equal license.

Perhaps in rainbow and unicorn land, your secret court isn't a rubber stamp. Here in the US, FISA has been a rubber stamp. Here in the US, where the persons responsible for populating the secret court are also the persons desiring universal access, the secret court will necessarily tend towards a rubber stamp over time.

You've created an excellent circular argument here. Because, as far as we know, FISA hasn't rejected one of these searches, that "proves" FISA is a rubber stamp. Because the court appointments are made by our political leadership which also assures us that the NSA hasn't done anything wrong, that "proves" that they're all colluding.

There is no way for me to disprove a double negative. There is no evidence I could provide you which would prove to your satisfaction that this court is not, in fact, rubber stamp. And if anyone thinks otherwise, they are living in rainbow land.

My only possible reply is that this: the judges who are on the FISA court are men and women with years and years of judicial experience. I think it's extremely unlikely that they would risk their reputations as members of an independent judiciary in order to approve warrants which they know to be corrupt. If that puts me in rainbow land, so be it.

 

[timschochet]

In principle, I would have no problem with this idea. But the warrants have to be collective. If the NSA needs to run an algorithm through several million emails, they can't be required to have to obtain a separate warrant for each email. Instead, they would go to a court and explain the need for the algorithm, and request ONE mass warrant for all of the emails. And the entire process, including all court records, would have to be secret, in order to protect national security.

What does the secrecy of the warrant have to do with national security?

bump

It may be necessary to explain certain NSA procedures to the court, such as the nature of the algorithm and how and why it is necessary, in order to justify the warrant. This is information that should not be accessible to the public, because you don't want the bad guys aware of what it is the government is looking for.

So keep those specific pieces of information classified...no need to keep the entire thing secret. Regardless, I don't think that kind of information goes into a warrant anyway.

I have no objection. There may be other reasons I'm not considering at this moment to keep the whole thing classified. But on the face of it, your proposal seems reasonable to me.

 

[Psychopav]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's a concern over the government's PROTECTION of it that is an issue. Data collection and retention is an important part of this puzzle that's being overlooked. I can assure you, the longer it's kept, the less safe it becomes. You're trying to shift the goal posts here and use the "but it's safer than if Verizon has it". Problem here is #1. Verizon doesn't generally keep this kind of detailed information and #2. They certainly don't keep what data they do have for as long as the government is. Your examples simply aren't true unless we choose to be lazy. "Private conversation" is as private as you and I are willing to make it. I will concede that technology allows us to snoop more easily. That shouldn't be a question, but there are also things we can do that make that snooping more difficult. We just choose not to do it. This notion that we throw up our hands and just "accept" we are probably being watched because technology allows it seems like a bizarre place to draw the line.

Keeping the data with the source companies instead of aggregating it for hypothetical use is a great way to protect it. The government could simply require via record retention statutes that certain companies retain certain data for as long as the congress think it necessary. And the government can access and compile as needed and WARRANTed (as vetted and approved by a court of law). This would preserve the data for use if needed while not violating our fourth amendment rights. And quite honestly it doesn't matter to me if it turns out what the NSA is doing is allowed under the fourth amendment. It's wrong and congress should put a stop to it.

(O my gosh! Pav just said that the Constitution <> government doing the right thing! )

In principle, I would have no problem with this idea. But the warrants have to be collective. If the NSA needs to run an algorithm through several million emails, they can't be required to have to obtain a separate warrant for each email. Instead, they would go to a court and explain the need for the algorithm, and request ONE mass warrant for all of the emails. And the entire process, including all court records, would have to be secret, in order to protect national security.

Or, in other words, the NSA needs to be able to search anything, anywhere, anytime, without justifying its need to perform said search.

The warrant would have to have a basis in that it would need to be tied to a specific user or communication justifying it's existence. So if they know that Suspect X is involved in money laundering to funnel funds to a terrorist organization, they could subpoena all of the phone records and voice recordings of that user over a period of time. That search may result in a new request for a warrant if they uncover information leading them to another suspect or communication trail. What it wouldn't do would be to allow them to retain the data, use it outside of the confines of the warrant, or expand their investigation beyond the scope of that intended by the warrant. Just because Suspect X called to check on his dry cleaning, they can't go on to get the dry cleaner's e-mail records unless they go back for a new warrant (as opposed to what they can do now, apparently).

What you've described is exactly what timschochet says isn't sufficient. According to him, the NSA needs to be able to search ALL e-mails, from everyone, for specific words or phrases. That, combined with a secret, rubber-stamp court, effectively grants the NSA to search anything, anywhere, anytime.

Yes, and I disagree with him vehemently. I also have him on ignore. It's wonderful.

 

[timschochet]

This doesn't work. As I wrote, there needs to be a mass warrant for millions of people being searched together. Otherwise there's no way to narrow it down to one person in the first place.

This brings up another question....do you think these massive amounts of data are really the starting place for the NSA?? You seem to be under the impression that they'd come here looking for clues on where to start. If that's the case, I seriously doubt it is but if it is, that's a problem in and of itself. Most likely (99.99999999% of the time) this data is used as supporting documentation to take an action. It's not a "hmmm....well, let's see what we can find in all this data that might help us catch someone today" or "let's see what kind of patterns we can piece together today based on user usage" kind of scenario. It doesn't work that way. It's more of a "well, X is at it again...let's see if we can find more information to verify our suspicions" function.

I don't think it works as you suggest I think, but I also don't think it works the way you're suggesting either. Based on what we know (which is pretty limited, and will likely remain that way) here is what I think happens:

The CIA has informants in Pakistan who tell them that there is a terrorist cell group either in or headed for San Francisco, and at some point they are planning to blow up a major structure like the Golden Gate Bridge. The names of the cell group are not known, but we are given their code names and a way they communicate with each other- perhaps it's a certain Surah from the Koran, combined with very specific phrasing, etc.

What the NSA needs to do next is to have access to every email in this country. They need to have access to run algorithms through them- does the Surah come up? Does the phrasing come up? The algorithm will examine millions upon millions of emails, and perhaps (hopefully) there will be a few thousand "hits" that emerge. NSA employees then read those separate emails and decide if they are worth pursuing, and that's when they can narrow it down and get individual warrants if need be, and hopefully stop the planned terrorism.

But none of this can happen if we don't provide them the access to every email in order to run the algorithm search in the first place. That's why it's necessary.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry you have me on ignore, Psychopav. Hopefully someone else will respond to this post and you can read it. Nothing wrong is disagreeing with me, even vehemently, but why close yourself off to other ideas? I can well understand why you would put someone on ignore who was rude to you, or who deliberately attempted to antagonize you, or whom you simply considered to be a jerk. But putting someone on ignore for disagreeing with you in a political discussion? I don't get it. Outside of me, EVERYBODY here shares your opinion on this matter. Putting the merits of the issue aside, I should think that would be a little bit boring.

 

[The Commish]

This doesn't work. As I wrote, there needs to be a mass warrant for millions of people being searched together. Otherwise there's no way to narrow it down to one person in the first place.

This brings up another question....do you think these massive amounts of data are really the starting place for the NSA?? You seem to be under the impression that they'd come here looking for clues on where to start. If that's the case, I seriously doubt it is but if it is, that's a problem in and of itself. Most likely (99.99999999% of the time) this data is used as supporting documentation to take an action. It's not a "hmmm....well, let's see what we can find in all this data that might help us catch someone today" or "let's see what kind of patterns we can piece together today based on user usage" kind of scenario. It doesn't work that way. It's more of a "well, X is at it again...let's see if we can find more information to verify our suspicions" function.

I don't think it works as you suggest I think, but I also don't think it works the way you're suggesting either. Based on what we know (which is pretty limited, and will likely remain that way) here is what I think happens:

The CIA has informants in Pakistan who tell them that there is a terrorist cell group either in or headed for San Francisco, and at some point they are planning to blow up a major structure like the Golden Gate Bridge. The names of the cell group are not known, but we are given their code names and a way they communicate with each other- perhaps it's a certain Surah from the Koran, combined with very specific phrasing, etc.

What the NSA needs to do next is to have access to every email in this country. They need to have access to run algorithms through them- does the Surah come up? Does the phrasing come up? The algorithm will examine millions upon millions of emails, and perhaps (hopefully) there will be a few thousand "hits" that emerge. NSA employees then read those separate emails and decide if they are worth pursuing, and that's when they can narrow it down and get individual warrants if need be, and hopefully stop the planned terrorism.

But none of this can happen if we don't provide them the access to every email in order to run the algorithm search in the first place. That's why it's necessary.

This is what I just said only I used a "who" instead of a "what" I'd have no problem with a warrant listing all the phrases of interest (classify it if you want to) and searching for those phrases....that doesn't bother me at all. At least it goes through a process we can track and gives us a track record of past searches. We could then determine if they were abusing the data or not.

 

[timschochet]

You're actually agreeing with me, Commish? (At least on this point.) So if the NSA needs to obtain a mass warrant to search through ALL emails from EVERY American in the last month, in order to search for a certain phrase, you're OK with that, at least in principle?

 

[Slapdash]

What if the NSA was run by a rabbit?

 

[timschochet]

What if the NSA was run by a rabbit?

Then it would be a John Updike novel?

 

[Slapdash]

What if the NSA was run by a rabbit?

Then it would be a John Updike novel?

Sorry, I thought we were throwing out hypotheticals with no base in reality like your post.

 

[RCon]

Believe it or not, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your belief that the NSA should be able to search for phrases and such. I think the controls would need to be much, much tighter and more transparent than they are today.

Among many others, I am not sympathetic to the following ideas:

* Government should be allowed to store private data

* Government should be allowed to access private data without a warrant

* Government should be allowed to forbid companies from announcing that their data is being searched

* Government should be allowed to require that companies retain private customer information for any significant length of time

* Government should be allowed to require that companies secretly retain private customer information in any way that doesn't match the companies' publicly stated retention policies

* Government should be allowed to secretly build back doors into security technology

 

[timschochet]

Believe it or not, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your belief that the NSA should be able to search for phrases and such. I think the controls would need to be much, much tighter and more transparent than they are today.

Among many others, I am not sympathetic to the following ideas:

* Government should be allowed to store private data

* Government should be allowed to access private data without a warrant

* Government should be allowed to forbid companies from announcing that their data is being searched

* Government should be allowed to require that companies retain private customer information for any significant length of time

* Government should be allowed to require that companies secretly retain private customer information in any way that doesn't match the companies' publicly stated retention policies

* Government should be allowed to secretly build back doors into security technology

We're actually not that far away from each other. I don't have an objection to most of what you've written here. Regarding the bolded, however, it has to be a mass warrant, not individual warrants.

But even though I agree with you, in principle, on most of this stuff, I'm still not where you are as far as being concerned about the consequences of not doing this stuff. I probably never will be.

 

[timschochet]

What if the NSA was run by a rabbit?

Then it would be a John Updike novel?

Sorry, I thought we were throwing out hypotheticals with no base in reality like your post.

I see. Well in that case, Watership Down?

 

[Slapdash]

What if the NSA was run by a rabbit?

Then it would be a John Updike novel?

Sorry, I thought we were throwing out hypotheticals with no base in reality like your post.

I see. Well in that case, Watership Down?

Maybe you should spend more time reading about what the NSA is actually doing and less time constructing fantasy scenarios that are OK with you.

 

[The Commish]

You're actually agreeing with me, Commish? (At least on this point.) So if the NSA needs to obtain a mass warrant to search through ALL emails from EVERY American in the last month, in order to search for a certain phrase, you're OK with that, at least in principle?

The searches have never been an issue for me...it's the retention of the data and the secrecy that they do it under. I know that what I put out on the internet is not "private" any more than me driving my car around the city I live in shouting out my personal information (see my earlier conversation with PS). With that said, lines get crossed if I've taken extra steps to "secure" my data. That IMO goes above any beyond just "listening" to what is out there.

 

[timschochet]

What if the NSA was run by a rabbit?

Then it would be a John Updike novel?

Sorry, I thought we were throwing out hypotheticals with no base in reality like your post.

I see. Well in that case, Watership Down?

Maybe you should spend more time reading about what the NSA is actually doing and less time constructing fantasy scenarios that are OK with you.

Before I wrote my long post last night, I went back and tried to read as much as I could. It's very repetitive. Pretty much every new revelation has simply been an expansion on Snowden's original revelations: the NSA is collecting this data, and that data, and looking at this data, and collecting that data, etc. etc. etc. There have been incidents of certain people either in the NSA or in other government agencies having access to some of the data, which they should not.

But what's missing here, beyond speculation, is systemic deliberate misuse of the data for nefarious purposes. That is the sort of thing that would worry me, and so far as I know, it's not happening.

As far as "fantasy scenarios", from the very beginning of this news story I have speculated as to why this information is necessary. The speculation did not come from my own imagination, but instead from lots of stuff which I read, some of which I have posted here. I have no idea if what I speculated is the truth, but I don't think it's unreasonable either.

 

[Politician Spock]

To follow up on the piece a couple posts above, that's another angle that should be considered troubling by everyone, even timschochet. All this data is being collected. Even if you trust the government not to intentionally misuse it, and you're willing to ignore "anecdotal" incidents where the government or a rogue employee accidentally misuses the information, another question is : How much do you trust the government to prevent this data collection from being accessed by outside parties?

It seems to me that the bolded is a problem inherent within the technology itself, not especially in the government's collection of it. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption, as you seem to be implying, that it's less safe in the hands of the NSA that it is in the hands of Verizon, for instance.

The moment Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, private conversations became potentially less private because someone could always be listening in. The moment we as a society transferred much of our mail communication to email, those communications became potentially less private because someone could always be hacking it. I believe this has been DougB's point all along. It's an inevitable aspect of communication technology.

It's a concern over the government's PROTECTION of it that is an issue. Data collection and retention is an important part of this puzzle that's being overlooked. I can assure you, the longer it's kept, the less safe it becomes. You're trying to shift the goal posts here and use the "but it's safer than if Verizon has it". Problem here is #1. Verizon doesn't generally keep this kind of detailed information and #2. They certainly don't keep what data they do have for as long as the government is. Your examples simply aren't true unless we choose to be lazy. "Private conversation" is as private as you and I are willing to make it. I will concede that technology allows us to snoop more easily. That shouldn't be a question, but there are also things we can do that make that snooping more difficult. We just choose not to do it. This notion that we throw up our hands and just "accept" we are probably being watched because technology allows it seems like a bizarre place to draw the line.

Keeping the data with the source companies instead of aggregating it for hypothetical use is a great way to protect it. The government could simply require via record retention statutes that certain companies retain certain data for as long as the congress think it necessary. And the government can access and compile as needed and WARRANTed (as vetted and approved by a court of law). This would preserve the data for use if needed while not violating our fourth amendment rights. And quite honestly it doesn't matter to me if it turns out what the NSA is doing is allowed under the fourth amendment. It's wrong and congress should put a stop to it.

(O my gosh! Pav just said that the Constitution <> government doing the right thing! )

In principle, I would have no problem with this idea. But the warrants have to be collective. If the NSA needs to run an algorithm through several million emails, they can't be required to have to obtain a separate warrant for each email. Instead, they would go to a court and explain the need for the algorithm, and request ONE mass warrant for all of the emails. And the entire process, including all court records, would have to be secret, in order to protect national security.

Or, in other words, the NSA needs to be able to search anything, anywhere, anytime, without justifying its need to perform said search.

The warrant would have to have a basis in that it would need to be tied to a specific user or communication justifying it's existence. So if they know that Suspect X is involved in money laundering to funnel funds to a terrorist organization, they could subpoena all of the phone records and voice recordings of that user over a period of time. That search may result in a new request for a warrant if they uncover information leading them to another suspect or communication trail. What it wouldn't do would be to allow them to retain the data, use it outside of the confines of the warrant, or expand their investigation beyond the scope of that intended by the warrant. Just because Suspect X called to check on his dry cleaning, they can't go on to get the dry cleaner's e-mail records unless they go back for a new warrant (as opposed to what they can do now, apparently).

This doesn't work. As I wrote, there needs to be a mass warrant for millions of people being searched together. Otherwise there's no way to narrow it down to one person in the first place.

If the NSA obtains a warrant for Joe Schmoe's emails, then the NSA can collect any email sent to, or from, Joe Schmoe. If I send an email to Joe Schmoe, the NSA is warranted to collect the email I sent him. If Joe Schmoe sends me an email, the NSA is warranted to collect the email he sent me. This is no different than wire tapping Joe Schmoe's phone. If he calls me, the NSA is warrented to record the phone call. If I call him, the NSA is warrented to record the phone call.

But the warrant on Joe Schmoe does not give the government to collect my sent and received emails that have nothing to do with Joe Schmoe. Not only is it unconstitutional, it is unnecessary, despite your claim that it IS necessary. The warrant on Joe Schmoe's emails DOES work, just like the warrant on Joe Schmoe's wire tapping works. The government does NOT need a mass warrant on email collection any more than it needs a mass warrant on wire tapping.

 

[timschochet]

You're actually agreeing with me, Commish? (At least on this point.) So if the NSA needs to obtain a mass warrant to search through ALL emails from EVERY American in the last month, in order to search for a certain phrase, you're OK with that, at least in principle?

The searches have never been an issue for me...it's the retention of the data and the secrecy that they do it under. I know that what I put out on the internet is not "private" any more than me driving my car around the city I live in shouting out my personal information (see my earlier conversation with PS). With that said, lines get crossed if I've taken extra steps to "secure" my data. That IMO goes above any beyond just "listening" to what is out there.

Fair enough. As with Rich, we're not as much apart as I originally imagined.