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

[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.

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.

If you really did all that reading, you need yours eyes examined to believe that what you posted to Commish is an accurate look at what they are doing. It isn't even in the same ballpark.

 

[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.

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.

What can I say? I strongly disagree. I don't think we can fight terrorism as we need to with such a limitation.

 

[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.

What can I say? I strongly disagree. I don't think we can fight terrorism as we need to with such a limitation.

Then change the constitution. Because it's only the constitution that makes it illegal for the government to do that.

 

[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.

If you really did all that reading, you need yours eyes examined to believe that what you posted to Commish is an accurate look at what they are doing.

I won't discount any possibility. If you have facts (not speculation) which argue against my own speculations, I'd like to see them. That's not meant as a challenge either, but as a hopeful request that you have access to something which, so far, I've apparently missed.

 

[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

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.

I wrote that I was sympathetic to that view. What I mean is that I can understand why one might want the NSA to be able to search all e-mails for certain phrases.

As noted earlier, however, I still believe that this type of search violates the 4th amendment.

 

[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.

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.

I agree here in principle. I doubt there's ever gong to be a time where they go looking for a specific word or even phrase. Why? Because it would narrow the search results by about 5-10%. It's still a "needle in haystack" position at that point. For this amount of data to be useful, they'd need specific names (whether organizational, personal, corporations etc) to make it useful.

 

[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.

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.

If you really did all that reading, you need yours eyes examined to believe that what you posted to Commish is an accurate look at what they are doing.

I won't discount any possibility. If you have facts (not speculation) which argue against my own speculations, I'd like to see them. That's not meant as a challenge either, but as a hopeful request that you have access to something which, so far, I've apparently missed.

Wait, you have somehow missed that the NSA isn't just using tips from intelligence agencies to query a database full of emails?

 

[timschochet]

Politician Spock, the Constitutional argument is a separate argument. As I have written several times, if this issue does finally go to the SC (which I frankly desire) and if they rule that the NSA is violating the Constitution, I'll accept that. I'll be disappointed, because I believe that it will make us less safe. But if it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional.

But suppose they rule the other way: will you then accept it and drop this argument?

 

[The Commish]

What can I say? I strongly disagree. I don't think we can fight terrorism as we need to with such a limitation.

I don't think you quite grasp how much data there is to sift through. There might be one search out of millions they ever do that would be "a word", "a phrase" etc....without something more specific, this data would be completely useless because of sheer volume. The limitation you are speaking of really isn't a limitation. If that's all they've got, they've got nothing and are looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

[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.

If you really did all that reading, you need yours eyes examined to believe that what you posted to Commish is an accurate look at what they are doing.

I won't discount any possibility. If you have facts (not speculation) which argue against my own speculations, I'd like to see them. That's not meant as a challenge either, but as a hopeful request that you have access to something which, so far, I've apparently missed.

Wait, you have somehow missed that the NSA isn't just using tips from intelligence agencies to query a database full of emails?

That's not what I wrote. Why don't you respond to what I wrote, rather than come up with your own interpretation?

 

[timschochet]

Have to run guys! I really appreciate the honest conversation without insults. I will try to respond later.

 

[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.

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.

If you really did all that reading, you need yours eyes examined to believe that what you posted to Commish is an accurate look at what they are doing.

I won't discount any possibility. If you have facts (not speculation) which argue against my own speculations, I'd like to see them. That's not meant as a challenge either, but as a hopeful request that you have access to something which, so far, I've apparently missed.

Wait, you have somehow missed that the NSA isn't just using tips from intelligence agencies to query a database full of emails?

That's not what I wrote. Why don't you respond to what I wrote, rather than come up with your own interpretation?

I was responding to the scenario you created.

 

[Politician Spock]

Politician Spock, the Constitutional argument is a separate argument. As I have written several times, if this issue does finally go to the SC (which I frankly desire) and if they rule that the NSA is violating the Constitution, I'll accept that. I'll be disappointed, because I believe that it will make us less safe. But if it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional.

But suppose they rule the other way: will you then accept it and drop this argument?

If the states vote to ratify a constitutional amendment that clearly makes it legal, then I would without a doubt accept it and drop the argument.

If it gets to the Supreme Court and we end up with another Obamacare like decision, then NO I would not drop it. My position would be that the Supreme Courts decision is wrong, and would hope that as new Supreme Court judges come on board, it be presented to them to be ruled on again to fix the mistake the previous judges made.

 

[RCon]

Politician Spock, the Constitutional argument is a separate argument. As I have written several times, if this issue does finally go to the SC (which I frankly desire) and if they rule that the NSA is violating the Constitution, I'll accept that. I'll be disappointed, because I believe that it will make us less safe. But if it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional.

But suppose they rule the other way: will you then accept it and drop this argument?

If the states vote to ratify a constitutional amendment that clearly makes it legal, then I would without a doubt accept it and drop the argument.

If it gets to the Supreme Court and we end up with another Obamacare like decision, then NO I would not drop it. My position would be that the Supreme Courts decision is wrong, and would hope that as new Supreme Court judges come on board, it be presented to them to be ruled on again to fix the mistake the previous judges made.

Yeah, SCOTUS gets some things blatantly wrong. Raich comes to mind...

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Is Tim still Scott Pilgrim in this thread?

 

[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.

I agree here in principle. I doubt there's ever gong to be a time where they go looking for a specific word or even phrase. Why? Because it would narrow the search results by about 5-10%. It's still a "needle in haystack" position at that point. For this amount of data to be useful, they'd need specific names (whether organizational, personal, corporations etc) to make it useful.

Discussing doubts, reasonings, etc.... regarding the value to the government are just red herrings.

Look, it would be very valuable to just mass wire tap every single phone call. Voice recognition technology can look for certain words and phrases in sound just like it can digital data. Doing it to sounds takes more CPU power, but it's the government... if they need to get the CPU power to do it, they will.

BUT THEY CAN'T!!!!! Not because the technology doesn't exist. They can't because the government does not have the right to mass wire tap every phone call, even though the technology exists that they could. So I don't care about doubts, reasonings, benefits, etc, etc.... Without the right to mass wiretap every phone call, doubts, reasonings, benefits, etc... regarding the value to the government is a MOOT discussion.

Beyond this is only the discussion regarding the difference between a phone call and an email. Perhaps the goverment does not have the right to wire tap someone, but it has the right to intercept emails. I find this argument completely bogus.

Look... if I'm in the park, at a picnic table, and I am writing letters, typing emails, and making phone calls, any government official has the right to look over my shoulder and see what I'm writing, see what I'm typing and/or listen to what I'm saying. But if I am at my kitchen table when I write that letter, make that phone call, or type that email, the government has NO RIGHT to intercept and look at the contents of my paper letter, tap my phone, or intercept and look at the contents of my digital packets (an email)... UNLESS THEY HAVE A WARRANT.

The Bill of Rights does not see a difference between my communication packaged in paper in transit, or my communication packaged in analog in transit, or my communication packaged in digital in transit. No one can know what is in a paper letter just by looking at the envelope package. They need to take the effort to open it so they can see it with their eyes. The government does not have the right to do that without warrant. No one can know what is in an analog singal packat just by looking at it. They need to tap into it with technology to make it listenable to the human ear. The government does not have the right to do that without warrant. No one can know what is in a digital signal packet just by looking at it. They need to unpack it with technology to make it readable to the human eye, or listenable to the human ear. The government does not have that right without warrant. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that suggests that the government does UNLESS the people take the effort to encrypt the data beyond standard packaging used in the transmission form.

 

[The Commish]

Discussing doubts, reasonings, etc.... regarding the value to the government are just red herrings.

Look, it would be very valuable to just mass wire tap every single phone call. Voice recognition technology can look for certain words and phrases in sound just like it can digital data. Doing it to sounds takes more CPU power, but it's the government... if they need to get the CPU power to do it, they will.

BUT THEY CAN'T!!!!! Not because the technology doesn't exist. They can't because the government does not have the right to mass wire tap every phone call, even though the technology exists that they could. So I don't care about doubts, reasonings, benefits, etc, etc.... Without the right to mass wiretap every phone call, doubts, reasonings, benefits, etc... regarding the value to the government is a MOOT discussion.

Beyond this is only the discussion regarding the difference between a phone call and an email. Perhaps the goverment does not have the right to wire tap someone, but it has the right to intercept emails. I find this argument completely bogus.

Look... if I'm in the park, at a picnic table, and I am writing letters, typing emails, and making phone calls, any government official has the right to look over my shoulder and see what I'm writing, see what I'm typing and/or listen to what I'm saying. But if I am at my kitchen table when I write that letter, make that phone call, or type that email, the government has NO RIGHT to intercept and look at the contents of my paper letter, tap my phone, or intercept and look at the contents of my digital packets (an email)... UNLESS THEY HAVE A WARRANT.

The Bill of Rights does not see a difference between my communication packaged in paper in transit, or my communication packaged in analog in transit, or my communication packaged in digital in transit. No one can know what is in a paper letter just by looking at the envelope package. They need to take the effort to open it so they can see it with their eyes. The government does not have the right to do that without warrant. No one can know what is in an analog singal packat just by looking at it. They need to tap into it with technology to make it listenable to the human ear. The government does not have the right to do that without warrant. No one can know what is in a digital signal packet just by looking at it. They need to unpack it with technology to make it readable to the human eye, or listenable to the human ear. The government does not have that right without warrant. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that suggests that the government does UNLESS the people take the effort to encrypt the data beyond standard packaging used in the transmission form.

Hope you feel better My only point was that I doubt there'd ever be a subpoena for something as vague as a phrase or word and I have no problem with then scouring email after email to see if there were emails about the individuals in question that were valuable to an investigation. You're an IT expert....you get how data mining works. At worst, if you insist on a warrant for everyone, it's easy enough to compile a list of all the people in the database and append them to the warrant....problem solved as far as you're concerned right? Tim thinks that's unreasonable, but I don't understand why. Should be simple enough to do. It's not a monumental obstacle. If there's a real threat and it's demonstrated through existing evidence, I don't think a judge is going to stand in the way.

ETA: Has the SC made a ruling of any sort to support the bold? Genuine question and I ask because in my position I don't assume that this is true until I get a ruling of some sort. Quite honestly, I'm not sure when information becomes part of public domain. This isn't like sending a sealed letter somewhere. It's more like blaring from a loud speaker your SSN as you drive down the road.

 

[Politician Spock]

ETA: Has the SC made a ruling of any sort to support the bold?

When has the government ever been sued for collecting emails without warrant before? The first lower court ruling just occured a couple weeks ago, and they ruled it unconstitutional.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Is there a good reference to all of the outed NSA programs?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/09/shifting_shadow_stormbrew_flying_pig_new_snowden_documents_show_nsa_deemed.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_toolbar

A few from this article:

STORMBREW

SHIFTINGSHADOW

FLYING PIG

 

[drummer]

Meanwhile

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/nsa-spies-reportedly-exploited-iphone-location-bug-not-fixed-until-2011/

I dunno why Politician Spock is arguing here. He has nothing to do with this.

 

[drummer]

Have to run guys! I really appreciate the honest conversation without insults. I will try to respond later.

Hope your Estrogen therapy goes well!

 

[The Commish]

ETA: Has the SC made a ruling of any sort to support the bold?

When has the government ever been sued for collecting emails without warrant before? The first lower court ruling just occured a couple weeks ago, and they ruled it unconstitutional.

It will be interesting enough once this hits the SC....when it does it will be interesting to see who falls on the sword for the American people...if anyone. Until then, it should be easy enough to compile a list of people and put them on the warrant. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever be able to stop people for doing things we don't know they are doing. It's why I applaud people like Snowden rather than vilify them.

 

[Slapdash]

Is there a good reference to all of the outed NSA programs?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/09/shifting_shadow_stormbrew_flying_pig_new_snowden_documents_show_nsa_deemed.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_toolbar

A few from this article:

STORMBREW

SHIFTINGSHADOW

FLYING PIG

I am still wondering what spying on foreign companies has to do with terrorism. Makes as much sense as equating hacking secured communications to searching email, as Tim keeps doing.

I do like that the US has been exposed doing the same type of behavior it accuses Huawei/China of.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I do like that the US has been exposed doing the same type of behavior it accuses Huawei/China of.

How do you think we knew they were doing it?

 

[Psychopav]

Is there a good reference to all of the outed NSA programs?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/09/shifting_shadow_stormbrew_flying_pig_new_snowden_documents_show_nsa_deemed.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_toolbar

A few from this article:

STORMBREW

SHIFTINGSHADOW

FLYING PIG

I am still wondering what spying on foreign companies has to do with terrorism. Makes as much sense as equating hacking secured communications to searching email, as Tim keeps doing.

I do like that the US has been exposed doing the same type of behavior it accuses Huawei/China of.

Poor choice of words?I'm disgusted and ashamed that we've been engaged in this behavior. Are we a fascist country, or a democracy? Maybe this will be the wakeup call we need to turn the ship around on the government being involved in business.

 

[Slapdash]

Meanwhile

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/nsa-spies-reportedly-exploited-iphone-location-bug-not-fixed-until-2011/

I dunno why Politician Spock is arguing here. He has nothing to do with this.

Not at all surprising. If you aren't going anywhere wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.

 

[Slapdash]

I do like that the US has been exposed doing the same type of behavior it accuses Huawei/China of.

How do you think we knew they were doing it?

 

[Slapdash]

Is there a good reference to all of the outed NSA programs?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/09/shifting_shadow_stormbrew_flying_pig_new_snowden_documents_show_nsa_deemed.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_toolbar

A few from this article:

STORMBREW

SHIFTINGSHADOW

FLYING PIG

I am still wondering what spying on foreign companies has to do with terrorism. Makes as much sense as equating hacking secured communications to searching email, as Tim keeps doing.

I do like that the US has been exposed doing the same type of behavior it accuses Huawei/China of.

Poor choice of words?I'm disgusted and ashamed that we've been engaged in this behavior. Are we a fascist country, or a democracy? Maybe this will be the wakeup call we need to turn the ship around on the government being involved in business.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy that we are doing it. I just thought all of those complaints were very hypocritcal and enjoy seeing our leaders exposed as the liars they are.

 

[RCon]

Is there a good reference to all of the outed NSA programs?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/09/shifting_shadow_stormbrew_flying_pig_new_snowden_documents_show_nsa_deemed.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_toolbar

A few from this article:

STORMBREW

SHIFTINGSHADOW

FLYING PIG

I am still wondering what spying on foreign companies has to do with terrorism. Makes as much sense as equating hacking secured communications to searching email, as Tim keeps doing.

I do like that the US has been exposed doing the same type of behavior it accuses Huawei/China of.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the outrage re: spying on other countries. Of course the US spies on other countries, and they spy on us. I expect this, and encourage it, for that matter.

 

[drummer]

Meanwhile

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/nsa-spies-reportedly-exploited-iphone-location-bug-not-fixed-until-2011/

I dunno why Politician Spock is arguing here. He has nothing to do with this.

Not at all surprising. If you aren't going anywhere wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.

Ars Technica does a great job covering this. What's scary is that they post something new about it quite frequently. This stuff is real, and not a figment of imagination.

 

[Slapdash]

Is there a good reference to all of the outed NSA programs?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/09/shifting_shadow_stormbrew_flying_pig_new_snowden_documents_show_nsa_deemed.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_toolbar

A few from this article:

STORMBREW

SHIFTINGSHADOW

FLYING PIG

I am still wondering what spying on foreign companies has to do with terrorism. Makes as much sense as equating hacking secured communications to searching email, as Tim keeps doing.

I do like that the US has been exposed doing the same type of behavior it accuses Huawei/China of.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the outrage re: spying on other countries. Of course the US spies on other countries, and they spy on us. I expect this, and encourage it, for that matter.

Isn't this what the CIA is for? Seems more like economic espionage anyways, which is a lot less defensible.

 

[RCon]

Is there a good reference to all of the outed NSA programs?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/09/shifting_shadow_stormbrew_flying_pig_new_snowden_documents_show_nsa_deemed.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_toolbar

A few from this article:

STORMBREW

SHIFTINGSHADOW

FLYING PIG

I am still wondering what spying on foreign companies has to do with terrorism. Makes as much sense as equating hacking secured communications to searching email, as Tim keeps doing.

I do like that the US has been exposed doing the same type of behavior it accuses Huawei/China of.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the outrage re: spying on other countries. Of course the US spies on other countries, and they spy on us. I expect this, and encourage it, for that matter.

Isn't this what the CIA is for? Seems more like economic espionage anyways, which is a lot less defensible.

I can't really gin up the same kind of outrage for international spying as spying on American citizens, regardless of which department is doing it. I'm also not really sure what the practical difference is between US spy/intelligence/defense agencies spying on foreign governments versus foreign citizens versus foreign companies.

 

[Slapdash]

Is there a good reference to all of the outed NSA programs?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/09/shifting_shadow_stormbrew_flying_pig_new_snowden_documents_show_nsa_deemed.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_toolbar

A few from this article:

STORMBREW

SHIFTINGSHADOW

FLYING PIG

I am still wondering what spying on foreign companies has to do with terrorism. Makes as much sense as equating hacking secured communications to searching email, as Tim keeps doing.

I do like that the US has been exposed doing the same type of behavior it accuses Huawei/China of.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the outrage re: spying on other countries. Of course the US spies on other countries, and they spy on us. I expect this, and encourage it, for that matter.

Isn't this what the CIA is for? Seems more like economic espionage anyways, which is a lot less defensible.

I can't really gin up the same kind of outrage for international spying as spying on American citizens, regardless of which department is doing it. I'm also not really sure what the practical difference is between US spy/intelligence/defense agencies spying on foreign governments versus foreign citizens versus foreign companies.

Sure, it is more expected there.

Just another point arguing against the idea that the NSA is sitting around looking for terrorists based on hard intel. They are hooking and hacking into everything possible around the world and fishing for information that could help the government do any number of things. This suggests some of those things are also economic in nature, which is clearly not the role of the federal government nor a reason to sacrifice privacy.

 

[RCon]

I can't really gin up the same kind of outrage for international spying as spying on American citizens, regardless of which department is doing it. I'm also not really sure what the practical difference is between US spy/intelligence/defense agencies spying on foreign governments versus foreign citizens versus foreign companies.

Sure, it is more expected there.

Just another point arguing against the idea that the NSA is sitting around looking for terrorists based on hard intel. They are hooking and hacking into everything possible around the world and fishing for information that could help the government do any number of things. This suggests some of those things are also economic in nature, which is clearly not the role of the federal government nor a reason to sacrifice privacy.

Agreed. The NSA is doing a lot more than "fighting terrorism", all under the guise of "OMG, terror11ism!!!11!"

 

[tom22406]

And we learn more about the abuse that was going on.

Documents: NSA Phone Records Program Violated Court Rules



by Eyder Peralta

September 10, 2013 4:55 PM
The Director of National Intelligence declassified some 1,800 pages of documents today, that show that a U.S. spy program that collected the phone records of Americans ran afoul privacy rules for years.

The documents are posted on the DNI's Tumblr site. The Wall Street Journal, which was briefed by intelligence officials about the release, reports that the bulk collection of Americans' phone records failed to meet the privacy standards set by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The paper adds:




"The revelations called into question NSA's ability to run the sweeping domestic surveillance programs it introduced more than a decade ago in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks. Officials said the violations were inadvertent, because NSA officials didn't understand their own phone-records collection program.


"'There was nobody at the NSA who had a full understanding of how the program worked," said an intelligence official. ...


"Until Tuesday, officials hadn't described the period in which the program repeatedly violated court orders. They made public the violations as part of a court-ordered release of documents stemming from lawsuits by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union."

We're still parsing the information. We'll update this post with highlights, as well what others are finding in the documents.

Update at 5:48 p.m. ET. No Confidence:

Perhaps the most significant document we've read through is a March 2009 opinion from FISC Judge Reggie B. Walton (pdf).

In essence, Walton writes that ever since the court approved the bulk collection of phone records in 2006, the U.S. government abused its power and misled the court about what it was doing.

On page 12 of the opinion, Walton says this is significant because the secret court would not have approved the bulk collection of phone metadata had it not been for the so-called minimization procedures that protected the privacy of Americans.

In a damning paragraph, Walton writes:

"Given the Executive Branch's responsibility for and expertise in determining how best to protect our national security, and in light of the scale of this bulk collection program, the court must rely heavily on the government to monitor this program to ensure that it continues to be justified, in the view of those responsible for our national security, and that it is being implemented in a manner that protects the privacy interests of U.S. persons as required by applicable minimization procedures.
To approve such a program, the Court must have every confidence that the government is doing its utmost to ensure that those responsible for implementation fully comply with the court's orders. The Court no longer has such confidence
." (Emphasis ours.)

After this opinion, the Court required the NSA to seek individual approval every time it wanted to query the phone records database. The U.S. government issued corrective measures and in September of 2009, the Court was satisfied and lifted the case-by-case approval.

Since then, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said, the Court has continually OKd the program.

Update at 4:58 p.m. ET. Daily Violations:

Quoting unnamed "senior intelligence officials," Bloomberg reports that the National Security Agency violated the rules set by the FISC on a daily basis.

Bloomberg adds:

"The violations occurred between May 2006 and January 2009 and involved checks on as many as 16,000 phone numbers, including some based in the U.S., said two senior intelligence officials with direct knowledge of how the program operated. They asked not to be identified in order to speak about sensitive matters."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/10/221115683/documents-nsa-phone-records-program-violated-court-rules

 

[RCon]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

 

[timschochet]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

 

[tom22406]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

You do understand that we are just scratching the surface as to what really was going on in all this right?

Each day passes and we learn something new.

 

[RCon]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

 

[Slapdash]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

Evidently the people have to realize their rights are being abused for it to count. The court saying the NSA abused their powers doesn't count. Even then, it is just anecdotal.

 

[timschochet]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

Well since there's not a single anecdote yet that I know of, it's a rather academic question.

But the answer is that when it becomes apparent that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security. Give me reason to believe that this is happening, and then I will become concerned.

 

[John Bender]

Tim

how many times have you retired from this thread? I keep wanting to jump in but I'm waiting for you to exit for good. Also are you positive you don't have asbergers?

 

[timschochet]

Tim

how many times have you retired from this thread? I keep wanting to jump in but I'm waiting for you to exit for good. Also are you positive you don't have asbergers?

John,

You may have to wait a while. I'm not going anywhere anytime soon. I'm more positive than ever that I'm right about this.

Also, no.

 

[Politician Spock]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

Well since there's not a single anecdote yet that I know of, it's a rather academic question.But the answer is that when it becomes apparent that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security. Give me reason to believe that this is happening, and then I will become concerned.

You keep moving the goal posts.

In this post: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=682440&p=15648854

you say you have sympathy for who it is happening to and argue that despite it happening we should not end the programs.

Now you are saing there's not a single anecdote of the NSA using the information for some reason other than national security.

Pick a stance, and stick with it.

 

[Statorama]

Every single person I've talked to about this sees it as a 'meh' situation. Responses range from "If you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't be worried" to "come on, we all knew they were doing that anyway"

Can't believe how apathetic most people have gotten about things like this.

 

[timschochet]

There's no contradiction. What I wrote about Raub referred to the larger issue of innocent people wrongfully caught in government bureaucracy, which is always a risk everytime you increase national security. It's an awful thing, but it is anecdotal, and it usually doesn't make sense to eliminate programs designed to protect us because of these incidents. That has always been my position. But I'm not aware that Raub was persecuted as a result of THIS program (what Snowden has revealed about the NSA).

As I've written before, I'm fairly sure that there WILL be anecdotes of innocent people who suffer as a result of this program- it's inevitable. But so far I'm not aware of any. In any case, the existence of such would not change my position.

 

[Slapdash]

Tim

how many times have you retired from this thread? I keep wanting to jump in but I'm waiting for you to exit for good. Also are you positive you don't have asbergers?

No such luck sadly.

 

[RCon]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

Well since there's not a single anecdote yet that I know of, it's a rather academic question.

But the answer is that when it becomes apparent that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security. Give me reason to believe that this is happening, and then I will become concerned.

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

 

[Politician Spock]

There's no contradiction. What I wrote about Raub referred to the larger issue of innocent people wrongfully caught in government bureaucracy, which is always a risk everytime you increase national security. It's an awful thing, but it is anecdotal, and it usually doesn't make sense to eliminate programs designed to protect us because of these incidents. That has always been my position. But I'm not aware that Raub was persecuted as a result of THIS program (what Snowden has revealed about the NSA).

As I've written before, I'm fairly sure that there WILL be anecdotes of innocent people who suffer as a result of this program- it's inevitable. But so far I'm not aware of any. In any case, the existence of such would not change my position.

If one of the programs is unconstitutional, then they all are. I don't care if you like one of them, but not the others.

 

[timschochet]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

Well since there's not a single anecdote yet that I know of, it's a rather academic question.

But the answer is that when it becomes apparent that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security. Give me reason to believe that this is happening, and then I will become concerned.

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.