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

[timschochet]

You can point it out to me a billion times if you want. To me, it's a distinction without a difference. Electronic surveillance in 1984 was the key ingredient of the totalitarian world that Winston Smith lived in. When you make an analogy between that and what the NSA is doing, you are either implying dictatorship (or future dictatorship) or else you are being foolish. I don't think you're a foolish person, Slapdash.

Or, you know, he's making a pop-culture reference to how our government is monitoring everything we do, the same as the government did in the book.

Even if I accepted this sham distinction, it's not the same as in the book anyhow. Whatever you think the NSA is doing, they are doing it secretly. Big Brother wanted everyone to know they were being monitored, which was the whole point. That's why when you make this comparison, you can't make it without the implication that there is little difference between our government and Big Brother.

Fair enough. In that case, I agree with you that what our government is doing is far worse than what Big Brother was doing.

I give you credit for being fast on your feet.

 

[RCon]

2. We've been over this time and again. The best argument that I have read is Judge William Pauley's legal decision, which I have posted before. Here are the key parts:

The right to be free from searches and seizures is fundamental, but not absolute. Whether the Fourth Amendment protects bulk telephony metadata is ultimately a question of reasonableness.

Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit. Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection. There is no evidence that the government has used any of bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks. While there have been unintentional violations of guidelines, those appear to stem from human error and the incredibly complex computer programs that support this vital tool. And once detected, those violations were self-reported and stopped. The bulk telephony metadata collection program is subject to executive and congressional oversight, as well as continual monitoring by a dedicated group of judges who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

No offense, but this opinion is pathetic. I've unbolded your comments and bolded some portions for myself.

1. We're talking about a lot more than bulk metadata, and you know it.

2. That people voluntarily surrender personal information to non-government entities is irrelevant. The fact that I invite friends into my home does not give the government the right to enter my home without legal justification, nor does the fact that I invite friends into my home constitute legal justification for the government to enter.

1. Maybe. But bulk metadata is what I'm interested in for the purposes of this specific argument.

2. I don't buy into your analogy. We're simply going to disagree on whether or not the government has the right to obtain this sort of information with a collective warrant. I believe it does.

1. So you agree then that anything other than bulk collection of metadata would definitely be illegal? For example, monitoring the content of text messages, e-mail, phone calls, browser and search histories, etc.

2. Sorry, but analogies don't get much more perfect than what I wrote above.

 

[Slapdash]

You can point it out to me a billion times if you want. To me, it's a distinction without a difference. Electronic surveillance in 1984 was the key ingredient of the totalitarian world that Winston Smith lived in. When you make an analogy between that and what the NSA is doing, you are either implying dictatorship (or future dictatorship) or else you are being foolish. I don't think you're a foolish person, Slapdash.

Or you're pointing out that at least one of the ingredients in the novel 1984 exists in the real world. You don't have to go full on dictatorship knowing what we know today. What we know is bad enough in and of itself.

Exactly.

 

[timschochet]

Rich, I don't know. I've decided in my own mind that the collection of mega-data should be legal under certain circumstances. Even that has gotten me in quite a bit of hot water here as just about everyone disagrees with me. I'm willing to defend that opinion. As to whether or not other stuff should be legal or illegal, such as most of what you referenced, I haven't decided. And I'm certainly not going to defend it if I haven't made up my own mind on it.

 

[RCon]

Rich, I don't know. I've decided in my own mind that the collection of mega-data should be legal under certain circumstances. Even that has gotten me in quite a bit of hot water here as just about everyone disagrees with me. I'm willing to defend that opinion. As to whether or not other stuff should be legal or illegal, such as most of what you referenced, I haven't decided. And I'm certainly not going to defend it if I haven't made up my own mind on it.

Perfect, so all we have to do is convince you that metadata = actual data, and you'll abandon this crusade?

 

[Slapdash]

Rich, I don't know. I've decided in my own mind that the collection of mega-data should be legal under certain circumstances. Even that has gotten me in quite a bit of hot water here as just about everyone disagrees with me. I'm willing to defend that opinion. As to whether or not other stuff should be legal or illegal, such as most of what you referenced, I haven't decided. And I'm certainly not going to defend it if I haven't made up my own mind on it.

Perfect, so all we have to do is convince you that metadata = actual data, and you'll abandon this crusade?

Where does "mega-data" fit in here?

 

[timschochet]

Rich, I don't know. I've decided in my own mind that the collection of mega-data should be legal under certain circumstances. Even that has gotten me in quite a bit of hot water here as just about everyone disagrees with me. I'm willing to defend that opinion. As to whether or not other stuff should be legal or illegal, such as most of what you referenced, I haven't decided. And I'm certainly not going to defend it if I haven't made up my own mind on it.

Perfect, so all we have to do is convince you that metadata = actual data, and you'll abandon this crusade?

Where does "mega-data" fit in here?

mega, meta, whatever. Collective data.

 

[timschochet]

Rich, I don't know. I've decided in my own mind that the collection of mega-data should be legal under certain circumstances. Even that has gotten me in quite a bit of hot water here as just about everyone disagrees with me. I'm willing to defend that opinion. As to whether or not other stuff should be legal or illegal, such as most of what you referenced, I haven't decided. And I'm certainly not going to defend it if I haven't made up my own mind on it.

Perfect, so all we have to do is convince you that metadata = actual data, and you'll abandon this crusade?

what crusade?

 

[RCon]

Rich, I don't know. I've decided in my own mind that the collection of mega-data should be legal under certain circumstances. Even that has gotten me in quite a bit of hot water here as just about everyone disagrees with me. I'm willing to defend that opinion. As to whether or not other stuff should be legal or illegal, such as most of what you referenced, I haven't decided. And I'm certainly not going to defend it if I haven't made up my own mind on it.

Perfect, so all we have to do is convince you that metadata = actual data, and you'll abandon this crusade?

Where does "mega-data" fit in here?

mega, meta, whatever. Collective data.

Wait a minute here.

What you're referring to as "collective data" is not remotely the same thing as metadata.

 

[Slapdash]

Rich, I don't know. I've decided in my own mind that the collection of mega-data should be legal under certain circumstances. Even that has gotten me in quite a bit of hot water here as just about everyone disagrees with me. I'm willing to defend that opinion. As to whether or not other stuff should be legal or illegal, such as most of what you referenced, I haven't decided. And I'm certainly not going to defend it if I haven't made up my own mind on it.

Perfect, so all we have to do is convince you that metadata = actual data, and you'll abandon this crusade?

Where does "mega-data" fit in here?

mega, meta, whatever. Collective data.

Fair question to ask since you apparently don't know what meta-data means.

 

[timschochet]

I'm open to being educated. What am I missing?

 

[RCon]

I'm open to being educated. What am I missing?

I believe what you're referring to as "collective data" and "bulk data" is the idea of a set of data that is not limited to any specific scope (e.g. "Rich Conway's e-mail" or "e-mails from all FBGs"), but rather a set of data that is collected equally from everyone/everything?

Metadata has a very specific, technical meaning that is, literally, "data that describes data". A really good example of metadata is the old library card catalog system. Every piece of data (e.g. a book) has certain pieces of information (metadata) that describe it, such as "Author", "Title", and "Dewey Decimal Number".

Within the context of the NSA and the collection of "metadata" versus collection of "data", the best description would be something like...

Collection of metadata would be a list of calls, in which the list contains Date, Time, Originating Number, Dialed Number, Duration of Call, Cell Towers Used, etc. Collection of data would be the actual voice recording of the call itself. Similarly, metadata about e-mails would be things such as Date/Time Sent, Date/Time Received, Date/Time Read, Date/Time Deleted, Sender, Recipient, Subject, CC, BCC, Total Size of Message, Size/Type/Name of Attached Files, IP Addresses, etc., while the actual data would be the text of the e-mail itself and the content of any attachments.

Whether the NSA collects "bulk data" versus "targeted data" is a completely separate question from whether it collects "only metadata" versus "actual data".

 

[timschochet]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

 

[Slapdash]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

'

So it doesn't matter what the government collects, as long it is done in bulk"....

...I guess you don't care that they do indeed target specific (US) people once they've collected everyone's communications

 

[drummer]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

Yet you still push the envelope of being dumb, ill-informed, as well as obstinate.

 

[StrikeS2k]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

'

So it doesn't matter what the government collects, as long it is done in bulk"....

...I guess you don't care that they do indeed target specific (US) people once they've collected everyone's communications

Yeah, the government is the Costco of data gathering. And we all love Costco.

 

[Slapdash]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

'

So it doesn't matter what the government collects, as long it is done in bulk"....

...I guess you don't care that they do indeed target specific (US) people once they've collected everyone's communications

Yeah, the government is the Costco of data gathering. And we all love Costco.

I do love Costco. I don't love the idea that hoovering up all possible communications is moral, much less Constitutional.

 

[RCon]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

So you're now arguing that the government should have the right to collect any and all information, as long as they do so equally for everyone?

Frankly, your position seems to make less sense now.

 

[drummer]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-03/the-nsa-spying-machine-an-interactive-graphic

This should be easy for Victimschochet to play with.

 

[tom22406]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

I didn't say here, though sometimes its alluded to. Klayman is connected to the black helicopter types. They always believe the government is about to impose a dictatorship.

I don't seem to recall any dictatorship being discussed here and if not why bring it into the discussion since you have seen it elsewhere?Are you assuming that just because we believe what the NSA is doing is illegal and is wrong that somehow we all fall into your black helicopter crowd?

First off, it IS discussed here somewhat. When people reference 1984, (Hi,Slapdash!) they are clearly making an analogy to a dictatorship.

But in point of fact, I was not, in this instance, creating a straw man or arguing against people here. I want this issue in the open, discussed by the Supreme Court because I am fearful of the paranoia crowd. That crowd exists. It does not exist in this forum so much, because most people here are far more reasonable than that. But it does exist outside of this forum. I brought it up, not to argue against it, but to explain why I want the Supreme Court to discuss this issue.

Things that went on in the book are almost exactly the same things that are going on here today minus the dictatorship so it is very fitting to use so all you can see is a dictatorship doing these type of things while ignoring facts.I was more asking about a specific part of what you thought was a conspiracy and not fact,if you say dictatorship is the only thing we can agree on that.

I'm glad you're open to discuss this and I think we all would like the Supreme Court to rule on this ASAP but even if they rule in favor of keeping it around it won't change my opinion of what's going on.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

I didn't say here, though sometimes its alluded to. Klayman is connected to the black helicopter types. They always believe the government is about to impose a dictatorship.

I don't seem to recall any dictatorship being discussed here and if not why bring it into the discussion since you have seen it elsewhere?Are you assuming that just because we believe what the NSA is doing is illegal and is wrong that somehow we all fall into your black helicopter crowd?

First off, it IS discussed here somewhat. When people reference 1984, (Hi,Slapdash!) they are clearly making an analogy to a dictatorship.

But in point of fact, I was not, in this instance, creating a straw man or arguing against people here. I want this issue in the open, discussed by the Supreme Court because I am fearful of the paranoia crowd. That crowd exists. It does not exist in this forum so much, because most people here are far more reasonable than that. But it does exist outside of this forum. I brought it up, not to argue against it, but to explain why I want the Supreme Court to discuss this issue.

Things that went on in the book are almost exactly the same things that are going on here today minus the dictatorship so it is very fitting to use so all you can see is a dictatorship doing these type of things while ignoring facts.I was more asking about a specific part of what you thought was a conspiracy and not fact,if you say dictatorship is the only thing we can agree on that.

I'm glad you're open to discuss this and I think we all would like the Supreme Court to rule on this ASAP but even if they rule in favor of keeping it around it won't change my opinion of what's going on.

Don't be misled. Tim isn't open to discussing anything. He's open to arguing about anything. Have you seen his stance change one iota in this thread? Even when he's said it's changed a couple of pages later he's back to his same old stance. And a SC ruling wouldn't change it either. He's just hiding behind that since they haven't ruled. If they ruled in a way different than he believes he'd say something like "in this case I think the SC got it wrong." And, quite honestly, that's fine in general. We all have SC rulings we probably don't agree with. I was appalled at their ruling regarding eminent domain, and I thnk they totally got it wrong on Obamacare. But Tim's stance is essentially "I want the SC to rule but only if they rule in the way I want. Otherwise, they're wrong and I'm not. Look at all the opinion pieces from INTELLIGENT people I've posted that support my opinion."

 

[RCon]

Don't be misled. Tim isn't open to discussing anything. He's open to arguing about anything. Have you seen his stance change one iota in this thread? Even when he's said it's changed a couple of pages later he's back to his same old stance. And a SC ruling wouldn't change it either. He's just hiding behind that since they haven't ruled. If they ruled in a way different than he believes he'd say something like "in this case I think the SC got it wrong." And, quite honestly, that's fine in general. We all have SC rulings we probably don't agree with. I was appalled at their ruling regarding eminent domain, and I thnk they totally got it wrong on Obamacare. But Tim's stance is essentially "I want the SC to rule but only if they rule in the way I want. Otherwise, they're wrong and I'm not. Look at all the opinion pieces from INTELLIGENT people I've posted that support my opinion."

To be fair, I take the same stance. I very much want SCOTUS to issue an opinion that agrees with mine, and I want them to do it yesterday.

 

[tom22406]

I think a better book(s)to compare the NSA to would be either Philip K. ****'s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? or Kafka's The Trial but some of the things going on in 1984 are clearly happening.

If you haven't read either of those two books I highly suggest giving them a read.

 

[timschochet]

Strike is wrong about me again, as usual. In most cases if I felt strongly about an issue and if the SC were to contradict me, I would simply say they got it wrong.

But in this case, my conviction is not especially strong. I know what I THINK is right, and I've been happy to argue it here, but I'm not positive I'm correct. I'm not happy that so many thoughtful people on both left and right disagree with me. I'm not happy that the ACLU, an organization I highly respect and contribute money to, disagrees with me. So if the SC were to rule that the NSA should stop doing this, I will NOT argue that they got it wrong. I will accept the decision as one made by people wiser than I am.

 

[timschochet]

I think a better book(s)to compare the NSA to would be either Philip K. ****'s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? or Kafka's The Trial but some of the things going on in 1984 are clearly happening.

If you haven't read either of those two books I highly suggest giving them a read.

I have made the Kafka analogy several times in this thread.

 

[The Commish]

Some day I will be vindicated. People will look back and read this thread and say, "Damn, Tim bravely used reason and logic to fight off everybody who disagreed with him! Like Gary Cooper in High Noon, he stood alone. And he was right all along!"

You've whittled away at your initial position so much, I'm not even sure what you're arguing for/against at this point. You've back peddled into a very specific niche (or so it seems). I'm willing to bet just about everyone else in this thread is talking about a larger picture than you are.

 

[The Commish]

I'm open to being educated. What am I missing?

Go back about 30 pages to where we covered this with you initially.

 

[Doug B]

I don't love the idea that hoovering up all possible communications is moral, much less Constitutional.

That ship has sailed. "Morality" is on the sideline here ... as is "legality" and "constitutionality". The use of this technology cannot be divorced from the misuse of same.

 

[Doug B]

I think a better book(s)to compare the NSA to would be either Philip K. ****'s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? or Kafka's The Trial but some of the things going on in 1984 are clearly happening.

Yes ... we've embarked upon a decidedly "Dickian" world. Starting to paint around the faintest edges of Minority Report, as well.

 

[RCon]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

Metadata is a complex thing, especially for non-technical people. No shame in not understanding it exactly. The truth is, the line between where metadata becomes actual data is pretty damn fuzzy. In a lot of cases, metadata can be more useful information than "actual data". In some cases, really good data analysis people can even recreate the original data just from the metadata.

Moving on, let me ask this. In your opinion, what should the NSA be allowed to do? Specifically...

* Exactly what types of data should they be allowed to search using "automated algorithms" in real-time? Call records? Voice recordings? E-mail records (e.g. who, when, subject)? Actual e-mail contents? U.S. mail metadata records (e.g. date, address, weight, postage, etc.)?

* Exactly what types of data should they be allowed to collect and store for use at a later date?

* In both cases, must it be done to all possible instances of data or none at all? For example, let's just say the government had a way to intercept all Gmail traffic, but wasn't able to intercept Hotmail; should they be able to analyze and store the Gmail stuff?

 

[Slapdash]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-03/the-nsa-spying-machine-an-interactive-graphic

This should be easy for Victimschochet to play with.

Wow. Even for someone paying attention that is pretty jarring. The size and scope of the intrusion into our liberties is both incomprehensible and unreported....

 

[Slapdash]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

'

So it doesn't matter what the government collects, as long it is done in bulk"....

...I guess you don't care that they do indeed target specific (US) people once they've collected everyone's communications

I'll take this as a confirmation you don't care.

 

[Slapdash]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

Metadata is a complex thing, especially for non-technical people. No shame in not understanding it exactly. The truth is, the line between where metadata becomes actual data is pretty damn fuzzy. In a lot of cases, metadata can be more useful information than "actual data". In some cases, really good data analysis people can even recreate the original data just from the metadata.

Yeah. I think of Metadata as data about data as in a data dictionary. The description of metadata as data about content seems wrong to me. I would call data about content "data".

 

[Slapdash]

I think a better book(s)to compare the NSA to would be either Philip K. ****'s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? or Kafka's The Trial but some of the things going on in 1984 are clearly happening.

Yes ... we've embarked upon a decidedly "Dickian" world. Starting to paint around the faintest edges of Minority Report, as well.

Minority Report is a good one. Sounds like I should check out this Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep book.

 

[timschochet]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

'So it doesn't matter what the government collects, as long it is done in bulk"....

...I guess you don't care that they do indeed target specific (US) people once they've collected everyone's communications

I'll take this as a confirmation you don't care.

Sorry, I missed this post the first time. As I have written here before, they shouldn't be able to target specific people without specific warrants. I'm okay with bulk collection of information with collective warrants, but not OK with individual targeting.

 

[The Commish]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

Metadata is a complex thing, especially for non-technical people. No shame in not understanding it exactly. The truth is, the line between where metadata becomes actual data is pretty damn fuzzy. In a lot of cases, metadata can be more useful information than "actual data". In some cases, really good data analysis people can even recreate the original data just from the metadata.

Moving on, let me ask this. In your opinion, what should the NSA be allowed to do? Specifically...

* Exactly what types of data should they be allowed to search using "automated algorithms" in real-time? Call records? Voice recordings? E-mail records (e.g. who, when, subject)? Actual e-mail contents? U.S. mail metadata records (e.g. date, address, weight, postage, etc.)?

* Exactly what types of data should they be allowed to collect and store for use at a later date?

* In both cases, must it be done to all possible instances of data or none at all? For example, let's just say the government had a way to intercept all Gmail traffic, but wasn't able to intercept Hotmail; should they be able to analyze and store the Gmail stuff?

Disagree....especially in this case. When Tim has such a staunch position, he needs to understand that position. You aren't the first to explain it to him either. There should be plenty of shame at this point.

 

[Slapdash]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

'So it doesn't matter what the government collects, as long it is done in bulk"....

...I guess you don't care that they do indeed target specific (US) people once they've collected everyone's communications

I'll take this as a confirmation you don't care.

Sorry, I missed this post the first time. As I have written here before, they shouldn't be able to target specific people without specific warrants. I'm okay with bulk collection of information with collective warrants, but not OK with individual targeting.

So you want the government to collect everything but need a warrant to analyze it?

 

[timschochet]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

Metadata is a complex thing, especially for non-technical people. No shame in not understanding it exactly. The truth is, the line between where metadata becomes actual data is pretty damn fuzzy. In a lot of cases, metadata can be more useful information than "actual data". In some cases, really good data analysis people can even recreate the original data just from the metadata.

Moving on, let me ask this. In your opinion, what should the NSA be allowed to do? Specifically...

* Exactly what types of data should they be allowed to search using "automated algorithms" in real-time? Call records? Voice recordings? E-mail records (e.g. who, when, subject)? Actual e-mail contents? U.S. mail metadata records (e.g. date, address, weight, postage, etc.)?

* Exactly what types of data should they be allowed to collect and store for use at a later date?

* In both cases, must it be done to all possible instances of data or none at all? For example, let's just say the government had a way to intercept all Gmail traffic, but wasn't able to intercept Hotmail; should they be able to analyze and store the Gmail stuff?

I can't answer your questions because I don't know what is important to the NSA and what isn't. I can make a very generalized and theoretical argument that the collection of bulk data is OK, and I have. I can argue, in very general terms, that it's an important tool to fight terrorism, and I have. But beyond this I would need to have intricate knowledge of exactly how the NSA uses its collected info in order to answer you intelligently, and I don't have that.

 

[tom22406]

In live testimony to the Council of Europe, Snowden also gave a forensic account of how the NSA's powerful surveillance programs violate the EU's privacy laws. He said programs such as XKeyscore, revealed by the Guardian last July, use sophisticated data mining techniques to screen "trillions" of private communications.

"This technology represents the most significant new threat to civil liberties in modern times," he declared.

XKeyscore allows analysts to search with no prior authorisation through vast databases containing emails, online chats, and the browsing histories of millions of individuals.

Snowden said on Tuesday that he and other analysts were able to use the tool to select an individual's metadata and content "without judicial approval or prior review".

In practical terms, this meant the agency tracked citizens not involved in any nefarious activities, he stressed. The NSA operated a "de facto policy of guilt by association", he added.

Snowden said the agency, for example, monitored the travel patterns of innocent EU and other citizens not involved in terrorism or any wrongdoing.

Snowden was speaking about the EU threat but it applies here as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/08/edwards-snowden-us-government-spied-human-rights-workers

 

[timschochet]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

'So it doesn't matter what the government collects, as long it is done in bulk"....

...I guess you don't care that they do indeed target specific (US) people once they've collected everyone's communications

I'll take this as a confirmation you don't care.

Sorry, I missed this post the first time. As I have written here before, they shouldn't be able to target specific people without specific warrants. I'm okay with bulk collection of information with collective warrants, but not OK with individual targeting.

So you want the government to collect everything but need a warrant to analyze it?

My understanding is that they go to FISA to get a warrant for the bulk collection of data. Then they use an algorithm to search through it and see if anything dings. If something dings, they go back to the FISA court to get a more specific warrant on the stuff that is of question. That seems acceptable to me. If on the other hand, they are collecting the data in bulk and then looking at specific info without specific warrants, that is not acceptable.

 

[tom22406]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

'So it doesn't matter what the government collects, as long it is done in bulk"....

...I guess you don't care that they do indeed target specific (US) people once they've collected everyone's communications

I'll take this as a confirmation you don't care.

Sorry, I missed this post the first time. As I have written here before, they shouldn't be able to target specific people without specific warrants. I'm okay with bulk collection of information with collective warrants, but not OK with individual targeting.

So you want the government to collect everything but need a warrant to analyze it?

My understanding is that they go to FISA to get a warrant for the bulk collection of data. Then they use an algorithm to search through it and see if anything dings. If something dings, they go back to the FISA court to get a more specific warrant on the stuff that is of question. That seems acceptable to me. If on the other hand, they are collecting the data in bulk and then looking at specific info without specific warrants, that is not acceptable.

From my article just above your post

Snowden said on Tuesday that he and other analysts were able to use the tool to select an individual's metadata and content "without judicial approval or prior review"

So do you believe Snowden is telling the truth here?

 

[The Commish]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

'So it doesn't matter what the government collects, as long it is done in bulk"....

...I guess you don't care that they do indeed target specific (US) people once they've collected everyone's communications

I'll take this as a confirmation you don't care.

Sorry, I missed this post the first time. As I have written here before, they shouldn't be able to target specific people without specific warrants. I'm okay with bulk collection of information with collective warrants, but not OK with individual targeting.

So you want the government to collect everything but need a warrant to analyze it?

My understanding is that they go to FISA to get a warrant for the bulk collection of data. Then they use an algorithm to search through it and see if anything dings. If something dings, they go back to the FISA court to get a more specific warrant on the stuff that is of question. That seems acceptable to me. If on the other hand, they are collecting the data in bulk and then looking at specific info without specific warrants, that is not acceptable.

And you gloss over the fact that they are collecting the data in the first place....most in this thread can't get passed that part and here you are completely ignoring it. What are your opinions of storage, update frequency etc?

 

[The Commish]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

'So it doesn't matter what the government collects, as long it is done in bulk"....

...I guess you don't care that they do indeed target specific (US) people once they've collected everyone's communications

I'll take this as a confirmation you don't care.

Sorry, I missed this post the first time. As I have written here before, they shouldn't be able to target specific people without specific warrants. I'm okay with bulk collection of information with collective warrants, but not OK with individual targeting.

So you want the government to collect everything but need a warrant to analyze it?

My understanding is that they go to FISA to get a warrant for the bulk collection of data. Then they use an algorithm to search through it and see if anything dings. If something dings, they go back to the FISA court to get a more specific warrant on the stuff that is of question. That seems acceptable to me. If on the other hand, they are collecting the data in bulk and then looking at specific info without specific warrants, that is not acceptable.

So you believe Snowden is a liar?

 

[Doug B]

So you want the government to collect everything but need a warrant to analyze it?

As far as I'm aware, this the current de jure protocol. Never mind the de facto set-up.

NSA vets probably send interns down the hall to "pick up a paper copy of a warrant from John in Room 1234" ... only to find that Room 1234 is the men's head.

 

[timschochet]

Could be. Probably. I wouldn't doubt it. Which is why I want this charge fully investigated, and the whole program stopped until it is. I'm only defending the idea in theory. If you're looking for someone to defend what might actually be happening in practice, look somewhere else.

 

[timschochet]

My response was to Tom, not to the Commish. I have no reason to believe Snowden is lying.

 

[Doug B]

My understanding is that they go to FISA to get a warrant for the bulk collection of data.

Not going to be able to cite it, but my understanding is that passive "bulk collection of metadata" is the default operating mode of the NSA, and that it takes place largely without human intervention.

 

[RCon]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

Metadata is a complex thing, especially for non-technical people. No shame in not understanding it exactly. The truth is, the line between where metadata becomes actual data is pretty damn fuzzy. In a lot of cases, metadata can be more useful information than "actual data". In some cases, really good data analysis people can even recreate the original data just from the metadata.

Moving on, let me ask this. In your opinion, what should the NSA be allowed to do? Specifically...

* Exactly what types of data should they be allowed to search using "automated algorithms" in real-time? Call records? Voice recordings? E-mail records (e.g. who, when, subject)? Actual e-mail contents? U.S. mail metadata records (e.g. date, address, weight, postage, etc.)?

* Exactly what types of data should they be allowed to collect and store for use at a later date?

* In both cases, must it be done to all possible instances of data or none at all? For example, let's just say the government had a way to intercept all Gmail traffic, but wasn't able to intercept Hotmail; should they be able to analyze and store the Gmail stuff?

I can't answer your questions because I don't know what is important to the NSA and what isn't. I can make a very generalized and theoretical argument that the collection of bulk data is OK, and I have. I can argue, in very general terms, that it's an important tool to fight terrorism, and I have. But beyond this I would need to have intricate knowledge of exactly how the NSA uses its collected info in order to answer you intelligently, and I don't have that.

This is where you lose me. What's "useful" should have zero bearing on what is legal. It would be "useful" to go door to door and search every house, but that doesn't and shouldn't make it permissible.

To put it another way, let's assume that every possible bit of data is or might be useful. What should be legal?

 

[Slapdash]

My understanding is that they go to FISA to get a warrant for the bulk collection of data. Then they use an algorithm to search through it and see if anything dings. If something dings, they go back to the FISA court to get a more specific warrant on the stuff that is of question. That seems acceptable to me. If on the other hand, they are collecting the data in bulk and then looking at specific info without specific warrants, that is not acceptable.

But the algorithms that are allegedly looking for "dings" are targeting. The search criteria being used is not subject to any warrant in your example. So, in other words, you are OK with warrant-less targeting as long as the data is collected on everything.

 

[Slapdash]

OK, thanks for the explanation. No I did not understand that. Guess I'm dumb, or ill-informed, or both.

IMO, the collection of metadata is constitutional. IMO, the collection of actual data, collected in bulk, is also constitutional. These are my opinions based on what I've read which I found compelling. Am I 100% positive? Of course not. That's why I wanted the Supreme Court to review the matter. I'm no attorney; let them decide. I don't like that they have, at least so far, refused to do so.

Metadata is a complex thing, especially for non-technical people. No shame in not understanding it exactly. The truth is, the line between where metadata becomes actual data is pretty damn fuzzy. In a lot of cases, metadata can be more useful information than "actual data". In some cases, really good data analysis people can even recreate the original data just from the metadata.

Moving on, let me ask this. In your opinion, what should the NSA be allowed to do? Specifically...

* Exactly what types of data should they be allowed to search using "automated algorithms" in real-time? Call records? Voice recordings? E-mail records (e.g. who, when, subject)? Actual e-mail contents? U.S. mail metadata records (e.g. date, address, weight, postage, etc.)?

* Exactly what types of data should they be allowed to collect and store for use at a later date?

* In both cases, must it be done to all possible instances of data or none at all? For example, let's just say the government had a way to intercept all Gmail traffic, but wasn't able to intercept Hotmail; should they be able to analyze and store the Gmail stuff?

I can't answer your questions because I don't know what is important to the NSA and what isn't. I can make a very generalized and theoretical argument that the collection of bulk data is OK, and I have. I can argue, in very general terms, that it's an important tool to fight terrorism, and I have. But beyond this I would need to have intricate knowledge of exactly how the NSA uses its collected info in order to answer you intelligently, and I don't have that.

This is where you lose me. What's "useful" should have zero bearing on what is legal. It would be "useful" to go door to door and search every house, but that doesn't and shouldn't make it permissible.

To put it another way, let's assume that every possible bit of data is or might be useful. What should be legal?

It did after the Boston Marathon bombing.