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

[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.

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?

What we have here are competing interests of the state: security vs. privacy. When such a conflict occurs, the courts need to determine very specifically which interest outweighs the other. Your example of going door to door and searching every house without warrant is a very clear instance in which privacy and the 4th Amendment would forbid this, no matter how "useful" or "necessary" it might seem. In that case, the interest of privacy far outweighs the interest of security.

But in terms of what the NSA is doing with bulk data- collecting it, searching through it, saving it, etc.- there is much less black and white. So once again, I can't answer your specific questions, without knowing how useful this stuff is to the NSA vs. how intrusive it is to privacy. These questions are for the courts to decide. I can only keep on repeating that in principle, I have no problem with the collection of bulk data.

 

[The Commish]

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

Then you need to adjust your "understanding" as it's in DIRECT conflict with what Snowden has told us. Yes, the gov't has told us the process is roughly what you outlined, but Snowden who's exiled to Russia and knows he can't come back here is saying what we are told and what is happening are two completely different things. You can't believe both.

 

[timschochet]

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

Then you need to adjust your "understanding" as it's in DIRECT conflict with what Snowden has told us. Yes, the gov't has told us the process is roughly what you outlined, but Snowden who's exiled to Russia and knows he can't come back here is saying what we are told and what is happening are two completely different things. You can't believe both.

Sorry, but this is very frustrating to me. I don't necessarily believe the government. I don't necessarily believe Snowden. Frankly, I have no idea. My intuition tells me that the government has screwed up on several occasions, not deliberately, and that Snowden is mistaken when he suggests deliberate malfeasance- however, that doesn't make his revelations any less important. My intuition tells me that for the most part the NSA is truly and honestly collecting this data for the purpose of fighting terrorism. But that's just my intuition, and it could be wrong.

But my frustration comes from the fact that I have tried to defend the principle behind what the NSA is doing, as best I understand it, and you and others keep trying to pin me down on the actuality of what they're doing. I'm not going to defend that. I don't know what they're actually doing. Neither do you. We have reports from Snowden and other outside sources and the reports don't sound good. There should be a much more thorough investigation. If the NSA is doing what Snowden claims, it should be stopped and those guilty of breaking the law should be prosecuted. What more can I add?

 

[StrikeS2k]

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

Then you need to adjust your "understanding" as it's in DIRECT conflict with what Snowden has told us. Yes, the gov't has told us the process is roughly what you outlined, but Snowden who's exiled to Russia and knows he can't come back here is saying what we are told and what is happening are two completely different things. You can't believe both.

Sorry, but this is very frustrating to me. I don't necessarily believe the government. I don't necessarily believe Snowden. Frankly, I have no idea. My intuition tells me that the government has screwed up on several occasions, not deliberately, and that Snowden is mistaken when he suggests deliberate malfeasance- however, that doesn't make his revelations any less important. My intuition tells me that for the most part the NSA is truly and honestly collecting this data for the purpose of fighting terrorism. But that's just my intuition, and it could be wrong.

But my frustration comes from the fact that I have tried to defend the principle behind what the NSA is doing, as best I understand it, and you and others keep trying to pin me down on the actuality of what they're doing. I'm not going to defend that. I don't know what they're actually doing. Neither do you. We have reports from Snowden and other outside sources and the reports don't sound good. There should be a much more thorough investigation. If the NSA is doing what Snowden claims, it should be stopped and those guilty of breaking the law should be prosecuted. What more can I add?

 

[The Commish]

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

Then you need to adjust your "understanding" as it's in DIRECT conflict with what Snowden has told us. Yes, the gov't has told us the process is roughly what you outlined, but Snowden who's exiled to Russia and knows he can't come back here is saying what we are told and what is happening are two completely different things. You can't believe both.

Sorry, but this is very frustrating to me. I don't necessarily believe the government. I don't necessarily believe Snowden. Frankly, I have no idea. My intuition tells me that the government has screwed up on several occasions, not deliberately, and that Snowden is mistaken when he suggests deliberate malfeasance- however, that doesn't make his revelations any less important. My intuition tells me that for the most part the NSA is truly and honestly collecting this data for the purpose of fighting terrorism. But that's just my intuition, and it could be wrong.

But my frustration comes from the fact that I have tried to defend the principle behind what the NSA is doing, as best I understand it, and you and others keep trying to pin me down on the actuality of what they're doing. I'm not going to defend that. I don't know what they're actually doing. Neither do you. We have reports from Snowden and other outside sources and the reports don't sound good. There should be a much more thorough investigation. If the NSA is doing what Snowden claims, it should be stopped and those guilty of breaking the law should be prosecuted. What more can I add?

Addition by subtraction is what I recommend. Stop talking in terms of your philosophy or what you THINK is happening while everyone else is dealing with the realities Right now, we have to determine who's telling us the truth. Snowden or the government? That's what folks are discussing here. You can be frustrated all you want, but i assure you that goes away if you participate in the discussions of the thread and stop trying to hijack all of them with your philosophical ramblings.

 

[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?

What we have here are competing interests of the state: security vs. privacy. When such a conflict occurs, the courts need to determine very specifically which interest outweighs the other. Your example of going door to door and searching every house without warrant is a very clear instance in which privacy and the 4th Amendment would forbid this, no matter how "useful" or "necessary" it might seem. In that case, the interest of privacy far outweighs the interest of security.

But in terms of what the NSA is doing with bulk data- collecting it, searching through it, saving it, etc.- there is much less black and white. So once again, I can't answer your specific questions, without knowing how useful this stuff is to the NSA vs. how intrusive it is to privacy. These questions are for the courts to decide. I can only keep on repeating that in principle, I have no problem with the collection of bulk data.

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

 

[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.

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?

What we have here are competing interests of the state: security vs. privacy. When such a conflict occurs, the courts need to determine very specifically which interest outweighs the other. Your example of going door to door and searching every house without warrant is a very clear instance in which privacy and the 4th Amendment would forbid this, no matter how "useful" or "necessary" it might seem. In that case, the interest of privacy far outweighs the interest of security.

But in terms of what the NSA is doing with bulk data- collecting it, searching through it, saving it, etc.- there is much less black and white. So once again, I can't answer your specific questions, without knowing how useful this stuff is to the NSA vs. how intrusive it is to privacy. These questions are for the courts to decide. I can only keep on repeating that in principle, I have no problem with the collection of bulk data.

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

 

[RCon]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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?

 

[timschochet]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

 

[RCon]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

 

[Slapdash]

How are 8 through 10 different than the others?

 

[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.

 

[RCon]

* 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?

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I really don't understand this answer either. I thought your argument is that the collection and analysis has to be performed indiscriminately, to everyone equally?

 

[timschochet]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

I don't see how the bulk collection for GPS data could be used to detect terrorism. If the NSA came to me and explained it to me, I might change my mind.

 

[The Commish]

How are 8 through 10 different than the others?

They aren't.

 

[timschochet]

* 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?

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I really don't understand this answer either. I thought your argument is that the collection and analysis has to be performed indiscriminately, to everyone equally?

It's still bulk data. You're talking about searching through this billion emails vs. that billion emails. There may be reasons to search through Hotmail and not Gmail, or it may be simply be more practicable at the moment. I don't have a problem with it.

 

[The Commish]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

I don't see how the bulk collection for GPS data could be used to detect terrorism. If the NSA came to me and explained it to me, I might change my mind.

You don't see how GPS coordinates aren't helpful in determining behavior patterns? Really? If I had all the GPS coordinates from your car, I could tell where you went, how long you were there, how often you went. The only thing it doesn't spoon feed you is "why".

 

[timschochet]

How are 8 through 10 different than the others?

They aren't.

They absolutely are. Implanted at birth? GPS programs on cars? How would you collect the latter anyhow? And what kind of algorithm would be able to detect terrorist activity by searching through GPS programs?

 

[Slapdash]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

I don't see how the bulk collection for GPS data could be used to detect terrorism. If the NSA came to me and explained it to me, I might change my mind.

You don't think tracking everyone's locations could be useful for detecting terrorism? WTF

 

[Slapdash]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

I don't see how the bulk collection for GPS data could be used to detect terrorism. If the NSA came to me and explained it to me, I might change my mind.

You don't see how GPS coordinates aren't helpful in determining behavior patterns? Really? If I had all the GPS coordinates from your car, I could tell where you went, how long you were there, how often you went. The only thing it doesn't spoon feed you is "why".

That's why you join it on the unique identifier to your other databases. "Hey! These two devout Muslims keep getting lunch together!"

 

[timschochet]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

I don't see how the bulk collection for GPS data could be used to detect terrorism. If the NSA came to me and explained it to me, I might change my mind.

You don't see how GPS coordinates aren't helpful in determining behavior patterns? Really? If I had all the GPS coordinates from your car, I could tell where you went, how long you were there, how often you went. The only thing it doesn't spoon feed you is "why".

And if you wanted to know where I went, how long I was there, and how often, you could get an individual warrant to tell you. You wouldn't need a mass warrant to tell you that.

There are some things that mass warrants make sense for, but GPS coordinates aren't one of them.

 

[timschochet]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

I don't see how the bulk collection for GPS data could be used to detect terrorism. If the NSA came to me and explained it to me, I might change my mind.

You don't think tracking everyone's locations could be useful for detecting terrorism? WTF

Not everyone's location, no. You use the mass data to cut it down to a few specific people, and then you track them.

 

[Slapdash]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

I don't see how the bulk collection for GPS data could be used to detect terrorism. If the NSA came to me and explained it to me, I might change my mind.

You don't see how GPS coordinates aren't helpful in determining behavior patterns? Really? If I had all the GPS coordinates from your car, I could tell where you went, how long you were there, how often you went. The only thing it doesn't spoon feed you is "why".

And if you wanted to know where I went, how long I was there, and how often, you could get an individual warrant to tell you. You wouldn't need a mass warrant to tell you that.

There are some things that mass warrants make sense for, but GPS coordinates aren't one of them.

You don't need a mass warrant for the other stuff either.

 

[Slapdash]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

I don't see how the bulk collection for GPS data could be used to detect terrorism. If the NSA came to me and explained it to me, I might change my mind.

You don't think tracking everyone's locations could be useful for detecting terrorism? WTF

Not everyone's location, no. You use the mass data to cut it down to a few specific people, and then you track them.

Or you use everyone's movements and these "algorithm dings" to identify those specific people. Just like you do with other data. Data is data.

 

[RCon]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

I don't see how the bulk collection for GPS data could be used to detect terrorism. If the NSA came to me and explained it to me, I might change my mind.

Pretty simple. If the NSA knows where certain terrorist suspects are (or might be), it would be useful to know anyone who visits them.

But you said before that going door to door would be a clear violation, regardless of how useful it is. The idea here is to separate what's legal from what's useful. The fourth amendment doesn't have any provisions for "except where the information is useful for law enforcement".

 

[timschochet]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

I don't see how the bulk collection for GPS data could be used to detect terrorism. If the NSA came to me and explained it to me, I might change my mind.

You don't see how GPS coordinates aren't helpful in determining behavior patterns? Really? If I had all the GPS coordinates from your car, I could tell where you went, how long you were there, how often you went. The only thing it doesn't spoon feed you is "why".

And if you wanted to know where I went, how long I was there, and how often, you could get an individual warrant to tell you. You wouldn't need a mass warrant to tell you that.

There are some things that mass warrants make sense for, but GPS coordinates aren't one of them.

You don't need a mass warrant for the other stuff either.

I think you do. Can we agree to disagree?

 

[timschochet]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

I don't see how the bulk collection for GPS data could be used to detect terrorism. If the NSA came to me and explained it to me, I might change my mind.

Pretty simple. If the NSA knows where certain terrorist suspects are (or might be), it would be useful to know anyone who visits them.

But you said before that going door to door would be a clear violation, regardless of how useful it is. The idea here is to separate what's legal from what's useful. The fourth amendment doesn't have any provisions for "except where the information is useful for law enforcement".

We're repeating the same stuff over and over again. We're not going to agree on this. I respect your position. I doubt you respect mine, but that's OK too. Let's let the courts decide what the dividing lines are. I'll be fine with whatever they decide.

 

[RCon]

* 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?

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I really don't understand this answer either. I thought your argument is that the collection and analysis has to be performed indiscriminately, to everyone equally?

It's still bulk data. You're talking about searching through this billion emails vs. that billion emails. There may be reasons to search through Hotmail and not Gmail, or it may be simply be more practicable at the moment. I don't have a problem with it.

So now your definition of bulk data isn't "everyone's data equally", it's "some but not all data, as long as it's still a lot of data"?

Should we just skip the rest of the thread and amend your position to "Whatever the NSA says it needs in order to fight terrorism is OK by me"?

 

[RCon]

You don't think tracking everyone's locations could be useful for detecting terrorism? WTF

Not everyone's location, no. You use the mass data to cut it down to a few specific people, and then you track them.

But you just said that collecting the mass data on GPS coordinates would be illegal. So how can we use that to narrow it down?

And seriously, if you asked the NSA which would be more useful, GPS coordinates from every person or contents of all e-mail, I can pretty much guarantee they'd pick the former.

 

[RCon]

We're repeating the same stuff over and over again. We're not going to agree on this. I respect your position. I doubt you respect mine, but that's OK too. Let's let the courts decide what the dividing lines are. I'll be fine with whatever they decide.

It's impossible to respect, or even understand, an opinion that's not internally consistent with itself.

 

[timschochet]

* 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?

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I really don't understand this answer either. I thought your argument is that the collection and analysis has to be performed indiscriminately, to everyone equally?

It's still bulk data. You're talking about searching through this billion emails vs. that billion emails. There may be reasons to search through Hotmail and not Gmail, or it may be simply be more practicable at the moment. I don't have a problem with it.

So now your definition of bulk data isn't "everyone's data equally", it's "some but not all data, as long as it's still a lot of data"?

Should we just skip the rest of the thread and amend your position to "Whatever the NSA says it needs in order to fight terrorism is OK by me"?

Let's try this again, but this will be the last time, because I don't want to keep repeating myself, and it appears I'm not winning anyone over anyhow:

The NSA has made the argument that they need to collect bulk data in order to fight terrorism, and they can't do it if they have to get a separate warrant for each individual piece of it. They want to look through this data with computer programs to see if anything specific comes up; if it does, then they get a specific warrant. To search through the bulk data, they need a collective warrant. I find this argument compelling. It doesn't matter to me if they're looking through a million emails or 10 million or 100 million, so long as its such a large number that they're not going to look through each one separately. That argument makes sense to me, and I don't believe it violates the 4th Amendment. If the NSA makes a separate argument for something else they want to do, I may not find that one as compelling. Or I might. Who knows? But this one I agree with. In principle.

 

[timschochet]

We're repeating the same stuff over and over again. We're not going to agree on this. I respect your position. I doubt you respect mine, but that's OK too. Let's let the courts decide what the dividing lines are. I'll be fine with whatever they decide.

It's impossible to respect, or even understand, an opinion that's not internally consistent with itself.

That's because you're spending time trying to pick me apart on specifics when I am attempting to defend a general principle. Intuitively, I don't think emails and calls collected in bulk are intrusive. Intuitively, I believe that GPS signals on cars are. But in both cases I could probably be persuaded either way. I could NEVER be persuaded that GPS implanted at birth would be acceptable. Is any of this GPS stuff even on the table? Or are you just throwing out "what ifs"?

 

[Slapdash]

I think you do. Can we agree to disagree?

No, that is silly. You can obviously don't need to collect everyone's communications in order collect someone's.

 

[RCon]

We're repeating the same stuff over and over again. We're not going to agree on this. I respect your position. I doubt you respect mine, but that's OK too. Let's let the courts decide what the dividing lines are. I'll be fine with whatever they decide.

It's impossible to respect, or even understand, an opinion that's not internally consistent with itself.

That's because you're spending time trying to pick me apart on specifics when I am attempting to defend a general principle. Intuitively, I don't think emails and calls collected in bulk are intrusive. Intuitively, I believe that GPS signals on cars are. But in both cases I could probably be persuaded either way. I could NEVER be persuaded that GPS implanted at birth would be acceptable. Is any of this GPS stuff even on the table? Or are you just throwing out "what ifs"?

I just don't get how anyone could possibly find the two bolded sentences above consistent with each other.

Pretty sure they're already recording and storing GPS signals from your phone and your car, so yeah. Pretty sure they're not implanting GPS devices at birth, although I could be persuaded.

 

[The Commish]

How are 8 through 10 different than the others?

They aren't.

They absolutely are. Implanted at birth? GPS programs on cars? How would you collect the latter anyhow? And what kind of algorithm would be able to detect terrorist activity by searching through GPS programs?

So add "I don't know how GPS works" to the list?? GPS data is some of the easiest data to collect. Most of our GPS infrastructure is built on military satellites left in space after new "military" sats were deployed.

 

[timschochet]

I think you do. Can we agree to disagree?

No, that is silly. You can obviously don't need to collect everyone's communications in order collect someone's.

How can we know who that someone is without collecting everyone's data and running an algorithm through them? That's the whole point.

 

[Slapdash]

Let's try this again, but this will be the last time, because I don't want to keep repeating myself, and it appears I'm not winning anyone over anyhow:

Do you promise? Because having theoretical arguments with yourself is really distracting everyone from the actual issues occurring here in real life.

 

[The Commish]

Let's assume that the NSA's answer is that it's all really, really, really useful in fighting terrorism. What should be legal?

The bulk collection of data with collective warrants should be legal, so long as there are plenty of protections in place.

You keep repeating this, but it's not an answer to the questions I asked.

Go back to the specific questions I asked (and I added more examples below)...

* 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.)? Image copies of the contents of every piece of U.S. mail? GPS tracking devices implanted at birth? GPS tracking devices on every cell phone? GPS tracking devices on every car?

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

* 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 will try, but I'm guessing here without detailed knowledge, so please bare that in mind:

First paragraph:

1. Whatever data can be collected in bulk with a bulk warrant.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes- but email content should not be read outside of a computer algorithm program without a specific warrant to do so.

6. Yes.

7. Yes, but see point #5.

8. No.

9. No.

10. No.

Second paragraph: items 1-7 from the first paragraph.

Third paragraph:

1. No

2. Yes

I get that everyone has their "line" that shouldn't be crossed in terms of legality and Constitutionality, but the place where you choose to draw yours is just baffling.

You think the NSA should be allowed to record (and store for later use) every single phone call we make, and be allowed to open and make digital copies of every piece of mail we send, but not be allowed to monitor the GPS data on our cell phones?

I don't see how the bulk collection for GPS data could be used to detect terrorism. If the NSA came to me and explained it to me, I might change my mind.

You don't see how GPS coordinates aren't helpful in determining behavior patterns? Really? If I had all the GPS coordinates from your car, I could tell where you went, how long you were there, how often you went. The only thing it doesn't spoon feed you is "why".

That's why you join it on the unique identifier to your other databases. "Hey! These two devout Muslims keep getting lunch together!"

They don't call 'em foreign keys for nuttin'

 

[Slapdash]

I think you do. Can we agree to disagree?

No, that is silly. You can obviously don't need to collect everyone's communications in order collect someone's.

How can we know who that someone is without collecting everyone's data and running an algorithm through them? That's the whole point.

Not sure if serious or stupid

 

[The Commish]

I think you do. Can we agree to disagree?

No, that is silly. You can obviously don't need to collect everyone's communications in order collect someone's.

How can we know who that someone is without collecting everyone's data and running an algorithm through them? That's the whole point.

How do you think they did it when this technology didn't exist?

 

[RCon]

I think you do. Can we agree to disagree?

No, that is silly. You can obviously don't need to collect everyone's communications in order collect someone's.

How can we know who that someone is without collecting everyone's data and running an algorithm through them? That's the whole point.

Law enforcement has been doing it for centuries without access to bulk data. By your logic, before the advent of computers, we'd never have been able to get a warrant to tap anyone's phone?

 

[timschochet]

I think you do. Can we agree to disagree?

No, that is silly. You can obviously don't need to collect everyone's communications in order collect someone's.

How can we know who that someone is without collecting everyone's data and running an algorithm through them? That's the whole point.

Law enforcement has been doing it for centuries without access to bulk data. By your logic, before the advent of computers, we'd never have been able to get a warrant to tap anyone's phone?

Of course not. And we'll continue to do so through normal methods of obtaining information. But terrorism provides challenges that law enforcement can't solve on its own, which is why we need the added help of the NSA.

 

[timschochet]

I think you do. Can we agree to disagree?

No, that is silly. You can obviously don't need to collect everyone's communications in order collect someone's.

How can we know who that someone is without collecting everyone's data and running an algorithm through them? That's the whole point.

Not sure if serious or stupid

That was a serious point. We need to pin down the information and we can't do it without access to the bulk data.

 

[timschochet]

Let's try this again, but this will be the last time, because I don't want to keep repeating myself, and it appears I'm not winning anyone over anyhow:

Do you promise? Because having theoretical arguments with yourself is really distracting everyone from the actual issues occurring here in real life.

If people keep challenging me I'll respond. Rich asked me several specific questions and that's why I'm posting today. I don't anticipate repeating this particular argument though.

 

[Slapdash]

I think you do. Can we agree to disagree?

No, that is silly. You can obviously don't need to collect everyone's communications in order collect someone's.

How can we know who that someone is without collecting everyone's data and running an algorithm through them? That's the whole point.

Not sure if serious or stupid

That was a serious point. We need to pin down the information and we can't do it without access to the bulk data.

 

[Slapdash]

Let's try this again, but this will be the last time, because I don't want to keep repeating myself, and it appears I'm not winning anyone over anyhow:

Do you promise? Because having theoretical arguments with yourself is really distracting everyone from the actual issues occurring here in real life.

If people keep challenging me I'll respond. Rich asked me several specific questions and that's why I'm posting today. I don't anticipate repeating this particular argument though.

You mean repeating it again?

 

[RCon]

I asked him, he responded. I really don't have an issue with that, even if it's a partial repeat. I'm trying to pin down his exact position, but I end up repeating the question from time to time since he doesn't make his position clear.

 

[jon_mx]

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!"

Tim fighting the brave battle for big Government tyranny since 2004.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I asked him, he responded. I really don't have an issue with that, even if it's a partial repeat. I'm trying to pin down his exact position, but I end up repeating the question from time to time since he doesn't make his position clear.

Rich,

You don't know his position after 64 pages. How many more do you estimate it will take before you do?

 

[Slapdash]

I asked him, he responded. I really don't have an issue with that, even if it's a partial repeat. I'm trying to pin down his exact position, but I end up repeating the question from time to time since he doesn't make his position clear.

I get the exercise, but he is never going to get to that level.