General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre The American People Being Spied On Or Not?
Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 01:18 AM - Edit history (1)
I see there are attempts to distract from this question. And we should expect more, lots more.
However the President confirmed for me this week, that my telephone company has been spying on me.
That is the issue for the American People.
Wrong doing on the part of Snowden is the business of our judicial system.
That has zero to do with the question 'Is our government spying on us'.
For anyone who has doubts that their phone companies have any right to spy on them without their knowledge, I am posting the 4th Amendment:
Pay particular attention to the part that requires 'probable cause'.
And here is the oath of office taken by our elected officials:
Note, there is no requirement to protect Corporations, or secret courts or elected officials who betray this country. Just the US Constitution. If anyone doesn't think this is how it should be, then they need to work to change it. But for now, the most important duty of an elected official is to protect and defend the US Constitution.
If Snowden is guilty of some crime, then he should be prosecuted and tried, in public, with no 'redacted' material hidden from the public.
His guilt or innocence however has nothing to do with what we have learned over the past week and will not distract from the even more important issue for the American people. Is our government spying on us without probable cause?
I fully expect that if he is a traitor, he like all other traitors, (Bush, Cheney, Rummy and all the rest of those who failed to defend and protect the US Constitution, come to mind), will be indicted, prosecuted and tried for those crimes.
Just wanted to add, that last part re the War Criminals was wishful thinking on my part. If he IS treated like those traitors, he has nothing to fear. But he won't be, the laws are different for the 1%.
'No one is above the law'!
Or are they?
We will not be distracted from the most important issue, which is our Rights under the US Constitution however.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)issue. To get access to that data, we are told, they got a warrant. Let's see that warrant.. You cannot get a warrant without producing evidence of 'probable cause'.
So what was the probable cause that resulted in a warrant that allowed a Private Security Firm (where does their authority come from?) to access the data of millions of Americans??
It's really a very simple question.
randome
(34,845 posts)All we have so far is Snowden's allegations that anyone at NSA can access anyone's data.
You'd think he'd give us something to support that allegation, don't you? Until he does, I have no reason to believe a thing he says.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and of course, accessing our data. How did they get the warrant to do that? Based on what probable cause of wrongdoing, sworn by oath too as you can see, did they get that blanket warrant?
Clapper is a former employee of Booz Allen. He lied to Congress this week. Booz Allen receives billions of dollars from our government. For what? Do YOU know?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The NSA is storing information. They require a warrant to search that information. You are demanding a warrant to search the information for the storing of the information.
You've got the horse in front of the applecart.
The warrant to store the information is the leaked FISA warrant. They have not released a warrant for a search of the information, but so far no one is claiming they do search the information. Even Snowden claims that he could search the data, but he did not claim that the NSA is routinely doing so.
I would think having something comes after taking it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Searching requires another warrant.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Besides, just the fact that they supoena and store the information chills the exercise of rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. That is why this program, in my opinion, violates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Do I object to the government capturing and storing information on my electronic communications? Yes. I object very much.
I know what can be done, what can be deduced from such information.
And I have also heard that the government wants the authority to subpoena all of our financial records.
This kind of database even if accessible only with a subpoena is incompatible with democracy. Someone handles this information. Someone can access it without a subpoena. It is meaningless to permit the government to hire a contractor to gather and store all of our electronic communications in this fashion and then prohibit them from accessing the contents without a warrant. That's like giving a 2 year old a cookie jar full of cookies and telling him to just leave it in his room for a few weeks. When you go back to get that cookie jar, even the best behaved two-year-old will have eaten one or more cookies. It's human nature. It is in the nature of governments. And that is why we have a Bill of Rights.
The Europeans are very upset about this from what I have read. In general, from what I am reading, they believe that their guarantees of privacy rights on say the internet, at least in Germany, are better than they are here. So there is an international problem with our government capturing this information. And, you know, they share this information with the UK.
How could anyone know for sure that they actually bother to get a second subpoena to access the information. That is a naive idea. Exigencies can be easily found -- or created if necessary.
No. This program should end. It is wrong on so many levels.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)against 300 million americans to get the warrant to collect their data?
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)already said that there is no expectation of privacy for phone logs
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)can do with that information in terms of using it to spy on millions of innocent citizens. No warrant, no judicial oversight, no probable cause.
randome
(34,845 posts)The data that is encrypted and contains no identifying information, only numbers and timestamps.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)require a warrant with probable cause under the 4th amendment. If your contradictory argument below is true then the records are not ours, in which case there are no limits on how they can use the data to spy on us.
Have a nice day.
"randome (13,799 posts)
62. Third party records have been ruled many, many times to not be people's personal effects."
This statement of yours is so vague and general that it is essentially meaningless
"The data that is encrypted and contains no identifying information, only numbers and timestamps."
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)James Bamford (writer on the NSA) on Rachel Maddow said that the FISA court does not protect us.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)They aren't secret to be mean, but so that the targets of investigation don't find out they are being investigated and run or do something desperate.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)land last time I checked. My question is simple, not conflated at all. We KNOW they got a warrant, but to get a warrant according to the law, they must present evidence of probable cause. So, what probable cause that I and millions of Americans may have committed a crime was presented to this secret court?
I've seen the warrant, what I haven't seen is the probable cause that I have done something wrong that was presented to GET THAT WARRANT. Is that hard for you to absorb because I will be happy to explain it very clearly if you are having a problem with what has always been the LAW in this country.
If you KNOW what the probable cause was, then please enlighten us.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You know, the Verizon one that was leaked?
They need two warrants in your scenario. The one to collect the data they got from the FISA court. And one from a regular court to actually use the data when there is probable cause.
Boil down the entire "metadata" incident, and it is a storage issue. The telecoms were deleting the data after a time. Some deleted after 3 months. Some deleted after 5 years. Sprint never deletes it. But that data is quite helpful if anyone does conduct an attack in the future - after you have a suspect and probable cause, searching the data would provide useful leads. The NSA can't troll the data looking for terrorists.
Btw, that need for a second warrant to use the data is in the information Snowden leaked. So I'm not just making that up. The NSA thinks they need a second warrant to actually use the data.
But let's pretend they want to troll the data looking for terrorists anyway. That will utterly fail. Why? No starting point. A pattern match would produce an enormous number of false positives which would have to be investigated. They'd miss "real" terrorists due to the FBI being so busy running down non-terrorists.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)most people do not understand this...they dont HAVE to store...all they need is access to the data. They have software that does data base searches based on queries carried out with SQL. They can make virtual tables of information at will to run other queries against. Google, Facebook and Verizon are doing the storing of the data already.....to store it again is just redundant and unnecessary. They can change and run new queries on the databases at will.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Some telecoms delete the data after 3 months. Some 1 year. Some 5 years. Sprint never deletes it.
The data has to be present somewhere in order for it to be searched. So one solution to the metadata problem would be to require the telecoms to store the data for a period of time. Another is the current solution: The NSA stores it, and the government has to get another warrant to search it.
As for this:
You are conflating two different programs.
The telephone metadata program is the one that requires the FISA court warrant and stores information on US persons.
Prisim (The Google/Facebook program) does not store data on US persons. At least, not knowingly US persons. As a result, there's no Constitutional protection involved - they are collecting information on foreigners in foreign countries.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)find that hard to believe....Verizon does Internet now too....
How do you know that the govt is saving it....perhaps they just want access to whatever phone records they can get their hands on....
jeff47
(26,549 posts)When the same thing came up during the W administration, the data retention policies of the telecoms were reported.
Well, taking the data just to delete it would be kinda silly.
That would be the reason for the program, yes.
But the 2010 law added protections such as requiring a second warrant to actually search the data. So they can't just troll through it.
In addition, just trolling through it would give far too many false positives to be useful. You have to have a person to start from in order to tease any meaningful information from the data.
So the government gets a warrant based on that person doing something, like blowing up the Boston marathon finish line.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)outraged.
I trust Democrat, Ron Wyden.
I do not trust Republican liar, Director of Intelligence, Clapper, friend of Bush, former (and most likely future) employee of multi billion dollar 'security' contractor, Booz Allen.
No conflict of interest there! IF you believe in the tooth fairy. 
midnight
(26,624 posts)applied....
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they can get access to phone records with a FISA no data saving necessary....
They have access to facebook and google etc.....what would be the point...the fact that they are not saving it is what gives them cover to do this...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You could really revolutionize computer science if you manage to search data that no longer exists, so I'm very interested in hearing your proposal.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)There are two data collection methods. They get metadata from various company servers, but they also tap into the optical fiber backbone of the internet itself, which I believe is what the prism program is about.
Prism stores everything. All electronic contents. Phone calls that have been digitized, emails... everything.
here's a recent discussion on reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1ftwhd/from_2007_the_nsa_had_installed_glass_prisms_on/
this is why we have storage facilities in Utah that store yottabytes of data:
http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/01/nsa-to-store-yottabytes-of-surveillance-data-in-utah-megarepository/
they don't have a warrant for this, AFAICT
the warrant that you keep referring to is for metadata that they are getting directly from those companies, not from downloading the entire internets
jeff47
(26,549 posts)is that Prism stores data on non-US persons. Who have no Constitutional protections.
And since I explicitly mentioned both programs, it's kind of odd for you to think the two programs are causing me to go "off the rails"
reusrename
(1,716 posts)where are you getting this alternate version of the program?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There are people claiming it must take a copy of everything from everyone to do so, but that's not actually the case.
Even the Guardian is saying Prisim does not have direct access to servers.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZdPpdu8OGDQ#t=2400s
I don't know where you are getting this information from, but it is not factual.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You'll note that the "NSA is copying everything" claim is not actually backed up by anything stronger than conjecture.
My personal guess is Prisim is monitoring the fiber optic cables that enter the US. Guess what goes through that AT&T facility?
reusrename
(1,716 posts)That's usually the way these discussions go. I answer your questions and you answer mine. Just to keep it polite and all. If you don't remember, that's fine, but I would really like to know.
There isn't really any need to make this into a guessing game, just use the wiki to find out what is in room 641A of that building.
Wired magazine published wiring diagrams and statements and affidavits about it, which was probably part of the source material for the Nova piece.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But I'm reading what's actually there, instead of leaping to what I want to be there.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)here. I believe reputable Democrats like Ron Wyden and when he says that if we knew the half of 'how they are using these programs, the American people would be outraged'.
Why are you defending these Bush policies btw? Aren't you a Democrat?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Unlike Republicans, we are supposed to believe in reality first.
Reality is the meta data program is legal under the 2010 Patriot Act. That act added a lot of checks and other controls to the previous "Bush policies". To claim they are identical is to put party above reality.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Me thinks you need a refresher course of the logistics of doing what you suggest.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)I have been following this story quite closely. I don't think any of the facts are in doubt.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)geeks far geekier than I am (and I am pretty geeky) dispelled your myths in your own link...
reusrename
(1,716 posts)One of the geeks makes a comment that he'll never laugh at that old joke anymore, the one about the boss ordering the IT guys to download the entire internets.
I responded to Jeff47 above with some links to a Nova vid and also a schematic of whats in room 641A
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3012408
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I mean there is no guard at the gate demanding the NSA to produce a warrant before going into the databases.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Even Snowden did not claim the NSA routinely searches the data. He claimed he could search it, but not that they were searching it without a warrant.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The opportunity for abuse is serious and real.
Maybe you trust Obama... but he wont be president anymore in a few years. What happens when you dont trust the next guy?
randome
(34,845 posts)That's why we have laws to reign them in. Do you worry about whether or not the FBI is doing their job correctly? What about military MPs? Coast Guard?
At some point, you actually do need to show some trust in authority. If we didn't, no one would be able to go about their days.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)been dismissed when they skipped this step.
So, once again, what was the probable cause presented to get the warrant the President assured they got, to justify that warrant that allowed the phone records of millions of Americans to be accessed. You keep talking about stuff that does not address this issue. Is that because you don't know the answer? I don't. Which is why I am asking.
randome
(34,845 posts)You're right, there was no 'probable cause' involved in that. But nothing was being searched, only stored. That, to me, is enough of a key difference.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)
You cannot store things that aren't yours without seizing them first.
By your absurd logic, the police should be able to barge into every house and demand everybody's diaries, as long as they promise not to read them.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What was the probable cause?
And if you truly believe that all they have access to is third party logs, I have a bridge to sell you.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)keep digging. i'm sure you sound moderate to yourself..
..but you underestimate the bipartisan anger over this and your facts are unpleasant realities. you defend it.
as you state, when we sign up with verizon, et al, we sign contracts, which give up privacy rights to corporations. then, when the gubmint sends a warrantless security letter of various and sundry types, the telecon is obligated by law to cough it up. this corporate middleman makes warrantless spying.. cf, bradley manning downloading secrets onto a CD.. a rather probable scenario.
you dismiss it, but your arguments are only more infuriating, because yeah, that's true.
and it's FUCKED UP.
defend the status quo if you want randome, i for one find it odious.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)violation of our rights. THEY DEFEND IT! They try to sound 'moderate' as you said, but they must think we are stupid. What I love about this, as someone else said, and there isn't much to love, but every cloud has a silver lining, we now have confirmation of what many of us suspected about the infiltration of the democratic party. Not many surprises I admit, but much more blatant considering what is at stake here.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)We're talking about geo-location from cell towers. While at some points you are in the "public sphere" and can legally be monitored by anyone without warrant (so long as it isn't stalking), there is no way to differentiate whether or not you have entered a private location (be it business, home, or private residence). Therefore it is ILLEGAL to data mine for the geo-location data for cell users as the US government HAS done.
Without a warrant, you (person, company, or government) are not constitutionally allowed to obtain this information on anyone. The courts have dealt with this issue in the past A LOT in dealing with the definition of "expectation of privacy". The only place where this is allowed is by the company that you are dealing with. For instance, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to your geo-location information from the cell company themselves, because you agree to their services.
The Obama Administration would contend currently that under the precedent for expectation of privacy that they are then allowed to take your data because of the lessening of the expectation of privacy precedent regarding emails after they've reached their destination. That is, they hope to argue (although invoking state secrets means at least for the time being they won't have to) that your data enters the public sphere when it is aggregated by the telecom. That is however false. Otherwise it would also be required to be publicly available, as would your SSN, any product you buy on a club card at a grocery store, all online purchases by accounts made on Amazon, EBay, PayPal, etc. Additionally all searches on search engines by your computer, all tv shows watched from many cable providers, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, AIM, Skype, etc. If they argue that they have entered the public domain then they are also arguing that ALL people are legally ALLOWED to view that data because it is no longer covered by the protections of the expectation of privacy.
The courts have left this area extremely gray and for good reason. Government agencies want the leeway to use your information but at the same time keep up the idea that you still have privacy. You can't have both.
It comes down to the fact that the Administration is intrinsically WRONG in their belief that what is being done is legal. Because if it is legal, then you have no expectation of privacy in ANY of this aforementioned information, including your SSN for instance. Either the information is in the public domain and they and everyone can see it legally or it isn't and no one can. That is the law and that is the precedent as it relates to the Fourth Amendment.
Here is a BASIC description if it for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I hope you don't mind if I repost for emphasis the heart of it:
"Government agencies want the leeway to use your information but at the same time keep up the idea that you still have privacy. You can't have both.
It comes down to the fact that the Administration is intrinsically WRONG in their belief that what is being done is legal. Because if it is legal, then you have no expectation of privacy in ANY of this aforementioned information, including your SSN for instance. Either the information is in the public domain and they and everyone can see it legally or it isn't and no one can. That is the law and that is the precedent as it relates to the Fourth Amendment."
Fearless
(18,421 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Also, if their argument rests on the claim that it is legal to collect your data because 'it is in the public domain' then why would they need a warrant at all?
It's all a farce, and anyone with a brain can see it. I suspect even those attempting to excuse it and having such a hard time doing it, know this also. It's like a parent who knows their child has done something wrong, but it's their child and they feel compelled to defend them. A GOOD parent however, would never defend a child who has done wrong, they would explain to the child what they have done wrong and teach them the difference between right and wrong.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)They've caught themselves in a Catch 22.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)made that clear. No THIRD PARTY is paying my phone bill. When they do, they you will have a point. According to the FISA Bill, telecom spies or any other spies, would have to pay 'compensation' in the amount of at least $1000 without even suing, IF they unlawfully, (and a warrant obtained without probable cause is illegal according to the US Constitution) spied on, accessed, collected, or did anything which involved them in any way invading the privacy of customers. Then Congress altered that bill to make legal what was illegal.
Let me know if you want to pay my phone bill, then you can let whoever you want 'access' the record, otoh, I would not accept you paying my phone bill, I value my Constitutional rights more than the cost of a phone bill. That is why I pay for things, so that I own them.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The Supreme court ruled they are not your records in 1979. They ruled that they are the phone company's records.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)belong to me. The FISA Bill itself, before it was altered, which was in response to Nixon's spying activities which now appear to have been child's play compared to what is going on right now, required the telecoms to pay compensation IF they participated in spying on the American people. The amount mentioned airc, was $1,000. But Congress rushed to protect them from the law and changed it.
We are like some third world dictatorship. When our 'leaders' or their Corporate buddies break the law, we make a new law!
What is worse is that are actual people, some of the Democrats I am finding out, who support these attacks on the Constitution.
Hopefully this will be the turning point that should have happened long ago and the people will retake their government out of the hands of the criminal Corporations who appear to be in control right now.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Nope. Again, the Supreme Court ruled on this in 1979. After Nixon.
The records belong to the company.
Only because you're taking what Snowden leaked and leaping several miles past what's in his leaks.
Your interpretation of the Constitution. Which includes requiring individuals and private companies to extend constitutional rights to you.
If you'd like to see how it actually works, spam a ton of "Ron Paul for President" posts on DU. You will quickly find DU does not have to indulge your first amendment rights.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is supposedly overseeing to monitor their activities, and to whom they are paying billions of our tax dollars.
It is simple, read the 4th Amendment. No court can rule against the US Constitution and if they do that ruling will eventually be rescinded as has happened many times in the past.
What is amazing is that you are arguing FOR unconstitutional rulings rather than AGAINST THEM. Why is that?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Now, you want to talk about the US government, since your previous argument went down in flames.
You might want to rethink that statement.
There's this one court which gets to rule on what the Constitution says. They can rule pretty much any damn way they want. So they're free to rule against your interpretation of the Constitution.
Because they're not unconstitutional. They are against your interpretation of the Constitution.
The government sought a warrant to collect the metadata. Thus following the Constitution. The FISA court ruled they had probable cause to collect the data, but could not search through the data.
The government needs another warrant to search within that data. So far, no one has provided any evidence that the government is using the data at all. Much less that the government is using the data without a second warrant.
Instead, people like you are assuming that they are, and then railing against your assumption.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)will be challenged and thankfully many of them have been overturned throughout our history. IF they were constitutional as claimed at the time, using YOUR arguments, they would still stand. They do not.
These unconstitutional rulings thanks to the Bush gang will continue to be challenged until they too are overturned. The American people like their Constitution and though it sometimes takes a while, they do eventually come down on the side of the law of the land.
That you are defending spying on the American people and claiming it is constitutional, is just plain sad. To try to defend laws that have been in effect in other countries, countries we often condemn here, is unconscionable. Most of those countries that pass such laws are totalitarian in nature.
I have faith that now that this issue is once again in the public eye, with a few more positive aspects that were not present the last time it was challenged, we will move forward to undo all Bush policies over the next several years. Just as in the past when people such as yourself defended unconstitutional laws, the American people moved to overturn them. And thankfully on the most important ones, succeeded. I am glad to be on the right side of history on this. Shame on those who are not.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's plenty of rulings that still stand despite many people thinking they are wrong. For example, there's a ton of people who think Roe v Wade is unconstitutional.
The 4th amendment requires showing probable cause and getting a warrant. The government did so.
You don't like it, but you not liking it doesn't make it unconstitutional. Sad is believing "I don't like it" is the grounds for something being unconstitutional.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There's no better way. Congress has passed laws declared Unconstitutional in the past. The court is the safeguard. You're putting the cart before the horse. Not everyone agrees on what is constitutional or not. You realize you're painting yourself into a corner due to emotion. You don't like this law and don't want it to be constitutional, but the legal system decided it was and that is how it is decided, so it will be society's decision rather than that of any individual.
You're like the reverse of a pro-lifer saying Roe v. Wade is wrong and abortion prohibitions are constitutional - but that individual does not have society's authority to decide that alone - the Courts do, because they represent all.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How about you?
treestar
(82,383 posts)not passed because they are unconstitutional in your opinion. I pointed out you don't get to decide, the law can be challenged in court however. Then it's society's decision, from that institution.
This has nothing to do with Bush's policies, which of course were all crap. However, when he signed a bill into law, it became law as has been the case since 1787. And it would stay the law without judicial review as decided in Marbury v. Madison, about 1801, which said the courts did have the power to overturn a law if it violated the constitution, even though democratically passed by elected representatives. That means the majority cannot have their way if the courts think it violates the constitution (which conservatives complain about and call legislating from the bench, etc.)
You take the position 1 - I don't like this law, therefore 2- it is unconstitutional, therefore 3- Congress should just not pass it! But if they do, then 4- the President should just not enforce it! So there, but it should be all my decision, and the rest of society should abide by it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)pushed them through, and you're right, we had not say, but back then that was a problem, now you are defending us having no say regarding Bush policies?
So again, my question is, do you like Bush policies or not?
The 'revised' Fisa Bill that you are defending, was pushed through in order to legalize WHAT HE DID THAT ILLEGAL BEFORE THE ALTERED THE BILL TO SAVE HIM.
This is what you are supporting, a bill that LEGALIZED the ILLEGAL spying of the Bush administration.
Btw, your PERSONAL opinion of me means nothing to me. I am interested in issues, and judge people including politicians based on their truthfulness, credibility, consistency when it comes to important issues, ethics and honor.
Politicians take an oath to 'defend and protect' the US Constitution, nothing else. A whole lot of them got together and betrayed that oath when they voted to protect a President who had broken the law.
Read the 4th Amendment, you don't seem to have done so. I expect MY Reps to keep the oath they took, and no, there is no 'different' interpretation of the law that says we are to be safe from Government intrusion into our homes, effects, papers etc. It is very clear.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)So, how do you explain the need for a warrant to get something that is, according to you, available legally to them?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The fact that the records belong to a company doesn't mean the government gets free access to them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)If my records don't belong to me then they don't need a warrant to take them.
If they belong to the telecoms, they don't need a warrant, UNLESS the telecoms have refused to release them.
Have the telecoms refused to release them? The only reason for a warrant is because the records belong to someone and someone has refused to just to hand them over. OR they DO belong to us, and rather than ask US to release them, they applied for a warrant, without showing any probable cause which makes that warrant a kangaroo warrant from a kangaroo court.
So, did the telecoms refuse a request for the records? That would make me feel better about the telecoms as it would show that they don't think the people's records belong to them.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)DO NOT NEED an additional warrant because they are 3rd party records and do not belong to us.
SO. We are back to where we started. They are not stopped from searching these stored records by the necessity to obtain an additional warrant because they already have all of the records stored, and they do not "belong" to us. Thus, there are no limits on the use of this information.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)my opinion clear on that. I notice there is no response to my question on why, since the surveillance defenders are going out of their way to defend the WARRANT, while arguing they records don't belong to us anyhow, then why do they need a warrant? Because the records DO belong to us!
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)at all at any time?
They can just look at all the data freely since it does not "belong" to the individuals.
There. Constitutional crisis averted. You are welcome.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to explain this warrant issue. They have now argued themselves into a corner. The very fact that a warrant is needed means either that WE OWN those third party records, OR the the telecoms own them and they have refused to hand them over. I would like to know if my telephone company refused to hand over my records, before I cancel them.
I'm glad this discussion occurred, because it has revealed the big, giant hole in their 'warrant' argument, not just exposing the lack of probable cause, as far as we knew, but if you argue they own our records, then they do not need any warrant which wipes out all their arguments completely.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)This is why the warrants are needed: using your words, "the the telecoms own [the records] and they have refused to hand them over".
Freely handing over the records without a warrant is bad business from both the PR and money-making perspectives. The telecoms want the paperwork so that they can claim that they had no choice. An important question here is, how much effort (if any) are the telecoms expending in challenging the warrants?
The records that the telecoms are handing over are not copies of the customer bills. They are the telecoms' usage records that are used to create the customer bills.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)In fact Congress had their back and got busy rewriting the FISA law, retroactively, to make legal what was illegal when Bush did it. I don't think they have anything to worry about. There is no rule of law here. Who is going to hold them accountable? We didn't hold worse criminals accountable, War Criminals and Wall St Criminals.
However, I was responding mostly to the confusing arguments we are getting for the surveillance of the American people.
We are told they got a warrant. But you can't get a warrant without probable cause, so what did millions of us do that created a probable cause of wrong doing?
We are told that, see my thread, that 'we don't own those records' in which case the telecoms own them. So why would they need a warrant if we don't own them, and if the telecoms have already proven themselves to be so helpful they just hand over stuff to the Govt and get bailed out later if necessary?
Mostly I want to know what I am suspected of being a Verizon customer. Because IF they got a warrant, they had to have a probable cause of wrongdoing.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)In fact Congress had their back and got busy rewriting the FISA law, retroactively, to make legal what was illegal when Bush did it. I don't think they have anything to worry about. There is no rule of law here. Who is going to hold them accountable? We didn't hold worse criminals accountable, War Criminals and Wall St Criminals.
Sometimes they just get lucky. In business you cannot depend on that. Hence the desire for the paperwork.
The PC required by the FISA court tends to be rather weak. Since it does not get public scrutiny, they seem to not care.
The telecoms own the data. The warrant helps them cover their collective asses.
Mostly I want to know what I am suspected of being a Verizon customer. Because IF they got a warrant, they had to have a probable cause of wrongdoing.
That warrant would be for the searching through the data, which they apparently do not have at the moment. Collecting and storing the data seems to have been held to a lower standard.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Amendment is pretty clear when the government decides to intrude on its citizens. They are going to be challenged now in court, starting with the suit already filed by the ACLU, which this time has the standing that not having the last time, was the excuse used to dismiss their case. They too, like me, are Verizon customers.
I don't see any room there for abandoning a couple of steps just because it is a secret court set up to rubber stamp anything the Government, and now sadly, those who really have our rights in their hands, the multi-billion dollar Private 'Security' Corporations to whom Congress had handed over its obligations under the oath they swore to, asks them for.
Secret courts, set up to give the appearance of legality, but which as you say, doesn't try very hard, as far as we know, to abide by the law itself.
See this part again:
It doesn't say 'except when we have a secret court that is only there to help cover the collective asses of the 'security profiteers'. I think the people who wrote that would roll over in their graves if they saw the contortions being employed to explain why they are a bit 'weak' on the constitution.
According to Ron Wyden, we don't know the half of 'how they are using the law' and if we did, he said 'the American people would be outraged'.
I'm outraged just knowing the half I do know.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)but rather the copies the phone companies have of the numbers you have called so wouldnt it be up to the phone companies to fight them as its their 4th amendment rights being violated? Of course for "their" rights to be violated though we would have to claim that the companies are a person.
But anywayyyyyyyyy I need to go take an 800mg ibuprofen as the whole thing is giving me one heck of a headache.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We are drowning in misdirection. The government has no right to sweep up this information in a dragnet and store it.
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)to think it was ok though woo and it will probably continue until either SCOTUS steps in or until the republican controlled congress decides to intervene.
As for myself I personally (and this is only me, I am not speaking for you or anyone else because we all have a difference opinion on things) have no problem with them recording the numbers I call or receive calls from because the phone company already does that however I would like more safeguards put into place to make sure the do have to have a warrant and also they should be require by law to notify you within 30 days to a year at most that such a warrant was issued.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This is not a matter of debate or polling. All authoritarian regimes attempt to make what they do legal. We have a piece of paper in this country called the Constitution that guarantees certain rights and protections to US citizens.
You cannot violate the Fourth Amendment by seizing and storing these records, and then turn around and claim that it is okay because you are adding "protections." The government has no Constitutional right to collect and store them in the first place.
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)Unless of course SCOTUS decides to step though I doubt they will.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The FISA warrants do not come into play until *after* the information has *already* been unconstitutionally seized and stored.
This is exactly the manipulation I wrote about here:
We are being manipulated to miss the point.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022997125
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Congress pushed that bill through in order to save Bush and his telecom buddies after they broke the law. The fact that the warrant is not required to be issued until after the fact, was outrageous, back then. Now it seems the same people who were screaming back then are USING it now to justify more law breaking.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Verizon, who I just found out has been handing over my phone records to Private Security Corps, multi billion dollar Corporations and/or the Government.
So they got a warrant? How did they get a warrant without showing probable cause that millions of people are suspects in some crime? I posted the text of the 4th Amendment. There is a missing a step here in the President's claim that every was done legally. The Constitution is the law of the land. Read the text I posted, it states that no warrant will be issued without probable cause.
So the simple question that appears to be presenting such a problem for those supporting the surveillance is, 'what probable cause was presented to get that warrant'?
randome
(34,845 posts)Third party records are not personal effects. The courts have ruled that over and over again. Since the 1890s, I believe. Consistently.
If they are not personal effects, then 'reasonable cause' has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)bill. Is someone else paying YOUR phone bill, the government, the multi billion dollar 'security corporation' who stole our data? Did they pay for your phone? Because they didn't pay for mine and unless they can show some evidence of wrong doing they have no right to even know my name.
How creepy to see people actually, willingly, throw away their rights, right here on a democratic forum and argue on behalf of the thieves. It's simply stunning.
randome
(34,845 posts)No one is talking about your phone. The records that every telecom company in this country keep are not yours.
That's not my decision, that is many, many court decisions over many, many years. It is established law.
Go ahead and fight that if you want. But don't say that anyone is doing something illegal when it is not, in fact, illegal.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)they are stealing. Are you saying that the government has a right to people's purchasing records, travel records, social activity records? Are you serious or just playing devil's advocate here?
I know that in totalitarian states, the government has passed laws that permit them to conduct these kinds of surveillance activities, but we are not a totalitarian state.
What records are free from Government spying then? Was Bush right after all? Do we owe him an apology?
This is insane.
randome
(34,845 posts)And there is the added court decision that phone numbers you dial ALSO don't 'belong' to you.
Talk about blaming the messenger. I don't have the links and I'm headed for bed. But what I stated is true.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)plenty of unconstitutional rulings, I don't respect them and generally such rulings are eventually overturned. You should be arguing AGAINST unconstitutional rulings, not FOR them. That is how they happen in the first place, because some people support them. Then the rest of us have to fight to get rid of them.
When I go to the supermarket and buy vegetables, the record of what I buy is third party. When I go to the library and take out a book, the record of that activity is third party. What you are defending is chilling.
Courts ruled about third party records. An example would be my land line phone calls made between March of 1977 and March of 1978. Yes, with a warrant, government officials with probable cause could access those records. Ma Bell would be required to turn them over.
That was the 1970's. This is the 2010's. Ma Bell (i.e. Verizon for the sake of a single example) does not just have a list of the calls made on my cellphone, they have all of the data I have transferred digitally including the actual conversations, the text messages, the photos, etc. The government is tapping into that and 'storing' it, then at a later date, they claim that with a warrant they can 'profile' it after probable cause has been established.
No, no, and no! In the 1970's, the equivalent would have been a tap with a recording made of the actual verbal conversation. A warrant was absolutely necessary. And if they were given fraudulently or wrongly, they were challenged and overturned. All of this digital data that has been kept is the exact equivalent of a recorded phone call from that era.
The government has violated the 4th Amendment by claiming that they can store that information (as meta data) for later use if they need it to stop terrorism or stop a crime. This is the bottom line, and no there is no Supreme Court precedence for this because this is not just a simple listing of calls made, but rather, a collection of private data. Fearless' post above then is entirely apropos and accurate. It is either all public, and therefore no expectation of privacy is given. For example, if I stand on a street corner and yell out my social security number, then I can not expect it to remain private information. Or it is all private, and therefore, outside of my call history which must and then can be legally warranted for release from Verizon, the rest of the data and meta data is my own private stuff - my conversations are private, my texts are private, my videos are private, my photos are private, my searches are private.
This is even more important when we look at the internet as a whole and not just smartphones. You and others are arguing that in reality, when I use any computer that all information is therefore public. That is simply not true. Some areas of the internet are public. My words here are in a public forum and anyone from anywhere can take my words or make inferences or whatever from them. But, my logging in and managing my bank account is a private act. My logging in and checking my Gmail is a private act. My purchases on eBay, Amazon, and Victoria's Secret are private acts. To collect that information in whatever form - actual data or as meta data - for later usage, in case they want to get a warrant to investigate me as a possible terrorists is a direct and specious violation of the 4th Amendment. This is 100% the actions of a totalitarian regime. This is 1984, Brave New World, & Fahrenheit 451 all rolled into one.
Apologists for this here are disgusting and despicable. And bluntly knowing what I know of human behavior, entirely predictable and sadly a certainty. I was an exchange student to West Germany with host family members who were part of the Nazi Party. They were good, intelligent, people who were manipulated by fear and propaganda to support the most vile and horrid acts their government could think of. We are heading down that same path if we as a nation accept this as legal and alright for the sake of 'security' and 'safety'.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who grew up in a democracy defending these Bush policies. Your last paragraph is a chilling reminder of how it happens, incrementally, with the support of otherwise good people.
Your post should be an OP.
TM99
(8,352 posts)That means a lot coming from you.
I was fortunate to have had that experience in the early 1980's. I also got to see East Germany at the time, and I even got a visa to go to the then Czechoslovakia. I had distant cousins in a small town in the High Tatras. The family could not even allow me to stay with them because the father was a minor Communist Party official.
I have also witness the incredible psychological damage such a 'police state' can do as my first wife was a Polish immigrant. She grew up under the Soviet Bloc regime. She was a young intellectual, studied psychology at university, and attended counter-revolutionary meetings. She discovered that her boyfriend of two years was an agent simply instructed to get as close to her as possible to monitor her actions. Even after years here in America and lots of therapy, her paranoia and distrust was too much for us to last as a loving couple. I have met many other former Soviet Bloc immigrants who have acted the same way. It is chilling and sadly forgotten by Americans as we have always believed, "It can't happen here, can it?"
Well, yes, it can. This is how it starts. A decade of perpetual war, a scared populace, incremental cutting away at civil rights, bread & circus, and then the police state slowly rolls out aided and abetted in secret by both sides of the political spectrum. Few remember history in that Hitler rose to power with support from all parties - liberal & conservative alike. It scares me, and I do not scare easily.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)symptoms as she was constantly stopped and harassed by the British Army as a young girl, watched and followed. She was terrified of the police. She died in her thirties but knowing her made me very aware of what a surveillance state does to innocent people. All she wanted to do was to become a nurse.
Living here did not help her much either. I guess when you grow up in that atmosphere with the knowledge of what could be, it's difficult to ever completely overcome it.
Well, yes, it can. This is how it starts. A decade of perpetual war, a scared populace, incremental cutting away at civil rights, bread & circus, and then the police state slowly rolls out aided and abetted in secret by both sides of the political spectrum. Few remember history in that Hitler rose to power with support from all parties - liberal & conservative alike. It scares me, and I do not scare easily.
We haven't learned, as is evident by the knee jerk reactions of people even on this forum, to rush to the defense of their politicians while totally ignoring the horrendous implications of what has been revealed.
Thank you again, and I am truly sorry for your friend.
TM99
(8,352 posts)That is too young to die.
Yes, my ex wife just could not get over it, and she was aware enough to at least realize that. When I finished my Ph.D., got my commission, and began working at the VA hospital, she was absolutely terrified as I was a part of the government system of authority. It caused her great fear and paranoia. I was young and really couldn't give up my work for our relationship, so we eventually had to separate & divorce.
I honestly don't even know what ever happened to her as I moved on with my life.
Keep a populace in fear long enough and the very thought of awareness of those monsters causing the fear becomes a source of fear itself. As I sadly said, I am not surprised or shocked by the reactions. I admit I did have some hope that having lurked here during the Bush years, that perhaps, just perhaps DU en masse would be against this being done by a Democratic administration. Unfortunately, that was misplaced hope. 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Private Corporations to order the Telecom, Verizon and maybe others, to hand over the phone records of their customers. Again, what probable cause was presented to a court that prompted that court to issue that warrant?
And why is it so hard to get an answer to that very simple question??
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)They've gathered the traffic records for every single Verizon customer (tens of millions) in the hope of finding a terrorist or two? This is like finding a certain individual grain of sand on Coney Island. I'm not a law enforcement expert, but to me, the odds of finding a bad guy by sifting through hundreds of millions of phone numbers seems like a ridiculous plan, at best.
Apparently, the only probable cause needed is the fact that they MIGHT beat astronomical odds and find what they're looking for. And I might win the lottery by playing my dog's birthday.
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)And assuming I was reading it correctly it worked something like this.
Say bin laden when he was alive called someone in new york, now that new york number is flagged and the feds computers check to see if there are any other related numbers that they may have in common and that raises another flag if they do share in calling one or more other phone numbers, think of it as the six degrees of separation like scenario.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the records of millions of innocent people. None. And if they did not know this, then they all should be fired because they are so incompetent that words fail.
No terrorist worthy of the title is unaware that their phone calls can be tracked. If they are that stupid, we have nothing to fear from them.
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #112)
cstanleytech This message was self-deleted by its author.
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)You know the name was only used an example and I know that because you arent dense, so the only other reason I can see you doing that is that you want to argue so I am curious why?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I also said that if they did, we need not worry about them, as anyone that stupid is hardly a threat to us. You are arguing for this massive surveillance program. Why are you doing that when it is clear there is no logical reason for it? Which was the point of MY argument.
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Then it's a simple matter to run a database query to pull only the numbers having to do with the warrant. It's not rocket science.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)me to have a warrant issued against me? And if accessing records is legal, why do they need a warrant in the first place? See, it's all so contradictory when you try to defend law breaking. It should not be this hard to defend something. But it is, isn't it? For me it is simple, just abide by the law and you won't have to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to defend your behavior. Worked for me so far in my life. Of course now that I know someone got a warrant to access my property it appears the government must think I have done something wrong. I want to know what that is so I can respond to it.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)the records of every single Verizon customer and pawing through millions upon millions of phone traffic records? Do they have any suspects or not? Do the warrants ask for the records of an individual phone number? No, the warrant asks for ALL the phone numbers. As bad as the perception of NSA snooping is, the whole process is just stupid. "Give us the records of every single phone in the United States and through the magic of science we'll find a terrorist." B U L L S H I T.
I wish it was rocket science-at least that would be accomplishable.
randome
(34,845 posts)And then it's usually AFTER a criminal event so searching the archived -and encrypted- data after the fact is usually only to find other contacts the terrorist or criminal might have been in cahoots with.
The data is stored but not looked at unless another warrant is issued.
Your email provider keeps backup copies of your emails. Your telecom provider keeps records of all your calls. All the NSA has is another copy.
And guess what? Corporations don't need warrants to go through your data. The NSA does.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)they collect the data but don't peek unless a judge gives them the OK. Right.
How about this-stop collecting data on the 99.99999% of Americans who are just minding their own business and concentrate instead on suspects. Or are we all suspects in the NSA's mind?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)some probable cause of wrong-doing by millions of Americans. I would like to know what I have been accused of, being I'm a Verizon customer, although not for much longer.
How do you prove probable cause against millions of people and get only warrant?
FISA Judge: Millions are involved in criminal behavior? Please present some evidence to support these allegations against millions of people. Eg, what exactly are they suspected of?
NSA: Um, we would tell you, but it's classified.
FISA: Okay, that's good enough I suppose.
It's completely insane. A secret kangaroo court. What could possibly be wrong with this in a democracy?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)If the NSA abused their authority, would we ever know? Their methods are classified. And their warrants come from a secretive court that seems to never decline such requests.
With regular police, they have to prove their cases against a person. There is lots of oversight. You can even challenge a speeding ticket by demanding to see the calibration logs of the radar gun.
Oversight...that's the issue. This secretive stuff is the type of bullshit you see go on in dictatorships. Does it catch the "bad guys"...absolutely. It works. That's why dictatorships are so good as taking down enemies of the state. But we are not supposed to be that type of country.
This is supposed to be a free country. And I am willing to sacrifice my safety for freedom. Apparently you don't want to. And that's why this will continue to be a huge national debate even beyond party politics.
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)nineteen50
(1,187 posts)to big to fail plays no part in decision making....... not!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And their surveillance sweeps far too widely. They are discouraging people from exercising their rights under the Constitution through this program. That is why it should not fly in courts.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In January 2015, the same people will be in charge of the data.
Don't get me wrong - I'd rather pass a law requiring the phone companies to store the metadata for 5 years instead of the government storing the data for them. But we're talking about a program that has all 3 branches of government supervising it to ensure the due process safeguards are followed. It's not good, but it's also not run-around-with-hair-on-fire worthy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)alone shows how serious it is, that even the Bush gang, and that is who is behind all of this, unfortunately with help from Democrats, knows it is NOT okay to 'just store people's private information.
You are extremely cavalier about our Constitutional Rights, that is disturbing.
So they got a warrant. HOW did they get such a warrant? To do so, they must show probable cause. THAT is how SERIOUS what you are dismissing, is. So what was the probable cause? Without it, that warrant is ILLEGAL.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)If such a warranty exits it's a farce and a whitewash of the issue by the government.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the entire population is under suspicion of some wrong doing. I would like to see what we are all suspected of.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The data collection is obtained thru surveillance. I dont think you can argue that.
And a very important point. You seem to think that the "stored data" obtained via surveillance, "can never be viewed except with a legal warrant". That is a very naive outlook. Lots of people have access to that data. Lots of people have "seen" the data. Snowden got copies of that data. So your "never can be viewed" is bogus. Besides that, how safe should we feel if our data can be viewed by the government any time it wants with only a rubber stamp warrant required?
randome
(34,845 posts)No one is looking at the data unless a specific warrant is issued.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and nothing is stopping them from looking at it. Hackers could gain access, it happens all the time. Someone is capturing and compiling the data. I call that surveillance.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)civil rights, peace and environmental groups, never been served a warrant, but have looked into the eyes and knew the agents doing the infiltration and surveillance, the point here is that someone read the reports, looked at the photos and tape, knew where I lived and worked, all done without a warrant.
And don't even get me started about the government lying about facts, so when they tell you they're not looking at their records, how can you even start to believe them.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing. If I know every single phone call you've made, I'm able to determine every single person you talk to, I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive. And the real question here is what do they do with this information that they collect that does not have anything to do with Al Qaeda? We're going to trust the President and the Vice President that they're doing the right thing? Don't count me in on that."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023005462
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)read those records that you claim don't belong to us? Why would they need a warrant to read stuff that doesn't belong to us in the first place? Unless it DOES belong to us? The telecoms must have refused to hand over OUR records, otherwise they would not have needed a warrant, would they?
So which is it, if its not our stuff to begin with, why are trying to calm people down by claiming they got a warrant? And if the records belong to the telecoms, as you claim, and it IS true the got a warrant, why did they need unless the telecoms refused to hand over the records? If the telecoms just handed them over, there was no need for a warrant.
But there was a warrant, which can only mean, since they didn't ask us and they claim the records belong to the telecoms, that the telecoms refused to hand over the records. Why would they do that if they belonged to them?
This is getting more and more confusing, but I'm glad we had this discussion. Now I have even more questions which I doubt will be answered either.
randome
(34,845 posts)You probably believe the nonsense that the private sector is less bureaucratic than the government. That is far from the truth.
Documentation is required. Formal requests. Paperwork.
You have a good point about why a second warrant is needed if the records don't belong to you in the first place. I would guess it's just another layer of safety that your personal data is not being used for anything other than legitimate law enforcement purposes.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)defenders has been that this time it's okay because under Obama, it is 'legal', that this time they got a warrant to get the records from the Telecoms. That what Bush did was illegal because the did not get a warrant. Right? Am I correct?
This is not true. Bush did not get any warrants, as you all have repeated over and over again. It was ILLEGAL to do so, yet the telecoms apparently did just say 'here you go' to a request from the Government. So that blows yet another attempt to rationalize this violation of the Constitution.
As for this:
That's a very funny line. You could do stand up comedy using material like that!
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Damn, it's like dredging the ocean floor to find a pearl. It's stupid, it's expensive, it's invasive, it's uncalled for.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)as that word is commonly understood, until there is a wiretap (for which there must be a warrant) or someone with a spyglass outside the window.
Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)The government has no right to take custody of or store that data without probable cause and a warrant issued by a judge.
randome
(34,845 posts)Third party records do not belong to you. That's been settled in the courts for a long time.
The metadata is encrypted, contains no identifying information, just numbers and timestamps, and cannot be viewed without a second, specific warrant.
'Probable cause' relates to your person or your belongings. These records are not your belongings.
The corporations that keep this data do not need a warrant to look it over and do whatever the hell they want to do with it. They keep copies and backup copies.
The NSA needs a warrant.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)Verizon and others can store phone records on their clients because they are a private non-government entity. You can willingly enter into a contract with them... or not. The government is treating each and every person in this country as a suspect in some current or future crime. Probable cause does relate to phone records. The government has never had the authority to make a blanket grab of any private information absent a court order. Pretending it's always been legal is positively Orwellian.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)It never says "No." It's not made ip of judges. It's made up of conservative cohorts. We have to stop being so trusting and naive.
Please read. Please.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023021853
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Read this Ars Technica article to get an idea of what the NSA can do today.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/what-the-nsa-can-do-with-big-data/
They only start with the phone call logs w/ numbers, timestamps, GPS coordinates of cell phones, etc. etc. etc. They add in bank account info they've got access to, back-door access to Internet big-wigs such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook, court records and arrest records, airline flight records through Homeland Security, etc. etc. etc.
They have "iterators" which I see as being much like Google's spiders that index the web.
They construct social network models, sort of like Google+, that model who talks to who, categorizes people's relationships, to play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Except Kevin Bacon is Osama Bin Laden, and you're a suspect if you're less than eight degrees separated.
With the combination of all the metadata they collect and create, all the software and algorithms they use to index it, find patterns, and sift out information, they don't need to listen to your calls at all.
If they pick up that you made a phone call first to your primary care physician, than a few days later to an OB/GYN, then a few days later to an oncologist, they don't need to listen to the calls to figure out what the conversations were about.
The NSA's PRISM program is Google for Tyrants.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)was the technology of the day.And you can't deny the fact that bad guys use cell phones. It seems to be reasonable and common sense spying meant to protect public safety.
It's a whole different ball game when your bull is gored.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)office.
They were very clever those FFs. The word 'effects' covers a lot and imo, covers phones, computers etc.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Matariki
(18,775 posts)EXACTLY. Talking about the guy is a distraction from the real issue.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Typical apologist/cheerleader/sock puppet behavior: "personality politics."
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...try getting a job that requires a "background check"..all sorts of you personal information can and is accessed. Your financial history, criminal records and a ton of personal data mined and sold by private corporations that profit from buying and selling your info. The government isn't the one who tracks your calls or internet...the companies do...and have been doing it long before the NSA ever came calling. If we're gonna have a discussion about privacy, then this has to be part of it as well.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that is your choice. You don't have to apply for that job.
That has zero to do with the Government secretly accessing you data, or empowering some for profit, private Corporation to do so. These are two completely different issues.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...be it the government or a private entity. I come from an era long long ago where people were hired on their merits and didn't have to approve of having their personal finances or background checked like a common criminal. The choice for many in this tough economy is job or no job...making rent or not. I'm sure far more people have had their lives ruined by a "background check" that was erroneous or a messed up credit report than anything our government has ever done. At least with the NSA, they need a judge to warrant a search, an employer or private investigator doesn't give you such luxury when they want to find dirt on you...
Cheers...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)data mining Corps that have only grown and need a reason to exist. We have only ourselves to blame. Since we allowed all this to happen and now it is growing into spying on people who are not applying for a job, don't you think it's time to finally put a stop to all of it? We're late to the game, I agree, but should we should just allow it to get worse, or start now to begin to correct these problems. Saying 'this is how it is' only guarantees more and worse attacks on our privacy.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...as we get the politicians and government we vote for. Unfortunately datamining is too lucrative a business and politicians are some of the biggest beneficiaries...just sign a "petition" that asks for your email and the barrage of emails begging for contributions are sure to follow. There needs to be a redefinition of what privacy is...or to straight-up honest with us as to how our names and identities are bought and sold.
The NSA issue is only shocking for those who've been either sleeping at the switch for the past decade or are using it to stir shit and further their own agendas. Not quite the bedfellows who are gonna be there in the long haul in attempting to put walls around what few privacy rights we still have. Sadly the partisan nature of this country is so polarized and Congress so dysfunctional all we do is go from out outrage to the next...nothing is resolved...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)many times during the Bush years and we did try to do something about it. But Congress was ignoring or actually facilitating it. We have the power as a people to get the government we want. The problem is we are always divided, that is deliberate. Now we have to decide whether it is more important to protect 'our team' than to protect our rights. And that goes for both sides.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And I agree here to for the corporations have been paying for their surveillance programs. If the NSA compiles our meta-data at taxpayer expense, and then shares it with corporations*, it will save the corporations a lot of cash. Which they will be glad to split with their politician.
*A bill passed in the HOR that would allow corporations and the government to share such data. I believe the Senate is working on their version. Very popular bill with the Republicans.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...the NSA got a warrant to get access to the records from Verizon. Verizon has been collecting this data (and who knows what else) and thus they've done all the dirty work for the government. This is how the Boston bombers were tracked down...all sorts of financial and phone records that were stored in corporate metafiles and databases. Unfortunately there's tons of data on everyone in this country that has been collected and is bought and sold...a vast majority without our knowledge and or consent. Yes, I'm concerned with government spying but see this as a political football to embarrass this administration when there's a far bigger issue here that should be addressed...
Cheers...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The corporations I am talking about getting good use from the data are Walmart, Exxon, GE, Microsoft, Macy's, etc. Meta-data is gold in their hands.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...there's companies that specialize in gathering "transaction data"...what you buy, when you bought it, where you bought it and so on and it's bought and sold among major retailers. A good example are mortgage companies...in the hurry of signing the zillion papers to close, most people will check off on a disclosure form that allows all their information to be shared and datamined. It's no surprise that you get all sorts of junk mail from contractors and home improvement stores. It's the modern day version of "buying a mailing list"...on steroids.
The moral of modern living is the second you go outside your walls...virtually or electronically...you're being tracked and datamined...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)talked to one of them, NOT by checking 'stored numbers' and btw, he was NOT an American citizen, but because Russia alerted the US to a possible problem with the Boston Bomber. I'm glad you brought that up, because this is a perfect example of how storing info on innocent people has zero value when looking for terrorists. They KNEW about this guy, but let him go.
Maybe if they weren't so busy spying on innocent people they might have caught that bomber before he killed people.
And again, how did they get a warrant without probable cause? That would be illegal?
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...just shear volume. I joke that if the government were spying as evasively as some are claiming (listening to phone calls or reading emails) we'd solve our unemployment problem as they'd need to hire thousands of people to keep track of what was going on. The FBI had been warned about the Tsarnaevs but not to the extent of them being an imminent threat that would have required them to get a warrant to get their phone records. It was after-the-fact that they were able to double back through those records (which I'm sure were now covered under a warrant) to find who they talked to and where. The government didn't have to go far for those records, the cellphone provider already had them...mined and ready to be searched.
I was heavily opposed to the revisions of FISA and why I'm not screaming pants on fire about the "revelations" of abuses by the NSA. Unlike the previous regime that did so illegally, I haven't seen a case yet where this administration has gone after private citizens or political opponents. I am strongly in favor of a review of the FISA laws and maybe the outrage that's going on may start that dialogue, but I'm also wary of those who are using this issue for their own political gain to create media circuses that take away from dealing with real problems...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is that Clapper, now Director of Intelligence (are there no Democrats we could put in these positions?) is a former employee of Booz Allen, a multi billion dollar Private Security Corporation. Surely we should trust that he would never have a conflict of interest, a desire to make sure his former, and probably future employer has another Billion Dollar contract??
Maybe if our government wasn't so business oriented and run and financed, they would be more interested in actual intelligence such as the intel they received on the Boston Bomber rather than on making work for Big Corporations in the Security business, such as collecting data for no apparent reason, on ordinary Americans.
It seems to me that you are directed by our goals. It also seems to me that the goals of these multi billion dollar Corps is profit, NOT terror and the handling of the Boston Bomber, and the Underwear Bomber, also known as a potential threat, is a reflection of the priorities of this government.
OWS has it right, 'get the money out of government'. It is destroying this country.
bluedeathray
(511 posts)There are no escape clauses, oops's, or gee what ifs, that I can find. I didn't note any exceptions for meta data either.
That 2/3's + of the Congress is implicated and want to pass this off as a simple, legal, protective requirement that qualifies as a no-brainer is telling as well.
If my name appears in that massive data base even once, I deserve to be told of the probable cause that initiated that seizure. The breadth and scope of prosecution that should arise from this illegal activity may be in debate. The definition of this activity is not.
Illegal invasions.
Torture.
Indiscriminate civilian murder.
Seizures without probable cause.
Blatant violation of the oath of office.
What are we becoming?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I think the people, Verizon customers especially, of which I am one, need this question answered. Clearly if the President and Congress insist that this warrant was obtained legally, there had to have been evidence presented to show probably cause of wrong doing on my part and on the part of millions of other Americans. We need to see that evidence now since action was taken based on that warrant and no one so far has answered the question.
If we cannot get an answer then it must be resolved in a court of law. A lawsuit needs to be filed by those whose data has been seized, stored, collected or whatever, and the issue heard in a public court with all evidence presented, NOT in some secret court which is something that should not exist in this country in the first place.
bluedeathray
(511 posts)My poor writing skills may have led you to misunderstand me.
I don't care IF my name's in that data base. I don't care WHY it's in there. The fact that anyone's name is there. The fact that the government has admitted it exists, and tries to pass it off with some cavalier attitude, is evidence of their breaking the law of the land. Which they're sworn to uphold.
If there's not rioting in the streets, I'll have to believe that our government was successful in breeding sheep citizens.
The document that our land was built around is being pissed on by the very people we've elected to protect it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)policies. I completely agree with you that the 'document that our land was built around is being pissed on by the very people we've elected to protect it'. That is the most heartbreaking thing in all of this. I had hope during the Bush years that it was just his administration, that we could stop it if we could just get Democrats into power. Now there is no hope as it is obvious that both parties are complicit.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Not the little people of course, laws seem to work against them not for them.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)going on...that that the smoke screen is trying to cover up.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)Which also leads to what is your definition of secrets, or your expectation of privacy. As we have seen in the last few days of these threads, those definitions can vary widely here on DU. And even if people agree on definitions, they will then disagree on justifications and tolerances.
I don't think you are ever going to find agreement on this issue.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on Americans. There was almost total agreement, regardless of warrants or no warrants, that the government has no right, without probable cause, to spy on the American people.
What is stunning to see now is the contortions some of the same people who were outraged over Bush, are going to to try to excuse it, explain it, ignore it, dismiss it.
And that is yet another revelation for us. That while we KNEW Republicans were willing to accept any anti-Constitutional Policies from Bush, blinded by fear and party loyalty, we thought we were different.
Now we know, and I prefer to know, that a lot of the outrage here against Bush was not about principles, but about politics. On the good side, it seems a majority here have not changed their principles and are as outraged now as they were when Bush was president about the exact same issue.
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)Thank you, sabrina1 for standing firm and tall.
I am shocked, saddened and dismayed to see those who reveal that many of US are not better than THEY are. To those, I entreat: please stop and rethink this. Remember what we stand for. It transcends a party, a person, a President. We believe in the principles of our Constitution.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)because now it is our side doing it. I never thought we would come to this.
Hekate
(90,773 posts)Big Brother is not Uncle Sam so much. Big Brother has been, for decades, Corporations.
We love our shiny toys, and WE PAY the corporations for the privilege of them gathering data on our every movement, thought, and purchase so they can sell us more shiny toys.
Corporations sell our personal data to each other, and they will give it away to the government/police/FBI for very little inducement.
Why does that not seem to disturb more people?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The Constitution applies to the government. Individuals and companies are not bound by it.
Your employer can stomp all over your first amendment rights. They can search you every time you enter their property. They can demand you 'testify' in any internal investigation about your actions. As long as your employer is not the government.
So yes, Verizon has the right to spy on you. You agreed to it when you started using their services.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)elected officials only in the sense that anyone who fails to protect those rights should be removed from office and is a threat to our security.
The main thing, and there are so many, wrong with your comment is that the President has assured us that Congress has reviewed the actions of those Corporations and approved of them. So no, WE THE PEOPLE never gave permission to our telephone companies to spy on us. Congress did that. Unless the president is lying??
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you'd like an example of private corporations not having to follow the Constitution, start spamming DU with "Ron Paul for President!" posts.
Skinner will ban you. Thus preventing your free expression of ideas on DU. Skinner can do this because he is not the government and does not have to respect your first amendment rights.
So you're unfamiliar with the concept of a republic?
We elected people to Congress to make these decisions. If we don't like the decisions they are making, we are supposed to vote for different people. Those different people will make different decisions.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as citizens. Our Government cannot ban speech, legally. They do it, they did it to OWS in effect and to the Civil Rights Movement, but eventually they lost that fight. They will lose this one too because the Constitution is on OUR side.
We elected some people who lied to us. Now we know we won't be voting for them again. That is how we correct these errors in a democracy.
As for Ron Paul, how do you feel about Obama promoting Republicans to positions of power AFTER we threw them out? How do you feel about his praise for Republicans? Would he be banned if he were to come here and spam DU with 'Clapper for Director of Intelligence' considering he can do it? Don't you find it odd that Obama can go way further in promoting Republicans than just mentioning them on DU and some people find that far less threatening?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That might make your response coherent.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)but veers off into hyperbole and distractions, is ridiculous with so much at stake. You are defending Bush policies, that is ridiculous to me. Always was, always will be.
Btw, how does Ron Paul compare to all the other Republicans Obama has installed in positions of power since he was elected?
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)I find it fascinating to look into his motives. Talking shit about him doesn't mean one is not concerned.
For me it is two separate things.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)or whatever else about him that might be of interest, IS being used to try to stop people from talking about the far more important issue of the Government using telecoms and private security firms making billions of dollars, to spy on the American people. I just want them to know that won't work so they stop their time trying so hard to distract from the main issue.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)it goes both ways too. Those who like to examine his motives are being harassed as well.
I see people disagreeing...some in a clear and thoughtful way, and some like shrieking banshees.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Constitutional Rights, 'Snowden fans who have egg on their faces'. I don't have any egg on my face, I feel the same way about our rights as I always did, before I ever heard of Bush, Snowden or anyone else.
Do you agree that people who express concern over their Rights are 'Snowden Fans' with 'egg on their faces'? It is OPs like that that prompted me to post this one in order to clarify that no one standing up for their rights has 'egg on their faces'. I think you should go to THAT thread and express your opinion there, this thread has not attacked anyone, just pointed out we will not be distracted..
'
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Imagine we are in a coal mine
The canary dies.
The boss says "Wow look at that drama queen canary. Get off your back canary! C'mon get up you faker! (mocking voice) 'oh look at me, I can't breathe without more oxygen, boo hoo' Damned canary is making this all about him..."
Meanwhile we all lose consciousness.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)
Progressive dog
(6,917 posts)The government did not come into your home and seize anything. They store records of phone calls, the same records that the telephone companies generate for their own use. Unlike the privately owned phone companies, the government only looks at your info after obtaining a warrant from the FISA court.
Now you may think that this is a violation of your privacy, but it is legal.
I'm willing to talk about this without Snowden, but I am bothered by how quickly Snowden became a hero to some. He's in China now and I hope he stays there. They are welcome to him.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)(It's fascinating and think deals with what you say: "We will not be distracted from the most important issue, which is our Rights under the US Constitution however. "
Is Edward Snowden a Hero? A Debate With Journalist Chris Hedges & Law Scholar Geoffrey Stone
VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cKmkxptPLSw
Edward Snowden’s decision to leak a trove of secret documents outlining the NSA’s surveillance program has elicited a range of reactions. Among his detractors, he’s been called "a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison," (Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker), who’s committed "an act of treason," (Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate intelligence committee). To supporters, Snowden is a hero for showing that "our very humanity being compromised by the blind implementation of machines in the name of making us safe," (author Douglas Rushkoff), one whom President Obama should "thank and offer him a job as a White House technology advisor," (American Conservative editor Scott McConnell). We host a debate with two guests: Chris Hedges, a senior fellow at the Nation Institute and former Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for the New York Times; and Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Stone served as an informal advisor to President Obama in 2008, years after hiring him to teach constitutional law.
Guests:
Chris Hedges, a senior fellow at the Nation Institute, he was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times for fifteen years and was part of a team of reporters that was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism. He is the author, along with the cartoonist Joe Sacco, of the New York Times bestseller "Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt."
Geoffrey Stone, professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Served as an informal advisor to President Obama in 2008, years after hiring him to teach constitutional law.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/12/is_edward_snowden_a_hero_a
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023001082
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)obvious attempts to do so.
hamster
(101 posts)But it's already foiled hundreds of bad terrorist plots. It's for our protection. President Obama's got this. He plays chess.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)We wouldn't lie to you
again.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Apparently the government doesn't think so, since they were keeping it a secret from us.
I totally agree the mass surveillance is wrong and should stop.
But the first question on my mind is whether the government was justified in keeping these programs a secret.
And no it was not justified at all. Which of course is why they were trying to hide it.
People do deserve our support if they leak information about this kind of government abuse.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And lectures about "trust."
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)I think your last sentence assumes facts not in evidence.
"We will not be distracted from the most important issue, which is our Rights under the US Constitution however."
I have polled a few people and the vitriol espoused seems apoplectic towards Snowden. We as a country will indeed be distracted from the most important issue.
Even in the questioning today in the NSA hearing. The legislators were conflating the Meta Data warrant and the PRISM program. I saw one guy ask "Do you have access to people's google?" And then say he is not talking about content but the meta data. It was surreal to watch his mind fumble through the incoherent thoughts that were popping into his head.
I know that in order to get information to flow between two points on the internet, each endpoint needs to be uniquely identified in order for the packets to be reassembled into anything recognizable. Add to that the fact that all servers keep logs based on the connections made to them. It really is simple. Everything is logged.
To think that the government was going to just leave those logs alone seems a little Pollyanna. However, this is not the narrative I see unfolding. What I see is people looking for a bad guy to excoriate. Someone to righteously hate. Snowden will indeed be the focus. And in a short time he will be just another blip in the penal system.
The pertinent questions will go unanswered because the legislators just do not understand the underlying premise. A lot of people just don't care to know what happens to their information as it surfs the internet. What they care about is having a scapegoat to blame for what ills society.
And... let's face it... Football Season is coming. They've got more important things to figure out. So yeah:
We will be distracted masterfully. The most important issue is what is happening in the next news cycle.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I have noticed the attempt to conflate those issues, the 'metadata' and 'Prism' right here. Shameful how willing they are to fool the people. And all for profit. None of it has anything to do with our safety.
We have been spied on for years.
Brings to mind the alleged subliminal messages from television (years ago).
It has just become easier with technology having progressed the way it has.
Look at all the cameras in public domain that can be accessed by whatever agencies with or without a warrant.
Interesting quandary.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
& Rec !!!MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)No question about it - and from all sides.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)what do we do about it?
Any thoughts?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)correct answer because we did that. And Bush's policies and many of his people are still in power, Clapper eg, who is also a former employee of Booz Allen.
So we have to find another answer. My suggestion is that every Verizon customer either join in a class action lawsuit to get the answers they deserve being that a warrant was issued, apparently with probable cause of some wrong doing on their part, (because without probable cause that warrant is illegal) or sue individually to get the text of the evidence used as probable cause and find out what they are suspected of.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... people are actually arguing it is not an invasion of one's privacy for the government to know about every single phone call that you make, even though you haven't done anything wrong.
Would you be willing to let your parents know that kind of thing? Your coworkers? A random person on the street?
If we had had the foresight to ask last month whether we think the government should be collecting this kind of data on every single American, I'm convinced 95% of people here would have resoundingly said no. In my view, only the allergic reaction to admitting that our party's leaders are doing something wrong is causing people to back away from that.
Now we see parsing about how just knowing about the records of each call isn't really an invasion, etc. etc. If Bush were doing this this place would be on fire, and rightfully so.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a simple question 'what probable cause was presented that caused a court to issue a warrant'. Don't they care that their government has accused millions of americans of possibly being guilty of something? I want to know, since I am a Verizon customer. Because you CANNOT get a warrant without probable cause.
Clearly millions of us were accused of something, or else that warrant is worthless and someone, the court, Verizon, the government or all of them, broke the law. So which is it? None of them seem able to answer that.
Maybe the lawsuit filed by the ACLU will get us some answers.
cordelia
(2,174 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)to character assassinate Snowden, obviously he has upset a lot of people with his revelations. Everybody trying to claim that this isn't spying/isn't that bad/etc. please. Half of this board would be screaming for blood if a Republican was doing this, and the other half would be ready to take to the streets.
The Patriot Act wasn't okay under Bush, it's not okay under Obama and this spying on the citizens needs to come to a halt. There's too much potential for abuse - way too much potential. If this is a-okay with you, you need your head examined.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Suffice to say...we need another Church Committee.
Hell, I will settle with the 2000 hearings on Carnivore.
H2O Man
(73,590 posts)Recommended.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)When the spying started, under which Pres, which party that Pres is from, is incidental nonsense to me. The Constitution is quite clear, this wrong, wrong, wrong and our elected officials have taken an oath to defend that Constitution. As far as I am concerned, they should be prosecuted for dereliction of duty and drummed out of office.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)that Snowden sometimes eats ice cream directly from the carton when he thinks nobody's looking. Or at least he *used* to do it, before he knew that someone's looking all the time.
In any case, this proves that we're not being spied on.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I wonder how they found out?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)NSA got a FISA court order compelling all ice cream makers...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)What was the probable cause? A photo, testimony from a room mate? Empty ice cream carton with saliva INSIDE the carton? I just hope they get him for that! Wish I had known before writing this OP about our Constitutional Rights!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Ah, I found it on Wikipedia. Apparently it was a popular item from the late 18th century until 9/11/2001.
I've learned something new!
Don't tell Droney, though - he might feel conflicted.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)That's past tense, for those of you posting who forgot to see at it coming. What in the world were you thinking?
Based on reaction from some on DU, we have seen the enemy... Here - hold up this mirror, Mr. and Ms. America. And for those of you who think likely we're just all blowing this out of proportion... Here - GET YOU NOSE RING FITTED, MR. AND MS AMERICA!
Historic NY
(37,452 posts)screaming over the 4th amendment.......
Even after all the FISA modifications and FISA court warrants that are being issued. They are not blanket but are reviewed after a period of time. The same people demannding changes to the 2nd think that the 4th shouldn't be touched.. Well where have you been sleeping under a rock since 1947, when the security apparatus was created. We only hear about the so-called abuses but somehow no one ever hears about the success's.
Many modifications were made after 9/11. They were authorized and re-authorized, our representatives can play dumb but they voted for it. The problem I have is civilian morons being placed in a position where they have access. They aren't government employee's they work for companies some with dubious payrolls. The country he aspired to flee to would have already spent 30cents on solving the solution if he was a resident there.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the 4th and the 5th and even the 1st. Most of them are Bush supporters in my experience so it's not really a surprise. They just 'follow the leader'. Though now I see we have a few 'follow the leader' types right here on the left.
Violations of our Constitutional rights by the Bush administration were supposed to be corrected we were told, IF we elected Democrats. That has not been the case. That is something we have to think about now.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)up the 2nd Amendment as now being the ones who are "willing to destroy the 4th and the 5th and even the 1st."
Who have you seen that are supportive of the 2nd Amendment who are willing to do that? Is there anybody in particular?
I've not seen that at all.
In fact, I'm willing to assume that each and every person who is "willing to destroy the 4th and the 5th and even the 1st" is also willing to destroy the 2nd Amendment as well.
Bloomberg, as an example, who is motivated to use his army of police officers to make unconstitutional stops-and-frisks, and who is motivated to use his army of police officers to violently suppress peaceful Occupy Wall Street protestors, is also motivated to do away with the 2nd Amendment.
He's not alone. There are top-level Republicans who oppose the right to privacy, due process of law, and free speech, and common decency. But do they truly share the strong support of the 2nd Amendment as much as many of their authoritarin followers do? Before Democrats were tarred with the passage of the AWB, llinois' Governor Ryan (R) was actively pushing legislation for more gun control in Illinois.
As much as some people dislike those who own firearms (whether such dislike is justified or not), I suggest that it is a mistake to categorize those who own firearms for self-defense and who support the 2nd Amendment as being supportive of the further destruction of the 4th, 5th, 1st Amendments.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who own then, including in my family. Sorry if I offended you, didn't mean to. It's wrong of me to just react to comments in a knee jerk way. I guess I'm just tired, tired of the destruction of our Constitutional rights and tired of those who are attempting to rationalize it.
And appalled to see 'our side' try to excuse Bush policies still in place when at one time they opposed them.
At least during the Bush years, angry and frustrated as we were, we had hope. Hope that if we elected Democrats these policies would be tossed into the trash bin of history. Instead we have an administration that boasts about 'keeping Bush policies' to 'protect the American people'. And we have to watch criminals like Ari Fleischer and Peter King praise the president we elected for 'keeping Bush policies to protect the American people'. It's mind boggling to watch people willingly give up their rights just to save one politician's reputation.
Thanks for your comment.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)The Wikipedia explanation is from the Oxford Companion to American Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
WovenGems
(776 posts)We have become the nation of mountains and mole hills. Or Peyton Place, take your pick.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)massive sweeping data collection, then it is unconstitutional. (See 4th ammendment)
If you argue they did, in fact, get a warrant, what probable cause did they provide against all 300 million americans?
If you argue that the warrant was not directed toward 300 million americans, but rather toward the telecoms, because the records belong to them, not us then Ok.
But if the records don't belong to us, then what restricts them from searching all of the records without additional warrants?
They don't belong to us, so searching them won't require a warrant and oversight by a judge.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If the government can monitor via metadata every means of communications a journalist has with his contacts, that destroys the anonymity he relies on to write meaningful investigative stories. And allows potentially the government to "shut down" by any means possible those who he might talk to. That also intimidates sources they might otherwise be able to talk to if everyone's afraid to even look at the press let alone talk to them. The government doesn't have to examine the communication content itself for this to be a gross violation of the 4th amendment which in fact also is a gross violation of our freedom of the press. He notes then we'll have no more Bradley Mannings, Edward Snowdens, or Julian Assanges, and then in effect "no free press".
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_on_edward_snowden_hero_or_traitor_20130612/
With the technology we have today, "metadata" includes a lot more than what it has had in the past. It will likely include GPS information too as to where someone was when they made calls. With the tons of video surveillance feeds that are also being stored someplace and analyzed with facial recognition software, don't you see how the surveillance state enabling a potential police state is downright scary?
Dissent will be that much more harder to rally up, as everyone will be trying to stay out of the radar of a potential police state scrutiny of their actions. Only the bravest and dedicated will perhaps look past that, and given they are low in numbers will become more victims. We would never have had a Boston Tea Party that we did that launched our revolution had the British then had the "metadata" they claim is harmless to most of us now then.
And if you believe that the metadata is the only thing that they are harvesting (now that someone's blown the whistle on that which they've denied harvesting before), then I have a bridge to sell you. The fact that they are trying to really go after Snowden hard now, tells me that there's more that they are scared of being revealed about what they are doing that likely is abusing our civil liberties.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)not belong to us, because 'they are third party records'. The third party,, they claim are the Telecoms, that once we pick up a phone, who we are calling, what time we call and presumably the content of the call, belongs to the telecoms.
That argument then has to include all other records. Library records, purchasing records, credit card records, and a journalists records.
Maybe THAT is purpose of all this, because no one can explain how spying on the American people without probable cause, can possible 'keep us safe'.
Thank you for the links. Watch for Hedges to join all the others, including incredibly, Rep. Alan Grayson.
We are now supposed to trust the likes of Republican Clapper rather than Democrat Alan Grayson.
As for your last paragraph? Ron Wyden has stated that 'if the American people knew how they are using this law, they would be outraged'.
I'm waiting for him to be thrown under the bus also.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)with respect to an individuals actions which have yet to occur, seems terribly wrong. I really think I am missing something here. Because if it is the way I put it, I don't know how anyone can be for it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)however, that there are 'many ways to interpret the 4th Amendment'. So I read it over and over again and can't figure out how to interpret it any other way than 'the government must stay out of the people's private business, unless there is probable cause to suspect them of some wrongdoing, and even then they must obtain a warrant AFTER demonstrating this probable cause sworn under oath to a court. It doesn't say 'a secret court' either.
So I have asked, over and over again, since I am a Verizon customer, what was the probable cause of any wrong doing on my part that was shown to this secret court that resulted in the warrant they are boasting about?
Shouldn't we know when the government is accusing us of wrong doing?
suffragette
(12,232 posts)
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Laws are only enforced to keep the little people at a safe distance from elites and their government.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in. The partisans on both sides. I see little difference now between them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Here you go,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023013492
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)The NSA claims the database doesnt store any conversations and just numbers allowing them to back in time to see any links x phones have to x numbers but few trust the NSA and fewer trust congress to run this type of thing not to mention a future president could actually abuse it so what if the database and who controls it was moved to be outside of both the the legislative and the executive branches and instead if the database and access to it was controlled by the judicial branch?
It keeps it out of the hands of any president abusing it but it leaves intact the database for the government as well as congress and the judicial branch can would only allow limited access with actual warrants to the information.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)To answer your question, the judiciary is slightly more trustworthy than the other branches of government, but only if there was not a dime involved for anyone in the project.
How can you trust anyone whose main goal is profit? It's ludicrous to think that people won't be corrupted by money and power. Thomas Jefferson when warning about this, included even the Founding Fathers himself included as 'not to be trusted' with too much power.
That is why we must rely on the rule of law, and stop allowing them to twist it to suit their purposes which is mostly money. We cannot rely on people, especially politicians.
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)or someone involved in a major crime like say a kidnapping or murder with someone else via phone records.
They do that now somewhat but its limited because they can only go so far back if its the phone companies keeping the records now plus there a multiple phone companies so a large database where its all located at makes more sense imo.
And to be honest I dont feel comfortable requiring with the phone companies to keep 5 or 6 years worth of phone calls so I was thinking the judicial branch might be the best one to maintain such a database.
That and they could easily say yes or no to any warrant and one can hardly accuse them of being a rubber stamp court like the FISA court is being accused of.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to face the accusations made against them, because every person, including even children, with any intelligence at all, knows that there are those, even those in elected office, who will lie and cheat to go after people they dislike IF they believe they can get away it.
Is it necessary to point to countries where this happens on a regular basis, in today's world, let alone point to the lessons of history?
I should have said, 'our judicial system USED to be public'. But using the 'terror' scare we have as a nation accepted Secret Courts, surveillance of the American people on a massive scale, and we even have people HERE on DU attempting to justify it. It's absolutely shocking to me that we are even discussing 'adjusting' the Constitution for any reason at all.
Someone wrote an OP yesterday explaining what Democracy is about. One of the things we accept, IF we want to live in a free country, is that there will be some risks but we have always claimed that we accept those risks because it is part of the price of being free and we tell the world we are the 'land of the free and home of the brave'.
What has happened over the past decade is we have given up on being a free country with all that goes with it, and have given permission to politicians to take away some of those freedoms out of fear.
I am completely opposed to giving up any freedoms, I am opposed to secret courts and secret no fly lists and secret warrants. I do NOT believe this makes us safer. Safer from what? What could be worse than living in a totalitarian society where the government demands the people 'trust them' with their rights??? If you have ever known anyone who has lived in a society with secret courts and trials and lists, they will tell you they would rather risk an occasional attack from outside, than live in constant fear of their own government.
So I believe when we begin to see even small signs of government abuses, the old 'national security' excuses being trotted out, the claims that we need to keep lists of the activities of the entire population for reasons they have to struggle to explain, THAT is when we need to stop it. Before it's too late.
So it's hard for me to entertain any thought of giving that kind of power to anyone. Our system is a good one, I don't see any reason to change it. I didn't when Bush was president and I still don't.
temmer
(358 posts)Michael Vatis, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson and the founding director of the National Infrastructure Protection Center at the FBI, said the disclosures shouldn’t hurt U.S. intelligence activities too much in the long-term.
“It may cause some people to switch email providers and look for more secure forms of communication, but I don’t think there will be enormous long-term damage to our capabilities,” he said.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/tech-bracing-for-nsa-backlash-overseas-92757.html#ixzz2WDA3EYHp
Translated: in the long run, we will get you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The American people must be a huge threat to their government that they have to go to such lengths to keep an eye on them? So who are they protecting them? We know who they suspect, all of us apparently, but of what? What was the probable cause??