Obama's White Paper shows NSA metadata is hardly ever used

[uhnope]

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2013, 11:30 PM - Edit history (1)

The Obama administration on Friday released two documents, one from the Justice Department and the other from the National Security Agency, related to the legal basis for surveillance efforts.

There are some who won't be deterred by any such facts, but here it is for the record. From page 5:

Thus, critically, although a large amount of metadata is consolidated and preserved by the Government, the vast majority of that information is never seen by any person. Only information responsive to the limited queries that are authorized for counterterrorism purposes is extracted and reviewed by analysts. Although the number of unique identifiers has varied substantially over the years, in 2012, fewer than 300 met the reasonable, articulable suspicion standard and were used as seeds to query the data after meeting the standard. Because the same seed identifier can be queried more than once over time, can generate multiple responsive records, and can be used to obtain contact numbers up to three hops from the seed identifier, the number of metadata records responsive to such queries is substantially larger than 300, but it is still a tiny fraction of the total volume of metadata records. It would be impossible to conduct these queries effectively without a large pool of telephony metadata to search, as there is no way to know in advance which numbers will be responsive to the authorized queries.

[link:The Obama administration on Friday released two documents, one from the Justice Department and the other from the National Security Agency, related to the legal basis for surveillance efforts. The haters won't be deterred by any such facts, but here it is for the record. From page 5: Thus, critically, although a large amount of metadata is consolidated and preserved by the Government, the vast majority of that information is never seen by any person. Only information responsive to the limited queries that are authorized for counterterrorism purposes is extracted and reviewed by analysts. Although the number of unique identifiers has varied substantially over the years, in 2012, fewer than 300 met the �reasonable, articulable suspicion� standard and were used as seeds to query the data after meeting the standard. Because the same seed identifier can be queried more than once over time, can generate multiple responsive records, and can be used to obtain contact numbers up to three �hops� from the seed identifier, the number of metadata records responsive to such queries is substantially larger than 300, but it is still a tiny fraction of the total volume of metadata records. It would be impossible to conduct these queries effectively without a large pool of telephony metadata to search, as there is no way to know in advance which numbers will be responsive to the authorized queries. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/10/us/politics/10obama-surveillance-documents.html?_r=0 |www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/10/us/politics/10obama-surveillance-documents.html?_r=0 ]READ MORE http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/10/us/politics/10obama-surveillance-documents.html

[Newsjock]

1. "Three hops"

Are you confident that you are not "three hops" away from anyone who the government (this one or any future one) considers a TERRUHIST?

[hlthe2b]

5. Exactly... what about wrong numbers...

I got a number I'd never heard of before from 6 states away at 2?30 in the morning the other day,,, I'm sure it was merely a misdial, but still...

[Downwinder]

7. I'm within one hop of the WH and any number of Congressional offices.

Two hops to Al Capone and Pancho Villa. Three hops to Clyde Barrow and William Bonney

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Really. Has anyone told the DEA? "authorized for counterterrorism purposes"? You mean like

arresting people for growing pot for cancer patients??

[nolabels]

64. Well, what else do think they would be doing with it?

A spider often makes a big giant web to catch a little bug

[spin]

3. If true, that's good. Can he guarantee that the next administration will not abuse it? (n/t)

[bowens43]

14. whether it's used or not is irrelevent

[msongs]

4. spying on people is spying on people even if the "metadata is hardly ever used" nt

[hlthe2b]

6. We hardly ever kill innocents with our drone progam and certainly not American citizens, right?

So it is all ok, I guess....

[msongs]

11. of course not but doing that is LEGAL so in that case it is perfectly ok to do nt

[hlthe2b]

15. msongs, my dear, I think you forgot an emoticon...

because I'm pretty damn sure you were being sarcastic/facetious....

[Downwinder]

17. Looked like a statement of fact.

[tkmorris]

19. Strange, it IS rather a statement of fact

As such, a sarcasm emote would probably not be appropriate. On the other hand we don't have a "slow, sad, cynical, shaking of the head in absolute defeat" emoticon, so what are ya gonna do?

[hlthe2b]

20. I sincerely doubt msongs thinks it is perfectly "ok" to do so, legal or not...

I can't imagine anyone feeling "ok" to have ONE PERSON--whether it is OUR guy or not--make the determination to kill an American citizen sans charges, trial, or judicial oversight, but that's what we have now...

[JDPriestly]

60. Yes. The problem is the chilling effect of not knowing whether you are tagged or not.

Obama taught Constitutional Law. He should know how important it is not to chill speech, not to discriminate against it based on its content.

When we talk about the NSA and metadata used to identify people who might be "terrorists," we are dealing with some pretty vague definitions.

You can identify a burglar and differentiate a burglar from other kinds of thieves. There are specific elements that must be proved by the prosecutor in order to convict a burglar or to convict another person merely for breaking and entering and a third person for shoplifting. The evidence need to prove specific crimes that are well defined is quite clear.

But how do you prove someone is a terrorist if they haven't actually committed an act of terror or actually conspired to commit an act of terror.

When they collect the metadata, they collect all of it on everyone. Then they select specific suspect persons that they suspect are terrorists and obtain the metadata and analyze that data on those persons and then on their relationships to the third degree. But when they identify the terrorist, what elements do they observe? What are they looking for? That is very unclear.

The terrorists that committed acts that have been classified as acts of terror within the US had apparently not left any metadata trail to observe. This explanation in my opinion just does not fit what we know about the way they investigate terrorists. They don't need to collect a lot of metadata in the US to investigate terrorism, and collecting all that metadata and storing it costs a lot of money.

I was thinking today about what we could do as a nation with the money we could save if we did not have this massive domestic spying effort. We could fund lots of preschools and provide free, quality pre-school for all children whose parents want it just like they do in Germany and Austria. The most important learning occurs before a child is two, but between three and five, a child learns skills crucial to his or her success like counting and playing with others, being fair, not bullying, putting toys and possessions away, keeping order, arranging pictures so as to tell a story, maybe the alphabet, maybe how to memorize by memorizing poems and songs and stories and of course how to use the fine muscles in the hands so that writing or other skills need in the classroom are natural by the time the child reaches kindergarten. Most important of all, a child that gets pre-school starting at the age of three learns to sit in a circle for a while, how to listen, how to follow instructions. Some parents can teach these skills at home, but most either can't or are not home to teach them. Also with the money we spend on this surveillance program we could educate lots of preschool teachers and educate parents on how to be better parents to their children, how to discipline and train a child without violence, what a child needs in terms of sleep and nutrition.

If we invested more in early childhood education, as President Obama has proposed, we could change our country into a more peaceful, more unified, healthier, happier and freer country. We would have less mental illness and spot the signs of developing mental and other illness very early. We would have far less violence and fewer school drop-outs.

But no, we are wasting our money on a huge surveillance program that Obama now claims we are hardly using. Trust me, if we collect all that data, someone is eventually going to succumb to the temptation of using it to oppress us. Obama is a nice guy. But what if we had a McCain/Palin presidential team? What if Romney were in the White House with the Tea-baggers pushing him around?

I am not satisfied with the claim that they aren't using much of the information. If they aren't, then why are they collecting it? Why are they building a facility and buying equipment to store it? None of that is necessary. I am among those who do not trust the government with my metadata.

[Egnever]

67. So you cant wrap your head around the idea that...

They infiltrate a terrorist cell abroad. They discover one of the leaders phone numbers, that they might just be interested in who that number calls?

And if you can wrap your head around that, then you dont understand that having a database of all numbers called would allow them to then track any connections that number makes and allow them to try to identify those people?

And you certainly cant wrap your head around the idea that they would be able to do this without attaching personal info to any of the phone records until after identifying the suspected number?

You seem willing to put a lot of thought into this. I find it curious that you dont seem to be able to grasp these things and also a little odd that you cant see the potential value of this.

[JDPriestly]

87. And I find it curious when people can't wrap their heads around the fact that what people

say and what they do can be two different things.

A "white paper" indeed. The NSA can't even give straight answers on these programs to members of Congress who are on the Intelligence Committee, and people are willing to accept something claimed by their PR experts in a "white paper"?

Do I trust the NSA or the CIA or any other of those secret organizations to tell the truth about anything?

After years of Nixon followed by years of Reagan Wars, and Bush crimes, certainly not.

What is more, if they have your metadata, they don't need anything more. Getting your name from your metadata is a cake walk. No problem at all.

In the video group, there is a video of Sen. Wyden asking the lawyer for the NSA on these programs specifically if the NSA can, based on your e-mail address identify you further. The NSA lawyer gave an extremely evasive answer which meant to me that they can and do but don't want to admit it.

Secret programs, secret courts, secret testimony before Congress combined with the PR mentality of our government add up to lies, near lies and obfuscation. That means no effective oversight and no honest government. I do not trust the White House or the NSA. We saw the continuation of the Viet Nam War, then the wars in Central America. I've met the victims of those wars. It's not pretty. Then there was Kuwait and Iraq. And lies getting us into every war. Why would the military/industrial/government complex tell us the truth now after they have lied so many years?

The military/industrial/government complex is about greed and killing. More evil you cannot get.

I have never to my knowledge met a person who belonged to Al Qaeda? So why are they collecting anything to do with my electronic data?

It is an invasion of our First Amendment and other rights as I wrote above for the government to collect information on who we talk to, who we e-mail with, how long we are on the computer, etc. And that is what this program permits the government to do. It is unconstitutional. It chills our rights to speech, religion, association, the right to counsel in a trial (Tice said they especially like to collect information on attorneys and law firms), the right to a free press (because they can collect and have actually, in my opinion unconstitutionally, collected information on reporters' sources from the metadata) and many other rights.

[leveymg]

8. Three hops is 300X300X300= 27,000,000 per year. Numbers mount up quickly.

When you consider that there are 117,000 listed terrorist suspects in the NSA database, that equates to over a billion people being profiled - equal to all the adult phone users in the US and one in six wireless customers in the world. Now that's Big Data.

[Egnever]

34. I dont think that math is right.

That would assume that every phone called 300 different people, which would be pretty unusual I think.

[On the Road]

42. Depends on the Amount of Overlap

which in the kind of cases they're investigating would probably be significant. For example, a lot of the warrants are likely to have issued on lines discovered in other warranted searches.

Having said that, it should be confined to two hops. Three steps does not constitute reasonable ground for a search.

[Cha]

9. K&R for some facts.. thanks, uhnope.

[tkmorris]

13. You know, there are several posts above yours in this thread

Posts that point out exactly what is wrong with the assumption that the info in this white paper somehow makes everything OK. You may have failed to notice them.

To the points already made I would add that "substantially larger (than 300)", and "tiny fraction" are both delightfully inexact phrases. One doesn't use such language unless one either A): does not know the exact number, or B): is trying to obfuscate.

[mick063]

10. It is stored.

Saved.

Archived.


Now ponder this awhile...please.


It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

[bowens43]

12. doesn't matter whether it's used or not. Collecting it is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

[Cha]

16. Could we have the link, pleae?

[uhnope]

23. sorry! here's the link. also in OP now

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/10/us/politics/10obama-surveillance-documents.html

[Cha]

24. thanks uhnope

[SwampG8r]

18. "hardly ever used" means it has been used

so i guess we have a new goalpost now for the apologists
now they can try to justify the use since now it has been blatantly admitted to

[PSPS]

21. I guess this qualifies as a #10

Worshiper/Apologist Hit Parade:

1. This is nothing new
2. I have nothing to hide
3. What are you, a freeper?
4. But Obama is better than Christie/Romney/Bush/Hitler
5. Greenwald/Flaherty/Gillum/Apuzzo/Braun is a hack
6. We have red light cameras, so this is no big deal
7. Corporations have my data anyway
8. At least Obama is trying
9. This is just the media trying to take Obama down
10. It's a misunderstanding/you are confused
11. You're a racist
12. Nobody cares about this anyway / "unfounded fears"
13. I don't like Snowden, therefore we must disregard all of this
14. Other countries do it

[Cha]

26. This qualifies you as having your ears plugged and your eyes squeezed shut when

it comes to anything that isn't snowden worship. you can add that to your stupid list.

[giftedgirl77]

22. K& R

Thanks for adding more facts that no doubt the doom & gloom crowd will somehow manage to discredit. Even though we can further substanitate that gathering metadata is not a violation of anyone's 4th Amendment rights as established in States v. Miller US 445, 735 (1979) & not every single number of US persons is being run all the time.

Just saying something is a violation of your 4th Amendment rights doesn't make it so. News flash for all of you taking the bait on this, some of your banking records fall into the same category.

[uhnope]

28. great post. Finally some rational response. nt

[giftedgirl77]

31. Thanks

I try not to get involved in the nonsense that has been going on around here with this crap. It was nice to see something that wasn't an op ed.

[truebluegreen]

92. Well, bless your heart.

[MFrohike]

113. One problem

The case is Smith v. Maryland (442 US 735). Miller, the best known anyway, is a gun/commerce clause case from 1939.

The court in Smith was willfully ignorant. It rested its analysis on the "voluntary" decision by the citizen to convey his numbers to the phone company. The court ignored both the giant monopoly of Ma Bell and the necessity of the telephone in everyday life. Can one truly argue that a person has made a voluntary decision to convey information with no reasonable expectation of privacy when a government sanctioned monopoly guards to the door to a necessary element of modern life? The monopoly element may have changed in the last 30 years or so, a little, but the necessary element of modern life has simply changed forms. If the internet is necessary part of modern life, how seriously can I take the claim that any time I used it, I've voluntarily put out my information with no reasonable expectation of privacy for 4th amendment purposes? Really? Is that remotely like putting my trash to the curb or having a public conversation?

The above is a bit dense, sorry.

[backscatter712]

25. Seems legit...

Let me get this straight: They spend billions of dollars tapping phone systems and ISPs, collecting and storing the data, and processing it in Fort Meade and in the new Utah data center...

...But they don't use the data?

[uhnope]

27. are you even serious?

Half the haters say it's still too much, and half like you are saying that's bunk because they don't use it enough.

Point is, they use it judiciously in very clear anti-terrorism investigation.

[backscatter712]

29. "they use it judiciously"

[uhnope]

39. does that qualify as an intelligent reply

on your planet?

[eilen]

62. Well, if the government says that, it must be true..... nt

[truebluegreen]

93. Um, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Try reading the previous post again.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

30. "the number of metadata records responsive to such queries is substantially larger than 300"

Meaning they have it all.

Sorry, that is a blatant violation of our 4th amendment rights, and the president's hair, should be on fire.

The fact that it's not, and that he is cool with the unprecedented scope of HARVESTING, STORING, ANALYZING, EVERYONES digital and phone communications/data, is not only telling, it is FRIGHTENING.

What kinda country have we become, when we are outdoing the worlds most infamous totalitarian privacy pirates, like the STASI, KGB, etc.?

What will it take to make them aware that Americans do NOT wish to take the title from the former world champs?

[Egnever]

36. Sorry its not a blatant violation of your 4th

Courts have ruled on this already.

You should read the document linked instead of going off half cocked.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

38. That's what the totalitarians say, too

but we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

FYI: No American court has ever weighed in on the question of spying on EVERYONE.

That case from the 70's was in regard to a single individual, in a CRIMINAL case, where probable case was involved, and was only looking at PIN data, not the larger metadata set of today.

What we have today bears NO resemblance to that case.

Any reasonable person would agree that we need our day in court for what is going on today.

And lets not forget, nor ignore, that we have documented evidence, and first-hand accounts that this goes way beyond metadata as well.

So, please join with your fellow Americans and demand not only a through investigation, but also that these unprecedented spying programs be stopped, or at least modified to conform with our laws.

[Egnever]

40. Read the document

Please point me to the documented evidence it goes way beyond the meta data.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

41. It's

obvious that you haven't read the many documents, and first-hand accounts of the government spying on our content as well.

Do you think this is just all in our heads (the whole eff'n world) and that you, and a tiny minority on here have the whole truth?

Well, that is fine if you do, but the vast majority of us require more than a single source, before we make up our minds.

The truth doesn't begin and end with the gov, though of course that is what they want everyone to believe, but don't expect everyone to hold the same misconception.

[Egnever]

46. So you cant provide any evidence then?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

47. r you kidding, it's been in all the newspapers

where have you been?

[Egnever]

50. It should be fairly easy to come up with some evidence then

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

51. Let me explain why folks are so upset, even outraged at massive suspisionless piracy and spying

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023438864

goodbye

[Egnever]

52. So more heming and hawing from you but no evidence.

got it.

You are mad cause someone told you to be mad, and dammit they told you to be, so you are mad! No real reason just a lot of specious supposition and blather.

its everywhere! I just cant find any!

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

53. I am not a miracle worker

i can not make the blind see.

I laid out the issues there, and if you a link for the documented evidence of the privacy pirates work you can do wrong to start hear where it is all laid out for ya...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files

But don't stop there, make sure to google "nsa whistleblowers" for a whole lot more.

Happy reading

[Egnever]

54. Clearly not or you would be able to present some evidence that what you claim is hapeneing.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

55. I just linked you to the documented evidence of the unprecedented suspicionless spying

like i said, i'm not a miracle worker.

But Let me explain why folks are so upset, even outraged at massive suspisionless piracy and spying by our government.

Some may think it is obvious, but after reading DU since the story broke, it is obvious that a few need it spelled out for them, which I will now undertake in this thread.

I will also address the most common whitewashing that has been going on to try and dismiss the concerns and criticisms against these unprecedented spying programs after spelling out why folks are legitimately concerned with what we have recently learned.

In short, beginning on June 5th, 2013, we the people were presented with documentary evidence that our government is conducting massive, suspisionless spying on all American's phone and internet communications.

This becomes a huge story because this is the first time we have received TOP SECRET documentary evidence of the government's massive spying programs.

We are told that there are many more documents yet to be revealed yet, but that they provide even more evidence of wrong doing by the US government.

Now, when we couple this evidence with the many previous NSA whistleblowers claims of government wrong doing, it should be obvious as to why many people are concerned and very upset, right around the world as it turns out this is not strictly a domestic operation.

OK, I think that is a pretty plain spoken, and accurate summary of where we are right now.

So, now lets deal with the common claims to whitewash these concerns and even to dismiss them as being illegitimate.

1. This is all legal, as it is being overseen by a court, the FISA court, and this court was established all the way back in 1978, and no one made a big fuss over it in all these decades, why now, unless you are prone to hyperbole.

Well, the answer to that is that this ain't the same FISA court as it was when it was first established, when individualized warrants, based upon probably cause was required. Now that is no longer the case, and it gets worse.

Here is some more info on how the court has dramaticaly changed, and not for the better...

- Why The FISA Court Is Not What It Used To Be
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/18/191715681/why-the-fisa-court-is-not-what-it-used-to-be

- Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy

- Retired Federal Judge Explains Why The FISA Court Should Not Be Trusted
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130617/01375623502/retired-federal-judge-explains-why-fisa-court-should-not-be-trusted.shtml

Now on to phone metadata...

Some folks like to say that that data does not belong to you, it belongs to the phone companies. And that a court ruled as such in the the 70's.

Well there are two issues glossed over here, the first being that the data belongs ONLY to the phone company. That would be like claiming that our medical records belong ONLY to our doctors, which is patently absurd. But let's say that's true, and we have no privacy rights over our phone metadata, since the phone company owns it, why is the government pirating it then?

Sounds like a couple legit concerns to me right there.

Secondly, they like to point to a long ago court case where there was an INDIVIDUAL, TARGETED in a CRIMINAL case, where the judge ruled the police could legitimately access his phone pin information (notice that is different than all of it's metadat, too).

Well, I am no lawyer, but neither are many of our leaders, but that also seems to lend itself to some legitimate concerns e.g. that was a case decided against a single individual, who was TARGETED in a CRIMINAL case, and secondly, it was for his phone's pin data, which is much less than what is now collected as part of your phone calls metadata.

Sounds like there are legitimate reasons that this issue needs to be revisited, at the very least, since they are now collecting EVERYONES phone "metadata" not just pin, but according to whistleblowers they are also now harvesting, storing and analyzing your call's content as well. EVERYONE, not targeted, no probable cause.

Next, computer metadata. Some again try to narrowly focus the scope, contrary to what the evidence has shown, by saying this is only network metadata, e.g. your IP address, and who you are connecting to's IP address, and the like, similar to a phone call they try to make it sound. And they also argue that this data does not belong to you either, it belongs to your ISP.

Well, again, even if it doesn't belong to you, and it belongs to your ISP, why then is the government pirating your ISP's data, right?

And then there is the documented evidence that says this includes your CONTENT not just your metadata (not to mention that no one is saying it is restricted to just network metadata, only the white-washers)

Lastly, they try to claim that privacy no longer exists in the age of the internet. And with this claim they have absolutely nothing to back it up. They just throw it out there and just expect people to accept that it is true for some unknown reason, or they may try to claim that somehow the internet is inherently not private.

Well, that is easily disproven simply by asking them to take notice of how every legit website on the planet actually has a privacy policy. And now that our medical records are being transferred and/or stored in the cloud, that some how all those privacy policies, and laws surrounding them have just magically disappeared in the age of the internet.

Yet, the kicker is, if you ask them for any of your personal, private information, like your phone number, DOB, or even a internet datapoint like your email address, you get nothing back (though sometimes you will get insults hurled your way by the less creative of the bunch).

Privacy is a long cherished and celebrated American tradition and right, enshrined in our constitution via the 4th amendment, yet there are some determined to make us believe that simply because we live in the digital age that privacy somehow no longer applies.

Well, even if that were somehow true, that would be just another, in a long list, of valid concerns, which is upsetting some people, and causing outrage in others.

Considering all the above, please keep that in mind before you try to dismiss folks, especially your fellow DUers when they raise such concerns as that is simply being disingenuous.

Well, there it is...


now I know some will say that was TLR, especially since I wrote this after a long week at work, and very late/early at night, so I promise to come back later and update it where I can, and potentially address anything you kind reader may suggest that I have overlooked.

In closing I just want to advise any and all who wish to reply, to please keep our DU rules in mind, or maybe even more importantly, common curtesy, and your own dignity, in the front of your mind. This is not some kind of game, or joke, and these are NOT illegitimate concerns, these issues are very serious, and impacts each and everyone of us, as well as our loved ones future, so please... be civil.

Thank you.

With that, I bid everyone a good night/day.

[Egnever]

56. Sorry opinion articles are not evidence.

You are clearly spooked there's no doubt of that.

But you still have yet to link to any evidence of what you claim.

I would be happy to look at it if you can. I don't subscribe to woo though. Been here too long seen way too much of it.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

57. i linked you to it

already.

[Egnever]

58. Which link do you think contains this proof?

lets just narrow it down to one. Just one specific example of evidence that they are doing what you claimed. Not general links to the guardian with a bunch of opinions articles full of wild speculation.

One piece of evidence that you think proves it goes way beyond the meta data.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

63. zzZzz

Those are NSA TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS.

Hello...

[Egnever]

65. LOL

So they exist in your head but no where you can actually point to. Got it.

I think we are likely done here.

You have convinced yourself the government is spying on you based on nothing more than wild conjecture on the internet despite there being absolutely no evidence of it being done.

I mean surely you can point to someone unjustly targeted and spied on in this raging miasma of abuse.....

No of course you cant.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

68. Yep

It's all in the worlds head

[uhnope]

85. It's mainly media hype that you have fallen for. Like falling for Birtherism, Obamacare=Death Panels

...just because those were in the news everywhere also.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

88. Just like climate deniers

But we have seen the documented evidence of both climate change and privacy piracy.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/guide-what-we-now-know-about-nsas-dragnet-searches-your-communications

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

74. Another Excelent LINK (ACLU)

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/guide-what-we-now-know-about-nsas-dragnet-searches-your-communications

You're welcome

[uhnope]

82. Mayan Apocalypse of the Chicken Little crowd. very interesting dialogue.

usGovOwesUs3Trillion's message was that there must be a big injustice going on because of the media storm.
Your position was that s/he needs to provide proof. It didn't turn out so well for Us3Trillion.
I think this is the Mayan Apocalypse for politics. The end of the world that just keeps not happening.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

89. Just like the climate change deniers, they refuse to accept documented evidence

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/guide-what-we-now-know-about-nsas-dragnet-searches-your-communications

[Douglas Carpenter]

108. with cranks and nuts like Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Conyers, Gary Hart and the moonbats at Amnesty

International, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch as well as freaks like Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson all working up this hysteria because of their blind hatred of Barack Obama - it is no wonder the lunatic fringe is also all worked up about this ridiculous and preposterous trivial matter of the government closely monitoring all our communications when it is only being done for our own good.

Just listen to this nutcase:


"It is not excessive to believe this growing, gargantuan, secret complex now represents the greatest threat to our freedom in the new twenty-first century." - for U.S. Senator Gary Hart

If George W. Bush was still President - every single one of us would be standing with the President and the NSA. I challenge anyone to tell me that is not true!

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

81. A Guide to What We Now Know About the NSA's Dragnet Searches of Your Communications

A Guide to What We Now Know About the NSA's Dragnet Searches of Your Communications

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/guide-what-we-now-know-about-nsas-dragnet-searches-your-communications

You deniers are of the same cut as the climate change deniers.

But I always appreciate the opportunity to post links to the documented evidence of the privacy pirates.

Thank you

[Cronus Protagonist]

77. You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink

And some people don't have the capacity to absorb it anyway, if I may stretch the metaphor.

Do what I did.

*plonk*

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

83. True, but maybe there are others who will

They excell at providing teachable moments when you consider the audience of a post goes much further than the useful denier.

And the more links there are to these documents online the better for SEO rankings.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. A single query could return *every single phone call in the database*

"can generate multiple responsive records"

We have no idea of how many records the White House paws over.

But it doesn't matter anyway, because this infernal garbage is a clear violation of the plain meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

[Egnever]

37. Did you read the document?

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Not all of it.

Anything in particular?

[BeyondGeography]

33. What a yawn of a "scandal"

You want to get angry? It's a scam. There's too much money in surveillance. As for your 4th Amendment rights, go ahead and believe you're living in a permanent state of violation. Your mundane files do nothing more than goose up the numbers, to make the volume of work sound more impressive than it really is. A good ole fashioned American swindle. We make really lousy totalitarians because we care far more about making a buck. Take comfort in that fact if you can.

[Egnever]

35. Thanks for the link

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Yeah. And, nuclear weapons are "hardly ever used". Most burglers "hardly ever" kill people..

Got it. It's all good.

[nolabels]

66. Well if you had all this money you needed to spend for somebody else.......

because that somebody else was going to let you put a percentage of it in your back pocket, what would you do?

Of course a prerequisite for such behavior is you would have to be part of the group of sociopaths that operate the levers.

Urban Dictionary: Sociopath:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sociopath

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. and no future administration will ever use them either. What could possibly go wrong? But

with cranks and nuts like Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Conyers, Gary Hart and the moonbats at Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch as well as freaks like Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson all working up this hysteria because of their blind hatred of Barack Obama - it is no wonder the lunatic fringe is also all worked up about this ridiculous and preposterous trivial matter of the government closely monitoring all our communications when it is only being done for our own good.

If George W. Bush was still President - every single one of us would be standing with the President and the NSA. I dare anyone to tell me that is not true!

[Recursion]

75. Police battering rams can be misused to break down your door without a warrant

Guess we should get rid of those...

[uhnope]

86. we have a winner

[Douglas Carpenter]

94. If police were monitoring everyone coming and going from everyone's house and following

everywhere - everyone went and keeping records of it - some people might find that a bit intrusive too. I find it surreal that I am on a liberal Democratic discussion forum defending liberal western democracy.

[Recursion]

95. Many cities have automated cameras that do that. Record all traffic in and out of neighborhoods.

Welcome to the 21st century...

[Douglas Carpenter]

96. a certain right to privacy is a right of western democracy. If George W. Bush was still President

there would not be one single person on this discussion forum defending metadata collection - not one single person. It is only a matter of time before this system turns into an instrument of control. To claim otherwise is to live in a world of self-delusion. To fake support of an intrusive Orwellian surveillance state out of narrow and unpatriotic partisanship is deplorable.

[Recursion]

97. I would. The case law is clear

Metadata does not have constitutional protection.

[Douglas Carpenter]

100. case law once declared slaves to be property that had to be returned to their owners

case law once declared separate but equal - to be completely in keeping with the Constitution. As recent as 1986 case law ruled that states had the right to imprison gay people for their private sexual acts. The current metadata all encompassing situation hasn't actually been ruled on by case law - But it is disingenuous for anyone to suggest that metadata collection does not violate the spirit and even the letter of the fourth amendment. It is ludicrous to pretend this is not a profound and dangerous step toward an all encompassing and thus authoritarian surveillance state. I still cannot believe I am on a liberal Democratic board defending liberal western democracy.

[Recursion]

101. USPS has given mail metadata to law enforcement for almost 100 years

They take a photo of the outside of every letter mailed and send that information in bulk to the government. This has been going on since World War 1. It's not a violation of anyone's rights, because I have no expectation of privacy in information I give to a third party for routing purposes. When I dial a number, those tones are telling Verizon "I wish to talk to this phone number". Once I've told that to somebody else, there's no legal argument for privacy in that information.

[Douglas Carpenter]

104. the automatic photo is very new and has not been going on for that long nor has the automatic

turning over of all data to law enforcement - those are recent developments and are further examples of moves toward the authoritarian surveillance state. If there is a specific reason why law enforcement or even the NSA needs information on a specific case - that is allowable with a warrant under the fourth amendment. The idea that a warrant permanently applies 24/7 on the entire population so violates the spirit of the fourth amendment that it begs ridicule.

[Recursion]

105. The photo is new; they were giving textual data starting in WWI

Anthrax made them actually quarantine more mail, but they've been sending the info for over 100 years.

The idea that a warrant permanently applies 24/7 on the entire population so violates the spirit of the fourth amendment that it begs ridicule.

Again, metadata itself doesn't require a warrant constitutionally, so a vacuous warrant is more than enough.

[Douglas Carpenter]

106. If we do not seize this moment in history to reform our surveillance laws, we will all live to

regret it - Sen. Ron Wyden. As we sublimely walk into a new age of authoritarianism. No I am not suggesting that Barack Obama is scheming to create the totalitarian state or that this whole out of control situation is all his fault. But with an ever increasing and ever expanding and ever more centralized form of monitoring - with ever developing technology - I can imagine no plausible scenario in which we can remain anything resembling a free society in the future. As Sen. Wyden puts its, "we will all live to regret it."

[Recursion]

107. See, I think watching large-scale patterns in communications is exactly what US intel should do

That, to me, is precisely their job.

[Douglas Carpenter]

109. every act intrusion against civil liberties in the history of the world has always been justified

by the claim of "national security." I'm sure even Stalin believed in the right to privacy as long as it doesn't interfere with "national security." It is very misguided to put in place the instruments of totalitarianism - under the umbrella of national security just waiting for some future Dick Cheney and the opportunity for massive abuse-. There will come a time that as Sen. Wyden as suggested that we will all live to regret it.


"It is not excessive to believe this growing, gargantuan, secret complex now represents the greatest threat to our freedom in the new twenty-first century." - for U.S. Senator Gary Hart

[Recursion]

111. But there actually are national security concerns

I mean, the lesson of the boy who cried wolf should be "there actually is a wolf", you know?

[Douglas Carpenter]

112. Obviously! But we don't need to destroy our democracy to save our democracy.

[Marr]

49. The same government was caught lying about the mere existence of these programs just a few

months ago.

These programs represent a violation of the Fourth Amendment. A simple "trust us" is absurd.

[BlueCheese]

59. They shouldn't be storing the data in the first place.

Storing the data itself is a violation of our rights.

That it's supposedly only 300 in 2012 (though the number of records returned is "substantially larger", and the number of seed queries has "varied substantially" over time) isn't that important.

The government should not be storing the private records of people who are not suspected of a crime.

[uponit7771]

61. Yeap, no single payer...government shouldn't be storing data about Americans ANYTHING ever...

....see, I don't think this whole NSA backlash is being though through

[BlueCheese]

78. For law enforcement purposes...

I thought that was implied.

The government should not be storing the records of Americans who are not suspected of a crime for law enforcement purposes. Obviously they'll have records of things like taxes, etc.

[JoePhilly]

79. Why would a "police state" make any such distinction?

That's the claim being made over and over .. the US is now a totalitarian police state.

If so, there is no such distinction ... data is data. If a totalitarian government has the data, it can and will use it.

[Recursion]

98. Woah. You really think DEA won't wheedle data out of HHS if we had single payer? Really?

You actually think that?

[matt819]

110. Sure - and IRS and Medicare and. . .

Sure, lots of government agencies are collecting lots of information about Americans. That's not the issue.

We willingly (if grudgingly) submit our income info to the IRS with the expectation that there are controls over who has access to that info and for what purposes. We may be foolish in having such expectations, but it's one price of living in the U.S.

Same with Medicare. As long as we want this program to be available, yes, we submit our data, again with the expectations that it's being used for the purposes for which it is freely (again, if grudgingly) given. Same goes for single payer, should that ever transpire.

That doesn't necessarily extend to providing the government with our telephone and e-mail meta data or that we submit to having the content of these communications available until the end of time just in case some government agency might want to take a look. I don't care whether there were only 3 or 30 or 300 requests to open the file to actually read what was inside.The fact that it's being stored in the expectation (by the government) that it may be needed at some time in the future is simply wrong. At least without those pesky constitutional rights.

I'm sure we can come up with all sorts of situations where accessing this information would be just too tempting. And when you think about these scenarios, think about the chilling effect on routine communications and legal, constitutionally protected dissent.

[99Forever]

69. Please point out...

... "hardly ever used" exception in these words:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I REALLY detest Weasel Words.

[Egnever]

70. This part

no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[99Forever]

72. WTF?

That says exactly the opposite of your bonehead contention.

Wow. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

[Fire Walk With Me]

71. Bullshit. Meet the upcoming "Conflict Records Research Center" dedicated to analysis.

Indefinite Surveillance: Say Hello to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 http://truth-out.org/news/item/17070-indefinite-surveillance-say-hello-to-the-national-defense-authorization-act-of-2014

NDAA 2014 builds on the powers granted by both the Patriot Act and FISA by allowing unrestricted analysis and research of captured records pertaining to any organization or individual “now or once hostile to the United States”. Under the Patriot Act, the ability to obtain “any tangible thing” eliminated any expectation of privacy. Under NDAA 2014 Sec. 1061(g)(1), an overly vague definition of captured records enhances government power and guarantees indefinite surveillance.

On May 22, 2013 the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities, one of several Armed Services Committees, met to discuss the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014. The main subject of the hearing was Sec. 1061, otherwise known as Enhancement of Capacity of the United States Government to Analyze Captured Records. This enhancement provision of NDAA 2014 would effectively create a new intelligence agency, one with the authority to analyze information gained under the Patriot Act, FISA, and known spying programs such as PRISM.

Sec. 1061(a) authorizes the Secretary of Defense to "establish a center to be known as the 'Conflict Records Research Center'" (Center). The main purpose of the center, according to the bill text, is to create a "digital research database," one with the capability to "translate" and facilitate research on "records captured from countries, organizations and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States." The authorization also says the Center will conduct research and analysis to "increase the understanding of factors related to international relations, counterterrorism and conventional and unconventional warfare, and ultimately, enhance national security."

In order to make the Center run, and to accomplish such an incredibly broad scope of "research," the Secretary of Defense needs the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to cooperate in coordinating "information exchanges important to the leadership of the United States Government." That coordination would require participation of all 16 member agencies and departments of the U.S. Intelligence Community. This would leave James Clapper, the man accused of lying to Congress about the National Security Agency's (NSA) domestic spying program known as PRISM, in de facto direction of another federal surveillance and data analysis agency. And while the Center would be officially directed and overseen by the Secretary of Defense, without unfettered access to secret and top secret information, the Center would become completely ineffective. These information exchanges would most likely include data and records generated by the mass surveillance of everyday people under PRISM, as well as surveillance of those identified as "potential terrorists" or " high value targets" by any one of those 16 intelligence agencies now in operation.

[alc]

73. should we not be worried until it's used.

Say to help "elect" the NSA's choice for president and congress. If they were to decide that Hillary+Dems would shut them down while Palin+repubs will let them do whatever they want do you think they'd just sit on their data? Or maybe look into the candidates and election supervisors, and donors, and campaign managers, pollsters, and a few other people?

Voters are pretty evenly divided. It doesn't take a lot to move from D to R. Get a few D pollsters in key states to swap the results of ads on test groups. So the campaign puts out the ad that tanked. Or get the campaign manager to pick the ad that tested poorly. Or get the election supervisors to cheat. Or give dirt to the other side. It's not just the candidate who can screw things up. But it's still only a few 1000 people who's metadata they have to analyze.

If we wait until we have proof that they misuse the data it will possibly be too late to stop them. The question should be "do they have the data or not?" At least in my mind it's a safe bet that it will be misused at some point even if those in charge now are trustworthy.

[Recursion]

76. Well, yeah. Governments have powers. If they aren't misusing them, what's the problem?

If we're going to start imagining ways the government could screw up our lives if they ignored the law, knowing whom I called is way, way, way down the list.

[uhnope]

84. Exactly. The police could spend the night breaking down every door in a city.

That doesn't mean they are doing that, or they will do that.

[Aerows]

103. Except they already do

Serving civil warrants at 2 am and threaten residents over a fine. But that isn't relevant, I suppose. I'm impressed you did better than a drive by.

[forestpath]

80. I feel SO much better.

[Aerows]

90. Oh look

Member that joined 2 years ago, but has rarely participated in the forum, has no star donations, and suddenly wants to post schooling us on something.

Thank you for insulting our intelligence.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

91. There's a LOT of that going around these days --

I've never seen anything like it outside of primary season.

[Aerows]

99. It's ridiculous

They never come back to the thread they drove by, but then crop up several months later as an expert.

[Aerows]

102. Drive-by poster

Expecting this "person" to respond is like asking for water to stop being wet.

I'll retract my statement if this "person" actually responds, but I suspect I'm asking for the moon, the stars and the sun.

[Egnever]

114. what in the world are you on about

He/she responded several times in the thread before you ever posted.

Get on with the retracting.