SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 3123>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Court Ruled NSA Bulk Surveillance Unconstitutional< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26410
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 4:40 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Per BBC, Mr Snowden issued a statement hailing the ruling...

"I acted on my belief that the NSA's mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts," he wrote, according to the New York Times.

"Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans' rights," he added. "It is the first of many."

Read more here.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
ol-zeke Search for posts by this member.
Clear Creek
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 4:45 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I can see court officials next up on the surveillance list.

I happen to agree with the ruling, but do not see this can of worms going back into the cupboard.  


--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.

"I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth."  Steve McQueen
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43964
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 5:13 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Early days actually.

"He issued a preliminary injunction against the NSA surveillance programme but suspended the order to allow for an appeal by the justice department."

A suspended preliminary injunction isn't quite a final ruling, though it's a good hint how the judge is currently thinking.

ETA:
"A federal judge in Washington said Monday that the National Security Agency’s widespread collection of telephone records of millions of Americans is likely unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that the lawsuit by activist Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch, has “demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success” on the basis of Fourth Amendment privacy protections against unreasonable searches.

Leon granted Klayman’s request for a preliminary injunction that blocks the controversial program. But the judge stayed action on his ruling pending a government appeal in recognition of the “significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues,” Leon wrote in a 68-page opinion.

..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nationa....l?clsrd
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26410
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 5:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yep.  Like it or hate it... this issue will be with us for years to come.

--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43964
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 5:26 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Dec. 16 2013, 2:22 pm)
QUOTE
Yep.  Like it or hate it... this issue will be with us for years to come.

At least now it's getting more open discussion.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6393
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 6:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So what becomes of Snowden?  Elevated from traitor to patriot like Ellsberg?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
ol-zeke Search for posts by this member.
Clear Creek
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 6:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I would hope, but not holding my breath.  

--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.

"I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth."  Steve McQueen
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26410
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 7:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Re. Snowden, seems the NSA is 'testing' the political winds to determine its next move.

--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43964
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 7:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Dec. 16 2013, 3:34 pm)
QUOTE
So what becomes of Snowden?  Elevated from traitor to patriot like Ellsberg?

The meta-data collection might be whistleblower worthy but Snowden stole a vast quantity of material and put it generally out there for the media to sort through.  The devil might be in the details of what else he took off with.... hence the other NSA official saying the releases had to stop for any sort of plea deal.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43964
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 7:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Dec. 16 2013, 4:02 pm)
QUOTE
Re. Snowden, seems the NSA is 'testing' the political winds to determine its next move.

Snowden pled for clemency on Friday so the Sunday talk show statements were reactions to his letter not fingers to the wind.

ETA: And I think Feinstein has a point. He needs to, at least, answer why he didn't call Congress.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26410
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 7:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 16 2013, 4:09 pm)
QUOTE

(Ben2World @ Dec. 16 2013, 4:02 pm)
QUOTE
Re. Snowden, seems the NSA is 'testing' the political winds to determine its next move.

Snowden pled for clemency on Friday so the Sunday talk show statements were reactions to his letter not fingers to the wind.

I see...  thanks.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43964
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 7:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Dec. 16 2013, 4:10 pm)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 16 2013, 4:09 pm)
QUOTE

(Ben2World @ Dec. 16 2013, 4:02 pm)
QUOTE
Re. Snowden, seems the NSA is 'testing' the political winds to determine its next move.

Snowden pled for clemency on Friday so the Sunday talk show statements were reactions to his letter not fingers to the wind.

I see...  thanks.

Not that, given his runner-up status for Time, he wouldn't have come up in some fashion on Sunday.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26410
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 7:27 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 16 2013, 4:12 pm)
QUOTE
[G]iven his runner-up status for Time...

Which speaks volumes on just how out of touch our political leadership is, and how poor an understanding of freedom/democracy it has -- the way it sanctions massive surveillance of everyone -- and the way it demonizes Snowden for disclosing all this.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3976
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 7:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Snowden gave up American secrets. I'm not surprised the government isn't happy with him. I'll keep my own opinions of him to myself beyond that.

--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5978
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 9:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

But Judge Leon left little doubt about his view.

“The question that I will ultimately have to answer when I reach the merits of this case someday is whether people have a reasonable expectation of privacy that is violated when the government, without any basis whatsoever to suspect them of any wrongdoing, collects and stores for five years their telephony metadata for purposes of subjecting it to high-tech querying and analysis without any case-by-case judicial approval,” he wrote. “For the many reasons set forth above, it is significantly likely that on that day, I will answer that question in plaintiffs’ favor.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013....0131216


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43964
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 10:57 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

If as is reported  individual records are only accessed under court overseen procedures I'm skeptical anyone's privacy is being infringed unlawfully. The metadata is a business record that is available for analysis per legal procedure in any case, the storage simply extends the timeframe available.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26410
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2013, 11:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I am actually uncomfortable with the entire concept of electronically collecting and storing everyone's phone call and email records.  Sure, 99% of the time, no human will ever access (much less physically read or listen to) any of the data that pertain specifically to you or me... but , any time any of us becomes a 'person of interest' -- for whatever reason -- then all of that data can be linked and called up for deeper scrutiny -- with trivial effort.

Knowledge is power... and a government that collects a detailed dossier on every single one of us is a government that wields enormous  power -- in breadth and in depth.

I am not saying this will happen today or next year... but everyone of us has skeletons that we'd rather not publicize - and ditto for public employees too.  A collection of  every judge's entire history of tweets, phone calls, emails, etc. -- to use as an example -- can be very effective in 'encouraging' those judges to self censor or to render judgments favorable to the State (which supposedly acts in our collective best interest and security).  No, bureaucrats don't actually need to blackmail any judge directly -- they only have to selectively leak out information to discredit targeted judges (again, as an example).


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5978
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 2:11 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 16 2013, 7:57 pm)
QUOTE
If as is reported  individual records are only accessed under court overseen procedures I'm skeptical anyone's privacy is being infringed unlawfully. The metadata is a business record that is available for analysis per legal procedure in any case, the storage simply extends the timeframe available.

From the NYTimes article:

QUOTE
Last month, a federal judge declined to grant a new trial to several San Diego men convicted of sending money to a terrorist group in Somalia. Government officials have since acknowledged that investigators became interested in them because of the call records program. Citing Smith v. Maryland, the judge said the defendants had “no legitimate expectation of privacy” over their call data.


It sounds like the interest arose from the metadata, rather than interest and judicial procedure first?

Still in the case of terrorism , esp. if it is with a nuclear bomb this MIGHT be warranted.  It is certainly better than torture, and habeas  Corpus was suspended during the civil war.


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5978
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 2:20 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Dec. 16 2013, 8:15 pm)
QUOTE
I am actually uncomfortable with the entire concept of electronically collecting and storing everyone's phone call and email records.  Sure, 99% of the time, no human will ever access (much less physically read or listen to) any of the data that pertain specifically to you or me... but , any time any of us becomes a 'person of interest' -- for whatever reason -- then all of that data can be linked and called up for deeper scrutiny -- with trivial effort.

Knowledge is power... and a government that collects a detailed dossier on every single one of us is a government that wields enormous  power -- in breadth and in depth.

I am not saying this will happen today or next year... but everyone of us has skeletons that we'd rather not publicize - and ditto for public employees too.  A collection of  every judge's entire history of tweets, phone calls, emails, etc. -- to use as an example -- can be very effective in 'encouraging' those judges to self censor or to render judgments favorable to the State (which supposedly acts in our collective best interest and security).  No, bureaucrats don't actually need to blackmail any judge directly -- they only have to selectively leak out information to discredit targeted judges (again, as an example).

That puts it very well.  Though some might not understand why anyone doing something wrong should not be caught, ,most can understand that it should not be done for other reasons or objectives, esp. when it is done against those they support.

Here was a good artcle on all the stuff one can tell from just metadata, and metadata itself isn't that well defined.


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5978
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 2:27 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I think I read somewhere that allot more than metadata is mined, and  this happened before 9/11.

First cell phones being more like radios are fair game.  And then since land lines are are sometimes themselves broadcast they are sweep up, esp. if overseas.

And for those which are domestic , that are broadcast from tower to tower, when can ask Canada to intercept them and relay them to (us) (NSA)


etc.


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43964
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 11:37 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(dayhiker9 @ Dec. 16 2013, 11:11 pm)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 16 2013, 7:57 pm)
QUOTE
If as is reported  individual records are only accessed under court overseen procedures I'm skeptical anyone's privacy is being infringed unlawfully. The metadata is a business record that is available for analysis per legal procedure in any case, the storage simply extends the timeframe available.

From the NYTimes article:

QUOTE
Last month, a federal judge declined to grant a new trial to several San Diego men convicted of sending money to a terrorist group in Somalia. Government officials have since acknowledged that investigators became interested in them because of the call records program. Citing Smith v. Maryland, the judge said the defendants had “no legitimate expectation of privacy” over their call data.


It sounds like the interest arose from the metadata, rather than interest and judicial procedure first?

Still in the case of terrorism , esp. if it is with a nuclear bomb this MIGHT be warranted.  It is certainly better than torture, and habeas  Corpus was suspended during the civil war.

Nope, the interest arose from the terrorists numbers called and the metadata was used to connect others, such as those convicted in this case, to them. Starts with the terrorists, interessd and judicial procedure FROM the terrorist connection onward.

That's probably like staking out a known fence of stolen goods and seeing who walks into the store. Connections starting from a known.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5978
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 12:03 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I hope you are right HSF, but everything is so secret how do you know?

For instance they may have a blanket right to look at all calls to and from the terrorists, and then all calls to and from those folks etc., before long you have the whole country?

======

Why care:

http://www.nytimes.com/video....olitics

=========

If this makes sense, why not but listening devices in all homes with the promise we won't listen to any of it until we get a court order?


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26410
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 12:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 17 2013, 8:37 am)
QUOTE
Nope, the interest arose from the terrorists numbers called and the metadata was used to connect others, such as those convicted in this case, to them. Starts with the terrorists, interessd and judicial procedure FROM the terrorist connection onward.

That's probably like staking out a known fence of stolen goods and seeing who walks into the store. Connections starting from a known.

And in this case, it starts out as good old fashioned, effective, and 'common sense' police work.

My concern is more the unplanned, unintended  'mission creep' that often occur as years go by... as the cost of surveillance goes down, that sort of thing.

A small police force might only have the capability to stake out a few 'known fences' of stolen goods around town.  But using your example, if technology makes it trivial to do so, why not set up more stakeout points -- to better ferret out the unknown spots to keep the town 'even safer'?

And by and by... why be so reactive about waiting for the bad guys to fence their stolen goods... when authorities can use technology to somehow eavesdrop on their conversations?  Why not have a comprehensive "map / diagram" of which bad guy is working with whom, when, and on what?

And how does anyone know for sure who is or who might eventually be involved?  If the authorities already have a technological web set up -- it is trivially and tantalizingly easy to expand their web to ever more "persons of interest'... and then "persons of potential interest".

The argument here is never about the elimination of detective work.  That would be ridiculous.  The argument is about the desirability, legality, and potential costs and consequences of surveillance on everyone and everything - as a matter of daily routine.

So the NSA collects metadata.  However, my understanding is that those are the markers that enable the NSA to easily link back to the actual data (now kept by phone companies, ISP's, etc.).   It's not like the NSA has a bound dossier on everyone -- but it's about easy access in putting one together electronically -- whenever needed.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
tamarac Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1076
Joined: Jan. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 2:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

This is a complex subject. We have surveillance, and we have action taken on behalf of surveillance and we have FISA courts.

What is more important, the NSA gathering data on all citizens for information purposes and then going to the FISA court for a warrant to take action only on suspected terrorist activities, or profiling certain ethnic and religious groups of people and surveilling them only?

In this mass communication era that we are now in and will be forever most likely it is naïve to think that people in Government don't have a lot of information on all of us.
It's how they use it and what they do with it that counts.

And, their 'evidence' if they choose to attempt to use it against any citizen will have to hold up in court. We don't lock up people on captured surveillance and throw away the key.

Just some thoughts. Obviously a high level of competent oversight is the key to all of this.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6501
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 2:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I see that the “sky is falling” argument is once again being used by the fearful.

Yes, I agree that Edward Snowden did us a service by bringing this issue to widespread public attention, thereby stimulating discussion of the issues. But, really, is a “fear and cookies” approach actually helpful? Is it sufficient to merely declare that “the sky is falling”? Should we now start running in circles and screaming?

The appropriate analogy is similar to the one that I observe in that segment of the right wing that believes “big government (or even merely government) is BAD”! Unless we’re talking about bomb-throwing anarchists here, which I suspect we are not, even the most adamant of those opponents of government (or “big government”) would admit that there is, indeed, at least some role for government. The argument is not over whether or not we need government, but at which point we draw the line that demarcates what government should do and what government should not do. The same observation could be made here – no one, I suspect, is saying that the NSA should collect no intelligence. They’re arguing about what should be “constitutional”/”legal” to collect, and what, to comply with civil liberties defined in the constitution and our body of law, should not be collected.

So, instead of vague, ill-informed and patently misinformed speculation, which seems to be all we’re getting from Ben himself, we should discuss where that line should be drawn, keeping in mind that “metadata” has been collected and used by law enforcement agencies, and especially the NSA, since back before the middle of the last century.


(Ben2World @ Dec. 17 2013, 11:07 am)
QUOTE
My concern is more the unplanned, unintended 'mission creep' that often occur as years go by... as the cost of surveillance goes down, that sort of thing.
Yes, Virginia – this is why we have laws which restrict these things to specific situations and that require a court order to acquire specific information, and to prevent this very phenomenon of “mission creep”. Legal proscription against indiscriminate collection of information on US citizens is an area about which, IME, everyone involved in such activity – including the NSA - is clearly aware and is made periodically aware through training and dissemination of information to the guys “on the line”. Apparently, Ed Snowden missed that memo – or he’s ignoring it.


(Ben2World @ Dec. 17 2013, 11:07 am)
QUOTE
…why be so reactive about waiting for the bad guys to fence their stolen goods…when authorities can use technology to somehow eavesdrop on their conversations?
Because there are laws that prevent this kind of “Minority Report” activity without specific court authority and specific justification for doing it – something which would be godawful hard to do for things that might happen sometime in the future.

I note the use of the phrase “to somehow eavesdrop”. Ben clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and doesn’t understand the nature of the activity which he pretends to “discuss”. Ehhh…”technology” that they’ll “somehow use” to eavesdrop. “Technology”, the evil and misunderstood “boogeyman”. Fear, everyone, be fearful!


(Ben2World @ Dec. 17 2013, 11:07 am)
QUOTE
And how does anyone know for sure who is or who might eventually be involved?  If the authorities already have a technological web set up -- it is trivially and tantalizingly easy to expand their web to ever more "persons of interest'... and then "persons of potential interest".
Once again, our courts and our elected representatives have oversight – and there are laws which would dictate whether or not such “expansion of scope” would be constitutional. There is always the possibility for illegal activity, but that doesn’t mean that what you’re suggesting here would be any more probable, except in a world which had no laws restricting it whatsoever. You’re merely suggesting that it’s possible, and that’s certainly true, but it’s not the “boogeyman” you’re trying to make it out to be.


(Ben2World @ Dec. 17 2013, 11:07 am)
QUOTE
So the NSA collects metadata.  However, my understanding is that those are the markers that enable the NSA to easily link back to the actual data (now kept by phone companies, ISP's, etc.).   It's not like the NSA has a bound dossier on everyone -- but it's about easy access in putting one together electronically -- whenever needed.
The definition of “metadata” is in the article cited above: it’s number to, number from, date, time and duration. No one – NO ONE – “collects the conversations” – the actual data – without a prior issuance of a court order.

As I’ve said before, I myself have collected “metadata” for the NSA (back in the 60s), and for the FBI (back in the 70s when I worked for YOUR PHONE COMPANY - yes, yes, Virginia – YOUR PHONE COMPANY, the guys you refer to as the “landline” or “Ma Bell”, have been retrieving “metadata” for law enforcement agencies like the FBI since forever. And, of course, we’re not talking “everything”, but only long, multipage lists of “reference numbers” supplied via court order.

The NSA has been collecting both “metadata” and full transmissions on all foreign traffic for at least the last 50 or so years (AFAIK or am aware, and probably a lot longer) quite legally (traffic external to the US is mostly considered outside of the realm of the constitutionally protected area).

The “trunks” (router networks for the internet) are, as I’ve also noted before, largely located in the US – so they are also, to the extent that they represent “foreign traffic” quite legal to monitor and conspicuously accessible, being located on our territory. It would be somewhat remiss of our intelligence agencies to pass on this resource, now, wouldn’t it?

There are other issues about which no one here is commenting. Is there an industry-wide retention limit on records that would, given the volume of data, make valuable information unavailable to the NSA if completely ignored? Are there differences in message protocols (outside of the largely standardized internet IP) for wireless transmission and metadata between carriers that require the NSA to “massage” varying protocols into a form that facilitates rapid later recovery within a database system?

Start talking about REAL issues instead of running in circles shouting “the sky is falling” – as far as I can see, that’s about all most of this is so far.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6501
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 3:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(tamarac @ Dec. 17 2013, 1:17 pm)
QUOTE
This is a complex subject. We have surveillance, and we have action taken on behalf of surveillance and we have FISA courts.

What is more important, the NSA gathering data on all citizens for information purposes and then going to the FISA court for a warrant to take action only on suspected terrorist activities, or profiling certain ethnic and religious groups of people and surveilling them only?

In this mass communication era that we are now in and will be forever most likely it is naïve to think that people in Government don't have a lot of information on all of us.
It's how they use it and what they do with it that counts.

And, their 'evidence' if they choose to attempt to use it against any citizen will have to hold up in court. We don't lock up people on captured surveillance and throw away the key.

Just some thoughts. Obviously a high level of competent oversight is the key to all of this.

Good points all.

Yes, they gather large quantities of data for possible use. Yes, a court order is required in order to justify any search of the data. There are technical reasons relating to retention and access that dictate prior collection, and it is reasonable to question the necessity for doing so. Without specific details on what the technical problems involved are, it is not reasonable to question the entire program, however insidious a description of the actual activity may appear to someone who does not have all the "facts". It is a long-established fact that "metadata" of the type described in the article is not considered "constitutionally protected" information. It may be that that might need to change, given our changed world, but it is also a fact that such "metadata" has been collected for a very, very long time by the very agency about which we are now so very concerned.

I would contend that corporations, which have no such "constitutional protections" proscribing their use of information about us, collect more data on us than the government ever even thought of collecting.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26410
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 3:18 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(tamarac @ Dec. 17 2013, 11:17 am)
QUOTE
This is a complex subject. We have surveillance, and we have action taken on behalf of surveillance and we have FISA courts.

What is more important, the NSA gathering data on all citizens for information purposes and then going to the FISA court for a warrant to take action only on suspected terrorist activities, or profiling certain ethnic and religious groups of people and surveilling them only?

In this mass communication era that we are now in and will be forever most likely it is naïve to think that people in Government don't have a lot of information on all of us.
It's how they use it and what they do with it that counts.

And, their 'evidence' if they choose to attempt to use it against any citizen will have to hold up in court. We don't lock up people on captured surveillance and throw away the key.

Just some thoughts. Obviously a high level of competent oversight is the key to all of this.

Then, there is the question of "secret" courts!  Perhaps if we are actually at war, we may need something like that -- as we do have military courts...

But we should not tolerate "secret" courts as a matter of routine.  But the world is a dangerous place - as some might point out?  The world has always been a dangerous place.  But do we then give up democracy, transparency, and the rule of law -- in accordance with our Constitution?  No, I really hope not.  Not as a matter of routine -- which is where our government has been heading.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26410
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 3:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Gabby @ Dec. 17 2013, 12:06 pm)
QUOTE
Without specific details on what the technical problems involved are, it is not reasonable to question the entire program...

That is the heart of the problem, Gabby!  We are not allowed to know what is going on, or even that we are being tracked (if we are being tracked).  Telcos are mandated to deny turning over records of anyone.  And court sessions are held in secret.

I am not saying that nothing good comes out of this -- but the good must be weighed against the cost.  The bureaucratic effort is as massive as it is secret.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5978
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 3:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Gabby @ Dec. 17 2013, 11:58 am)
QUOTE
. . . keeping in mind that “metadata” has been collected and used by law enforcement agencies, and especially the NSA, since back before the middle of the last century.

This is the first I have heard of this, before the 1950s, ie before cell phones and really before computers had much of start.

And I think NSA was more restricted as far as domestic things go, but you sound quite positive about this, where did you hear this etc.

I always thought law enforcement had to go to the phone companies for this info?


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26410
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 17 2013, 3:52 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

This just in today.  Free speech?  Whatever happened to free speech?  The need to hide skeletons trumps all?

Does our political leadership realize how badly they are tarnishing our country's image?  And not just muzzling, but in creating so many skeletons to begin with!?!


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
70 replies since Dec. 16 2013, 4:40 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 3123>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Court Ruled NSA Bulk Surveillance Unconstitutional
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions