Judge Rules -NSA-Phone Surveillance is Legal-Take That Snowden

[mrcunning15]

http://www.wtop.com/289/3531960/NY-judge-rules-NSA-phone-surveillance-is-legal

 

Couldn't find the orginial thread, for all the NSA stuff Mods please merge.

 

To think Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post wanted to make Snowden the Person of the Year over the Pope. Come home and face your punishment like a real person and not hide like a coward if you truly believe in your convictions.

 

Personally I don't see how data collection is an invasion of privacy when using a telephone,internet, etc you are communicating through a medium that travels a large distance and is stored somewhere, to a degree it could be argued as the equilivant of talking to someone in public and someone overhearing your converstation, I don't believe you could sue someone for listening in or overhearing your converstation unless it was you know client priveledge.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Can I get your email password? 

[mrcunning15]

Can I get your email password? 

 

Sure its 12345. "They've gone from suck to blow"

[Springfield]

What a ****ing joke.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I definitely think this NSA collection stuff is scary as hell, and am generally against it.  To me, its one of the few valid points of protest against Obama's presidency.  It certainly started with Bush, but Obama should have ended this a while ago.

 

That being said, I don't think it so obvious that this constitutional or unconstitutional.  When you start talking about what is being collected and how, I can see the argument.  I don't know how this turns out when it gets to the SC, but I think its very debatable.

[skinsmarydu]

Nobody can say Michael Moore didn't try to warn Congress about what all was in the Patriot Act, to the point of reading it to them over the loudspeaker of an ice cream truck.   

Just sayin'.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Nobody can say Michael Moore didn't try to warn Congress about what all was in the Patriot Act, to the point of reading it to them over the loudspeaker of an ice cream truck.   

Just sayin'.

 

Michael Moore is a communist though.  

[thebluefood]

http://www.wtop.com/289/3531960/NY-judge-rules-NSA-phone-surveillance-is-legal

 

Couldn't find the orginial thread, for all the NSA stuff Mods please merge.

 

To think Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post wanted to make Snowden the Person of the Year over the Pope. Come home and face your punishment like a real person and not hide like a coward if you truly believe in your convictions.

 

Personally I don't see how data collection is an invasion of privacy when using a telephone,internet, etc you are communicating through a medium that travels a large distance and is stored somewhere, to a degree it could be argued as the equilivant of talking to someone in public and someone overhearing your converstation, I don't believe you could sue someone for listening in or overhearing your converstation unless it was you know client priveledge.

Welcome to ExtremeSkins, President Obama. 

[Springfield]

Just like every other government project with a bloated budget the NSA spying will only become more and more in our daily lives in order to justify the amount of money we are paying for this bull**** in the name of protection against terrorists.

Eventually, we will just accept our civil liberties being finger ****ed like the sheep that we are. Can't be weak on terrorism, can't be weak on crime.

[Renegade7]

I'm gonna wait to see what the supreme court has to say (if it gets to them) on how constitutional this really was.

[Larry]

Personally I don't see how data collection is an invasion of privacy when using a telephone,internet, etc you are communicating through a medium that travels a large distance and is stored somewhere, to a degree it could be argued as the equilivant of talking to someone in public and someone overhearing your converstation, I don't believe you could sue someone for listening in or overhearing your converstation unless it was you know client priveledge.

1) Personally, I think there's a very clear, distinct, difference between me calling you on the phone, and me talking to you in front of another person who's standing there.

The difference is, the other person standing there.

2) But let's just pretend that you're correct. Let's pretend that me calling Predicto on the phone is just like me talking to him, in person.

You seriously want to try to argue that, when the 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.

were put into our constitution, that they intended for the government to be collecting a list of every single person I've spoken to, the time and date I spoke to him, where I was at the time I spoke to him, and how much I said to him, for every person in the country, going back as far as they want it to, just in case they think of a reason to want it, later?

[skinsmarydu]

It's very simple, really.  The boogeyman told us he was coming (WH memo, August 2001, titled "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States".) 

Some doofus ignored the boogeyman.

The boogeyman came.

Everyone who ignored the boogeyman went overboard trying to make themselves seem strong on terrorism, and now we all have the alphabet soup up our butts.

See, simple.

 

(And this all started with the DEA, by the way.  They were tracking pagers before phones.)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

1) Personally, I think there's a very clear, distinct, difference between me calling you on the phone, and me talking to you in front of another person who's standing there.The difference is, the other person standing there.2) But let's just pretend that you're correct. Let's pretend that me calling Predicto on the phone is just like me talking to him, in person.You seriously want to try to argue that, when the 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.

were put into our constitution, that they intended for the government to be collecting a list of every single person I've spoken to, the time and date I spoke to him, where I was at the time I spoke to him, and how much I said to him, for every person in the country, going back as far as they want it to, just in case they think of a reason to want it, later?

Devils advocate here... They aren't hearing your call. They are recording the metadata. Basically, they are keeping records of the numbers dialed. It's somewhat akin to the postal service keeping records of everyone you send a letter to, but still not reading the letter.

[Larry]

Devils advocate here... They aren't hearing your call. They are recording the metadata. Basically, they are keeping records of the numbers dialed. It's somewhat akin to the postal service keeping records of everyone you send a letter to, but still not reading the letter.

Which was exactly why I phrased my post exactly the way I did.

"They aren't listening to your call" is not an excuse of any kind. It's a deflection.

[Mocountyskins]

Someone is not sitting in a cubicle listening to each and everyone's calls as they happen. But I promise you almost every conversation is recorded and sent to a database that is not listened to at all, unless you say a keyword or if someone ever want to pull your individual record up.

 

It is just a huge waste of money, the feds have no idea how to spend money wisely it is a complete waste of time, resources and money. I don't believe that listening to phone calls stops any acts of terrorism at all, it is mostly for just financial gain or for records if you later become a person of interest. I think that the feds have stopped less then 5 acts of terrorism with all this data that they collect. With all this "spying" going on and money being invested in cyber security you're telling me that someone or some people can get away with 40 million credit cards and no one notices all these fraudulent purchase's until 3 weeks later? Or people can plan shootings for months in advance but no one knows and then when computers are seized they find out that the criminals had been planning it for months by phone and emails and txts but no one ever catches them before the crime is committed? It's all bogus, people toot their horns about stopping terrorism and how this protects us but it hasen't stopped jack ****. But I promise you that it has helped their pockets with all that funding and being able to get insider trading tips for a **** ton of money. But nah terrorism is more justifiable then making money so yea lets say that's why we do it.

[Springfield]

When I was trying to decide upon a major in 2000 I was told that cyber security and information technology were great majors and emerging fields. At the time I didn't really think so. I understood the web but just saw the bubble "burst" and figured there would be a lot of people looking for jobs in IT and related fields.

Well there were. This is what they've created. Creating a growing need to fill a void left by collapse of other industries.

[s0crates]

Wait a minute, people think Snowden is the bad guy? People are defending the NSA? Sentiments like those in the OP really creep me out.

I cannot believe people are actively arguing against their own rights. Very Orwellian. Deeply disturbing.

I'm reminded of an old saying that our rights will not be taken, they will be given away willingly.

If enough people think like the OP, then we might as well kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye. Where is the outrage? Where are our American values?

I'm really bothered by the OP. It is nightmarish. I mean, apathy is bad enough, but this is even worse.

[CurseReversed]

There are a  lot of good posts in this thread.  Glad to see, that at least in this thread, the common sentiment is that this is something we should definitely be concerned with. 

[Mocountyskins]

Who needs to listen to phone calls when you can toot the terrorism horn and make people live in fear and make people report their friends, family and neighbors as "suspicious" or "dangerous". Slave Training 101

[skinsmarydu]

Who needs to listen to phone calls when you can toot the terrorism horn and make people live in fear and make people report their friends, family and neighbors as "suspicious" or "dangerous". Slave Training 101

We watched Farenheit 9/11 last night. (It was on some movie channel...every time we buy a copy & lend it out, we never get it back, lol, 3 times now). Knowing that my fingerprint could tell any TSA agent that I've served and I vote, I absolutely refuse to believe that my bare feet are going to tell them much more about me...and this could all be done in the seat reservation process, especially since they're apparently badass enough to follow us all. Or not? What's the story? LOL

Great post, Mo.

[mrcunning15]

 

Wait a minute, people think Snowden is the bad guy? People are defending the NSA? Sentiments like those in the OP really creep me out.

I cannot believe people are actively arguing against their own rights. Very Orwellian. Deeply disturbing.

I'm reminded of an old saying that our rights will not be taken, they will be given away willingly.

If enough people think like the OP, then we might as well kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye. Where is the outrage? Where are our American values?

I'm really bothered by the OP. It is nightmarish. I mean, apathy is bad enough, but this is even worse.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-collection-of-phone-data-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules/2013/12/27/4b99d96a-6f19-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html

 

"The government has based its legal justification for the program on a 1979 case, Smith v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court found Americans have no expectation of privacy in the telephone metadata that companies hold as business records and ruled that a warrant is not required to obtain such information."

 

I used to think like you then I grew up, whats truly sad is a lack of understanding of the law on your part. Stop with the slippery slope arguement about an orwellian world, American life does not resemble the book '1984', and it never will hopefully if is i'll be dead by then anyways. I never advocated for the listening in on calls with out a warrant but this type of data collection is not an envision of privacy as written by our laws if you don't like the law advocate for it's repeal.

 

I think the hard part is finding the right balance bewteen protecting people's rights and fighting crime, criminals and terrorists are always going to try exploit the law to their advantage do victims not have rights.

[Busch1724]

Don't know much about the site rawstory, but saw this link posted around the interwebs the other day.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/26/grad-student-proves-nsa-can-link-metadata-to-your-identity-with-marginal-effort/

From the article:

 

 

A Stanford graduate student has shown just how easily names can be matched with phone records, contradicting some of the legal justification offered by federal authorities for the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone data.

President Barack Obama said in June that the surveillance captured only which telephone numbers were connected to others. “There are no names … in that database,” Obama said.

Just last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said cell phone customers had no reasonable expectation to privacy because the data collected by the NSA because it did not contain their names.

 

But researcher Jonathan Mayer and co-author Patrick Mutchler reported that they’d gathered thousands of phone numbers from volunteers and checked various public online directories to link some of the 5,000 numbers chosen at random from their database to individuals.

With “marginal effort,” they matched more than 27 percent of the numbers using just Yelp, Google Places and Facebook.

[Larry]

I used to think like you then I grew up, whats truly sad is a lack of understanding of the law on your part. Stop with the slippery slope arguement about an orwellian world, American life does not resemble the book '1984', and it never will hopefully if is i'll be dead by then anyways. I never advocated for the listening in on calls with out a warrant but this type of data collection is not an envision of privacy as written by our laws if you don't like the law advocate for it's repeal.

I think the hard part is finding the right balance bewteen protecting people's rights and fighting crime, criminals and terrorists are always going to try exploit the law to their advantage do victims not have rights.

Truly admiring the number of people to attack my my lack of understanding, who then follow it up by telling me things I already know, and ridiculing how untrue things I haven't said, are.

Or who them attempt to attack people who point out that the constitution outright forbids the government from conducting surveillance against its citizens without first establishing probable cause, by piously announcing that, well, they aren't doing some other thing, as though that somehow justifies what they ARE doing.

"Doing X is wrong".

"You idiot! They aren't doing Y!"

[skinsmarydu]

I used to think like you then I grew up, whats truly sad is a lack of understanding of the law on your part. Stop with the slippery slope arguement about an orwellian world, American life does not resemble the book '1984'

You've quoted both Larry & s0crates with this post...thanks for helping me make my plans for the day.

[mrcunning15]

You've quoted both Larry & s0crates with this post...thanks for helping me make my plans for the day.

 

I didn't even mean to quote Larry I only meant to respone to so-crates opps.

 

The constitution is up to interpretation by our judges and the quote about unreasonable search’s and metadata is not one and the same, I'm pretty sure when you sign up for phone service the user agreement has certain language about calls being logged or stored to public record. The collection of metadata is the monitoring of behavior it's no different then the surveyor on the side of the road counting cars, calls are transmitted through spectrum which is truly owned by the government, you have to gain probable cause in order to justify finding the meat behind these public transactions, I believe probable cause can always bring an interesting debate about rights and privacy, and with the speed of technology and the rapidly changing dynamics of technology our laws need to be written and interpreted in a way that can effectively fight crime and protect rights, I just don't feel as though the collection of my phone calls is a warrantless search.

 

If for some reason I had a warrant because I unknowingly was communicating with a criminal and my calls where being wiretapped I probably would be upset because I somehow was implicated with a person of interest but I don't know how you effectively write laws that protect against a potential misunderstanding.

 

These issues are never as clear-cut black and white as everyone thinks and the interpretation and applicability of the constitution cannot cover all situations and I believe our founding fathers understood this, and wrote things in such a way so we can have an honest debate about their merits where no one agrees with each other and run the gabbit of circular agruements that go no where.