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

[Corcaigh]

A shining city upon a hill.

[The Sisko]

Aside from the inherent right or wrong of the collecting of this metadata, there's a political angle. Who wants to be the pol who crusaded for privacy rights and then has the next big terrorist attack happen on his/her watch? I suspect nobody. It would be a cudgel with which your side of the aisle would be battered for years.

[s0crates]

Oh I see the argument now, the government is spying on me for my own protection. It's just my big brother looking out for my safety.

I'm going to agree with Ben Franklin on this one. He who would trade liberty for security deserves neither.

[Springfield]

Aside from the inherent right or wrong of the collecting of this metadata, there's a political angle. Who wants to be the pol who crusaded for privacy rights and then has the next big terrorist attack happen on his/her watch? I suspect nobody. It would be a cudgel with which your side of the aisle would be battered for years.

This is exactly right. You don't have politicians that are "soft" on crime or terrorism.

When we gave up our rights with the Patriot Act we were never getting them back. We would only lose more as different politicians got their hands on it. My argument to all of republicans was "imagine what happens when Hillary gets her hands on this law". While it wasn't Hillary, it was someone of her ilk. Now we are complaining when somebody from a different political background is using the law more "effectively".

I'm sure that these wiretaps and domestic spying are legal. We signed off on it a decade ago.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

I see a distinction.

Let me ask you this: when you mail a letter, do you put a self address on it? Do you think that you have a reasonable expectation that no one will be able to tell who you sent letters to then? I don't think you can expect that.

If you think about the metadata as the information on the OUTSIDE of an envelope, I think there is an argument that it is not protected by the fourth amendment.

Again, I still don't like it. Even if the scotus says it's constitutional, I think it should stop. I'm just not sure that it is unconstitutional. Unlike everyone else, I haven't spent the last few months reviewing the case law.

[s0crates]

Let me ask you this: when you mail a letter, do you put a self address on it? Do you think that you have a reasonable expectation that no one will be able to tell who you sent letters to then? I don't think you can expect that.

If you think about the metadata as the information on the OUTSIDE of an envelope, I think there is an argument that it is not protected by the fourth amendment.

I'm not sure that is an exact analogy. My understanding is that it would be more like if they kept a record of all the letters you sent and to whom you sent them. It might even be like if they opened the letter, scanned it for key words, and kept a copy on file for future reference.

Too much apologizing for the government here.

[Springfield]

I see a distinction.

Let me ask you this: when you mail a letter, do you put a self address on it? Do you think that you have a reasonable expectation that no one will be able to tell who you sent letters to then? I don't think you can expect that.

If you think about the metadata as the information on the OUTSIDE of an envelope, I think there is an argument that it is not protected by the fourth amendment.

Again, I still don't like it. Even if the scotus says it's constitutional, I think it should stop. I'm just not sure that it is unconstitutional. Unlike everyone else, I haven't spent the last few months reviewing the case law.

I see your analogy and but I see it a little differently. The US Mail system is an agent of the US Government. They have a reason to track all of the mail that goes through it's system. Verizon, ATT and the like are not. They are privately held companies using not one piece of government equipment to transmit this data.

I think that we both agree that we don't like it but think it won't be ruled unconstitutional at this point. The rest is just really semantics.

[mrcunning15]

I see your analogy and but I see it a little differently. The US Mail system is an agent of the US Government. They have a reason to track all of the mail that goes through it's system. Verizon, ATT and the like are not. They are privately held companies using not one piece of government equipment to transmit this data.

I think that we both agree that we don't like it but think it won't be ruled unconstitutional at this point. The rest is just really semantics.

 

 

You sure about that?

[Springfield]

You sure about that?

They are publicly traded. What I meant was that the government exerts no control over their operations. Unlike the USPS.

Either way, it's just semantics and this whole thing is BS to me.

[Larry]

I see a distinction.

I do, too.

One is the topic we're discussing, and the other is an attempt at deflection.

I see a distinction between rape and murder, too. That's why, when we're discussing whether rape is moral, "He isn't committing murder" isn't a justification.

 

Let me ask you this: when you mail a letter, do you put a self address on it? Do you think that you have a reasonable expectation that no one will be able to tell who you sent letters to then? I don't think you can expect that.

If you think about the metadata as the information on the OUTSIDE of an envelope, I think there is an argument that it is not protected by the fourth amendment.

 

 

What an interesting argument.  And one that's rather on-point, too.

 

Yes, when I mail a letter, I fully expect the Post Office to read the address on the envelope, and to use that address to deliver that letter. 

 

No, I do not expect them to send off a letter to the federal government, notifying the government that I just sent a letter, so that the government can maintain an up-to-the-minute database of every person I've ever communicated with. 

 

So, you're assertion is that, when the Fourth Amendment was written, that what the framers had in mind was . . . .

 

1)  Passing a Constitutional Amendment, specifying that no searches will be performed without a warrant, that said warrants will only be issued if there's probable cause, and that said warrants must "particularly [describe] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

2) The government creating an agency, for the specific purpose of spying on foreign communication.

3) Specifically forbidding this agency, in it's charter, from gathering any information within the US. 

4) Creating a secret court for the purpose of handing out secret search warrants.

5) Specifying, in the legislation which created said court, that Agency 2 is not permitted to use this court.

6) Since Agency 2 is forbidden from using said court, having a different agency submit the paperwork, on their behalf.

7) Ruling that probable cause isn't needed for said warrant, because, well, the agency promises that, after they get the search they want, they promise that they won't use the search, unless they have a reason (which also is grossly short of probable cause, and which they admit they don't really follow, anyway). 

8) Ruling that "give me all the information you have, on every communication in the entire country" meets the standard of "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". 

 

That, to be specific, they intended for the US Government to begin compiling a record of every letter sent, anywhere within the country.  Who sent it, who it was to, when it was sent, where the sender was when he sent it, where the recipient was when he received it, how many pages it was.  For every single letter in the country. 

 

Just in case the government, months from now, decides that they want to know, who you communicated with, two months ago.  And every person who that person communicated with.  And every person who every one of those people communicated with. 

 

Again, I still don't like it. Even if the scotus says it's constitutional, I think it should stop. I'm just not sure that it is unconstitutional. Unlike everyone else, I haven't spent the last few months reviewing the case law.

 

 

I haven't reviewed any case law whatsoever. 

 

I've just read the Fourth Amendment. 

 

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.

 

 

Which states, very clearly and specifically, that

 

1)  No searches are permitted without a warrant.

2)  That issuing a warrant cannot be done without probable cause.

3)  That all warrants must be narrowly targeted.  ("particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized") 

 

And assert that it is absolutely, completely impossible, to "interpret" that specific language, to justify a warrant being issued with no cause whatsoever, and specifying the entire country as a target. 

 

The warrants being used, to demand this information, are in clear, direct, obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment, in two different ways.  (And, at least as I understand it, are in violation of federal law, in several others.) 

 

----------

 

(And, if you want another amateur legal argument on the subject:  If the Fourth Amendment actually says that no warrants are needed for the government to maintain a database of every single person I have ever communicated with, then why are they getting fake warrants that violate the Fourth Amendment, to get it?) 

[Larry]

I see your analogy and but I see it a little differently. The US Mail system is an agent of the US Government. They have a reason to track all of the mail that goes through it's system. Verizon, ATT and the like are not. They are privately held companies using not one piece of government equipment to transmit this data.

1) No, the Post Office does not have a reason to track every piece of mail that passes through their system. In fact, they don't track every piece of mail. (Frankly, they don;t do that good a job of tracking the mail that people pay them to track.)

2) And even if they did have a reason to track it (say, like UPS does), that does not in any way imply that the government has the authority to demand that UPS send all of that information to them, so that the information can be used against me.

Granted, I've never met any of the Framers. But I have just a teensy suspicion that they did not intend the federal government to maintain a database of every single communication by every person in the country.

In fact, I have a teensy suspicion that they wrote the Fourth Amendment to be so far away from that that the actual "line" which they intended to draw wasn't even visible from that point.

[Mocountyskins]

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.

 

I understand the wanting to keep people safe but just the whole standing in a long line waiting to go threw scanners and pat downs and being questioned reminds me personally of cows in a slaughterhouse just lining up for it. Not trying to compare us to being slaughtered that's just the image I get just a bunch stupid animals being poked and proded and being treated badly for no reason.

[Larry]

I understand the wanting to keep people safe but just the whole standing in a long line waiting to go threw scanners and pat downs and being questioned reminds me personally of cows in a slaughterhouse just lining up for it. Not trying to compare us to being slaughtered that's just the image I get just a bunch stupid animals being poked and proded and being treated badly for no reason.

While I certainly have a problem with the constitutionality of those procedures, I think history says that they were both necessary and effective.

When I was a kid in the 60s, it seemed like there was an airplane being hijacked like once a month.

Since then, it's almost unheard of. And the only reason the 911 hijacking worked was a combination of them using weapons which the screeners were under orders to let through, and decades of Common Wisdom teaching people that if you don't resist, nobody gets hurt.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Larry,

You can't just read the fourth amendment though when legally analyzing this because it contradicts other enumerated powers. For starters the war power or commander in chief power give the executive the power to do this. Also, interstate commerce clause does, and of course the necessary and proper clause effects all of that.

You have to read if all together with the case law.

I don't know the answer, just providing an argument.

[Larry]

Really?

The words commander in chief grant the power to ignore the Bill of Rights? And "regulate interstate commerce" means "keep records on every citizen's every activity if it in any way involves money"?

You SERIOUSLY want to try to argue that a clearly stated flat out prohibition is trumped by "well, if you interpret this phrase to mean anything we want it to mean"?

Again, if no warrant were required, to get these records, then why are they using them?

Or, turn the question around.

In your opinion, how far does the government have to go, before the Fourth Amendment starts to limit their power?

[KuNiT21]

This Bill Of Rights freedom experiment will be a non issue when Mr. Obama goes after his real agenda this year .....the 2nd Amendment.

[Mocountyskins]

The executive branch was never meant to be this powerful that's all I know.

[twa]

The executive branch was never meant to be this powerful that's all I know.

Neither was the rest of the federal govt.

we have evolved

[Mocountyskins]

Neither was the rest of the federal govt.

we have evolved

I thought that the bill of rights were rights that were "god given" and existed before the government was created. So is it possible to not outgrow our rights?

[Popeman38]

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.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If the govt was collecting every conversation, don't you think Snowden would have led with that instead of stopping the metadata "bombshell"? I mean, why bother talking about metadata when you can expose phone recordings?

First you promise without any proof, and then you believe.

[Mocountyskins]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If the govt was collecting every conversation, don't you think Snowden would have led with that instead of stopping the metadata "bombshell"? I mean, why bother talking about metadata when you can expose phone recordings?

First you promise without any proof, and then you believe.

I do to know what I am talking about if they were not recording phone calls how come you can say terms like "bomb" while on hold and get put to the front of the line? It's because there are some keywords and if used enough your **** gets recorded. In my personal opinion 99.999999% of phone calls are never listened to but they are recorded and sent somewhere. Recording does not mean that it will ever be listened to by anyone it just means recorded. I can call up my phone company and get a receipt of every text message that I sent out to someone, so if Verizon is keeping track of what I say in a text message not that they are reading just that it is saved incase someone asks for it then I'm sure that there are agencies doing the same thing. Facebook keeps a record of everything you say or post even after you delete it. If Facebook can do it then can other people do it? If every conversation that happens on a dell line for assistance purposes is recorded then can other people do it? I sent out a complaint email a few months ago about one of the officers involved in the shooting of that woman who was driving crazy around DC and was shot about what he was saying about the incident and a good friend I have who works higher up in the system freaked out on me and started telling me I better have not used my name at all because that will be put on a record.

 

I don't think that they talk about the phone recordings and other recordings because none of the conversations are ever listened to they are just recorded. That billion dollar base in Utah that was built is not just for metadata. Metadata is stupid because people think oh its just the phone numbers they don't know my name well everyone is assigned a phone number so if they have your phone number they know your name.

 

 

In another thread I have the links that some agents abused their power and listened to their "lovers" conversations. I'm sure they did not have a warrant, so how did they listen in? Is it because they are able to listen or record all conversations anyway? If some dick with an iphone can put his phone down and record someone say some really stupid things then there is no way that a billion dollar industry does not have the storage capacity or techniques to record things if they wanted to.

 

Do I have the proof to show that everything I am saying is true? No, absolutely not.

Do I have enough proof to form an opinion that should be at least glanced upon? Yes

 

Now I'm not a religious person at all but I don't go around telling people that "first you promise without proof, then you believe" that could upset some people.

 

Also please do not get listening and recording confused they are not the same I don't think people are listened to at all unless you are specifically targeted I just think that everything is recorded and sent to a database, most likely it is never listened to but they have the records there if needed. Like a big filing warehouse.

 

Whats concerning is people abusing the power and not having to get warrants or just listening to a friend or family members conversation for fun. I feel that if one persons rights are violated then everyone was violated.

[Larry]

I do to know what I am talking about if they were not recording phone calls how come you can say terms like "bomb" while on hold and get put to the front of the line?

I really do want to thank you for turning this thread from a discussion about what we know the government is doing, to the topic which the defenders of this practice have been trying to divert the thread to.

Thanks a bunch.

[Mocountyskins]

I really do want to thank you for turning this thread from a discussion about what we know the government is doing, to the topic which the defenders of this practice have been trying to divert the thread to.

Thanks a bunch.

I am sorry.

[Renegade7]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/nsa-timeline/

Above is a hyperlink to several Washington Post articles dating back to the original break about the relationship between the NSA and Verizon that got this whole thing started. Not insinuating anything about any, just felt this was the proper place to post this since I just found it the other day and wanted to check it out myself.

As for Snowden, he made himself look horrible jumping from country to country that didn't like us with secret documents he took a handsome paycheck and made a promise not to share with anyone. Right or wrong, that's my beef with him personally, and that isn't going to change no matter what he "reveals".

[s0crates]

As for Snowden, he made himself look horrible jumping from country to country that didn't like us with secret documents he took a handsome paycheck and made a promise not to share with anyone. Right or wrong, that's my beef with him personally, and that isn't going to change no matter what he "reveals".

I disagree entirely. Snowden is one of the good guys. He blew the whistle as a matter of principle, it was the right thing to do. Our core values as Americans, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, are at stake here. Bravo to Snowden for putting his country before his job.

Sometimes telling the truth is more important than keeping a secret.