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

[Kindred]

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.

 

A real man would have turned this over to the press and turned himself in to face justice in a courtroom of his peers to be judged right or wrong by the people of this country.   Compromising this countries secrets by giving it to other countries does NOT make you a patriot.

[Bliz]

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

In many states only one person to a convo needs to consent to it being recorded. In other words, predicto can record without asking your permission or telling you he's doing it. And I don't think you need a warrant to aim a boom microphone at someone talking on the phone in a public place. That's not analogous to NSA, just pointing out phone convos aren't quite as secure/protected as you might think.

Re snowden, as with most things it's not so black and white. Blowing the whistle on the program was the right thing to do. Taking the whole trove of docs with him, incl some that could allegedly severely harm out interests by for example identifying secret agents, and defecting, was not the right way to go about it.

If you have courage of conviction, accept that you will be improsoned and allow yourself to be a cause célèbre. Now he has the appearance of impropriety. Did he sell (or offer to sell) secrets to Russia in exchange for citizenship/protection? I can't say with confidence he didn't. And if he did he's a traitor and should be treated as such, regardless of the righteousness of his original disclosure

[Renegade7]

 

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.

 

If he had secretly outted just the collection of metadata, possible secret taps into some of America's largest tech companies, basically the issues from this incident that only had to deal with us as US citizens and the question of it being constitutional, I could've forced myself to deal with that.

But not only did he reveal himself in full blow attention whore status, he started spating at the mouth about how we spy on other countries; damaging our relationships with some of our own allies, especially Germany, who we need to help protect the EU from finacial collapse.

Like we're the only country that spies on people; funny doesn't that new Chinese state-of-the-art fighter jet look just like our state-of-the-art fighter jet? And then Snowden's over working deals for asylum?

[Larry]

In many states only one person to a convo needs to consent to it being recorded. In other words, predicto can record without asking your permission or telling you he's doing it.

And how you get from there, to "therefore, it's OK for the government to demand monitoring of all communications, nationwide, without the consent of either of the people in the conversation"?

If I'm talking to Predicto, then I can't really complain if Predicto hears what I'm saying. He's part of the conversation.

 

And I don't think you need a warrant to aim a boom microphone at someone talking on the phone in a public place.

 

And I believe you're incorrect on that one, too. 

 

That's not analogous to NSA, just pointing out phone convos aren't quite as secure/protected as you might think.

 

By pointing out things which I'm already aware of, and trying to argue that, since the person I'm talking to is allowed to hear what I'm saying, therefore everybody in the world is allowed to covertly spy on us, too. 

 

Re snowden, as with most things it's not so black and white. Blowing the whistle on the program was the right thing to do. Taking the whole trove of docs with him, incl some that could allegedly severely harm out interests by for example identifying secret agents, and defecting, was not the right way to go about it.

 

I tend to judge the morality of leaking classified information, on the information leaked. 

 

"How to steal an armed h-bomb", I think really ought to stay secret. 

 

But if, say, Obama has a program of assassinating people who try to sign up for the exchanges?  Yeah, that ought to be leaked. 

 

Near as I can tell, all Snowden has leaked are things which, frankly, the government has been admitting to, for 10 years, anyway, if you actually pay attention.  He simply made it a bit harder for them to try to kind of fool people into thinking they denied it. 

 

When somebody asks a W administration official "Is the government

tracking

the communications of ordinary American citizens, routinely?", . . .

 

And the answer is "The US government is not

listening to

every single phone conversation made in the country", . . .

 

Then the question has been answered.  And the answer was "Yes". 

I

f you have courage of conviction, accept that you will be improsoned and allow yourself to be a cause célèbre. Now he has the appearance of impropriety. Did he sell (or offer to sell) secrets to Russia in exchange for citizenship/protection? I can't say with confidence he didn't. And if he did he's a traitor and should be treated as such, regardless of the righteousness of his original disclosure

 

 

So, he's a traitor, because he might have disclosed something that you aren't aware of, but disprove of? 

 

I certainly agree that, as a hypothetical, if he had done that, that would be bad. 

 

But, since I don't know he did that, (although, I agree with you, he certainly seems to be working real hard to create the public image that he might), and since, IMO, the topic we ought to be talking about are the treasonous things which our government has been caught in the act of knowingly, systematically, doing, I prefer to keep the topic on the facts that we know, instead of on trying to smear the person who revealed said facts. 

[skinsmarydu]

This takes me back to the movie "Enemy of the State".  One of our all time faves, since we've been considered a little "crazy" when we tried to tell folks that the government can keep track of you anyway they can, and there's almost nothing you can do about it.  I have no doubt that "an agent" can replace my DVR with the same level of dust on it, cat prints, etc.  I have had no doubt about this since loooonngg before that movie came out. 

But for the people who were considered "less balanced" than me, and were institutionalized, or worse, for making these "claims", and can now say, "See?  I told ya!"...where's the apology?  Some of them may still be locked up. 

Gene Hackman's line:  "Because you made a phone call!" 

Not so crazy now, huh?

[Larry]

And again, I would much rather discuss whether the US government has the constitutional authority to maintain a database of every communication I make, without any probable cause, or even improbable cause, but simply based on "we might think of a reason to want it, some day".  And away from whether an agent has duplicated the cat prints on my DVR so he can spy on me through my TV. 

 

You know, the things which we actually know that they're actually doing, every single day, to every single person, with no justification whatsoever. 

[codeorama]

The scariest thing about all this IMO is the fact that so many are willing to accept that out government has the ability to all of these things, against the principals of how our country was founded, and defend it. Scary IMO. I'm glad that info has been leaked by Assange and Snowden.

[Popeman38]

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.

That was a whole lot of typing and claiming not to say anything verifiable. Verizon stores metadata for billing purposes. Metadata created on their network. The same network the document originally leaked demanded turn over said metadata. Now let's examine your claim that "an agency is recording" all calls to examine if key words are triggered. In order to do that, the agency would require an entire telecom infrastructure be built and maintained, ant remain transparent from the existing privately owned telecom infrastructure (meaning a call from an AT&T customer to a Verizon customer would traverse the AT&T owned network, pass to the "agency" owned network, and then pass to the Verizon owned network for completion. Networks don't just accept data from anywhere. If this were true, why then would the government issue said leaked order for metadata? If they had their own network for recording all calls, they would also have the ability to collect their own network generated metadata instead of demanding it from providers.

[twa]

And again, I would much rather discuss whether the US government has the constitutional authority to maintain a database of every communication I make, without any probable cause, or even improbable cause, but simply based on "we might think of a reason to want it, some day".  And away from whether an agent has duplicated the cat prints on my DVR so he can spy on me through my TV. 

 

You know, the things which we actually know that they're actually doing, every single day, to every single person, with no justification whatsoever. 

 

why would they not have that authority under the national security umbrella?

 

you have talked of the 4th,yet there are clearly exceptions .

 

does the fact they can and do record your movements also disturb you?...or is it just the assumed privacy of electronic communication?

[Mocountyskins]

That was a whole lot of typing and claiming not to say anything verifiable. Verizon stores metadata for billing purposes. Metadata created on their network. The same network the document originally leaked demanded turn over said metadata. Now let's examine your claim that "an agency is recording" all calls to examine if key words are triggered. In order to do that, the agency would require an entire telecom infrastructure be built and maintained, ant remain transparent from the existing privately owned telecom infrastructure (meaning a call from an AT&T customer to a Verizon customer would traverse the AT&T owned network, pass to the "agency" owned network, and then pass to the Verizon owned network for completion. Networks don't just accept data from anywhere. If this were true, why then would the government issue said leaked order for metadata? If they had their own network for recording all calls, they would also have the ability to collect their own network generated metadata instead of demanding it from providers.

Alright you make a good argument/claim and I'll agree that maybe not everything is recorded on their own infrastructure but maybe they have the authority to have other companys turn over their own data if asked upon like you stated. Or maybe they do not even have to ask for the data? I'll look for the article but I thought I read a few months ago that the NSA had a backdoor built into microsoft products by microsoft. Maybe more companys then we think did the same thing?

 "we might think of a reason to want it, some day".  And away from whether an agent has duplicated the cat prints on my DVR so he can spy on me through my TV. 

 

You know, the things which we actually know that they're actually doing, every single day, to every single person, with no justification whatsoever. 

I was just trying to add more discussion points to the topic! sorry!

Oh and this is very off topic but Assange is a A-hole that only cares about money. He was being interviewed by MSNBC or CNN ('m going to go hunting for the audio clips) And he was pissed off because he was never consulted about the movie that was recently made about him. He basically was pissed off because he did not get any money out of it. He then started to complain about "unethical movie making and journalism" when I thought the whole point of what his program was doing was defending journalism at all costs and saying that there was no such thing is being unethical in journalism and now he was saying that because the movie company did not consult him they were being dangerous and unethical lmao irony much.

[Larry]

you have talked of the 4th,yet there are clearly exceptions .

No, there clearly are not.

The 4th clearly addresses the government's ability to conduct searches. And establishes clear limitations on that authority.

"Well, if you treat the commerce clause like it were an elastic comic book superhero, and stretch it till it's big enough to cover the entire country" is not "clearly" an exception.

Now that's not to imply that the Bill of Rights do not have ANY limitations whatsoever. (Except for the 2nd, of course. Heck, half of the 2nd doesn't even apply to the 2nd).

But it's a heck of a stretch to get from "that clause must be followed exactly without any exception whatsoever" to "we want all information on all persons in the country, 24-7, just in case we think of a reason, later".

[twa]

No, there clearly are not.

 

 

the courts and authorities are of a different opinion.

[Larry]

the courts and authorities are of a different opinion.

The courts say the constitution contains a right to abortion.

That means that anybody who points out that nothing in the constitution actually says that, is wrong, right?

[twa]

The courts say the constitution contains a right to abortion.

That means that anybody who points out that nothing in the constitution actually says that, is wrong, right?

 

with restrictions and exclusions growing all the time....not a bad analogy even if inverted

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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?

Um, that is why constitutional interpretation is hard.

Larry,

Your absolutist approach to the fourth amendment is very elementary. The issue is much closer than you believe.

[Larry]

Your absolutist approach to the fourth amendment is very elementary. The issue is much closer than you believe.

Pointing out that "no searches are permitted without specific, probable cause" is the complete 100% opposite of "give me everything you have, about everybody in the country, with no cause whatsoever" makes MY position "absolutist"?

Again, how much stretch of those rules is too much?

[Mocountyskins]

Can we all agree that it is possible that some oversight courts OR agencies possibly sometimes or one time in the past, ignore/ignored parts of the Constitution or other "rules"

[twa]

Can we all agree that it is possible that some oversight courts OR agencies possibly sometimes or one time in the past, ignore/ignored parts of the Constitution or other "rules"

 

It is almost certainly so, rules and the Constitution are not absolute....unless we make them so

[Mocountyskins]

It is almost certainly so, rules and the Constitution are not absolute....unless we make them so

I don't particularly see it in this thread but sometimes I see the "They can't do that because that's against the law, so therefore that does not happen" argument.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Pointing out that "no searches are permitted without specific, probable cause" is the complete 100% opposite of "give me everything you have, about everybody in the country, with no cause whatsoever" makes MY position "absolutist"?

Again, how much stretch of those rules is too much?

The basis of your argument is absolutism. Its bad analysis.

The first amendment says you have freedom of speech, but the government can still tell you that you can't say certain things.

Your ultimate opinion may be right, buy your reasoning is unsound.

[Larry]

The basis of your argument is absolutism. Its bad analysis.

The first amendment says you have freedom of speech, but the government can still tell you that you can't say certain things.

Your ultimate opinion may be right, buy your reasoning is unsound.

 

And simply declaring something to be absolutism doesn't make it so. 

 

There's a huge difference between "this rule must be followed exactly, every single time", and "this isn't even close to following this rule, in fact, it's absolutely, completely, opposite of it" 

 

And you STILL haven't answered my question: 

 

In your opinion, how far does the government have to go, before it violates the Fourth Amendment?  If "give me everything you've got, on everybody in the country, 24-7" doesn't violate it, then what does? 

[Popeman38]

Pointing out that "no searches are permitted without specific, probable cause" is the complete 100% opposite of "give me everything you have, about everybody in the country, with no cause whatsoever" makes MY position "absolutist"?

Again, how much stretch of those rules is too much?

Pointing out the metadata doesnot belong to the individual, as has been ruled upon by the courts numerous times. It belongs to the corporations, which uses it for billing purposes.

[s0crates]

I find it very disheartening that so many people are defending the NSA. It's like people who supported the Patriot Act. The best protection against tyranny is the will of the people. If the people don't resist, then what hope is there?

[twa]

Is it tyranny?....not imo

 

there are a dozen other issues  closer.

[Springfield]

Is it tyranny?....not imo

there are a dozen other issues closer.

Care to elaborate?

I find domestic spying much more worrisome than forcing people to have health insurance.