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

[s0crates]

Is it tyranny?....not imo

there are a dozen other issues closer.

Tyranny is oppressive and illegitimate government. Spying on citizens is both. It is oppressive because it unjustly treats ordinary citizens as criminals, and it is illegitimate because it violates the principles of our government as outlined in the constitution.

There may be things going on that are more tyrannical, in fact I'm sure that there are, but that does not prove this case is not. If you say someone is bad, and I say he is not as bad as Hitler, have I proven that he is not bad? Of course not. That's fallacious reasoning.

[twa]

Tyranny is oppressive and illegitimate government. Spying on citizens is both. It is oppressive because it unjustly treats ordinary citizens as criminals, and it is illegitimate because it violates the principles of our government as outlined in the constitution.

There may be things going on that are more tyrannical, in fact I'm sure that there are, but that does not prove this case is not. If you say someone is bad, and I say he is not as bad as Hitler, have I proven that he is not bad? Of course not. That's fallacious reasoning.

 

 

 

How are you treated as a criminal by it?

The courts so far have not agreed with your view of the constitution.

[s0crates]

How are you treated as a criminal by it?

The courts so far have not agreed with your view of the constitution.

Do you hear yourself?

How am I being treated as a criminal? I am being subject to surveillance as though I were a suspect in a criminal investigation.

As to the courts, they are not so infallible as you naively suggest. How long did they uphold segregation? If the courts are not upholding the Constitution, then so much the worse for the courts.

[twa]

the notion you would be charged in criminal court from NSA surveillance is pretty bad,but then I think military trials are the correct legal route.

 

The Lawfare route is a wrong path leading to tyranny 

[Larry]

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.

And therefore?

[skinsmarydu]

The best protection against tyranny is the will of the people. If the people don't resist, then what hope is there?

I resist...I resisted the Iraq war, and was banned from a bar for speaking against it...(I know, broke my own rule of no politics at the bar, but war among sovereign nations is important stuff)... Was I right? Absolutely.

Did anyone care to listen? Nope. I was called a "peace monkey".

I can tell everyone that this violation of the 4th amendment is a very slippery slope that leads to us being sheeple, like I've said for years.

Does anyone care to listen? Nope. Now I'm just flat-out paranoid.

[Larry]

My problem with the "slippery slope" argument is, we left that slope behind us a long time ago.

When you agree that the government is allowed to build databases of surveillance data on every person in the world, all that's left is arguing over whether this or that piece of data is allowed to be IN the database.

It's like a Will Rogers joke, or something. "If we allow the government to follow every one if us around, 24-7, and record everything we do, then it might LEAD to the government having too much power".

[Popeman38]

And therefore?

If the data does not belong to you (and the courts have ruled repeatedly it belongs to the telecom companies) then there is no violation of the 4th Amendment. There was no search or seizure of any data from you. And since the court issued an order (warrant) for the data from the companies that own the data, there is nothing inherently illegal going on. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional or illegal.

[HSW]

Snowden is a traitor who should be shot on sight.  I would prefer hanging but a bullet through the head would work.

[Bliz]

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.

 

 

I didn't get there.  I specifically said it was not analogous.  Just pointing out that telephone conversations aren't as protected as you were implying.  Yes, you can't complain if Predictor hears what you're saying.  But you also can't complain (in some states) if he records what you're saying without your knowledge or consent.  AND, that recording can be played for others (up to and including a judge and jury) who were not part of the conversation, and you can't complain about that either.  If you already knew all of that, cool.  A lot of people don't.

 

 

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. 

 

 

 I don't think you need to draw such strict lines around the conversation.  Again, I don't approve of the NSA program and never did, and have berated more than one person who supported the Patriot Act but complained about the NSA program.  Nonetheless, I still don't think he went about it in the right way.  Fleeing the country and taking refuge in Russia (even if he didn't sell them classified info) raises a lot of questions, and undermines everything he did by giving off the appearance of impropriety.

 

The facts we know are pretty limited.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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? 

 

Thats not absolutism.  You misunderstand.

 

You are claiming that the fourth amendment stands above every other part of the constitution.  That if the fourth amendment says something, it must be so: damned be any conflicting part of the constitution.

 

If that were true, you would be free to threatened the president's life, defame people, and practice a religion that teaches murder and canabilism.  But that is not the way the constitution actually works.

 

Instead, you look at the fourth amendment in conjunction with the rest of the constitution.  There ARE enumerated powers that seem to give the executive branch the ability to do this.  It does seem to conflict with the fourth amendment.  It is not an easy answer: one part of the constitution is conflicting with others.  

 

It seems to me to that you think its somehow unconstitutional for the government to store large amounts of data, per se.  That could not be further from the truth.  I'll tell you right now that if the courts find that this metadata is public information (and some posters seem to think that is the precedent) then this will hold up.  The government absolutely can store large amounts of public data without interfering with the fourth amendment.  No question about that.

[Popeman38]

It seems to me to that you think its somehow unconstitutional for the government to store large amounts of data, per se.  That could not be further from the truth.  I'll tell you right now that if the courts find that this metadata is public information (and some posters seem to think that is the precedent) then this will hold up.  The government absolutely can store large amounts of public data without interfering with the fourth amendment.  No question about that.

I assume you are referring to me here.     It isn't that I think the courts have found metadata is not private data, it is that is has been ruled upon in the past:

Given a pen register's limited capabilities, therefore, petitioner's argument that its installation and use constituted a "search" necessarily rests upon a claim that he had a "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the numbers he dialed on his phone.

This claim must be rejected. First, we doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. In fact, pen registers and similar devices are routinely used by telephone companies "for the purposes of checking billing operations, detecting fraud, and preventing violations of law." United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S., at 174 -175.

This is why the ruling in the Klayman v. Obama (13-cv-881) (Klayman, by the way, is a serial litigant who has sued everyone for everything and been banned from appearing in California and New York courts for his behavior - sued Facebook, Esquire, Rachel Maddow, to keep Obama off the primary ticket in Florida (birther), the govt on behalf of SEAL Team 6 families) and made the following demand: 

On October 13, 2013, during the US government shutdown, Klayman urged a conservative rally in Washington, D.C. to begin a "second American non-violent Revolution" and demanded that President Obama "put the Quran down ... [and] figuratively come out with his hands up".

[Larry]

I don't think you need to draw such strict lines around the conversation. Again, I don't approve of the NSA program and never did, and have berated more than one person who supported the Patriot Act but complained about the NSA program. Nonetheless, I still don't think he went about it in the right way. Fleeing the country and taking refuge in Russia (even if he didn't sell them classified info) raises a lot of questions, and undermines everything he did by giving off the appearance of impropriety.

The facts we know are pretty limited.

Agree that there's conflict, here.

My own positions are rather conflicted. I try to mostly stick to arguing against what I consider to be some of the invalid arguments.

Back when this matter first came into debate, my position was that, frankly, I WANT the NSA to have the authority to pretty much monitor anything which they have the ability to monitor. (And I want their abilities to be very extensive.).

The position that I was advocating for was:

I wanted agencies like the CIA, NSA, and so forth, to be classified as "national security agencies". Agencies like the FBI, Treasury, DEA, are classified as "law enforcement agencies".

National security agencies are essentially exempt from constitutional limitations as to the information they can gather or possess. Law enforcement agencies have to follow the rules. Warrants, probable cause, Miranda rights, right to remain silent, all of that.

National security agencies, however, are not permitted to DO anything with their information, except under very specifically limited circumstances. I propose something along the lines of "probable cause of an imminent attack, against the United States (not "US interests". Too easy to stretch.), of military or paramilitary scale".

My example was that, in my system, the NSA has authority to monitor any communication they want. No warrants required.

If they find two people exchanging encrypted email, they're allowed to decrypt it. No warrant required.

If they find that one of Saddam's scientists is offering to sell al Queda where Saddam has hid the nukes, then Mr Clark (Clancey reference) is allowed to make both of them disappear. (Possibly still without a warrant).

But, if they find it's two guys swapping kiddy porn, then they can do absolutely nothing. Not even an anonymous phone call to the local sheriff, that he might want to check this guy out. Because the information was gathered through unconstitutional means.

In my proposal, I was willing for this to simply be passed, as a law. Even though I think, technically, it ought to be an Amendment, I was willing to overlook that, in the name of expediency.

Now, I'm not so sure I want to be that flexible. I've seen too many rules passed by Congress, supposedly giving the government special emergency powers, and then have the government blow right past those limitations.

For example, as I understand it, the FISA law specifies that the NSA us not allowed to use that court. To which the government decided that well, we'll just have the FBI submit paperwork for the warrant, on the NSA's behalf.

And I've seen too many citizens perfectly to come up with the lamest attempts at excuses I could imagine, to try to justify ignoring what are supposed to be the most sacred limitations on government power in the world.

I think I'm refusing my position, to where I think it needs to be an Amendment.

(The disgusting thing is, I get the impression, from these threads, that it would enjoy overwhelming popular support.)

[Larry]

Thats not absolutism. You misunderstand.

You are claiming that the fourth amendment stands above every other part of the constitution. That if the fourth amendment says something, it must be so: damned be any conflicting part of the constitution.

Uh, no, I'm claiming that, when the subject is whether the government has the authority to perform searches of the entire country, without any cause whatsoever, that the part of the constitution which specifically, emphatically, absolutely says NO, on that exact, precise, subject, probably carries more weight than "well, if you interpret the phrase 'Commander in Chief' to mean 'power to order the government to do anything he wants" . . .

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Uh, no, I'm claiming that, when the subject is whether the government has the authority to perform searches of the entire country, without any cause whatsoever, that the part of the constitution which specifically, emphatically, absolutely says NO, on that exact, precise, subject, probably carries more weight than "well, if you interpret the phrase 'Commander in Chief' to mean 'power to order the government to do anything he wants" . . .

 

Right.  And that's very poor legal analysis.  

[doctorshockalu]

Snowden is a traitor who should be shot on sight.  I would prefer hanging but a bullet through the head would work.

 

Orwell wrote non-fiction?

[JMS]

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.

 

Seriously?  Did you ever read George Orwell's 1984?    Now do you realize what the NSA has achieved is about 1000 times more intrusive and manipulative than anything discussed or imagined by Orwell.   

 

Not so long ago it took Judge ruling in a public court of law in order for the police to read one single person's mail, and if they didn't get that judge ruling the person reading the mail could be punished with 5 years in jail for each letter he read.    Today with a blanket signature a guy who sits in a judge seat during the day time can allow an program like "upstream" to read every message sent across the backbone of the countries fiber optic network for a period of decades in total secrecy, with no legal reason why, no oversight,  no justification,  and no accountability even if they violate the very permissive FISA "court"?

 

I just don't get it..

[JMS]

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.

 

So now we have two federal judged who say the NSA actions are unconstitutional and one who  disagrees .  The President's own pannel is calling for significant reform of this agency; And while you are right who knows what the SC will ultimately rule.    There is no question what the NSA doing will eventually be unconstitutional.    There is no way a free society can exist when the government exerts the right to listen, record, and analyze every conversation which takes place in the world.   Especially in today's society when the potential exists for the government to accomplish so much of that goal.

[JMS]

Snowden is a traitor who should be shot on sight.  I would prefer hanging but a bullet through the head would work.

 

I don't see how you can even entertain such a notion.   When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law thousands of times in a given year, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government.

 

Even the leader of President's own commission on the NSA (Rick Ledgett) called for clemency for Snowden.

 

■ The N.S.A. broke federal privacy laws, or exceeded its authority, thousands of times per year, according to the agency’s own internal auditor.

■ The agency broke into the communications links of major data centers around the world, allowing it to spy on hundreds of millions of user accounts and infuriating the Internet companies that own the centers. Many of those companies are now scrambling to install systems that the N.S.A. cannot yet penetrate.

■ The N.S.A. systematically undermined the basic encryption systems of the Internet, making it impossible to know if sensitive banking or medical data is truly private, damaging businesses that depended on this trust.

■ His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying in March that the N.S.A. was not collecting data on millions of Americans. (There has been no discussion of punishment for that lie.)

■ The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rebuked the N.S.A. for repeatedly providing misleading information about its surveillance practices, according to a ruling made public because of the Snowden documents. One of the practices violated the Constitution, according to the chief judge of the court.

■ A federal district judge ruled earlier this month that the phone-records-collection program probably violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. He called the program “almost Orwellian” and said there was no evidence that it stopped any imminent act of terror.

The shrill brigade of his critics say Mr. Snowden has done profound damage to intelligence operations of the United States, but none has presented the slightest proof that his disclosures really hurt the nation’s security. Many of the mass-collection programs Mr. Snowden exposed would work just as well if they were reduced in scope and brought under strict outside oversight, as the presidential panel recommended.

In retrospect, Mr. Snowden was clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not. Beyond the mass collection of phone and Internet data, consider just a few of the violations he revealed or the legal actions he provoked:

■ The N.S.A. broke federal privacy laws, or exceeded its authority, thousands of times per year, according to the agency’s own internal auditor.

■ The agency broke into the communications links of major data centers around the world, allowing it to spy on hundreds of millions of user accounts and infuriating the Internet companies that own the centers. Many of those companies are now scrambling to install systems that the N.S.A. cannot yet penetrate.

■ The N.S.A. systematically undermined the basic encryption systems of the Internet, making it impossible to know if sensitive banking or medical data is truly private, damaging businesses that depended on this trust.

■ His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying in March that the N.S.A. was not collecting data on millions of Americans. (There has been no discussion of punishment for that lie.)

■ The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rebuked the N.S.A. for repeatedly providing misleading information about its surveillance practices, according to a ruling made public because of the Snowden documents. One of the practices violated the Constitution, according to the chief judge of the court.

■ A federal district judge ruled earlier this month that the phone-records-collection program probably violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. He called the program “almost Orwellian” and said there was no evidence that it stopped any imminent act of terror.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-snowden-whistle-blower.html?_r=2&

 

Senator Ron Wyden: There is a lot more to know, particularly in terms of getting a declassified version of the legal analysis used by the FISA court. When people get that, and see it in the context of the bulk phone records program, they will see how astoundingly broad it is. We've got secret law, authorizing secret surveillance, being interpreted by a largely secret court.

 

[JMS]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/02/nyt-lets-offer-snowden-amnesty/

NYT: Let’s offer Snowden amnesty
posted at 11:31 am on January 2, 2014 by Ed Morrissey
 
So far, the call to halt prosecution of Edward Snowden for the theft and dissemination of highly-classified data from the NSA and Britain’s GCHQ have mainly come from anti-establishment voices.  Yesterday, the New York Times editorial board chimed in on their behalf, although not quite demanding amnesty. Perhaps a plea bargain for a reduced sentence would be enough, they suggested, in honor of the great service he performed for his nation:

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_print.html

NSA seeks to build quantum computer that could crack most types of encryption
By Steven Rich and Barton Gellman, Updated: Thursday, January 2, 5:00 PM
In room-size metal boxes ­secure against electromagnetic leaks, the National Security Agency is racing to build a computer that could break nearly every kind of encryption used to protect banking, medical, business and government records around the world.
According to documents provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the effort to build “a cryptologically useful quantum computer” — a machine exponentially faster than classical computers — is part of a $79.7 million research program titled “Penetrating Hard Targets.” Much of the work is hosted under classified contracts at a laboratory in College Park, Md.

[Mocountyskins]

On another note did anyone see the ABC world news a few days ago where they showed some interview from the people based on that show "Assets something something"? Where a American spy was turned to work for the soviets and gave up a lot of names and got people killed. And then the lady who actually brought this man down in real life said "Treason is a crime against every citizen" then started to tear up when they showed a soviet general who was in bed with the US getting killed. I don't know about anyone else but what she said is true so why is it a big deal that the Soviets killed the spy's that they caught? They did commit treason and the soviets killed them. I am specifically talking about that Soviet General who was also working for us and he got caught and shot. So why is she crying over the Russians killing one of their own who was a mole and then also basically saying that these traders (the one that got the American moles killed) need to be damned? I don't know I suck at explaining things. I just thought it was interesting and seemed like it was anti Russia messaging with the Olympic games coming up soon.

[Popeman38]

Seriously?  Did you ever read George Orwell's 1984?    Now do you realize what the NSA has achieved is about 1000 times more intrusive and manipulative than anything discussed or imagined by Orwell.   

Exaggerate much?  Have you even read 1984? You know, the book where the government could literally see and listen to you in your house?  In real time. In every house?

 

 

Not so long ago it took Judge ruling in a public court of law in order for the police to read one single person's mail, and if they didn't get that judge ruling the person reading the mail could be punished with 5 years in jail for each letter he read.    Today with a blanket signature a guy who sits in a judge seat during the day time can allow an program like "upstream" to read every message sent across the backbone of the countries fiber optic network for a period of decades in total secrecy, with no legal reason why, no oversight,  no justification,  and no accountability even if they violate the very permissive FISA "court"?

 

I just don't get it..

Again, do people have any idea how networks operate?  This fantasy that is being bandied about of how the govt can hoover up everything ignores the reality that privately owned and operated telecom networks (both voice and data) only interact with other telecom networks. It is literally impossible for the govt to have access to every call or every message sent across a backbone, be it fiber optic, ether, or copper. It is just not possible.

[Larry]

Again, do people have any idea how networks operate? This fantasy that is being bandied about of how the govt can hoover up everything ignores the reality that privately owned and operated telecom networks (both voice and data) only interact with other telecom networks. It is literally impossible for the govt to have access to every call or every message sent across a backbone, be it fiber optic, ether, or copper. It is just not possible.

Agree with you about his exaggeration.

The world were creating is merely comparable to Orwell, not 1000 times worse.

And yes, it's not that inconceivable to come at least pretty close to getting everything on the Internet. At least some things, like email.

Yeah, it's one hell of a big job. But when you combine things like the demonstrated willingness and ability to physically tap, to plant bugged equipment, AND the ability to simply order said companies to hand over everything?

Now, I used to think there was some safety in the fact that the sheer volume of data rendered it beyond our ability to store, let alone organize and make use of, everything involved. But then I observe that the ability to store staggering amounts of data keeps growing geometrically. And that it seems that our ability to actually USE all this dreck seems to finally be taking off.

(Although, granted, I'm pretty confident that it's still not at Star Trek levels. Or, probably, even at NCIS levels.).

I recall reading that, recently, a Brittiish MP, I think it was, decided, as an experiment, to send something like a FOIA letter to his cell phone company, asking them to send him all the information which his provider had collected on him, for a two month period. One of the things he discovered was that in that two month period, his provider had read the GPS in his phone, I think it was 1,600 times. I did the math, and it worked out to checking his location, within a few feet, every 26 minutes, 24-7.

His provider decided that it was worth the money it took, to gather this information, and to store it, with no greater benefit on the horizon than the possibility that it might some day be useful for telemarketing. Because, what the heck, it's cheap.

So, you REALLY want to say that we are all that far from, say, the day when a cop will be able to sit at a screen and call up a record of everybody who was within 6 blocks of a burglary that happened some time last night? Or how about every person who has been within a block of this drug dealer we just caught, more than 3 times in the last two months?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

So now we have two federal judged who say the NSA actions are unconstitutional and one who  disagrees .  The President's own pannel is calling for significant reform of this agency; And while you are right who knows what the SC will ultimately rule.    There is no question what the NSA doing will eventually be unconstitutional.    There is no way a free society can exist when the government exerts the right to listen, record, and analyze every conversation which takes place in the world.   Especially in today's society when the potential exists for the government to accomplish so much of that goal.

 

JMS,

 

My understanding is that they are not listening or recording anything.  They aren't hearing your conversation.  They are banking the phone numbers called from every phone, or as many as they can.  That is not the same as listening in, IMO.  

 

So, I think there's a lot of confusion about what the NSA is doing, and what the real issues are.  I am not going to claim that I understand all the technology of it.  But, there are sound arguments that if they are just collecting the lists of numbers called that its not an unreasonable search.  

 

And I disagree that "there is no question" that what the NSA is doing will be ruled unconstitutional.

[Popeman38]

I understand the concern. But then you bring up a British MP. Britain has almost no expectation of privacy. We are no comparing apples and tomatoes. My points aren't that bad stuff is possible. My points are that it is literally impossible for the govt to hoover up recording of every call and every email that traverses the interwebs. Just not possible. Each telecom company has it's own distinct network. They exchange information at certain locations, and only those locations. In order to accomplish what is purported in this thread, the govt would need it's own network -- and a network that was interconnected to each and every network. Because each network only communicates with customers, and customers only get the data destined for their network. That would be so ungodly expensive and obvious, it just isn't possible to have existed for years and no one knowing about it.