Secret Court allows NSA to continue bulk data collection

[Ken King]

Oh, is that the standard? I thought it was simply we had a right to our privacy and papers regardless of it was used against us or not.

My bad.

Those aren't your papers, the metadata, as I am sure I have stated a couple of times at least, are owned by the carrier company, not you, me, or anyone else. Are you prepping for a dental visit or something?

 

[Larry Gude]

Those aren't your papers, the metadata, as I am sure I have stated a couple of times at least, are owned by the carrier company, not you, me, or anyone else. Are you prepping for a dental visit or something?

Oh. Good then. So when the feds get incriminating evidence from the owners of the data they'll arrest them?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Those aren't your papers, the metadata, as I am sure I have stated a couple of times at least, are owned by the carrier company, not you, me, or anyone else. Are you prepping for a dental visit or something?

Again with the "metadata"

 

[Ken King]

Again with the "metadata"

Bring it up to the moron that started the thread, that's what he/she was crying about.

 

[glhs837]

Because metadata sounds far less intrusive than "details of who you called, when you called, how long you talked, and where you were when the call took place".

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Bring it up to the moron that started the thread, that's what he/she was crying about.

These newly published documents demonstrate that collected communications not only include emails, chats and web-browsing traffic, but also pictures, documents, voice calls, webcam photos, web searches, advertising analytics traffic, social media traffic, botnet traffic, logged keystrokes, computer network exploitation (CNE) targeting, intercepted username and password pairs, file uploads to online services, Skype sessions and more.

Obviously some of that is not "ours", but if you want to argue that we don't "own" e-mails, chats, pictures, documents, photos, logged keystrokes, usernames and passwords, well then....keep on keepin on.

 

[Ken King]

Obviously some of that is not "ours", but if you want to argue that we don't "own" e-mails, chats, pictures, documents, photos, logged keystrokes, usernames and passwords, well then....keep on keepin on.

From the link in post #1 -

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled late Monday that the National Security Agency may temporarily resume its once-secret program that systematically collects records of Americans’ domestic phone calls in bulk.

That is what was deemed as temporarily authorized, is it not? And what do you call that bulk data? METADATA

 

[PsyOps]

So, then since the law allowing for the collection has been in effect for almost 14 years, you surely can show one instance where the data has been used against an American citizen without a warrant being obtained first. I was as skeptical as you when the USA PATRIOT Act was passed that it would be a major loss of right, but that was before I discovered that the metadata wasn't everything that people seem to think it is and that their has been no apparent abuse of such collection. Now I don't think that the data would hurt anyone at all by its collection and storgae for later investigative purposes.

THE IRS!

I know you’ll say that’s different… but in my mind it’s not. It’ still a government agency that was used to take peoples’ private information to be used against them. Isn’t that enough for you to be convinced that any agency, collecting our information, could be used against us if in the wrong hands?

 

[Ken King]

THE IRS!

I know you’ll say that’s different… but in my mind it’s not. It’ still a government agency that was used to take peoples’ private information to be used against them. Isn’t that enough for you to be convinced that any agency, collecting our information, could be used against us if in the wrong hands?

Let's see, the NSA is doing what the law allows and the IRS seems to have broken the law, you're right, it is the exact same thing ( do I need the "sarcasm" smiley)

 

[Chris0nllyn]

From the link in post #1 - That is what was deemed as temporarily authorized, is it not? And what do you call that bulk data? METADATA

They temporarily re-authorized Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which, under George W., authorized the NSA to collect anything "relevant" to a national security investigation. Including XKEYSCORE, which swept up everything I mentioned above.

Not just the bulk phone data collection.

 

[PsyOps]

Let's see, the NSA is doing what the law allows and the IRS seems to have broken the law, you're right, it is the exact same thing ( do I need the "sarcasm" smiley)

Until they do what the IRS did... use that information against us at the behest of people in power (the whitehouse) who have political enemies to deal with. And for the record... no one in the IRS has been held accountable; so 'the law' means squat to me in this sense.

Again... it's not enough for you that it's already been done with one agency.

 

[glhs837]

They temporarily re-authorized Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which, under George W., authorized the NSA to collect anything "relevant" to a national security investigation. Including XKEYSCORE, which swept up everything I mentioned above.

Not just the bulk phone data collection.

Shhhhhhhh.......

metadata
metadata
metadata
metadata
metadata
metadata

Repeat after me, until you just want the mantra to stop........... there you go, all better, go watch some Kardashians......

 

[Ken King]

https://apps.americanbar.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215

For decades Rule 17(c), Fed.R.Crim.P., has authorized compulsory production of "any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects' to criminal investigators by mere subpoena. Given the incontestable breadth of the federal criminal statutes implicated by terrorism and espionage, coupled with the broad license grand juries have to conduct investigations, there is no item now obtainable by Section 215 that could not already be compelled by simple subpoena (and thus made accessible to intelligence agents, who are now permitted to share grand jury information).

So, would you rather a warrant be obtained first or simply a subpoena? Personally, I would prefer the requirements to obtain a warrant be followed should I ever become a "target". But you all go ahead with what you fear might happen instead of what is happening.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

https://apps.americanbar.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215
So, would you rather a warrant be obtained first or simply a subpoena? Personally, I would prefer the requirements to obtain a warrant be followed should I ever become a "target". But you all go ahead with what you fear might happen instead of what is happening.

A subpoena would have to name a specific person, which is a bit more than the virtual dragnet they've been doing. A subpoena would also allow a person to appear in court, with a lawyer present. Again, more than what Americans have been given.

I'd prefer that over (what you consider) a "warrant". As in, a secret court rubberstamps warrants to carriers to hand over data, on ALL their customers. I'm pretty sure we declared Independence from Britain, and in turn, General Warrants. If the govt. has a substantial need, through investigation, for information on a US Citizen, they should go through the trouble of getting a warrant. ( A real one). The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the government must obtain a search warrant in order to intercept any nonpublic communication. The Constitution requires probable cause as a precondition for a judge to issue a search warrant for any purpose, and the warrant must "particularly (describe) the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Because this is expressly set forth in the Constitution itself, Congress and the president are bound by it. They cannot change it. They cannot avoid or evade it.

As you're probably aware, probable cause is evidence about a person or place sufficient to permit a judge to conclude that evidence of a crime will probably be found. The Patriot Act, and even the Freedom Act (I love the nomenclature) disregard that probable cause standard and replace it with "governmental need" standard. Unfortunately, others feel the same way...because, well who do you know that's been bothered by that?

To be clear, this isn't just the NSA. The FBI has been flying aircraft low enough to intercept citizens' cell phone use in over 100 cities, without a warrant. The DEA has intercepted over 11,000 people's cell phone communication over a 3 year period, without a warrant. Local police have been using cell tower emulators to intercept cell phone communication, again, no warrants.

What's the point of a Constitutional guarantee if no one in the govt. follows it? What good are rights like the freedom of speech or the right to bear arms if the govt. doesn't recognize them?

 

[PsyOps]

https://apps.americanbar.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215
So, would you rather a warrant be obtained first or simply a subpoena? Personally, I would prefer the requirements to obtain a warrant be followed should I ever become a "target". But you all go ahead with what you fear might happen instead of what is happening.

What a novel idea:

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. - 4th Amendment to the Constitution

AGAIN... With what the IRS did, there is reason to fear it is likely to happen again.