NSA "Scandal"

[Jarod]

So, the government is collecting a huge amount of data. They are collecting it by asking PRIVATE companies to give it to them, and the PRIVATE companies are agreeing to do so. They are collecting what I call outside information, who you call, how long your call lasts, when you call them, how often you call.

Unless they get a warrant, it appears they are not collecting the content of those calls.

Do you believe that there is something illegal or unconstitutional about the government collecting such data?

It seems that the free market might be effective here. If a demand exists, maybe a company would start up that would pride itself on refusing to share that data unless legally required to do so, like when the government is given a warrant or authority to issue a subpoena?



If they are collecting "inside" information, such as the content of the phone calls... it would be a different analysis for me, but from what I understand they are only collecting outside information.

The police are allowed to follow your outside movements without a warrant, but they are not allowed inside your house without a warrant. Its the same basic premise with this electronic survlance.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

stop apologizing for the federalis

 

[Jarod]

stop apologizing for the federalis

Im not, Im trying to have an open discussion, something that often proves hard to get Conservatives to engage in when they are using hype and misdirection to fuel a political agenda.

 

[Bonestorm]

So, the government is collecting a huge amount of data. They are collecting it by asking PRIVATE companies to give it to them, and the PRIVATE companies are agreeing to do so. They are collecting what I call outside information, who you call, how long your call lasts, when you call them, how often you call.

Unless they get a warrant, it appears they are not collecting the content of those calls.

Do you believe that there is something illegal or unconstitutional about the government collecting such data?

It seems that the free market might be effective here. If a demand exists, maybe a company would start up that would pride itself on refusing to share that data unless legally required to do so, like when the government is given a warrant or authority to issue a subpoena?

If they are collecting "inside" information, such as the content of the phone calls... it would be a different analysis for me, but from what I understand they are only collecting outside information.

The police are allowed to follow your outside movements without a warrant, but they are not allowed inside your house without a warrant. Its the same basic premise with this electronic survlance.

(1) The call records aren't the only NSA issue. There's also the allegation that they can directly access the servers of various technology companies and access all sorts of records -- emails, chat logs, web history, video chats, VOIP calls. So you're looking only at the least intrusive aspect of what the NSA does.

(2) I think some of the call metadata is not protected by the 4th Amendment, but other information is. And there are also imporant 1st Amendment principles at issue as well dealing with the freedom of association. The metadata basically can tell the governemnt everyone you called and that called you and, through location data, can allow the government to track your movements over time.

The ACLU lawsuit brings these issues to the forefront so we shall see what the Court's think.

(3) Your fictional company that refuses to share this type of data (the call metadata) wouldn't last very long since the FISA court ordered Verizon to turn over the records.

(4) The outside movements thing isn't really the basis for the lack of 4th amendment protection. It's the fact that you are sharing this information with a third-party and thus, the Court says, have no reasonable expectation of it remaining private even if the third party says it will keep it private.

(5) It's just fucking creepy.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

(1) The call records aren't the only NSA issue. There's also the allegation that they can directly access the servers of various technology companies and access all sorts of records -- emails, chat logs, web history, video chats, VOIP calls. So you're looking only at the least intrusive aspect of what the NSA does.

(2) I think some of the call metadata is not protected by the 4th Amendment, but other information is. And there are also imporant 1st Amendment principles at issue as well dealing with the freedom of association. The metadata basically can tell the governemnt everyone you called and that called you and, through location data, can allow the government to track your movements over time.

The ACLU lawsuit brings these issues to the forefront so we shall see what the Court's think.

(3) Your fictional company that refuses to share this type of data (the call metadata) wouldn't last very long since the FISA court ordered Verizon to turn over the records.

(4) The outside movements thing isn't really the basis for the lack of 4th amendment protection. It's the fact that you are sharing this information with a third-party and thus, the Court says, have no reasonable expectation of it remaining private even if the third party says it will keep it private.

(5) It's just fucking creepy.

Thanks, informative post, it does get very confusing to figure out all the ins and outs of this.

 

[Jarod]

(1) The call records aren't the only NSA issue. There's also the allegation that they can directly access the servers of various technology companies and access all sorts of records -- emails, chat logs, web history, video chats, VOIP calls. So you're looking only at the least intrusive aspect of what the NSA does.

(2) I think some of the call metadata is not protected by the 4th Amendment, but other information is. And there are also imporant 1st Amendment principles at issue as well dealing with the freedom of association. The metadata basically can tell the governemnt everyone you called and that called you and, through location data, can allow the government to track your movements over time.

The ACLU lawsuit brings these issues to the forefront so we shall see what the Court's think.

(3) Your fictional company that refuses to share this type of data (the call metadata) wouldn't last very long since the FISA court ordered Verizon to turn over the records.

(4) The outside movements thing isn't really the basis for the lack of 4th amendment protection. It's the fact that you are sharing this information with a third-party and thus, the Court says, have no reasonable expectation of it remaining private even if the third party says it will keep it private.

(5) It's just fucking creepy.

TO me if you do something in "public" its fair game. If you use an outside company that willingly shares your data, its fair game for the gvt to collect it. If you speak with someone in your livingroom or over a phone line provided by a company that does not share... its not fair game.

Im not saying that there is not 4th Amendment issue here, but Ive yet to see one. Now when the prior administration was listening in to conversations without a warrant... that's a 4th Amendment issue.

 

[Jarod]

Think of it like this, if you take a Cab to the Opera, and someone later asks the cab driver where he took you.... is it a 4th Amendment issue?

If you want to keep where you went private... get a driver who you trust not to share.

 

[Howey]

(1) The call records aren't the only NSA issue. There's also the allegation that they can directly access the servers of various technology companies and access all sorts of records -- emails, chat logs, web history, video chats, VOIP calls. So you're looking only at the least intrusive aspect of what the NSA does.

(2) I think some of the call metadata is not protected by the 4th Amendment, but other information is. And there are also imporant 1st Amendment principles at issue as well dealing with the freedom of association. The metadata basically can tell the governemnt everyone you called and that called you and, through location data, can allow the government to track your movements over time.

The ACLU lawsuit brings these issues to the forefront so we shall see what the Court's think.

(3) Your fictional company that refuses to share this type of data (the call metadata) wouldn't last very long since the FISA court ordered Verizon to turn over the records.

(4) The outside movements thing isn't really the basis for the lack of 4th amendment protection. It's the fact that you are sharing this information with a third-party and thus, the Court says, have no reasonable expectation of it remaining private even if the third party says it will keep it private.

(5) It's just fucking creepy.

Technology today requires a new set of standards. What the NSA is doing may not be morally right, it's legal and it's worked in stopping many breaches of our right to life by stopping terrorist organizations, homegrown and foreign, from killing us.


We can change the laws to ensure our essential liberty, just be prepared to lose some safety.

 

[Howey]

Long, but an excellent read:

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/...rt-review/2012/9/scr-2012-kozinski-nguyen.pdf

 

[Bonestorm]

TO me if you do something in "public" its fair game. If you use an outside company that willingly shares your data, its fair game for the gvt to collect it. If you speak with someone in your livingroom or over a phone line provided by a company that does not share... its not fair game.

I don't know of any companies that "willingly" share data absent a supboena, warrant or court order. Verizon was ordered to turn over the call metadata. it didn't do so "willingly" and in the absence of any order.

As for your analogy, it's pretty weak if you ask me, most notably because it pretends that there are companies that share and that don't share. They all share when they are ordered to do so. Also, your analogy is really weak when you expand it to, say, email correspodence, which pretty much requires the use of third parties. Are emails "public" because you need a third-party ISP?

Im not saying that there is not 4th Amendment issue here, but Ive yet to see one. Now when the prior administration was listening in to conversations without a warrant... that's a 4th Amendment issue.

I think a fairly straightforward 4th amendment violation is the collection of location tracking information on cell phone users. Now, obviously, there is the third-party issue (which I think is totally wrong and outdated given technological advances -- this isn't putting trash on the curb) but the government shouldn't be able to do indirectly what it can't do directly.

And, again, this is only the call metadata and doesn't even address the PRISM allegations, which are wholly different, substantially more intrusive and unquestionably violations of the 4th amendment.

 

[Bonestorm]

Think of it like this, if you take a Cab to the Opera, and someone later asks the cab driver where he took you.... is it a 4th Amendment issue?

If you want to keep where you went private... get a driver who you trust not to share.

Think of it like this: you email a client and Verizon is your ISP provider. Someone later asks Verizon to give them that email. Is it a 4th Amendment issue?

If you wanted to keep your communications with your client private . . . get an ISP that you trust not to share (and good luck that - they all do).

 

[Jarod]

I don't know of any companies that "willingly" share data absent a supboena, warrant or court order. Verizon was ordered to turn over the call metadata. it didn't do so "willingly" and in the absence of any order.

As for your analogy, it's pretty weak if you ask me, most notably because it pretends that there are companies that share and that don't share. They all share when they are ordered to do so. Also, your analogy is really weak when you expand it to, say, email correspodence, which pretty much requires the use of third parties. Are emails "public" because you need a third-party ISP?




I think a fairly straightforward 4th amendment violation is the collection of location tracking information on cell phone users. Now, obviously, there is the third-party issue (which I think is totally wrong and outdated given technological advances -- this isn't putting trash on the curb) but the government shouldn't be able to do indirectly what it can't do directly.

And, again, this is only the call metadata and doesn't even address the PRISM allegations, which are wholly different, substantially more intrusive and unquestionably violations of the 4th amendment.

If they got a warrant, its not a 4th Amendment violation, that's the point of a warrant, a warrant is a judge saying this specific search or seizure is reasonable. I have read however that many companies, AT&T and Google and others are providing this information voluntarily.

My Cab analogy is valid. If I pay for a parking meter via my cell phone, and my cell phone provider shares that information with the govt. shame on the cell phone provider. The Cell phone providers sell that information all the time and that's legal.

I just don't believe that if a private company decides to do that, its a 4th Amendment violation. If the government forces them to do so without a warrant, that would be a 4th Amendment violation.

 

[Bonestorm]

If they got a warrant, its not a 4th Amendment violation, that's the point of a warrant, a warrant is a judge saying this specific search or seizure is reasonable. I have read however that many companies, AT&T and Google and others are providing this information voluntarily.

Well, because you are conflating different things. Your opening post talked only about call records. Those call records are obtained pursuant to a warrant. The warrants issue from the FISA court, which follows FISA as amended. Whether this aspect of FISA is unconstitutional in application hasn't been tested in an adversarial proceeding and is the subject of the ACLU lawsuit.

My Cab analogy is valid. If I pay for a parking meter via my cell phone, and my cell phone provider shares that information with the govt. shame on the cell phone provider. The Cell phone providers sell that information all the time and that's legal.

I just don't believe that if a private company decides to do that, its a 4th Amendment violation. If the government forces them to do so without a warrant, that would be a 4th Amendment violation.

Well, if your cab analogy is valid than so is my example about your email and your ISP.

 

[Jarod]

The way I understand it, Version is the only one ordered to turn over information via a warrant, the others did so voluntarily.

Maybe we need to make it illegal for companies to share that information without a warrant, like healthcare records.

 

[Bonestorm]

The way I understand it, Version is the only one ordered to turn over information via a warrant, the others did so voluntarily.

Source? As I understand it, we only know that Verizon handed over anything because the order specific to Verizon was leaked. The assumption (because we only have a leak of one specific order) is that other companies are similarly ordered to do it by the FISA court. Also, other companies would be monumentally stupid to do it voluntarily when doing as ordered by the FISA court, which signs pretty much everything put in front of it, and gives the companies the cover of having been orderd to provide it. It's also pretty illegal.

Maybe we need to make it illegal for companies to share that information without a warrant, like healthcare records.

We have. The laws need updating, but they're there.

 

[Timshel]

TO me if you do something in "public" its fair game. If you use an outside company that willingly shares your data, its fair game for the gvt to collect it. If you speak with someone in your livingroom or over a phone line provided by a company that does not share... its not fair game.

Im not saying that there is not 4th Amendment issue here, but Ive yet to see one. Now when the prior administration was listening in to conversations without a warrant... that's a 4th Amendment issue.

He just explained to you that they did not willingly share the data.

 

[NOVA]

TO me if you do something in "public" its fair game. If you use an outside company that willingly shares your data, its fair game for the gvt to collect it. If you speak with someone in your livingroom or over a phone line provided by a company that does not share... its not fair game.

Im not saying that there is not 4th Amendment issue here, but Ive yet to see one. Now when the prior administration was listening in to conversations without a warrant... that's a 4th Amendment issue.

After what we've learned about how this administration is utilizing the IRS to harass anyone perceived as an enemy, how can you be naive enough to
think that anyone is "sharing" information with the government voluntarily...if they dare refuse, they'd be audited the next day at a cost of thousands if not millions.
Get your head out of your ass and smell the coffee....

 

[NOVA]

The way I understand it, Version is the only one ordered to turn over information via a warrant, the others did so voluntarily.

Maybe we need to make it illegal for companies to share that information without a warrant, like healthcare records.

Don't you read the papers in Fla. Jughead...

San Diego, California - A class action lawsuit was filed in California by attorney Robert Barnes against the Internal Revenue Service for stealing and improperly accessing 60 million medical records. On March 11, Fifteen IRS agents raided a California company, only known in the lawsuit as the “John Doe Company,” in an attempt to confiscate information related to an employee that no longer worked there. The medical records belong to over 10 million Americans, most of whom live in California. According Nextgov.com , the list includes members of the Screen Actors Guild, Director’s Guild, state employees, and includes both prominent and ordinary citizens.

http://tinyurl.com/ls8ee65

 

[NOVA]

Think of it like this, if you take a Cab to the Opera, and someone later asks the cab driver where he took you.... is it a 4th Amendment issue?

If you want to keep where you went private... get a driver who you trust not to share.

TO me if you do something in "public" its fair game. If you use an outside company that willingly shares your data, its fair game for the gvt to collect it. If you speak with someone in your livingroom or over a phone line provided by a company that does not share... its not fair game.

Im not saying that there is not 4th Amendment issue here, but Ive yet to see one. Now when the prior administration was listening in to conversations without a warrant... that's a 4th Amendment issue.

Where did you get a law degree from.....is it an on-line degree ?

How about your GED ?

 

[tinfoil]

Think of it like this, if you take a Cab to the Opera, and someone later asks the cab driver where he took you.... is it a 4th Amendment issue?

If you want to keep where you went private... get a driver who you trust not to share.

Nothing about a cab ride is private. You are purchasing a service. Communication between entites is not a public service in the sense that the service is not open for the public to see like a cab ride or eating at McDonalds. It's privately contracted by individuals and it considered private by the courts.

You fail