3 Reasons the "Nothing to Hide" Crowd Should Be Worried

[telling tiger 156]

Sorry, but I'm not finding the part where this only applies if you feel you have nothing to hide:

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.

It's quite straightforward. You don't get to gather info on people who haven't done anything then go fishing.

Don't like it? There's a process outlined in the Constitution for amending it. Follow that process.

^Exactly^ It's not about who "does or doesn't have something to hide", it's about checks and balances and whether any part of the government has the right to reach so deeply into the lives and homes of any of its citizens at will, with autonomy and limited or "secret" oversight. The genius of the Founding Fathers was in constructing a viable system of government that limited itself through a carefully planned system of checks and balances, and the guarantee that the People always held the ultimate power. It's good to remember that every right protected in the Constitution was given such protection specifically because not only Britain, but most of the governments of Europe were violating those rights. And those written protections were precisely crafted and worded for meaning by some of the greatest minds and writers of all time. If our system was better than those governments then, and we believe it is still the best form of government on earth, it's because of following that careful blueprint--not from ignoring it, looking for loopholes, or abandoning it out of fear. I believe it was also one of those Founding Fathers who said : "He who gives up liberty for security gets [or 'deserves'?] neither."

But is there really anything about this (NSA phone meta data collection) that could be considered unconstitutional?

Well, sure, that's the whole question: How do we interpret the 4th Amendment, which Titan posted? As of now, the Supreme Court has not ruled it (the NSA action) unconstitutional, but I believe they should and hopefully they will upon review. To me, my mere possession or use a phone, the internet, e-mail, and/or a credit card does NOT provide the government with probable cause to search/pry into my person, house, papers, or effects. To me, mass collection of millions of peoples' records is too overreaching, too random, and not specific enough to qualify as "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

BINGO.

[homersapien 11,812]

Sorry, but I'm not finding the part where this only applies if you feel you have nothing to hide:

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.

It's quite straightforward. You don't get to gather info on people who haven't done anything then go fishing.

Don't like it? There's a process outlined in the Constitution for amending it. Follow that process.

^Exactly^ It's not about who "does or doesn't have something to hide", it's about checks and balances and whether any part of the government has the right to reach so deeply into the lives and homes of any of its citizens at will, with autonomy and limited or "secret" oversight. The genius of the Founding Fathers was in constructing a viable system of government that limited itself through a carefully planned system of checks and balances, and the guarantee that the People always held the ultimate power. It's good to remember that every right protected in the Constitution was given such protection specifically because not only Britain, but most of the governments of Europe were violating those rights. And those written protections were precisely crafted and worded for meaning by some of the greatest minds and writers of all time. If our system was better than those governments then, and we believe it is still the best form of government on earth, it's because of following that careful blueprint--not from ignoring it, looking for loopholes, or abandoning it out of fear. I believe it was also one of those Founding Fathers who said : "He who gives up liberty for security gets [or 'deserves'?] neither."

But is there really anything about this (NSA phone meta data collection) that could be considered unconstitutional?

Well, sure, that's the whole question: How do we interpret the 4th Amendment, which Titan posted? As of now, the Supreme Court has not ruled it (the NSA action) unconstitutional, but I believe they should and hopefully they will upon review. To me, my mere possession or use a phone, the internet, e-mail, and/or a credit card does NOT provide the government with probable cause to search/pry into my person, house, papers, or effects. To me, mass collection of millions of peoples' records is too overreaching, too random, and not specific enough to qualify as "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

You are "begging the question". The government is not doing that.

But you are making my point that collection of meta data is too random (and anonymous) to qualify as an action requiring a warrant. The warrant is not required until an analysis for particular numbers is required, based on probable cause.

We shall see what the SCOTUS has to say. I understand the ACLU is bringing a lawsuit. But the judiciary branch is obviously OK with it for the time being, as the warrants are issued by a panel of Federal judges.

[telling tiger 156]

Most civil libertarians use much less kind language about this program than I do, I just happen to think they are right. This is from a group who has been on the forefront of electronic privacy concerns since the need became apparent. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/86-civil-liberties-groups-and-internet-companies-demand-end-nsa-spying

[quietfan 233]

...A constitutional guarantee was posted earlier in this thread. In a earlier period of time on this board , there were those who spoke out in ultimate defense of the right to bear arms. I feel the same way about our right to privacy, unreasonable search, seizure and observation.

I must admit I find it strange that so many, nation-wide, who are so strident in their defense of the 2nd Amendment can be so lackadaisical in their defense of the 4th. Would they be so casual if the NSA was secretly collecting lists of millions of gun owners rather then telephone users? (And since we can't really know without whistle blowers, perhaps they are, gun guys! ...Seems like knowing who bought or owned firearms would be at least as useful in the fight against terrorism as knowing whom I telephoned!) ...But to avoid thread hijacking: I'm not trying to rehash the gun debate. It is about protecting and respecting ALL liberties outlined in the Constitution. I want neither the 2nd Amendment nor the 4th Amendment nor any other freedom protected by the Constitution stepped on.

[telling tiger 156]

...A constitutional guarantee was posted earlier in this thread. In a earlier period of time on this board , there were those who spoke out in ultimate defense of the right to bear arms. I feel the same way about our right to privacy, unreasonable search, seizure and observation.

I must admit I find it strange that so many, nation-wide, who are so strident in their defense of the 2nd Amendment can be so lackadaisical in their defense of the 4th. Would they be so casual if the NSA was secretly collecting lists of millions of gun owners rather then telephone users? (And since we can't really know without whistle blowers, perhaps they are, gun guys! ...Seems like knowing who bought or owned firearms would be at least as useful in the fight against terrorism as knowing whom I telephoned!) ...But to avoid thread hijacking: I'm not trying to rehash the gun debate. It is about protecting and respecting ALL liberties outlined in the Constitution. I want neither the 2nd Amendment nor the 4th Amendment nor any other freedom protected by the Constitution stepped on.

Again, spot on. I have never been surprised what people will or will not do in the name of political expediency. Disappointed, but not surprised.

[homersapien 11,812]

As recently as 4 scant weeks ago, before the intelligence committee, someone from the NSA denied they were using metadata techniques. THAT MEANS THE PERSON LIED TO THE COMMITTEE OVERSEEING THEM. Checks and balances going good for you so far? I'll quote you in response to my complaint, "but they are not doing that." You are privy to what information the rest of us aren't? Share it, because the vast majority of the American elected representatives just found out themselves. You are hella connected aren't you?

Are you referring to Clapper's statements to Senator Wyden?

I don't know why he answered the way he did. (In fact, I don't know why the question was even posed in an open session.) Clapper claims he interpreted the question as referring to information specific to individuals.

But if you assume he understood the question and you take his response literally, he sounds like he was lying in order to keep the oversight committee in the dark. So as far as I am concerned, he should be fired.

But there are many Senators - including the Republican leadership - who have come forward supporting the NSA metadata program. This suggests to me collection of metadata was not being concealed from the intelligence committee, as Reid and Feinstein have stated. So at this point, I don't really know if this represents a significant failure of the Congressional oversight mechanism.

Others - such as Senator Wyden - feel there needs to be more effective disclosure and oversight and I have no problem with that either. One could argue that is the system as it should be in action. Hopefully, this will ultimately be addressed with time and we will know the oversight committees was/is getting full disclosure. There is so much misinformation being thrown around at this point it's hard to tell.

Bottom line, this does not change the risk/reward ratio of the program as I have described it. I would be more likely to change my risk/reward assessment if there was some documented examples of actual abuse of the program. I am not aware of any.

[homersapien 11,812]

...A constitutional guarantee was posted earlier in this thread. In a earlier period of time on this board , there were those who spoke out in ultimate defense of the right to bear arms. I feel the same way about our right to privacy, unreasonable search, seizure and observation.

I must admit I find it strange that so many, nation-wide, who are so strident in their defense of the 2nd Amendment can be so lackadaisical in their defense of the 4th. Would they be so casual if the NSA was secretly collecting lists of millions of gun owners rather then telephone users? (And since we can't really know without whistle blowers, perhaps they are, gun guys! ...Seems like knowing who bought or owned firearms would be at least as useful in the fight against terrorism as knowing whom I telephoned!) ...But to avoid thread hijacking: I'm not trying to rehash the gun debate. It is about protecting and respecting ALL liberties outlined in the Constitution. I want neither the 2nd Amendment nor the 4th Amendment nor any other freedom protected by the Constitution stepped on.

Again, spot on. I have never been surprised what people will or will not do in the name of political expediency. Disappointed, but not surprised.

What do you mean by "political expediency"?

I am talking about the balance between privacy and security. You guys seem to be evaluating your privacy in terms of crippling U.S. security organizations for the sake of protecting us from the possibility of the government to suddenly revert to a totalitarian dictatorship.

I think that is an unrealistic fear compared to the real and present threat of terrorist attacks.

Or to look at it another way, what would be the potential political impact of a major attack (say a "dirty" bomb) on our country's attitudes about these relative threats? Reactionary fear is the fuel of tyranny.

I propose the best way of keeping the government in check is to ensure it has the tools necessary to protect us from such a threat.

[telling tiger 156]

"Political expediency". Just because a term is used about the political intent of others, Homer, do not assume every word posted is intended for or about you. That had to do with some folks participation in earlier debate and no participation in this one. Lighten up. As for as security concerns , it just as easily could be said , that is the only part you make apparent that is of any concern to you. While ANY loss to terrorism is horrible, to act like you are in danger because you are going to the outback and backwoods Wal mart in some town , is hardly exactly realistic either. Your concerns are fine if that is what you are concerned about, congrats, you are never going to be in a position to demand of me that I only take your concerns as the issue that most affects me.

[telling tiger 156]

Snowdon and the Guardian hold a Q & A. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower?guni=Network front:network-front main-2 Special trail:Network front - special trail:Position1

[homersapien 11,812]

"Political expediency". Just because a term is used about the political intent of others, Homer, do not assume every word posted is intended for or about you. That had to do with some folks participation in earlier debate and no participation in this one. Lighten up. As for as security concerns , it just as easily could be said , that is the only part you make apparent that is of any concern to you. While ANY loss to terrorism is horrible, to act like you are in danger because you are going to the outback and backwoods Wal mart in some town , is hardly exactly realistic either. Your concerns are fine if that is what you are concerned about, congrats, you are never going to be in a position to demand of me that I only take your concerns as the issue that most affects me.

I wouldn't presume to "demand of you" anything.

I appreciate your input in general (and especially so when you are supporting me).

I just feel this is not as straightforward an issue as many seem to be making, so I am playing devil's advocate.

I have been reading a lot of WWII history lately. I think we as a country have moved too far in considering our own government the enemy. It started with Viet Nam and I am just as guilty as anyone. Probably more so.

But our government is a manifestation of who we are as a country like it or not. We have an obligation to manage/fine tune/or fix it as necessary. A lot of people have died to ensure we have that option. Simply disabling the government when it's purpose is to protect us dishonors that sacrifice and doesn't help us either.

Sorry for the diversion.

[telling tiger 156]

Homer, let me give you one simple example. In another thread, you said, "we don't need no stinking evidence". You made the claim, again I quote, " that is not what the government is doing". You have no way of proving that or have the evidence of the claim you make. Hold thyself to thine own standards. I've said or posted nothing to imply that "THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING THIS". I simply want a checks and balance system on a court that to this point has been nothing but a yes man to the intelligence community. I want assurances that the government is not doing this. Your word/belief or their word is simply not enough and it will NEVER, be enough. end of this ignorant game/

[homersapien 11,812]

Homer, let me give you one simple example. In another thread, you said, "we don't need no stinking evidence". You made the claim, again I quote, " that is not what the government is doing". You have no way of proving that or have the evidence of the claim you make. Hold thyself to thine own standards. I've said or posted nothing to imply that "THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING THIS". I simply want a checks and balance system on a court that to this point has been nothing but a yes man to the intelligence community. I want assurances that the government is not doing this. Your word/belief or their word is simply not enough and it will NEVER, be enough. end of this ignorant game/

That thread involved a claim that the NSA was listening to phone calls without a warrant. There was no evidence whatsoever that happened. Only a claim made by a traitor who has obviously decided this is his ticket to fame and fortune.

And tell me, if the courts are simply acting as a "yes man" to every request for a warrant the NSA makes, why would they not bother to get one to do this?

As far as I can tell, most of this indignation and outrage is based on an emotional reaction instead of hard facts. If and when it turns out to be proven fact, I will join the mob and storm the Bastille.

[telling tiger 156]

Again Homer, the simple fact is, you made a claim, 'the government is not doing that". Provide your evidence and hold yourself to the same standard you hold others to. A fact is a fact no matter which thread it is in. Was your claim made from an emotional place? It doesn't really matter, you made a claim you have ZERO facts to back up.

[homersapien 11,812]

Again Homer, the simple fact is, you made a claim, 'the government is not doing that". Provide your evidence and hold yourself to the same standard you hold others to. A fact is a fact no matter which thread it is in. Was your claim made from an emotional place? It doesn't really matter, you made a claim you have ZERO facts to back up.

Exactly how does one prove a negative?

But to your point, my comment referred to the government's stated policy which presumably serves as a guideline of how they operate.

Obviously, it is quite possible the government has done that, especially considering the size and complexity of government. But if it has, it was an illegal aberration that violated policy.

So when I said the "government hasn't done that" I was responding to an accusation the government has deliberately, as a matter of practice, wiretapped phones without a warrant.

So if you want to make a big deal about the absolute, non equivocating way I expressed it, go ahead. In hindsight, I reckon I am guilty. At least if that's the way you want to take it. But I meant it as a general statement, not as an absolute statement of particular fact. I will try to be more nuanced in the future.

[telling tiger 156]

Others make just as non-nuanced statements as you or I. Bottom line, do not hold others to the online behavior you are just as guilty of as well. You calling it "nuanced" , in no way changes the FACT, that it is the same thing. Now Homer, please drag someone lese into your sandbox to play. I am bored.

[homersapien 11,812]

Others make just as non-nuanced statements as you or I. Bottom line, do not hold others to the online behavior you are just as guilty of as well. You calling it "nuanced" , in no way changes the FACT, that it is the same thing. Now Homer, please drag someone lese into your sandbox to play. I am bored.

If we are going to parse my "hypocrisy" let's make sure we cover it completely.

Show me an example where I held you or anyone else to a standard I willingly violated. Let's see if they are the same thing.

And I can understand why you are bored as the debate has apparently shifted to me instead of the subject. But you don't have to respond.

[telling tiger 156]

You are singularly the most redundant human being I've ever seen. If you could read and comprehend what is ACTUALLY posted, I INCLUDED MYSELF, in the statement. Parse the whole thing if you are going to parse. You stated that others "wait for proof", something you didn't mind not doing yourself. You can defend it anyway you like, the fact remains, you did it. Man, up. Now tell it to someone who is interested. I'm not. I'm busy looking for pest spray.

[homersapien 11,812]

Quietfan: ..... my mere possession or use a phone, the internet, e-mail, and/or a credit card does NOT provide the government with probable cause to search/pry into my person, house, papers, or effects.

You are "begging the question". The government is not doing that.

But you are making my point that collection of meta data is too random (and anonymous) to qualify as an action requiring a warrant. The warrant is not required until an analysis for particular numbers is required, based on probable cause.

We shall see what the SCOTUS has to say. I understand the ACLU is bringing a lawsuit. But the judiciary branch is obviously OK with it for the time being, as the warrants are issued by a panel of Federal judges.

OK, TT. Here 'tis. (Post #52)

If you really think my response taken in context is sufficient to disqualify anything else I have said on this topic, then so be it.

Personally, I am more interested in debating the subject than playing "gotcha".