NSA Surveillance program thwarted plans to bomb stock exchange

[alexava 6,974]

That hissing sound is the air going out of multiple people's balloons right now.

Not really, no. Looks like PRISM played a larger part than the metadata collection but according to testimony both played a part. Albeit, neither were the sole source of information.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-surveillance-93075.html?hp=t1_3

i dont expect the fbi or nsa to explain when or how they may have prevented an attack. Especially if the "rights" of the would be attacker were violated. That might overturn a conviction. So we shouldn't get too excited that someone has denied the tactic was used when it may have been. The hissing sound might have been a shsh to shut them up. It is ironic that some feel their privacy could be violated but also seem to deny the tactic could help stop a planned attack.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I don't hate Obama.

Something is clouding your thinking.

I'd be saying the exact same things if Romney or McCain had won.

Your assertion here that I'm referencing has some very weak reasoning.

Touché. But I think there's quite a bit of weakness to the reasoning that "[insert questionable Constitutional and/or moral tactic here] prevented [number] of terrorist attacks" is some trump card for erosion of liberties. For one, it's not foolproof. But for another, it's basically unassailable and almost unprovable. They can assert just about anything they want and we just have to take it on faith....from people who have lied to us before about these matters. It also gives us no indication of how many times someone who is innocent gets their privacy unfairly invaded or their life turned upside down because of these tactics. We already know that innocent people were caught up in detention and renditions in the post-9/11 hysteria. Do we honestly think such things aren't happening now with this?

[TexasTiger 13,556]

I don't hate Obama.

Something is clouding your thinking.

I'd be saying the exact same things if Romney or McCain had won.

Your assertion here that I'm referencing has some very weak reasoning.

Touché. But I think there's quite a bit of weakness to the reasoning that "[insert questionable Constitutional and/or moral tactic here] prevented [number] of terrorist attacks" is some trump card for erosion of liberties. For one, it's not foolproof. But for another, it's basically unassailable and almost unprovable. They can assert just about anything they want and we just have to take it on faith....from people who have lied to us before about these matters. It also gives us no indication of how many times someone who is innocent gets their privacy unfairly invaded or their life turned upside down because of these tactics. We already know that innocent people were caught up in detention and renditions in the post-9/11 hysteria. Do we honestly think such things aren't happening now with this?

Could be. I don't accept on blind faith that it is not. But I don't think consistently assuming the worst is any more rational.

[japantiger 4,077]

I don't hate Obama.

Something is clouding your thinking.

I'd be saying the exact same things if Romney or McCain had won.

Your assertion here that I'm referencing has some very weak reasoning.

Touché. But I think there's quite a bit of weakness to the reasoning that "[insert questionable Constitutional and/or moral tactic here] prevented [number] of terrorist attacks" is some trump card for erosion of liberties. For one, it's not foolproof. But for another, it's basically unassailable and almost unprovable. They can assert just about anything they want and we just have to take it on faith....from people who have lied to us before about these matters. It also gives us no indication of how many times someone who is innocent gets their privacy unfairly invaded or their life turned upside down because of these tactics. We already know that innocent people were caught up in detention and renditions in the post-9/11 hysteria. Do we honestly think such things aren't happening now with this?

Could be. I don't accept on blind faith that it is not. But I don't think consistently assuming the worst is any more rational.

Assuming that governments do what what governments the world over do; and have done since the beginning of time; is not assuming the worst. It is being logical. Governments will encroach on your liberty as far as you will let them; our government included. Our own history proves this. We have the Bill of Rights to prevent government from doing this type of thing, period. As for this program being directly responsible for foiling terrorist attacks; I really don't care if it is true or not. Common sense tells me the bureaucrats that have been caught doing this will say anything to cover their asses....so I don't really accept their assertions any more than I correctly didn't accept the assertions that low level IRS employees in Cincy were responsible for the Tea Party targeting. It didn't make sense on its face; neither does this. The point is they are casting too broad a net and treating every American citizen as a suspect without due process. I trust the ACLU and others will win big time on this as they should. We need to do common sense things; not treating us all as criminals. For example, track where every green card recipient goes...especially ones from Pakistan, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, etc.....if they leave the country; know where they go, followup on it; get their phone and internet traffic, etc. They are not citizens; and there is a reason to know what they are doing. This would have worked for Boston; and I imagine for most of those efforts being touted as Prism wins by the bureaucrats. No one is allowed to overstay their visa, period. We have millions that have overstayed their visas...why do we allow this....they should be given notices and deported when that happens. Instead of having armies policing law abiding citizens; take some of those damn IRS agents, make then US Marshals or ICE agents, and start enforcing immigration violations....these are simple steps, within the law; that do not require extra-ordinary surveillance of the citizenry; that will stop terrorist attacks. I am sure there are more; but these take real decisions and real actions...the Prism program is an easy/sloppy answer because our politicians don't want to do the hard things required of leaders.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I don't hate Obama.

Something is clouding your thinking.

I'd be saying the exact same things if Romney or McCain had won.

Your assertion here that I'm referencing has some very weak reasoning.

Touché. But I think there's quite a bit of weakness to the reasoning that "[insert questionable Constitutional and/or moral tactic here] prevented [number] of terrorist attacks" is some trump card for erosion of liberties. For one, it's not foolproof. But for another, it's basically unassailable and almost unprovable. They can assert just about anything they want and we just have to take it on faith....from people who have lied to us before about these matters. It also gives us no indication of how many times someone who is innocent gets their privacy unfairly invaded or their life turned upside down because of these tactics. We already know that innocent people were caught up in detention and renditions in the post-9/11 hysteria. Do we honestly think such things aren't happening now with this?

Could be. I don't accept on blind faith that it is not. But I don't think consistently assuming the worst is any more rational.

It appears, based on the strenuous checks and balances and outright restriction on federal govt power, that our Founders assumed the worst. Or more accurately, they better understood human nature and structured our Bill of Rights accordingly.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

I don't hate Obama.

Something is clouding your thinking.

I'd be saying the exact same things if Romney or McCain had won.

Your assertion here that I'm referencing has some very weak reasoning.

Touché. But I think there's quite a bit of weakness to the reasoning that "[insert questionable Constitutional and/or moral tactic here] prevented [number] of terrorist attacks" is some trump card for erosion of liberties. For one, it's not foolproof. But for another, it's basically unassailable and almost unprovable. They can assert just about anything they want and we just have to take it on faith....from people who have lied to us before about these matters. It also gives us no indication of how many times someone who is innocent gets their privacy unfairly invaded or their life turned upside down because of these tactics. We already know that innocent people were caught up in detention and renditions in the post-9/11 hysteria. Do we honestly think such things aren't happening now with this?

Could be. I don't accept on blind faith that it is not. But I don't think consistently assuming the worst is any more rational.

It appears, based on the strenuous checks and balances and outright restriction on federal govt power, that our Founders assumed the worst. Or more accurately, they better understood human nature and structured our Bill of Rights accordingly.

There is a difference in building a structure designed to lessen the impact of the negative side of human nature and assuming facts not in evidence.

[homersapien 11,812]

I don't think it matters what it has prevented. We are suppose to be protected from this sort of surveillance by the Bill of Right. Don't like it, work to have it changed. Don't lie to us for nearly a decade about it. In the UK, they actually discussed this in parliament and ended up voting it down after a good debate. Isn't that democracy? What happened to us, the champions of democracy? We get no say. We just got lies and deceit and secrecy. That's a worrisome thought. Especially when the Constitution protects us from this sort of government abuse of power. The problem is, the government is now disregarding the document put in place to protect us.

Another tidbit for you. All this information they are collecting about you and me... They are sharing it with foreign governments! England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

http://www.guardian....sm-surveillance

http://www.science20...old_news-114311

What information are you referring to?

It is mainly information gathered from internet sites such as Facebook and Google.

Is the government collecting information about "me and you" from Facebook and Google without a warrant to do so?

Is this a serious question?

Let's review what we know. The goverment is gathering data on citizens through Facebook and Google and Verizon. I just so happen to use all three. Have I been served a warrant for the collection of this information about me? Nope. Is it required that I am served? Yes. The exception is if the warrant is to search a residence and nobody is home. In this case, a copy of the warrant is to be left at the scene.

"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."

A warrant has to be specific. What location is to be searched. What persons are to be searched. What is the reason for the search. Even if a warrant is issued to search your house, the officers there are not allowed to search your person unless it is stated in the warrant (or unless you are placed under arrest; have given consent).

Let's go back to the information ("...papers, and effects,...") about me that is being collected from the firms named above. What probable cause do they have to collect this information? Maybe they have probable cause to collect this data on SOME people, but that's not what is happening. They are collecting this information about EVERYONE. Are we ALL suspects? Have warrants been issued to search us all?

Moving on... The last problem is that the "court" we are told has given the authority to do this is "a secret!" But wait! If a warrant has been issued to search me, I have a right to see it.

So, the answer to your question is simply, yes.

By the "government is gathering data" are you referring to the anonymous metadata we know they are collecting?

Or are you saying that, in addition, they are collecting personalized data (on you) without a warrant?

[autigeremt 6,970]

Noooo! They wouldn't do such a thing! They are trustworthy at all times.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I don't think it matters what it has prevented. We are suppose to be protected from this sort of surveillance by the Bill of Right. Don't like it, work to have it changed. Don't lie to us for nearly a decade about it. In the UK, they actually discussed this in parliament and ended up voting it down after a good debate. Isn't that democracy? What happened to us, the champions of democracy? We get no say. We just got lies and deceit and secrecy. That's a worrisome thought. Especially when the Constitution protects us from this sort of government abuse of power. The problem is, the government is now disregarding the document put in place to protect us.

Another tidbit for you. All this information they are collecting about you and me... They are sharing it with foreign governments! England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

http://www.guardian....sm-surveillance

http://www.science20...old_news-114311

What information are you referring to?

It is mainly information gathered from internet sites such as Facebook and Google.

Is the government collecting information about "me and you" from Facebook and Google without a warrant to do so?

Is this a serious question?

Let's review what we know. The goverment is gathering data on citizens through Facebook and Google and Verizon. I just so happen to use all three. Have I been served a warrant for the collection of this information about me? Nope. Is it required that I am served? Yes. The exception is if the warrant is to search a residence and nobody is home. In this case, a copy of the warrant is to be left at the scene.

"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."

A warrant has to be specific. What location is to be searched. What persons are to be searched. What is the reason for the search. Even if a warrant is issued to search your house, the officers there are not allowed to search your person unless it is stated in the warrant (or unless you are placed under arrest; have given consent).

Let's go back to the information ("...papers, and effects,...") about me that is being collected from the firms named above. What probable cause do they have to collect this information? Maybe they have probable cause to collect this data on SOME people, but that's not what is happening. They are collecting this information about EVERYONE. Are we ALL suspects? Have warrants been issued to search us all?

Moving on... The last problem is that the "court" we are told has given the authority to do this is "a secret!" But wait! If a warrant has been issued to search me, I have a right to see it.

So, the answer to your question is simply, yes.

By the "government is gathering data" are you referring to the anonymous metadata we know they are collecting?

Or are you saying that, in addition, they are collecting personalized data (on you) without a warrant?

What is "anonymous" about metadata? Don't be naive because it doesn't say "homersapien" in the data. Only one person in this country has your cell phone number. You. As I've stated in the past (with links), information like this is already being abused.

If you use Google frequently they know way more about you than you think. If you post pictures to Facebook, they know what you look like, what your dogs name is, where you live, where all your friends live, what you ate for lunch, they know anything you have ever said on Facebook. Here's the best thing, they know your IP address which means they know exactly where you are each time you log on.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

[homersapien 11,812]

I don't think it matters what it has prevented. We are suppose to be protected from this sort of surveillance by the Bill of Right. Don't like it, work to have it changed. Don't lie to us for nearly a decade about it. In the UK, they actually discussed this in parliament and ended up voting it down after a good debate. Isn't that democracy? What happened to us, the champions of democracy? We get no say. We just got lies and deceit and secrecy. That's a worrisome thought. Especially when the Constitution protects us from this sort of government abuse of power. The problem is, the government is now disregarding the document put in place to protect us.

Another tidbit for you. All this information they are collecting about you and me... They are sharing it with foreign governments! England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

http://www.guardian....sm-surveillance

http://www.science20...old_news-114311

What information are you referring to?

It is mainly information gathered from internet sites such as Facebook and Google.

Is the government collecting information about "me and you" from Facebook and Google without a warrant to do so?

Is this a serious question?

Let's review what we know. The goverment is gathering data on citizens through Facebook and Google and Verizon. I just so happen to use all three. Have I been served a warrant for the collection of this information about me? Nope. Is it required that I am served? Yes. The exception is if the warrant is to search a residence and nobody is home. In this case, a copy of the warrant is to be left at the scene.

"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."

A warrant has to be specific. What location is to be searched. What persons are to be searched. What is the reason for the search. Even if a warrant is issued to search your house, the officers there are not allowed to search your person unless it is stated in the warrant (or unless you are placed under arrest; have given consent).

Let's go back to the information ("...papers, and effects,...") about me that is being collected from the firms named above. What probable cause do they have to collect this information? Maybe they have probable cause to collect this data on SOME people, but that's not what is happening. They are collecting this information about EVERYONE. Are we ALL suspects? Have warrants been issued to search us all?

Moving on... The last problem is that the "court" we are told has given the authority to do this is "a secret!" But wait! If a warrant has been issued to search me, I have a right to see it.

So, the answer to your question is simply, yes.

By the "government is gathering data" are you referring to the anonymous metadata we know they are collecting?

Or are you saying that, in addition, they are collecting personalized data (on you) without a warrant?

What is "anonymous" about metadata? Don't be naive because it doesn't say "homersapien" in the data. Only one person in this country has your cell phone number. You. As I've stated in the past (with links), information like this is already being abused.

If you use Google frequently they know way more about you than you think. If you post pictures to Facebook, they know what you look like, what your dogs name is, where you live, where all your friends live, what you ate for lunch, they know anything you have ever said on Facebook. Here's the best thing, they know your IP address which means they know exactly where you are each time you log on.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

I am not suggesting that any given number in the meta database cannot be tied to it's owner. That's the whole purpose of the database to begin with.

But to do that requires a warrant. You can't just look at the numbers in the database and know who they belong to. It is like a phone book without names and addresses. That is what makes it anonymous, you need a warrant to identify anyone's number.

And again, this is no different than it has always been. The government needs a warrant to analyze the call patterns in a private database also.

And thanks for making the references to the information that private companies have about us. And they can do whatever they want with that information.

Like I said earlier, this is much less about the threat to privacy than it is a basic distrust of government. An argument based on fundamental, pervasive, yet inchoate distrust is specious IMO. Like it or not, a minimal amount of "trust" is an essential element that enables our society both in the commercial and governmental sense.

(Unless of course you live out somewhere in the woods in a bunker with all your money in the form of gold buried beneath your feet.)

Now having said that, the subject of privacy in this era is certainly worth exploring. I just don't think eliminating counter terrorism programs on the basis of potential privacy threats is a naturally wise thing to do.

After all, that is what you guys are proposing isn't it?

[AUGradinTX 0]

I don't think it matters what it has prevented. We are suppose to be protected from this sort of surveillance by the Bill of Right. Don't like it, work to have it changed. Don't lie to us for nearly a decade about it. In the UK, they actually discussed this in parliament and ended up voting it down after a good debate. Isn't that democracy? What happened to us, the champions of democracy? We get no say. We just got lies and deceit and secrecy. That's a worrisome thought. Especially when the Constitution protects us from this sort of government abuse of power. The problem is, the government is now disregarding the document put in place to protect us.

Another tidbit for you. All this information they are collecting about you and me... They are sharing it with foreign governments! England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

http://www.guardian....sm-surveillance

http://www.science20...old_news-114311

What information are you referring to?

It is mainly information gathered from internet sites such as Facebook and Google.

Is the government collecting information about "me and you" from Facebook and Google without a warrant to do so?

Is this a serious question?

Let's review what we know. The goverment is gathering data on citizens through Facebook and Google and Verizon. I just so happen to use all three. Have I been served a warrant for the collection of this information about me? Nope. Is it required that I am served? Yes. The exception is if the warrant is to search a residence and nobody is home. In this case, a copy of the warrant is to be left at the scene.

"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."

A warrant has to be specific. What location is to be searched. What persons are to be searched. What is the reason for the search. Even if a warrant is issued to search your house, the officers there are not allowed to search your person unless it is stated in the warrant (or unless you are placed under arrest; have given consent).

Let's go back to the information ("...papers, and effects,...") about me that is being collected from the firms named above. What probable cause do they have to collect this information? Maybe they have probable cause to collect this data on SOME people, but that's not what is happening. They are collecting this information about EVERYONE. Are we ALL suspects? Have warrants been issued to search us all?

Moving on... The last problem is that the "court" we are told has given the authority to do this is "a secret!" But wait! If a warrant has been issued to search me, I have a right to see it.

So, the answer to your question is simply, yes.

By the "government is gathering data" are you referring to the anonymous metadata we know they are collecting?

Or are you saying that, in addition, they are collecting personalized data (on you) without a warrant?

What is "anonymous" about metadata? Don't be naive because it doesn't say "homersapien" in the data. Only one person in this country has your cell phone number. You. As I've stated in the past (with links), information like this is already being abused.

If you use Google frequently they know way more about you than you think. If you post pictures to Facebook, they know what you look like, what your dogs name is, where you live, where all your friends live, what you ate for lunch, they know anything you have ever said on Facebook. Here's the best thing, they know your IP address which means they know exactly where you are each time you log on.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

I am not suggesting that any given number in the meta database cannot be tied to it's owner. That's the whole purpose of the database to begin with.

But to do that requires a warrant. You can't just look at the numbers in the database and know who they belong to. It is like a phone book without names and addresses. That is what makes it anonymous, you need a warrant to identify anyone's number.

I apologize ahead of time. This is not very well thought out. Do I need a warrant to use a phone book? Do I need a warrant to use a reverse cell number lookup service? Absolutely not. No government official is going to waste their time getting a warrant for something they can do in 2 minutes on their computer.

And again, this is no different than it has always been. The government needs a warrant to analyze the call patterns in a private database also.

Not according to Feinstien. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/06/surveillance_lockbox_why_can_the_nsa_search_your_phone_records_without_a.html

And thanks for making the references to the information that private companies have about us. And they can do whatever they want with that information.

You gave them that information volutarily.

Like I said earlier, this is much less about the threat to privacy than it is a basic distrust of government. An argument based on fundamental, pervasive, yet inchoate distrust is specious IMO. Like it or not, a minimal amount of "trust" is an essential element that enables our society both in the commercial and governmental sense.

(Unless of course you live out somewhere in the woods in a bunker with all your money in the form of gold buried beneath your feet.)

Now having said that, the subject of privacy in this era is certainly worth exploring. I just don't think eliminating counter terrorism programs on the basis of potential privacy threats is a naturally wise thing to do.

Japan's suggestions were way more practical. And legal too.

After all, that is what you guys are proposing isn't it?

[homersapien 11,812]

Prism has the potential to include, IP addy, from/to lines, content and ability to trace all other email communications, quite a different picture from what you painted, as well. Your defense is noted, repeatedly, thanks. You are defending something you do not have all the facts on or of. You do know it is a secret court don't you? One with zero oversight and in 2012, they denied not ONE single request for approval to do what law enforcement wanted to do. If that sounds rational to you, your rational is due for a check up.

If you are making the argument the current "process" which is well-defined has been abused by circumvention or malfeasance I don't think anyone is arguing with you.

The position I am arguing is the process as currently defined is not a meaningful violation of privacy, much less unconstitutional. This assumes the process is followed in good faith.

If you are arguing the former, you need more than simple inference from statistics to make your case. If you are arguing against the latter, the statistics on approval rates don't really matter.

So, what's your argument?

[telling tiger 156]

No matter your claim or as you are so likely to put it " your understanding" , you are defending something you DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS ABOUT, no matter your claims, no matter your inane attempts to state otherwise. You are defending a position you do not have the information AVAILABLE to form an opinion on no matter your beliefs. I'm uninterested Homer, involve someone else.

[homersapien 11,812]

I don't think it matters what it has prevented. We are suppose to be protected from this sort of surveillance by the Bill of Right. Don't like it, work to have it changed. Don't lie to us for nearly a decade about it. In the UK, they actually discussed this in parliament and ended up voting it down after a good debate. Isn't that democracy? What happened to us, the champions of democracy? We get no say. We just got lies and deceit and secrecy. That's a worrisome thought. Especially when the Constitution protects us from this sort of government abuse of power. The problem is, the government is now disregarding the document put in place to protect us.

Another tidbit for you. All this information they are collecting about you and me... They are sharing it with foreign governments! England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

http://www.guardian....sm-surveillance

http://www.science20...old_news-114311

What information are you referring to?

It is mainly information gathered from internet sites such as Facebook and Google.

Is the government collecting information about "me and you" from Facebook and Google without a warrant to do so?

Is this a serious question?

Let's review what we know. The goverment is gathering data on citizens through Facebook and Google and Verizon. I just so happen to use all three. Have I been served a warrant for the collection of this information about me? Nope. Is it required that I am served? Yes. The exception is if the warrant is to search a residence and nobody is home. In this case, a copy of the warrant is to be left at the scene.

"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."

A warrant has to be specific. What location is to be searched. What persons are to be searched. What is the reason for the search. Even if a warrant is issued to search your house, the officers there are not allowed to search your person unless it is stated in the warrant (or unless you are placed under arrest; have given consent).

Let's go back to the information ("...papers, and effects,...") about me that is being collected from the firms named above. What probable cause do they have to collect this information? Maybe they have probable cause to collect this data on SOME people, but that's not what is happening. They are collecting this information about EVERYONE. Are we ALL suspects? Have warrants been issued to search us all?

Moving on... The last problem is that the "court" we are told has given the authority to do this is "a secret!" But wait! If a warrant has been issued to search me, I have a right to see it.

So, the answer to your question is simply, yes.

By the "government is gathering data" are you referring to the anonymous metadata we know they are collecting?

Or are you saying that, in addition, they are collecting personalized data (on you) without a warrant?

What is "anonymous" about metadata? Don't be naive because it doesn't say "homersapien" in the data. Only one person in this country has your cell phone number. You. As I've stated in the past (with links), information like this is already being abused.

If you use Google frequently they know way more about you than you think. If you post pictures to Facebook, they know what you look like, what your dogs name is, where you live, where all your friends live, what you ate for lunch, they know anything you have ever said on Facebook. Here's the best thing, they know your IP address which means they know exactly where you are each time you log on.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

I am not suggesting that any given number in the meta database cannot be tied to it's owner. That's the whole purpose of the database to begin with.

But to do that requires a warrant. You can't just look at the numbers in the database and know who they belong to. It is like a phone book without names and addresses. That is what makes it anonymous, you need a warrant to identify anyone's number.

I apologize ahead of time. This is not very well thought out. 1) Do I need a warrant to use a phone book? Do I need a warrant to use a reverse cell number lookup service? Absolutely not. No government official is going to waste their time getting a warrant for something they can do in 2 minutes on their computer.

And again, this is no different than it has always been. The government needs a warrant to analyze the call patterns in a private database also.

2) Not according to Feinstien. http://www.slate.com..._without_a.html

And thanks for making the references to the information that private companies have about us. And they can do whatever they want with that information.

3) You gave them that information volutarily.

Like I said earlier, this is much less about the threat to privacy than it is a basic distrust of government. An argument based on fundamental, pervasive, yet inchoate distrust is specious IMO. Like it or not, a minimal amount of "trust" is an essential element that enables our society both in the commercial and governmental sense.

(Unless of course you live out somewhere in the woods in a bunker with all your money in the form of gold buried beneath your feet.)

Now having said that, the subject of privacy in this era is certainly worth exploring. I just don't think eliminating counter terrorism programs on the basis of potential privacy threats is a naturally wise thing to do.

4) Japan's suggestions were way more practical. And legal too.

After all, that is what you guys are proposing isn't it?

1) Why would a particular anonymous number, out of millions, attract the governments interest? Their interest in a particular number comes from an analysis of that number - or because that number is tied to another one they are analyzing. That analysis cannot be done on a simple computer to start with and it requires a warrant to be conducted at any rate.

2) Interesting. Assuming Feinstein understands the question, this would indicate my(our) understanding of the process - based on the other quotes in the same article - could be wrong. It would be nice to know if the terms "search" and "query" refer to a full analysis of a given number. If that can be done without a warrant, it would change my opinion about the intrusiveness of the program. I hope more information emerges on this.

3) Well, voluntarily if you mean giving it in order to obtain the service. You don't really have the option of opting out. The only option you have is not using a cell phone.

4) Don't know what you are referring to here. But I would point out that what is going on currently in this country is "legal", at least until determined otherwise by the courts.

[homersapien 11,812]

No matter your claim or as you are so likely to put it " your understanding" , you are defending something you DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS ABOUT, no matter your claims, no matter your inane attempts to state otherwise. You are defending a position you do not have the information AVAILABLE to form an opinion on no matter your beliefs. I'm uninterested Homer, involve someone else.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHY I REFER TO IT AS "MY UNDERSTANDING" INSTEAD OF STATING IT AS SIMPLE FACT!

So do you have all the facts? If not, why are you posting on this? If you rather not discuss this until we have all the facts, that's fine with me. Meanwhile, I am OK with discussing it based on the information we have, or even hypothetically for that matter.

Regardless, there's no point getting all verklempt about it.

[telling tiger 156]

No matter your claim or as you are so likely to put it " your understanding" , you are defending something you DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS ABOUT, no matter your claims, no matter your inane attempts to state otherwise. You are defending a position you do not have the information AVAILABLE to form an opinion on no matter your beliefs. I'm uninterested Homer, involve someone else.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHY I REFER TO IT AS "MY UNDERSTANDING" INSTEAD OF STATING IT AS SIMPLE FACT!

So do you have all the facts? If not, why are you posting on this? If you rather not discuss this until we have all the facts, that's fine with me. Meanwhile, I am OK with discussing it based on the information we have, or even hypothetically for that matter.

Regardless, there's no point getting all verklempt about it.

I'm not verklempt over it or anything else for that matter. I'll post about what I choose, when I choose. I CLEARLY posted to you in another thread about this, that I'm INFINITELY willing to adapt my opinions based on additional information. You continually ignore what people post in response to you and argue on about statements long since clarified and that have been restated. I'm just not interested in continually rehashing the same things with you over and over. In this thread alone there are quite likely 20 quotes where someone made a point, explained it and then you rehash the same damn thing over and over again. It is redundant(something else I told you in that same previous thread) and I am uninterested. It might be ground hogs day for you everyday, but it isn't for me. I just prefer not to be involved with the never ending debate and discussion. I'm under no obligation to explain the same thing to you the 30th time when it didn't register the first 29

[homersapien 11,812]

No matter your claim or as you are so likely to put it " your understanding" , you are defending something you DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS ABOUT, no matter your claims, no matter your inane attempts to state otherwise. You are defending a position you do not have the information AVAILABLE to form an opinion on no matter your beliefs. I'm uninterested Homer, involve someone else.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHY I REFER TO IT AS "MY UNDERSTANDING" INSTEAD OF STATING IT AS SIMPLE FACT!

So do you have all the facts? If not, why are you posting on this? If you rather not discuss this until we have all the facts, that's fine with me. Meanwhile, I am OK with discussing it based on the information we have, or even hypothetically for that matter.

Regardless, there's no point getting all verklempt about it.

I'm not verklempt over it or anything else for that matter. I'll post about what I choose, when I choose. I CLEARLY posted to you in another thread about this, that I'm INFINITELY willing to adapt my opinions based on additional information. You continually ignore what people post in response to you and argue on about statements long since clarified and that have been restated. I'm just not interested in continually rehashing the same things with you over and over. In this thread alone there are quite likely 20 quotes where someone made a point, explained it and then you rehash the same damn thing over and over again. It is redundant(something else I told you in that same previous thread) and I am uninterested. It might be ground hogs day for you everyday, but it isn't for me. I just prefer not to be involved with the never ending debate and discussion. I'm under no obligation to explain the same thing to you the 30th time when it didn't register the first 29

Show me just one and I will explain why I followed-up.

[telling tiger 156]

You followed up because you want to discuss it. Not hard to figure out. You are certainly entitled to that. I'm entitled to not be involved in it endlessly, when making the same point. " I'm alright, nobody worry about me". lol.

[homersapien 11,812]

You followed up because you want to discuss it. Not hard to figure out. You are certainly entitled to that. I'm entitled to not be involved in it endlessly, when making the same point. " I'm alright, nobody worry about me". lol.

Well, You made it sound as if I didn't understand it or "get it" and was just being annoyingly repetitious for it's own sake.

But if I want to continue to discuss a given point it's because I think it is either simplistic (incomplete) or erroneous. Occasionally I will stay with it to clarify what is really meant, by restating it in my own terms.

Personally, I like the exchange. You challenge my own positions and make me think. After all, these are complicated and important subjects.

But if that process annoys you, we can always "agree to disagree" :-\ and let it go.

[japantiger 4,077]

Homer, you are one of the 30% of American's who have that kind of blind trust in government currently (per latest Rasmussen tracking polls on the topic). The vast majority of American's are alarmed by these revelations.

Obama's own words said it best..."If people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we're abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we're going to have some problems here." That is precisely what the American people are saying and what is so troubling....in most cases like this; one branch or two branches are checking the other...in this case; all three branches conspired to go too far. That is the problem here and why the reaction has been so strong and so broad across the political left and right. The Bill of Rights used human nature, the history of humankind and certain basic principles such as "we are a nation of laws, not men"; as a guide.

This effort has to be pulled back. The facts say the review process is in fact, not a review process at all (prima facie evidence, no requests have been denied). And the assertions made by some involved as to the effectiveness of the program may or may not be true; we are right to be skeptical based on repeated lies related to similar scandals; either way, I don't really care. Confiscating my information is a violation of my 4th Amendment rights, period. Beyond that, I don't care. Find another way. Your perception of what constitutes safety cannot come from a violation of my rights.

[homersapien 11,812]

Homer, you are one of the 30% of American's who have that kind of blind trust in government currently (per latest Rasmussen tracking polls on the topic). The vast majority of American's are alarmed by these revelations.

Obama's own words said it best..."If people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we're abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we're going to have some problems here." That is precisely what the American people are saying and what is so troubling....in most cases like this; one branch or two branches are checking the other...in this case; all three branches conspired to go too far. That is the problem here and why the reaction has been so strong and so broad across the political left and right. The Bill of Rights used human nature, the history of humankind and certain basic principles such as "we are a nation of laws, not men"; as a guide.

This effort has to be pulled back. The facts say the review process is in fact, not a review process at all (prima facie evidence, no requests have been denied). And the assertions made by some involved as to the effectiveness of the program may or may not be true; we are right to be skeptical based on repeated lies related to similar scandals; either way, I don't really care. Confiscating my information is a violation of my 4th Amendment rights, period. Beyond that, I don't care. Find another way. Your perception of what constitutes safety cannot come from a violation of my rights.

I don't consider my trust to be "blind" at all. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what is supposed to be happening and I am OK with it.

Now, as others have pointed out, I don't know for sure if the process has been violated or has failed, but if so, I am all for fixing it. I have no problem with "pulling back" as you say if the process has been abused or circumvented. That's exactly what the checks and balances of the process are designed to do.

But to say that I am exercising "blind faith" because I accept the process (as understood) as an acceptable trade off between privacy and security is not fair. I could just as easily call you paranoid for being so upset about it.

Now if you want to get into a discussion of the actual role of "trust" in our society vs. idealized concepts of trust, we can do so, but that's really a different subject.

And I don't have any problem with your skepticism. It's healthy. Believe it or not, I can appreciate both sides of the argument. If everyone was thinking this is totally nothing to be concerned about, I would probably be arguing your position. That's why I call myself "Devils Advocate".

(This is where I expect Golf to break in with some lyrics from Blind Faith. )

[japantiger 4,077]

Homer, it is a violation of my rights. It is not acceptable for others (in this case, the 3 branches of government all conspiring) to trade off my rights in their view of my perceived security needs. Once traded off, there is no getting it back. My rights are granted by God, not the 3 branches of government, and the constitution specifically constrains the government from violating them. If I am paranoid, so were the Founders; so I'll accept that company. This program needs to be rolled back, period. It oversteps any reasonable constitutional standard. I would expect the ACLU and others to succeed in their legal challenges.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I don't think it matters what it has prevented. We are suppose to be protected from this sort of surveillance by the Bill of Right. Don't like it, work to have it changed. Don't lie to us for nearly a decade about it. In the UK, they actually discussed this in parliament and ended up voting it down after a good debate. Isn't that democracy? What happened to us, the champions of democracy? We get no say. We just got lies and deceit and secrecy. That's a worrisome thought. Especially when the Constitution protects us from this sort of government abuse of power. The problem is, the government is now disregarding the document put in place to protect us.

Another tidbit for you. All this information they are collecting about you and me... They are sharing it with foreign governments! England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

http://www.guardian....sm-surveillance

http://www.science20...old_news-114311

What information are you referring to?

It is mainly information gathered from internet sites such as Facebook and Google.

Is the government collecting information about "me and you" from Facebook and Google without a warrant to do so?

Is this a serious question?

Let's review what we know. The goverment is gathering data on citizens through Facebook and Google and Verizon. I just so happen to use all three. Have I been served a warrant for the collection of this information about me? Nope. Is it required that I am served? Yes. The exception is if the warrant is to search a residence and nobody is home. In this case, a copy of the warrant is to be left at the scene.

"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."

A warrant has to be specific. What location is to be searched. What persons are to be searched. What is the reason for the search. Even if a warrant is issued to search your house, the officers there are not allowed to search your person unless it is stated in the warrant (or unless you are placed under arrest; have given consent).

Let's go back to the information ("...papers, and effects,...") about me that is being collected from the firms named above. What probable cause do they have to collect this information? Maybe they have probable cause to collect this data on SOME people, but that's not what is happening. They are collecting this information about EVERYONE. Are we ALL suspects? Have warrants been issued to search us all?

Moving on... The last problem is that the "court" we are told has given the authority to do this is "a secret!" But wait! If a warrant has been issued to search me, I have a right to see it.

So, the answer to your question is simply, yes.

By the "government is gathering data" are you referring to the anonymous metadata we know they are collecting?

Or are you saying that, in addition, they are collecting personalized data (on you) without a warrant?

What is "anonymous" about metadata? Don't be naive because it doesn't say "homersapien" in the data. Only one person in this country has your cell phone number. You. As I've stated in the past (with links), information like this is already being abused.

If you use Google frequently they know way more about you than you think. If you post pictures to Facebook, they know what you look like, what your dogs name is, where you live, where all your friends live, what you ate for lunch, they know anything you have ever said on Facebook. Here's the best thing, they know your IP address which means they know exactly where you are each time you log on.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

I am not suggesting that any given number in the meta database cannot be tied to it's owner. That's the whole purpose of the database to begin with.

But to do that requires a warrant. You can't just look at the numbers in the database and know who they belong to. It is like a phone book without names and addresses. That is what makes it anonymous, you need a warrant to identify anyone's number.

I apologize ahead of time. This is not very well thought out. 1) Do I need a warrant to use a phone book? Do I need a warrant to use a reverse cell number lookup service? Absolutely not. No government official is going to waste their time getting a warrant for something they can do in 2 minutes on their computer.

And again, this is no different than it has always been. The government needs a warrant to analyze the call patterns in a private database also.

2) Not according to Feinstien. http://www.slate.com..._without_a.html

And thanks for making the references to the information that private companies have about us. And they can do whatever they want with that information.

3) You gave them that information volutarily.

Like I said earlier, this is much less about the threat to privacy than it is a basic distrust of government. An argument based on fundamental, pervasive, yet inchoate distrust is specious IMO. Like it or not, a minimal amount of "trust" is an essential element that enables our society both in the commercial and governmental sense.

(Unless of course you live out somewhere in the woods in a bunker with all your money in the form of gold buried beneath your feet.)

Now having said that, the subject of privacy in this era is certainly worth exploring. I just don't think eliminating counter terrorism programs on the basis of potential privacy threats is a naturally wise thing to do.

4) Japan's suggestions were way more practical. And legal too.

After all, that is what you guys are proposing isn't it?

1) Why would a particular anonymous number, out of millions, attract the governments interest? Their interest in a particular number comes from an analysis of that number - or because that number is tied to another one they are analyzing. That analysis cannot be done on a simple computer to start with and it requires a warrant to be conducted at any rate.

Not sure the relevance of your question. The point is that it is easy to find a name attached to a number. If all the numbers were in fact "anonymous", the data would be completely useless.

My smartphone could do that analysis. And stop saying a warrant is required to look at this data. Considering people in government have given conflicting answers to that question, there is no way you know that.

2) Interesting. Assuming Feinstein understands the question, this would indicate my(our) understanding of the process - based on the other quotes in the same article - could be wrong. It would be nice to know if the terms "search" and "query" refer to a full analysis of a given number. If that can be done without a warrant, it would change my opinion about the intrusiveness of the program. I hope more information emerges on this.

Feinstein is the head of the senate intelligence committee. I will assume she knows what she is talking about.

3) Well, voluntarily if you mean giving it in order to obtain the service. You don't really have the option of opting out. The only option you have is not using a cell phone.

That is correct. However, the option is there for you to purchase a prepaid cell phone at places like Wal-Mart that need no personal information to activate. With that said, there was no reason to believe the government would have access to information you released to a company like verizon who needed it in order to provide your service. They are not privy to that information. If they were, they wouldn't have needed a court order to ask for it in the first place.

4) Don't know what you are referring to here. But I would point out that what is going on currently in this country is "legal", at least until determined otherwise by the courts.

Japan listed several ways to reduce the chances of terrorist attacks that do not involve collecting data on law-abiding citizens which infringes on their right to privacy.

There is an issue I have with this statement. What "is going on" may not be what was "intended to go on", therefore the possibility exists that it is not legal.

[homersapien 11,812]

I don't think it matters what it has prevented. We are suppose to be protected from this sort of surveillance by the Bill of Right. Don't like it, work to have it changed. Don't lie to us for nearly a decade about it. In the UK, they actually discussed this in parliament and ended up voting it down after a good debate. Isn't that democracy? What happened to us, the champions of democracy? We get no say. We just got lies and deceit and secrecy. That's a worrisome thought. Especially when the Constitution protects us from this sort of government abuse of power. The problem is, the government is now disregarding the document put in place to protect us.

Another tidbit for you. All this information they are collecting about you and me... They are sharing it with foreign governments! England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

http://www.guardian....sm-surveillance

http://www.science20...old_news-114311

What information are you referring to?

It is mainly information gathered from internet sites such as Facebook and Google.

Is the government collecting information about "me and you" from Facebook and Google without a warrant to do so?

Is this a serious question?

Let's review what we know. The goverment is gathering data on citizens through Facebook and Google and Verizon. I just so happen to use all three. Have I been served a warrant for the collection of this information about me? Nope. Is it required that I am served? Yes. The exception is if the warrant is to search a residence and nobody is home. In this case, a copy of the warrant is to be left at the scene.

"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."

A warrant has to be specific. What location is to be searched. What persons are to be searched. What is the reason for the search. Even if a warrant is issued to search your house, the officers there are not allowed to search your person unless it is stated in the warrant (or unless you are placed under arrest; have given consent).

Let's go back to the information ("...papers, and effects,...") about me that is being collected from the firms named above. What probable cause do they have to collect this information? Maybe they have probable cause to collect this data on SOME people, but that's not what is happening. They are collecting this information about EVERYONE. Are we ALL suspects? Have warrants been issued to search us all?

Moving on... The last problem is that the "court" we are told has given the authority to do this is "a secret!" But wait! If a warrant has been issued to search me, I have a right to see it.

So, the answer to your question is simply, yes.

By the "government is gathering data" are you referring to the anonymous metadata we know they are collecting?

Or are you saying that, in addition, they are collecting personalized data (on you) without a warrant?

What is "anonymous" about metadata? Don't be naive because it doesn't say "homersapien" in the data. Only one person in this country has your cell phone number. You. As I've stated in the past (with links), information like this is already being abused.

If you use Google frequently they know way more about you than you think. If you post pictures to Facebook, they know what you look like, what your dogs name is, where you live, where all your friends live, what you ate for lunch, they know anything you have ever said on Facebook. Here's the best thing, they know your IP address which means they know exactly where you are each time you log on.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

I am not suggesting that any given number in the meta database cannot be tied to it's owner. That's the whole purpose of the database to begin with.

But to do that requires a warrant. You can't just look at the numbers in the database and know who they belong to. It is like a phone book without names and addresses. That is what makes it anonymous, you need a warrant to identify anyone's number.

I apologize ahead of time. This is not very well thought out. 1) Do I need a warrant to use a phone book? Do I need a warrant to use a reverse cell number lookup service? Absolutely not. No government official is going to waste their time getting a warrant for something they can do in 2 minutes on their computer.

And again, this is no different than it has always been. The government needs a warrant to analyze the call patterns in a private database also.

2) Not according to Feinstien. http://www.slate.com..._without_a.html

And thanks for making the references to the information that private companies have about us. And they can do whatever they want with that information.

3) You gave them that information volutarily.

Like I said earlier, this is much less about the threat to privacy than it is a basic distrust of government. An argument based on fundamental, pervasive, yet inchoate distrust is specious IMO. Like it or not, a minimal amount of "trust" is an essential element that enables our society both in the commercial and governmental sense.

(Unless of course you live out somewhere in the woods in a bunker with all your money in the form of gold buried beneath your feet.)

Now having said that, the subject of privacy in this era is certainly worth exploring. I just don't think eliminating counter terrorism programs on the basis of potential privacy threats is a naturally wise thing to do.

4) Japan's suggestions were way more practical. And legal too.

After all, that is what you guys are proposing isn't it?

1) Why would a particular anonymous number, out of millions, attract the governments interest? Their interest in a particular number comes from an analysis of that number - or because that number is tied to another one they are analyzing. That analysis cannot be done on a simple computer to start with and it requires a warrant to be conducted at any rate.

Not sure the relevance of your question. The point is that it is easy to find a name attached to a number. If all the numbers were in fact "anonymous", the data would be completely useless.

My smartphone could do that analysis. And stop saying a warrant is required to look at this data. Considering people in government have given conflicting answers to that question, there is no way you know that.

Again, if we disagree on this, there is not much else to argue about. This is fundamental to both our positions.

And I don't think your smartphone can search and analyze a universal meta data base in the way the NSA does it.

Finally, I am making the statement that a warrant is required to look at the data. As I understand it, that is the way it is supposed to work. Now I don't know if that procedure has been violated but it is certainly possible. If so, then I share your concerns and change my whole opinion on the matter.

So don't get irate because you think I am arguing something I don't know is necessarily or always true. If it helps, think of my argument as supporting the hypothetical. After all, you haven't presented any hard evidence to the contrary, except for maybe Feinstein's comments which is still pretty fuzzy.

2) Interesting. Assuming Feinstein understands the question, this would indicate my(our) understanding of the process - based on the other quotes in the same article - could be wrong. It would be nice to know if the terms "search" and "query" refer to a full analysis of a given number. If that can be done without a warrant, it would change my opinion about the intrusiveness of the program. I hope more information emerges on this.

Feinstein is the head of the senate intelligence committee. I will assume she knows what she is talking about.

So, it's OK to assume a given official knows what they are talking about if it supports your own position/assumptions? Do you also assume that James Clapper knows what he is talking about or that Obama knows what he is talking about when referring to the program?

And before you point it out, I am not assuming the program has been conducted without serious violations of procedure. But I want to see and hear more evidence that it has been. The Feinstein article is not enough. Let's wait and see what else emerges. Hopefully the press will do their job and more will come to light.

Meanwhile, I am satisfied to argue the merits of the program as I understand how it is supposed to work. If the program is being conducted otherwise, that changes the discussion completely.

3) Well, voluntarily if you mean giving it in order to obtain the service. You don't really have the option of opting out. The only option you have is not using a cell phone.

That is correct. However, the option is there for you to purchase a prepaid cell phone at places like Wal-Mart that need no personal information to activate. With that said, there was no reason to believe the government would have access to information you released to a company like verizon who needed it in order to provide your service. They are not privy to that information. If they were, they wouldn't have needed a court order to ask for it in the first place

This takes us back to the meta data issue. There is no difference between the government accessing data on Verizon's computer or their own. They need a warrant in either case. The only difference is efficiency. If you become the target of an analysis, it doesn't matter to you who's computer the data is in.

As an aside, Verizon doesn't need to collect data to provide me service. As you mentioned, one can obtain phones that are not tied to your identity. (I am sure that the Islamists have greatly increased their operating budgets for such phones.)

4) Don't know what you are referring to here. But I would point out that what is going on currently in this country is "legal", at least until determined otherwise by the courts.

Japan listed several ways to reduce the chances of terrorist attacks that do not involve collecting data on law-abiding citizens which infringes on their right to privacy.

There is an issue I have with this statement. What "is going on" may not be what was "intended to go on", therefore the possibility exists that it is not legal.

If extra legal activity is going on with the program, then I am with you. I am arguing the legal process that has been described.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

There is no difference between the government accessing data on Verizon's computer or their own. They need a warrant in either case. The only difference is efficiency.

Actually, the difference is that if they have to serve Verizon with a warrant, there at least exists a paper trail that Verizon can put forth. If the NSA has the database entirely in their possession, they can access it anytime they want without anyone knowing. To gain access to a database that Verizon or some other company owns they'd have to get explicit permission to do so or hack in. Either way, there's a record. The lack of NSA ownership of the database creates a checkpoint of sorts where they can't just keep everything secret.