The Real History of Domestic Spying

[Thoreau72]

I was speaking directly to those issues which Trip presented, and even he acknowledged that no civil liberties were being violated in the examples given. Now, I do agree with you that "secret warrants" do step right up to the edge of violating privacy rights. However, even warrants issued in secret remain warrants as required by law and the Constitution. Let's speak to that law for a moment.

While I don't believe that our privacy is being violated in the way that Snowdan has portrayed things, I do believe that the Obama Administration via the NSA took pieces of personal data and are using that information to create the type of anti-terrorist surveillance they want. However, I do believe that the Obama Administration is trying to go after the terrorist were they hide yet uphold the Constitutionality of their actions. Essentially, what they've done is look at the whole section of FISA law that requires a warrant if taken in the aggregate and are using a small portion of that criteria to establish their surveillance program. They're basically saying, "since we're not taking all of the data FISA requires a warrant to be issued but only using this small portion, does it violate the spirit of the law?" That's what the public is now debating. As things stand, it doesn't appear that they are.

What has people so up in arms about this is the secrecy of it all and the perceived volume of data that's being collected. But the Obama Administration is still adhering to the law; they're having warrants issues prior to listening in on private conversations, reviewing emails or following Internet activity of U.S. citizens. We may not like that this was happening in secret, but I don't think anyone can say they've violated the law - atleast not since having the program undergo judicial review as required by law.

Now, to the issue of illegal search and seizure per the 4th Amendment:



It is that last portion in bold that is in question. As sangha points out, we give up bits and pieces of our private information and, thus, a portion of our privacy every day. The question under the Obama Administration's anti-terrorist surveillance program is this: "Does collecting meta data which only equates to telephone numbers and dates calls were sent and received from and to constitute 'effects' under the Constitution and is such a search unreasonable in present-day anti-terrorism climate?"

Debate...

Firstly, and probably the issue that divides you and me in a most fundamental way regarding the particulars of this issue, I understand that the events of 11 September, the predicate act upon which the entire GWOT and its legal sophistry is founded, were staged events. The Official Story is false.

So, by necessity, what follows from that is also false, and mostly sophistry.

Thus, I do not consider the dragnet of megadata to be a reasonable search by the government. I understand that various corporations skim such data for marketing and other purposes, but that does not make it legal or necessary for the government to do the same.

I understand and have no problem with the fact that the government has my fingerprints and a host of other information that I have voluntarily given it.

The government has no need to know who I'm talking to on the phone and all that other megadata, and it uses specious reasoning and deception to claim that it's protecting me by doing so. Or your data.

 

[sangha]

There's a big difference between ignorantly giving someone your information (especially when they've given you TOS) so they can sell you something and the government blatantly violating the 4th amendment.

When you give info away to a corp that sells it, you lose any reasonable expectation that the info will be kept private.

So when the govt collects it, it's not a violation of ones' privacy

 

[sangha]

How am I wrong? Talk about a non sequitur! I referenced private persons, not private corporations who are the original possessor's of the information, or acquiring that information.

When you give info away to a corp that sells it, you lose any reasonable expectation that the info will be kept private. So when the govt collects it, it's not a violation of ones' privacy.

And corps like Experian are not the "original possessor's of the information". They buy the info from the original possessors.

Once again, you've got the basic facts about the situation completely wrong. You should admit that you were wrong to say that anyone else would be prosecuted for collecting the info the govt is collecting

 

[jwzg]

When you give info away to a corp that sells it, you lose any reasonable expectation that the info will be kept private.

So when the govt collects it, it's not a violation of ones' privacy

Without a warrant it is.

 

[sangha]

Without a warrant it is.

Just keep moving the goal posts :lol:

 

[jwzg]

Just keep moving the goal posts :lol:

:bs

You were the one who moved the goalposts when you brought up the TOS. I just smoked your argument.

 

[sangha]

:bs

You were the one who moved the goalposts when you brought up the TOS. I just smoked your argument.

It does seem as if you smoked something, but I don't think it was my argument

 

[davidtaylorjr]

If Our Gov't is so Interested in Our Daily Activities, Shouldn't We Return the Favor?

This is NOT a partisan issue, this is citizen rights vs gov't power issue

person1: Oh my gawd, Obama is spying on us, see, I told you he was bad news...
person2: Bush started it, hypocrite
Moe: **smack**

Since most of you won't make it through all the information here, let me say now... anyone still acting as a partisan and not joining the citizens v gov't overreach movement is a tool of our would be oppressors.

The trail of legislation that led to this abuse of our rights did not start with Obama, or Bush... but goes back to 1995.



Ahh... but who wrote the bill and what does he have to say about it?



And what was the opposition saying at the time...



But wait... it doesn't end there... Not only do the provisions the republicans so vehemently (and rightly) objected to come back in 2001 even stronger, but now anyone still heading GOPs own warning of a danger to citizen rights, is aiding the enemy, unpatriotic, and wants to see america destroyed...

So far... The left should feel extraordinary shame for not knowing who they were voting for, nor the origin of the Patriot Act in the Clinton era, thus being unwitting hypocrites in their condemnation of Bush

And the right should feel oceans of shame because they had the right stance and did the right thing the first time, only to reverse and demonize anyone holding their first position... witting hypocrites.....

Now we've reversed again... the right acts indignant and the left says no big deal...

YOU ARE ALL BEING PLAYED!

First of all, our rights should not be a partisan issue. It was and forever should be a citizen v gov't issue. There is one historical constant in gov'ts... they all go bad eventually precisely because of another historical constant... tyranny seeks power.

Now, it's very difficult to be tyrannical if you're not stepping on rights... therefore we should all be hypersensitive to ANY transgression or open path to transgression of those rights. This has been an open invitation for nearly two decades.

It's exactly this precedent that is dangerous. It's not a question of if tyrannical forces arise, but when... so if you leave the door open for one administration... a future administration may pick up that ball and run with it, to the detriment of us all... and all you will be able to do is point fingers somewhere other than at the person in the mirror.

WHO CARES HOW OR WHY IT STARTED... IT'S TIME TO BE UNITED AND DEMAND AN END TO...

Domestic intelligence gathering
Blanket Warrants
A return of National Guard to State control
A ban on military assistance in civilian policing
Indefinite detentions of Americans

Well done!

 

[Trip]

When you give info away to a corp that sells it, you lose any reasonable expectation that the info will be kept private. So when the govt collects it, it's not a violation of ones' privacy.

And corps like Experian are not the "original possessor's of the information". They buy the info from the original possessors.

Once again, you've got the basic facts about the situation completely wrong. You should admit that you were wrong to say that anyone else would be prosecuted for collecting the info the govt is collecting

There's a flaw in your first statement.

There's an enormous difference between our relationship between our relationship between companies <corps> and our relationship between the the federal government, and one which leftists are disinclined to recognize due to their faith in government authority.

We contract with the "corps" on their terms, for use of their services.

The federal government is the creation of the compact between the several States, and operates on our terms.

Nowhere in our terms for the existence of the federal government have the enumerated power to access all our data, and subject us to a police state. Nowhere does the federal government have any legitimacy in giving itself the authority under the auspices of the claim of providing security, but actually providing no real security at all, and only granting itself more power. Curiously you only recognize about the data being in the public domain, but are evidently inclined to ignore the federal government operating in illegitimate capacities.

The problem with your idea about the "basic facts of the situation" is they do not have any real relation to fact, and only are 'facts' by your own ideology. It is not wrong that a private individual collecting this data, as the government is doing, without legal authority to do so, would be prosecuted under the law, just as individuals engaging in theft of property by illegitimate force would be prosecuted. The government is only uperating under the color of law, the presumption of having legal authority, and no actual authority at all, while it violates what is its "prime directive" of ensuring individual liberties.

And I know what Experian is. You threw it in as a wild card, expecting me to recognize on the same terms as you do, as an even more heinous reference than just those original-source corps, but that's not the case.

 

[Hard Truth]

And what you're failing to see is that the info being collected is not protected by the 4th

Pen register info on phone calls - not protected

Google searches - not protected. Ever read their user agreement?

What web sites you visit? - not protected. Ever hear of "cookies"?

What you post on DP? - not protected. Ever read DP's privacy policy?

This leftist says:
Per the court's precedents for "reasonable expectation of privacy" all of those activities should be protected. People knowingly consent to divulge information to the websites' owners, not to the government. The posting on this or other forums is public information, but the identity of the members is expected to be known by the website owner only. If the government needs to ask/demand a company for the information, or hack their computers to obtain it, it should require a warrant. A real warrant, not a warrant covering the entire nation.

 

[Hard Truth]

When you give info away to a corp that sells it, you lose any reasonable expectation that the info will be kept private.

So when the govt collects it, it's not a violation of ones' privacy

I strongly disagree. When a private company has access to your info they use it to give you targeted advertising, junk mail and spam. When the government has the same information in can be used to prosecute you, disrupt your political activities and can use it in other ways that may be harmful to an individual, political group or social movement. Read the history of J Edgar Hoover and CointelPro for examples of what government can do with personal information.

 

[Objective Voice]

Firstly, and probably the issue that divides you and me in a most fundamental way regarding the particulars of this issue, I understand that the events of 11 September, the predicate act upon which the entire GWOT and its legal sophistry is founded, were staged events. The Official Story is false.

So, by necessity, what follows from that is also false, and mostly sophistry.

Thus, I do not consider the dragnet of megadata to be a reasonable search by the government. I understand that various corporations skim such data for marketing and other purposes, but that does not make it legal or necessary for the government to do the same.

I understand and have no problem with the fact that the government has my fingerprints and a host of other information that I have voluntarily given it.

The government has no need to know who I'm talking to on the phone and all that other megadata, and it uses specious reasoning and deception to claim that it's protecting me by doing so. Or your data.

Here again it must be clarified. Under FISA, the contents of your telephone conversations are not viewed without a warrant. In short, all the metadata contains is numbers - from what telephone number the call originated, to what telephone number the call was received or directed to, the date/time the call was placed, the duration of the call. That's it.

Now, we can all speculate that the NSA has more information about the caller((s) involved) than that, but let's stick with what we do know which is the aforemention information is the only information pertaining to your phone records that's being collected. Moreover, said information is retained for a limited time (60-90 days if I remember the timeframe correctly; I could be wrong) and the contents accessed only when a warrant is issued based on "reasonable probably cause".

So, if all NSA has are numbers but without a warrant they can't legally connect the number to a person (owner of said cellphone), how are your civil rights being violated per the Constitution? Again, I get the slippery slope argument, but can we stop speculating and get to hard facts? All of this "they could do it" enuendo doesn't prove that it has been done. Thus, where's the ethical/criminal violation of the law, privacy or otherwise?

 

[Objective Voice]

This leftist says:
Per the court's precedents for "reasonable expectation of privacy" all of those activities should be protected. People knowingly consent to divulge information to the websites' owners, not to the government. The posting on this or other forums is public information, but the identity of the members is expected to be known by the website owner only. If the government needs to ask/demand a company for the information, or hack their computers to obtain it, it should require a warrant. A real warrant, not a warrant covering the entire nation.

Per FISA law, the warrants issued are only for that small block of data collected. They aren't "blanket" warrants.

 

[sangha]

There's a flaw in your first statement.

There's an enormous difference between our relationship between our relationship between companies <corps> and our relationship between the the federal government, and one which leftists are disinclined to recognize due to their faith in government authority.

We contract with the "corps" on their terms, for use of their services.

No, there's no flaw. You just refuse to see it because it contradicts your pov

The constitution only protects the privacy of things with which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's why once you throw them into the garbage, your most intimate papers are no longer considered private. After all, anyone can come along, forage through your garbage, and read those papers.

Similarly, when you give info away to individuals or corps who are in the habit of selling that info, or when you post something on the internet, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy concerning that info. If this info is no longer private, it is no longer protected, and anyone can collect it without fear of prosecution (contradicting what you erroneously claimed, and have yet to retract)

The federal government is the creation of the compact between the several States, and operates on our terms.

Nowhere in our terms for the existence of the federal government have the enumerated power to access all our data, and subject us to a police state.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say the feds have any power to collect any information at all, but only a fool or an ideologue would suggest that the govt must operate in the complete absence of information.

 

[Hard Truth]

Per FISA law, the warrants issued are only for that small block of data collected. They aren't "blanket" warrants.

You are assuming that they are following FISA guidelines. If they were, the revelations from Snowden would not be news.

 

[Hard Truth]

Here again it must be clarified. Under FISA, the contents of your telephone conversations are not viewed without a warrant. In short, all the metadata contains is numbers - from what telephone number the call originated, to what telephone number the call was received or directed to, the date/time the call was placed, the duration of the call. That's it.

Now, we can all speculate that the NSA has more information about the caller((s) involved) than that, but let's stick with what we do know which is the aforemention information is the only information pertaining to your phone records that's being collected. Moreover, said information is retained for a limited time (60-90 days if I remember the timeframe correctly; I could be wrong) and the contents accessed only when a warrant is issued based on "reasonable probably cause".

So, if all NSA has are numbers but without a warrant they can't legally connect the number to a person (owner of said cellphone), how are your civil rights being violated per the Constitution? Again, I get the slippery slope argument, but can we stop speculating and get to hard facts? All of this "they could do it" enuendo doesn't prove that it has been done. Thus, where's the ethical/criminal violation of the law, privacy or otherwise?

Why are you assuming that they only have the phone numbers and not the name of the person associated with the phone number?

 

[sangha]

This leftist says:
Per the court's precedents for "reasonable expectation of privacy" all of those activities should be protected. People knowingly consent to divulge information to the websites' owners, not to the government. The posting on this or other forums is public information, but the identity of the members is expected to be known by the website owner only. If the government needs to ask/demand a company for the information, or hack their computers to obtain it, it should require a warrant. A real warrant, not a warrant covering the entire nation.

And again, once one knowingly consents to divulging info to other entities, they lose any reasonable expectation of privacy. Once that is gone, the info is no longer private, and no longer protected against searches.

And you should read DP's privacy statement. While it does say that they do not share personal info about posters with others, it also says that they can change that policy at any time, at their own discretion. IOW, you have no reasonable expectation that anything you've posted to DP will remain private,

 

[sangha]

I strongly disagree. When a private company has access to your info they use it to give you targeted advertising, junk mail and spam.

That is not true. Many private companies sell that info to others. They will sell it to anybody with the cash to pay for it. Your belief that they will only use it to market their own products is an unreasonable expectation. Your belief that they won't sell that info is an unreasonable expectation of privacy

When the government has the same information in can be used to prosecute you, disrupt your political activities and can use it in other ways that may be harmful to an individual, political group or social movement. Read the history of J Edgar Hoover and CointelPro for examples of what government can do with personal information.

This is an argument for why the people should not allow the govt to collect this info. However, it is not an argument that the govt is not allowed to collect this info.

 

[Hard Truth]

And again, once one knowingly consents to divulging info to other entities, they lose any reasonable expectation of privacy. Once that is gone, the info is no longer private, and no longer protected against searches.

And you should read DP's privacy statement. While it does say that they do not share personal info about posters with others, it also says that they can change that policy at any time, at their own discretion. IOW, you have no reasonable expectation that anything you've posted to DP will remain private,

I consent to let my health insurance access my health records. They may sell my address to marketers, but I have a reasonable expectation that they will keep my medical information confidential and only share it as needed for my medical care and billing purposes. The same should apply to other service providers.

2. When we "consent" to terms of service agreements it is not really informed consent. The documents are ridiculously long, use small fonts and s legal language that can be difficult to decipher. Most people do not read the agreements. In addition, since all service providers use similar agreements, the consumer has no choice but accept these agreements if they want that type of service. Refusing onerous terms of service agreements requires one to live without cable television, telephone, internet and other services that have become virtual necessities.

 

[sangha]

I consent to let my health insurance access my health records. They may sell my address to marketers, but I have a reasonable expectation that they will keep my medical information confidential and only share it as needed for my medical care and billing purposes. The same should apply to other service providers.

Agreed. Your health records are considered private and protected by HIPAA (with exceptions). Even when your medical info is shared with other doctors (for doctor to doctor consultations, etc) that info is protected.

2. When we "consent" to terms of service agreements it is not really informed consent. The documents are ridiculously long, use small fonts and s legal language that can be difficult to decipher. In addition, since all service providers use similar agreements, the consumer has no choice but accept these agreements if they want that type of service. Refusing onerous terms of service agreements requires one to live without cable television, telephone, internet and other services that have become virtual necessities.

People's unwillingness to perform due diligence is not a defense. And people have a choice. No one forces them to post on the internet or watch cable.

 

[lizzie]

Agreed. Your health records are considered private and protected by HIPAA (with exceptions). Even when your medical info is shared with other doctors (for doctor to doctor consultations, etc) that info is protected.

The problem is that those records become accessible to government, which sort of nullifies any privacy rights anyway.

FAQ on Government Access to Medical Records | American Civil Liberties Union

Q: Is this power to access my medical information limited to my health care provider?

A: No. The HIPAA disclosure regulations also apply to many other organizations, including health plans, pharmacies, health clearinghouses, medical research facilities and various medical associations. And the Patriot Act's "tangible items" power is so broad that it covers virtually anyone and any organization-not just medically oriented entities or medical professionals.

Q: Is it Constitutional for the government to get my medical information without a warrant?

A: The ACLU believes that this easy, warrantless access to our medical information violates the U.S. Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment, which generally bars the government from engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures.[viii] However, because the Patriot Act and the HIPAA regulations have only recently gone into effect, their constitutionality remains largely untested, although at least one legal challenge to the HIPAA rules is underway, and more challenges are likely.

 

[sangha]

The problem is that those records become accessible to government, which sort of nullifies any privacy rights anyway.

Do they?

If so, which records? Are they merely what doctors you've seen and when? The procedures you had done (and presumably paid for by your insurer)?

And where is the govt getting this info from? The insurers? Some other source?

 

[Trip]

Do they?

If so, which records? Are they merely what doctors you've seen and when? The procedures you had done (and presumably paid for by your insurer)?

And where is the govt getting this info from? The insurers? Some other source?

Which records? All of them. What you were looking at in your web browser, who you were communicating with in instant messaging, the time your cell phone updated its weather, and who you called with a both text transcript and audio format likely available the time you gassed your car up and where, the car you were driving from the traffic monitors, what drugs you'd just purchased at the pharmacy, what time you went through the toll booth using EZ-Pass, what time you left the toll road, and tracking your destination within miles.


And all of this is available to the government and being continuously stored, cross-indexed and interpolated so a simple data request can pull up what you did, and who you contacted, and what they did and who they contacted, over any given time period. And by "Six Degrees of Separation", pretty much anyone could have the seeds of guilt sewn for almost anything, certainly something, and then instead of being innocent until proven guilty, our task becomes proving our innocence against documented innuendo and unsupported accusation. And under this mentality, the Court just indicated that DNA can be taken and cataloged only by virtue of arrest, not even conviction of a serious crime.

And much of this information is obtained by the government under federal demand from private entities, or through backdoors in software, many of which are also compelled, none of which are known to us, and none of this is supported by any enumerated Constitutional authority, with all of it being tyrannous government intrusion - a de facto Police State.

The Truth is the federal government does not even have the constitutional authority to write statutory law applicable to within the states themselves, but it has done so nonetheless, much less subject us to constant 24/7 scrutiny.

But your focus is the corporations, despite the fact that the Federal government has its own limited terms by which it can only legitimately operate within the law, sometimes known as the "Law of the Land", otherwise referenced as the U.S. Constitution.

 

[sangha]

Which records? All of them. What you were looking at in your web browser, who you were communicating with in instant messaging, the time your cell phone updated its weather, and who you called with a both text transcript and audio format likely available the time you gassed your car up and where, the car you were driving from the traffic monitors, what drugs you'd just purchased at the pharmacy, what time you went through the toll booth using EZ-Pass, what time you left the toll road, and tracking your destination within miles.

Once again, I stopped reading your post after a short while because, once again, you've gone off on some hysterical tangent.

My questions were related to the collection of health records, not my EZ-Pass activity

 

[Thoreau72]

Here again it must be clarified. Under FISA, the contents of your telephone conversations are not viewed without a warrant. In short, all the metadata contains is numbers - from what telephone number the call originated, to what telephone number the call was received or directed to, the date/time the call was placed, the duration of the call. That's it.

Now, we can all speculate that the NSA has more information about the caller((s) involved) than that, but let's stick with what we do know which is the aforemention information is the only information pertaining to your phone records that's being collected. Moreover, said information is retained for a limited time (60-90 days if I remember the timeframe correctly; I could be wrong) and the contents accessed only when a warrant is issued based on "reasonable probably cause".

So, if all NSA has are numbers but without a warrant they can't legally connect the number to a person (owner of said cellphone), how are your civil rights being violated per the Constitution? Again, I get the slippery slope argument, but can we stop speculating and get to hard facts? All of this "they could do it" enuendo doesn't prove that it has been done. Thus, where's the ethical/criminal violation of the law, privacy or otherwise?

With rampant and thorough government secrecy, the hard facts will never be available to you or me. eace