Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
The Fisa court never turns down a warrant and sometimes they go without them anyway.
The fact is, government power often seeks even more power and there must be a REAL check on that power or we could descend into the system we see and condemn elsewhere. We don't need to get in everybody's business to thwart a limited group of radicals who have managed to kill far far fewer people than aspirin since 9-11
Peace
Karl
Karl,
The FISA court HAS turned down requests, so there is no need for hyperbole.
More important, but little reported, is that they materially alter MOST requests made of the court, generally in the form of limiting access, or restricting access to certain things.
This is why the Congresspeople you voted for, who are read in on the program approve of it, and don't feel there is a problem.
It is also why there is NO evidence of misuse in the 7 years of it's existence.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
It is also why there is NO evidence of misuse in the 7 years of it's existence.
Ken, if there were misuse, how do you think you'd hear about it?
Seriously.
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
|
|
I dont see any kind of legislative or legal solution to this. The solution is technical. Build strong encryption into basic programs like internet explorer, google chrome, facebook, and so on. Everything on the internet should be a "https" secure connection, like when you use a credit card to buy something. Yes the NSA is building a massive database of everything they can about you, but other governments may be doing the same thing. There are all sorts of people who want to sell info for marketing purposes. I've played with PGP, triple DES etc. but it's inconvenient, and would only really work if the whole internet used encryption. Its necessary to preserve the internet as a safe way to communicate with other people.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Yeah, and even using encryption might actually flag you for special scrutiny
ie what you got to hide if you're trying to hide?
Peace
Karl
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Ken, if there were misuse, how do you think you'd hear about it?
Seriously.
Gosh, I would expect that our national hero, who had access to all of this, would have shown us----Snowden.
But he did not. He SAYS that he had access to people's emails and phone calls, but he has not produced ONE. Not ONE.
Hmmmm.
Things that actually are illegal would create real whistleblowers. But there have been none.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
On suppressing whistleblowers.
How about breaking into their lawyers offices?
The offices of a Dallas law firm representing a high-profile State Department whistleblower were broken into last weekend. Burglars stole three computers and broke into the firm's file cabinets. But silver bars, video equipment and other valuables were left untouched, according to local Fox affiliate KDFW, which aired security camera footage of the suspected burglars entering and leaving the offices around the time of the incident.
The firm Schulman & Mathias represents Aurelia Fedenisn, a former investigator at the State Department's Office of the Inspector General. In recent weeks, she raised a slew of explosive allegations against the department and its contractors ranging from illicit drug use, soliciting sexual favors from minors and prostitutes and sexual harassment.
"It's a crazy, strange and suspicious situation," attorney Cary Schulman told The Cable. "It's clear to me that it was somebody looking for information and not money. My most high-profile case right now is the Aurelia Fedenisn case, and I can't think of any other case where someone would go to these great lengths to get our information."
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/07/cameras_catch_mystery_break_in_at_whistleblowers_law_firm
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
|
|
TGT Daniel Ellesburg would tell you how quaint that story is now. America is a totally different country than it was then. I am a lawyer and am sure all my correspondence with clients is monitored. It takes me 5-8 hours to get through Homeland Security at the airport since they have to image my computer, usb and phone. I dont think I'm suspected of doing anything wrong, they just want to get "intel" about my cases. I've brought the matter to the attention of a federal judge, since sealed court materials were also copied, in violation of his order. It also takes me two weeks to arrange phone calls with my client in the Florence ADX. recording the conversation isnt good enough. They have to have an FBI agent listen real time and I have to wait until they get it set up. My clients have no privacy at all when seeking legal advice. I dont think anyone in the US actually does, at least for phone calls and emails.
If anyone doesn't understand how the fourth amendment works, let me explain. First, they get a recording of whatever they need, any way they can. Then they take it to a judge and get a warrant, then they try to get the evidence again, in a way that doesn't raise any eyebrows. If they can't they'll try to introduce the illegally-obtained evidence. That's all the 4th Amendment does. You have far more privacy in many other countries. Probably less privacy in the US than in most other countries.
Karl, I meant to thank you for your recipe idea months ago. Now I buy peanuts and raisins in bulk and put a handful of each into my daily dal bat.
 Paul
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
If anyone doesn't understand how the fourth amendment works, let me explain. First, they get a recording of whatever they need, any way they can. Then they take it to a judge and get a warrant, then they try to get the evidence again, in a way that doesn't raise any eyebrows. If they can't they'll try to introduce the illegally-obtained evidence. That's all the 4th Amendment does. You have far more privacy in many other countries. Probably less privacy in the US than in most other countries.
Sad, and hopefully obvious that the 4th ammendment isn't supposed to work that way. How does homeland security justify imaging your computer and phone? That's insane. How long has it been this way?
Karl, I meant to thank you for your recipe idea months ago. Now I buy peanuts and raisins in bulk and put a handful of each into my daily dal bat.
I suggested some nuts and raisins in the tasty bite, good cold on a wall too
Peace
Karl
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Ken, if there were misuse, how do you think you'd hear about it?
Seriously.
Gosh, I would expect that our national hero, who had access to all of this, would have shown us----Snowden.
Ken, so you're saying that for us to know if the NSA is misusing and/or abusing its power, we need to rely on whistleblowers? And at the same time, you're rallying against the NSA whistleblower?
And I bet you think you're making sense too, right?
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
|
|
It's been that way more than a year, thanks. I know a lot of good national security lawyers and work as a lawyer on K St in Washington DC, which is ground zero for lawyers. But have never met anyone who could help me with the problem. It's basically beyond the reach of the US legal system. If they want to spy on you, they will.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
He said no such thing.
Then Joe, perhaps you can help me understand what Ken said.
I asked how we're supposed to know if the NSA is misusing the info it collects. Ken responded that Snowden would have told us.
So, for us to know if the NSA is misusing the info it collects, we must rely on people on the inside, disclosing to the public via journilists, that the NSA is breaking the law.
How am I mistaken?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Joe, It's my belief that the NSA has stretched beyond what is legal in collecting information about US citizens, and thus they are breaking our civil rights.
FISC rulings have broadened the meaning of the word "relevant," moving further away from Supreme Court precedent that declared evidence could only be considered if there was a "reasonable possibility" that it could produce information related to an investigation.
If Snowden didn't leak, then we'd still be in the dark, so I'd say right there, before Snowden, there were millions who had their rights taken away without their knowledge. Thanks to Snowden, we all have a better understanding with how the Gov't is taking away our rights.
You know as well as I that the NSA is collecting more than just metadata--they are also collecting the meat, the content of the txts, email, phone calls. Otherwise the metadata is practically useless, and why would they spend billion$ on data centers that can store the content many, many billions of communications. The metadata takes only a fraction of the capacity of what they're building.
Ken made a statement that there have been no abuses of the information they've collected, but we have zero way of knowing if this is true or not. Even Ken revealed that the only way would would possibly know is if somebody like Snowden came along and risked his life to tell us.
I understand the desire to protect the homeland, but I also understand the ability to abuse the power that the NSA is assuming. And history shows many such abuses of power--don't be coy and say "Show me."
As for your question: are you trying to say that if we don't see it, it doesn't exist? In response to this contrivance of a question, I'm going to use a famous quote:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Now I ask you, prove to me that they have not abused their power.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
The judge from Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian:
"Whatever exists, he said. Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.
He looked about at the dark forest in which they were bivouacked. He nodded toward the specimens he’d collected. These anonymous creatures, he said, may seem little or nothing in the world. Yet the smallest crumb can devour us. Any smallest thing beneath yon rock out of men’s knowing. Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will be properly suzerain of the earth.
What’s a suzerain?
A keeper. A keeper or overlord.
Why not say keeper then?
Because he is a special kind of keeper. A suzerain rules even where there are other rulers. His authority countermands local judgements.
Toadvine spat.
The judge placed his hands on the ground. He looked at his inquisitor. This is my claim, he said. And yet everywhere upon it are pockets of autonomous life. Autonomous. In order for it to be mine nothing must be permitted to occur upon it save by my dispensation."
"The judge smiled. It is not necessary, he said, that the principals here be in possession of the facts concerning their case, for their acts will ultimately accommodate history with or without their understanding. But it is consistent with notions of right priniciple that these facts – to the extent that they can be readily made to do so – should find a repository in the witness of some third party. Sergeant Aguilar is just such a party and any slight to his office is but a secondary consideration when compared to divergences in that larger protocol exacted by the formal agenda of an absolute destiny. Words are things. The words he is in possession of he cannot be deprived of. Their authority transcends his ignorance of their meaning."
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
In digital era, privacy must be a priority. Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?
Al Gore
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Joe: OK, we have no proof that they are collecting more than metadata. But, if the NSA is collecting the content of phone calls, txts, emails, etc; would you agree that that is an egregious violation of our civil rights? I think many people would call that a civil rights violation (illegal search).
OK, right now, if the NSA is collecting content, then they are violating the civil rights of millions without their knowledge.
Remember this, because as DMT pointed out above, there is growing evidence that the NSA is collecting content. Someday, if it comes to light that they are collecting this content, then you will have one big-added point of proof that civil rights can be violated without your knowledge.
There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it, and that's just a fact.
Donald Rumsfeld
Now, where's your proof that they are not abusing their power.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
You do understand that the word "privacy" is never mentioned in the constitution?
Joe, that quote reminded me of one of the funnier incidents in the Roscoe Pound Moot Court Competition at UCLA. A few years after Justice Powell wrote his opinion in Roe v. Wade, he came to the Law School as one of the judges in the final round of the Competition. The issue there was about an alleged constitutional right that was not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. (I'm sorry I don't remember what it was, but I didn't compete until a couple of years later, so I don't remember the exact issue.)
In the course of oral argument, Justice Powell interrupted one of the competitors and asked "Now just where do I find this right in the Constitution?" The competitor replied, "The same place you found a right of privacy in Roe v. Wade, your honor." Then he paused, so the full horror of how he'd responded could sink in.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Even if there was an amendment guaranteeing right to privacy - it wouldn't help in this case, w/o redefining what privacy actually is.
Truth. We can argue about what the law should be, but Joe correctly states what it is.
John
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
WHICH ONES? WHICH RIGHTS? NAME THEM!!!!!
I am obviously out of my depth here. I thought the 4th amendment gave me some rights.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
That'd be what we're talking about here, I thought that was fairly clear.
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
You do understand that the word "privacy" is never mentioned in the constitution?
"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."
Yes, if you are nit-picky, the word "privacy" is not in there. The right to not have the feds mess with you and your stuff for no good reason is pretty clearly stated.
Phone records qualify as papers and effects, no?
Dave
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!