NSA reportedly collecting phone records of millions, though officials had denied hold

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by lindy

The public outrage SHOULD be at the disclosure and not the activity.

Really? So, because Congress has abdicated their responsibility and the Judicial branch has rubber stamped, we should be mad at the whistleblower? Get real. Read what Clapper says and boil it down to its most basic form. They gather up data on phone numbers called and for what duration by pretty much everyone. That violates the expectation by the 4th Amendment that you are safe from unreasonable searches and seizures without judicially sanctioned (this part they have with, ahem, FISA court) probable cause (this they don't have unless everyone who picks up a phone is believed to be a possible terrorist or terrorist sympathizer).

[perdurabo]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

I am soooo comforted. Taken out of context, huh? this sentence is exactly what the press said it was. So, Clapper can say whatever he wants but, at the end of the day, my phone calls are being catalogued for cross referencing against a terrorist database without any probable cause that I have done something wrong.

Jesus Christ! The stuff coming from this admin just keeps getting better and better.

What people are not realizing is that the NSA exploits compartmentalization quite well.

On one hand, it's used to compartmentalize classified information to individuals or teams on a need-to-know basis. Virtually all of us here who have served are well-familiar with this concept.

On the other hand, the NSA uses compartmentalization to counter oversight and limit the visible scope of a goal. Take the call metadata program, for example. I'm not sure whether the program name has been leaked (PRISM is another program entirely), but let's call it "HORSESH!T".

While HORSESH!T's scope is collecting call metadata (phone numbers, date & times, who they called, etc) you can virtually guarantee HORSESH!T has sister programs (let's make up the name FROGBUTT) that DOES connect the information from the HORSESH!T program to the personal data collected in the FROGBUTT program. There may be an additional program called DONKEYSNOT that records the contents of all the phone calls in the US, this is, in turn, chained to the data from the other programs.

It's compartmentalized. If information from one program is compromised, only one part of the overall picture becomes unveiled. The NSA can plausibly deny the actual scope of a program. It lessens damage to "national security". Jigsaw intelligence.

[Team Sergeant]

Yup let's give up all our freedoms in the name of security.....

Sure saved us from the last bombing didn't it.

The morons had that information also and did nothing what do you expect them to do with all the information on millions of Americans? Maybe harass non-liberals? But that would be a stretch wouldn't it......

Yup just keep allowing the "Government" to take all the personal freedoms it likes until you've signed away everything, in the name of security.

Anything for the children.

Ask the folks of Boston about the trillion dollars a year spent on "National Security" and the personal freedoms we've given up are working for them......

Sheep.

[lindy]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

Really? So, because Congress has abdicated their responsibility and the Judicial branch has rubber stamped, we should be mad at the whistleblower? Get real. Read what Clapper says and boil it down to its most basic form. They gather up data on phone numbers called and for what duration by pretty much everyone. That violates the expectation by the 4th Amendment that you are safe from unreasonable searches and seizures without judicially sanctioned (this part they have with, ahem, FISA court) probable cause (this they don't have unless everyone who picks up a phone is believed to be a possible terrorist or terrorist sympathizer).

The President clearly articulated that the program doesn't apply to Americans living in the United States, the FISC has upheld the ruling, and bi-partisan legislators have been briefed. As the President stated, this is about data and not content.

I would argue that the data is akin to GPS tracking data which the SCOTUS has decided doesn't require a warrant.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by lindy

The President clearly articulated that the program doesn't apply to Americans living in the United States, the FISC has upheld the ruling, and bi-partisan legislators have been briefed. As the President stated, this is about data and not content.

I would argue that the data is akin to GPS tracking data which the SCOTUS has decided doesn't require a warrant.

The President has proven to be so forthcoming and honest. You aren't reading Clapper's (who knows more about the program than President Obama does) words. He contradicts his own boss. But, you are obviously a kool aid drinker. Enjoy.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by perdurabo

What people are not realizing is that the NSA exploits compartmentalization quite well.

This "people" understands that politicians and bureaucrats exploit information quite readily.

Can the current administration or any future administration be trusted with vast amounts of given political adversaries personal information???

IMO, given the rapid advancement of technology - the balance between security and liberty is a valid consideration.

As someone once said...trust but verify.

[perdurabo]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Yup let's give up all our freedoms in the name of security.....

Sure saved us from the last bombing didn't it.

The morons had that information also and did nothing what do you expect them to do with all the information on millions of Americans? Maybe harass non-liberals? But that would be a stretch wouldn't it......

Yup just keep allowing the "Government" to take all the personal freedoms it likes until you've signed away everything, in the name of security.

Anything for the children.

Ask the folks of Boston about the trillion dollars a year spent on "National Security" and the personal freedoms we've given up are working for them......

Sheep.

With all due respect, this isn't and shouldn't be made into a partisan thing. This thing was started under Bush* and expanded under Obama. You have Lindsey Graham, Karl Rove, and other right-wingers on the TV cheerleading the administration's efforts.

I'm annoyed to see so many right-wingers jumping on the bandwagon now that a Democrat president is in office. Where were they when this was all born under a Republican administration? Oh right, supporting it. Both sides should take the blame.

* Ok, ok, much of it was born prior to Bush, but I'm referring to the post-PATRIOT Act.

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by lindy

I would argue that the data is akin to GPS tracking data which the SCOTUS has decided doesn't require a warrant.

Lindy,
I would argue that your information is incorrect.
The SCOTUS has ruled that GPS tracking REQUIRES a warrant.

SnT

“All nine justices agreed that the placement of the GPS on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.”

“Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said [in his opinion for the Court] that the government’s installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required.
“By attaching the device to the Jeep” that Jones was using, “officers encroached on a protected area,” Scalia wrote.”
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/01/break...tracking-case/

[MSRlaw]

Did you just watch Obama's press conference? I thought it was a live dramatic reading of Orwell's 1984.

[ddoering]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

The former NSA Director, LTG Michael Hayden, cautioned that with this kind of capability the transition to totalitarian state is nothing more than a "flip of a switch". A very, very sobering thought. Especially in light of the current events.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

But they would never use it to monitor conservative groups. That is far etched.

[lindy]

Originally Posted by Surf n Turf

Lindy,
I would argue that your information is incorrect.
The SCOTUS has ruled that GPS tracking REQUIRES a warrant.

SnT

Thanks SNT! So please allow me to justify my postion with another case devoted to data:

Smith v Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=442&invol=735

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Court's opinion was (in part):

First, we doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. In fact, pen registers and similar devices are routinely used by telephone companies "for the purposes of checking billing operations, detecting fraud, and preventing violations of law." United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S., at 174 -175. Electronic equipment is used not only to keep billing records of toll calls, but also "to keep a record of all calls dialed from a telephone which is subject to a special rate structure." Hodge v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 555 F.2d 254, 266 (CA9 1977) (concurring opinion). Pen registers are regularly employed "to determine whether a home phone is being used to conduct a business, to check for a defective dial, or to check for overbilling."

Telephone users, in sum, typically know that they must convey numerical information to the phone company; that the phone company has facilities for recording this information; and that the phone company does in fact record this information for a variety of legitimate business purposes. Although subjective expectations cannot be scientifically gauged, it is too much to believe that telephone subscribers, under these circumstances, harbor any general expectation that the numbers they dial will remain secret.

We therefore conclude that petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and that, even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate."

(Of course there was a dissenting opinion which can be read via the URL above.)

[MSRlaw]

Originally Posted by Dusty

The Government has one f.cking job-to leave Citizens the f.ck alone unless absolutely necessary.

Just because you have read and understood the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers doesn't mean our gov't has. But then the gov't knows with their sideshow of Fox vs Msnbc that most americans are busy hating eah other instead of congress/president/scotus.

[tonyz]

The judiciary appears very open to approving wiretap requests...so metadata should be no sweat...just ask James Rosen and his family.

IMO, sweeping government snooping without a duly issued warrant is repugnant to liberty and a free society.

If you do not think that political operatives can make hay with most every one of our lives - based on a selective interpretation, release and spin of data - you're deluding yourselves.

There are sound fundamental reasons why privacy is a right.

[Sdiver]

With this coming to light, anyone know how I can get my records?

Specifically my text records from June of 2009. My EX-girlfriend says I didn't text her telling her I was going to be late for dinner. I say I did. I just want to prove the bitch wrong.

[uspsmark]

"You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society," Obama said.

Does this mean he is guaranteeing us 100% security?