NSA collecting phone records of millions of Americans daily

[Seth]

This news first came out during the Bush 42 presidency. Wasn't a scandal then, of course, Dubya was president.

Might have something to do with the fact that Obama ranted and raved against such domestic surveillance during his two campaigns and used them as a major plank in his promised administration...and then gave us all the finger and went right ahead with it.

At least Bush said what he was going to do and did it.

Obama is a fucking pathological liar who will say ANYTHING that he thinks will give him an advantage politically, regardless of whether he means it or not.

[Tero]

Oh my God!

What civil libertarians see is the spying issue. That, to most of them, is the “problem” at hand.

However, the true problem is deeper. It is the reaction of the American people to the spying revelations.

In a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll, a majority of Americans were OK with the federal government spying on them if it meant the possibility that it could prevent a terrorist attack.

The poll found that 56 percent of Americans consider the National Security Agency’s accessing of telephone call records of millions of Americans through secret court orders “acceptable,” while 41 percent call the practice “unacceptable.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3031947/posts

[laklak]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

^A man of great wisdom was Franklin, imo.
I wonder what he would have made of all this bollox?

[Azathoth]

Obama is a fucking pathological liar who will say ANYTHING that he thinks will give him an advantage politically, regardless of whether he means it or not.

Or as I like to call it a politician.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Obama is a fucking pathological liar who will say ANYTHING that he thinks will give him an advantage politically, regardless of whether he means it or not.

Or as I like to call it a politician.

We got what we wanted.

[Ian]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Ben Franklin lived before the days of WMDs. I think his quote could do with a couple caveats.

[Seth]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Ben Franklin lived before the days of WMDs. I think his quote could do with a couple caveats.

True enough, which is why I'm so torn on the issue. I see a legitimate need to access the vast amounts of data that help detect and foil terrorist plots, which is really no different in essence from spying, intelligence activities and SIGINT (Signal Intercept) that really began thousands of years ago with attempts to intercept couriers with battlefield messages.

The problem is that in the past you had a pretty good idea who the "couriers" were because of the nature of the technology of the times. Even after the discovery of radio SIGINT was fairly straightforward. During WWII for example, HAMs were prohibited from transmitting so that the government could monitor the HF airwaves for Nazi spy transmissions.

With today's modern technology banning communications to isolate the enemy's transmissions is no longer possible, so new methods of SIGINT detection are needed.

It's perfectly reasonable, from the technological and national security viewpoint to use computer power to search for computer-generated terrorist communications, and it's legally as sound as monitoring the airwaves in WWII to catch Nazi spies...other people broadcasting on the airwaves might also be monitored, but that's the price you pay for using the public airwaves. If you want privacy, find another means of communication that the government does or cannot monitor.

The real problem that I see is not the monitoring per se, it's what the government can or might do with all that information it's collected.

Because once the data has been captured and stored, it essentially exists forever, and there is absolutely no way to ensure that irrelevant data is destroyed (viz: the BATFE getting caught on several occasions illegally retaining NICS background check information that's supposed to be destroyed within 24 hours) the people must assume that all that information will remain in government hands forever.

So, the only way to begin to mitigate the threat to privacy in today's technological age is to enact laws, preferably by amending the Constitution so it can't be tampered with by a future Congress, that strictly and carefully limit what government may legitimately do with that information by way of prosecution or using it against citizens monitored without their consent and without specific probable-cause supported warrants.

Severe penalties for revealing ANY such information without a court order from a PUBLIC (not FISA...secret court) federal court judge with substantive due process for the subject of such an order are required. These should be mandatory minimum 25 year prison sentence federal felonies for anyone involved, including permanent and immediate public employment ban for life.

Any such information that is collected that is not pertinent to a bona-fide national security TERRORIST or WAR matter should be declared to be completely inadmissible in any court, as well as being deemed a "poisonous tree" for the purposes of using the intel as a springboard for other, non-national security terrorist or war investigations of any kind whatsoever, including murder, drugs or anything else.

Only this would even have a chance of reassuring the public that their communications are sacrosanct UNLESS they are engaged in terrorism. The NSA and CIA would essentially become bound under the same "seal of the confessional" as a priest...they would be utterly forbidden on penalty of prison to reveal anything not pertinent to their lawful remit.

I really see no other solution to this dilemma because SIGINT is a necessary evil in today's world.

[Azathoth]

You are devolving into a loon post with the random caps here seth. That said I agree with you

[Cormac]

Of course, given that the word "terrorist" is so vague as to be a perfect little propaganda tool to get all the people to line up behind their own oppression, any such constitutional measure will be irrelevant as soon as it was passed.
"War on Terror", "Terrorism" - my arse.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

^ This exactly.

[Tero]

the Franklin quote is misread:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what ... ally-said/
and out of context.

[Sean Hayden]

Except terrorism is a problem and people are aware of the difficulty of finding a satisfactory definition. But who's surprised by that? Do governments, security and defense agencies routinely deal with the easily explicable?

Last time I read anything about it I think experts had it down to about 3-4 useful definitions and they regularly discussed the potential for misuse.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I think terrorism is a much smaller problem than governments would have us believe. Cormac put it exactly right, I think.

[Sean Hayden]

That's possible, but I think different than dismissing it all as propaganda. I think it's easy to worry more if you're responsible for preventing it. We already had a lot of resources dedicated to it prior to 9/11.