• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

Montecresto said:
My chief complaint is domestic spying, and my fourth amendment protections. Diplomats can expect in the course of discharging their duties they might spy on one another. I don't run in such circles, and I disagree with anybody that denies that I would have an expectation of privacy. Unless of course there is probable cause that I have forfeited it.
Click to expand...

Does this mean, you would not want data mining to go on? Or is the limit the metadata of communications, if content is kept secret until due cause is established by a court? Does the due cause have to be published, where it endangers third parties?
 
Ikari said:
Pretty much all technology falls under the Bill of Rights. Just because you get GPS, doesn't mean you can arbitrarily attach GPS to anyone (even in public) without cause and warrant. There must be CLEAR and CONSISTENT oversight from the SCOTUS (FISA must be lesser to the SCOTUS, no federal court can exist that does not belong directly to the SCOTUS). Content should be screened by civil liberties groups (which could be established) to assess whether or not the information warrants secrecy. Anything that doesn't becomes public record.
Click to expand...

I more or less agree with that, though, I would not want a lot of material screened by civil liberty groups. That would be much too public for some types of information. Also a MO must be found to secure information given the court for oversight purposes. But do I understand you to say that meta data and stuff in fora or other venues open to the public can be data mined?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Civil disobedience now must involve unjust suffering?
Click to expand...

Yup. That's why it's civil disobedience instead of just "law-breaking".

Nice roll back of the goal post there. You just got done saying that the law is the law... and now, apparently, the law only counts if it makes you suffer. I see.
Click to expand...

....do you think that civil disobedience is the law? I think you are confused.

How long have you been a democrat?
Click to expand...

:lol: you are accusing people of attacking civil rights icons as a desperate attempt to spin away from the fact that your logic in this debate is fail. If anyone here is acting like a Democrat, it ain't me ;)
 
joG said:
I more or less agree with that, though, I would not want a lot of material screened by civil liberty groups. That would be much too public for some types of information. Also a MO must be found to secure information given the court for oversight purposes. But do I understand you to say that meta data and stuff in fora or other venues open to the public can be data mined?
Click to expand...

No, I think that we have to strengthen even more the understanding of " persons, houses, papers, and effects". My data is part of my papers and effect and cannot be searched without proper warrant. Even more, I think we need to define proper usage of data. If I buy something from Amazon, Amazon can use that information to direct market to me. But as it's still my data, they may not sell it or give it away or allow government search without warrant. That's my data, and it must be protected.

As we further plunge into the electronic era and digital world, it will become more important to expand 4th amendment rights to protect our information, or data, our person, our houses, our papers, and our effects.
 
Kal'Stang said:
That is the phone company and the phone companies personal use business. We signed agreements with the company which gave them the access. We did not sign such an agreement with the government/NSA. Try again.
Click to expand...

See, that's the argument that falls on its face to me. I signed a contract with Verizon, and not the NSA! There's a dude on here that works now, or has worked in the NSA. Arguing with him is fruitless. The piles of evidence, even testimony from other former NSA employees, document this dangerous agency, and its crimes.
 
joG said:
Does this mean, you would not want data mining to go on? Or is the limit the metadata of communications, if content is kept secret until due cause is established by a court? Does the due cause have to be published, where it endangers third parties?
Click to expand...

Why don't you just leave the bathroom door open, walk down the street naked and leave the external speaker on when you're on the phone.
 
Ikari said:
No, I think that we have to strengthen even more the understanding of " persons, houses, papers, and effects". My data is part of my papers and effect and cannot be searched without proper warrant. Even more, I think we need to define proper usage of data. If I buy something from Amazon, Amazon can use that information to direct market to me. But as it's still my data, they may not sell it or give it away or allow government search without warrant. That's my data, and it must be protected.

As we further plunge into the electronic era and digital world, it will become more important to expand 4th amendment rights to protect our information, or data, our person, our houses, our papers, and our effects.
Click to expand...

It is not true that your correspondence is protected, when you send it by postcard. And I do not believe it is necessarily a good idea to expand the 4th or protect meta data or even content in all cases. It is, however, very necessary to make absolutely clear, what is and what is not protected.
 
Montecresto said:
Why don't you just leave the bathroom door open, walk down the street naked and leave the external speaker on when you're on the phone.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing or at least mixing important and unimportant things. Take the bathroom thing. Lots of people have no problem with being seen naked. And if you meant toilet, there are the habits of high cultures to be contemplated, when you next visit Ephesus or Pompeii, you might take a look at the marble toilet benches that the rich sat on while discussing the fate of the world. ;)
 
Montecresto said:
It wasn't offered as a defense! It's a prerequisite. You want Snowden and his crime to stand alone. Where are you calling for those responsible at the NSA, and their crime to stand alone?
Click to expand...

I have....Also, this thread is about Snowden, not the NSA...That is just you trying to strike a false equivalency to muddy the water...You should really stick to the topic.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Okay? Thousands of people have broken the law, what's your point? What's the the law right now? Can you say it?
Click to expand...


Some people thought Rosa Parks deserved the full punishment of the law. These people were on the wrong side of history.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Some people thought Rosa Parks deserved the full punishment of the law. These people were on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...

Great? Some people thought Sirhan Sirhan deserved the full punishment of the law, too. These people were on the right side of history.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Great? Some people thought Sirhan Sirhan deserved the full punishment of the law, too. These people were on the right side of history.
Click to expand...

Sirhan Sirhan committed murder, so, there's that.

Many people who have done the same thing Snowden has done (even "leaking"/exposing secrets about the same agency) enjoy the label of "whistleblower".

Nobody who has committed a single instance of political assassination has been exonerated as a purveyor of justice.
 
j-mac said:
Working more than one thread...I changed it....Point still stands...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am. The point made was that the law was broken and that is that. I brought up the point that this isn't so black and white, as people who we treat as heroes were once criminals themselves. Their actions exposed a much greater wrongdoing.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Sirhan Sirhan committed murder, so, there's that.
Click to expand...

And Rosa Parks sat on a bus, so there's that. None of this has anything to do with the topic whatsoever.

Many people who have done the same thing Snowden has done (even "leaking"/exposing secrets about the same agency) enjoy the label of "whistleblower".
Click to expand...

People who've disclosed information about overseas intelligence operations enjoy many other labels, too. None of them very positive.

Nobody who has committed a single instance of political assassination has been exonerated as a purveyor of justice.
Click to expand...

Great? I don't know why you're bringing other people into it, so I thought it was a fun game we could play. Just name people who committed crimes. We can probably go all day!
 
j-mac said:
I have....Also, this thread is about Snowden, not the NSA...That is just you trying to strike a false equivalency to muddy the water...You should really stick to the topic.
Click to expand...

Snowden outed the NSA, very relevant.
 
Montecresto said:
It goes beyond ILLEGAL, its unconstitutional. Remember, "the illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer".

Declassified secret rulings found NSA spying program unconstitutional
22 August 2013
Three secret US court opinions declassified Wednesday show that the NSA collected at least 58,000 emails and other US communications per year that were “wholly domestic” and completely unrelated to terrorism. According to a senior US official quoted in USA Today, the court opinions were declassified by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper because Clapper believed they show “effective self-policing” by the NSA.

NSA Declassifies Documents Revealing Unconstitutional Spying On U.S. Emails | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

Okay, I see the root of this disagreement with OldWorldOrder.

I think the NSA does some stuff that is legal and have been caught doing some stuff that is not legal. I will not state that everything the NSA does is either legal or illegal.

I would suggest reading the ruling of Judge John Bates from the FISC.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-conte...016974-FISA-court-opinion-with-exemptions.pdf

PAGE 28 Judge Bates states:
But for the first time, the government has now advised the Court that the volume and nature of the information it has been collecting is fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe.

Page 29 Judge Bates, FISC, states:
"The court is UNABLE (emphasis mine) to find that NSA's minimization procedures, as the government proposes to apply them in connection with MCTs are "reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular [surveillance or physical search], to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need ot the United States to obtain, produce and disseminate foreign intelligence information"

Same page he continues:
The court is also UNABLE (emphasis mine) to find that NSA's targeting and minimization procedures, as the government proposes to implement them in connection with MCTs, ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT (emphasis mine).

MCT=multi-communication transactions

I also recommend New FISC Pen Register Opinion: It

I would say illegal stuff is going on. Just because nobody has gone to jail doesn't mean that someone hasn't broken the law. Hell, look at the IRS and VA situation, just to name a couple. Several Judges have had to reign in the NSA and the FBI because they collected data that they weren't authorized to collect.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
It is not true that your correspondence is protected, when you send it by postcard. And I do not believe it is necessarily a good idea to expand the 4th or protect meta data or even content in all cases. It is, however, very necessary to make absolutely clear, what is and what is not protected.
Click to expand...

Since you think metadata is not private information, to prove you are not a hypocrite, post your phone bill in this thread.
 
...?


......?




.........?



1- A phone bill doesn't have metadata

2- The internet and NSA aren't the same thing

Such a stupid, stupid random premise.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
And Rosa Parks sat on a bus, so there's that. None of this has anything to do with the topic whatsoever.



People who've disclosed information about overseas intelligence operations enjoy many other labels, too. None of them very positive.



Great? I don't know why you're bringing other people into it, so I thought it was a fun game we could play. Just name people who committed crimes. We can probably go all day!
Click to expand...

The idea presented by you and cpwill in this thread suggest that the law is black and white. I have demonstrated that it is not with the example of civil disobedience. People like Rosa Parks broke the law, and are now heroes and champions of civil rights.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Yeah, I am. The point made was that the law was broken and that is that. I brought up the point that this isn't so black and white, as people who we treat as heroes were once criminals themselves. Their actions exposed a much greater wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

The law was broken, and Snowden has the right to face his accusers in court. If he weren't such a coward POS, he'd do that.
 
Montecresto said:
Snowden outed the NSA, very relevant.
Click to expand...

Then he should come on back and put it all in the open to a judge. If he is a true whistle blower, there are laws to protect him, if he is just another petulant, cowardly, child that wants to throw a wrench into things, then he'll go to jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom