• 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!

FBI admits no major cases cracked with Patriot Act snooping powers

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Can't say I'm surprised.

FBI admits Patriot Act snooping powers didn't crack any major terrorism cases - Washington Times

FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report Thursday that could complicate efforts to keep key parts of the law operating. Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations. The FBI did finally come up with procedures to try to minimize the information it was gathering on nontargets, but it took far too long, Mr. Horowitz said in the 77-page report, which comes just as Congress is trying to decide whether to extend, rewrite or entirely nix Section 215.

Backers say the Patriot Act powers are critical and must be kept intact, particularly with the spread of the threat from terrorists. But opponents have doubted the efficacy of Section 215, particularly when it’s used to justify bulk data collection such as in the case of the National Security Agency’s phone metadata program, revealed in leaks from former government contractor Edward Snowden. The new report adds ammunition to those opponents, with the inspector general concluding that no major cases have been broken by use of the Patriot Act’s records-snooping provisions. “The agents we interviewed did not identify any major case developments that resulted from use of the records obtained in response to Section 215 orders,” the inspector general concluded — though he said agents did view the material they gathered as “valuable” in developing other leads or corroborating information.
 
Can't say I'm surprised.

FBI admits Patriot Act snooping powers didn't crack any major terrorism cases - Washington Times

FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report Thursday that could complicate efforts to keep key parts of the law operating. Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations. The FBI did finally come up with procedures to try to minimize the information it was gathering on nontargets, but it took far too long, Mr. Horowitz said in the 77-page report, which comes just as Congress is trying to decide whether to extend, rewrite or entirely nix Section 215.

Backers say the Patriot Act powers are critical and must be kept intact, particularly with the spread of the threat from terrorists. But opponents have doubted the efficacy of Section 215, particularly when it’s used to justify bulk data collection such as in the case of the National Security Agency’s phone metadata program, revealed in leaks from former government contractor Edward Snowden. The new report adds ammunition to those opponents, with the inspector general concluding that no major cases have been broken by use of the Patriot Act’s records-snooping provisions. “The agents we interviewed did not identify any major case developments that resulted from use of the records obtained in response to Section 215 orders,” the inspector general concluded — though he said agents did view the material they gathered as “valuable” in developing other leads or corroborating information.


Do you have a more reliable source for that?? That Washington times is not known for it's veracity.
 
In a day and age where partisanship seems to have penetrated every nook and cranny of our lives there are precious few opportunities for us to cast that aside and unite, together, around an issue that SHOULD receive unanimous support from EVERYONE. This is such an issue.

The Patriot Act was a mistake and needs to expire. The very concept of data mining is evil.
 
Can't say I'm surprised.

FBI admits Patriot Act snooping powers didn't crack any major terrorism cases - Washington Times

FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report Thursday that could complicate efforts to keep key parts of the law operating. Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations. The FBI did finally come up with procedures to try to minimize the information it was gathering on nontargets, but it took far too long, Mr. Horowitz said in the 77-page report, which comes just as Congress is trying to decide whether to extend, rewrite or entirely nix Section 215.

Backers say the Patriot Act powers are critical and must be kept intact, particularly with the spread of the threat from terrorists. But opponents have doubted the efficacy of Section 215, particularly when it’s used to justify bulk data collection such as in the case of the National Security Agency’s phone metadata program, revealed in leaks from former government contractor Edward Snowden. The new report adds ammunition to those opponents, with the inspector general concluding that no major cases have been broken by use of the Patriot Act’s records-snooping provisions. “The agents we interviewed did not identify any major case developments that resulted from use of the records obtained in response to Section 215 orders,” the inspector general concluded — though he said agents did view the material they gathered as “valuable” in developing other leads or corroborating information.

So, if I've got this straight, the proposal here is that the Patriot Act should be abolished because no major terrorist threats were unearthed up until 2009, a full six years ago. Anyone have any relevant recent information? I certainly know that several plots in Canada have been uncovered in the past several years using the provisions of similar legislation.

And let's just think about the 2004 to 2009 time frame. I'm pretty sure many of the world's terrorists were spending most of their time trying to stay alive in the Middle East and to fight off coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. With the draw down in troop levels on those two fronts and the civil war in Syria, terrorists since 2009 have had more time and opportunity on their hands as also witnessed by the rise of ISIL/ISIS/IS in Syria/Iraq.

I'd bet there isn't anyone on this site - I'll give you maybe one or two - who could actually claim how the Patriot Act has directly, adversely, affected your personal life and day to day living. For the vast majority of people, well above 90%, it's a non-issue. But just like Gitmo and other issues Americans like to wail endlessly about, you'll soon be blaming Obama or the next President should some other terrorist action take place on American soil as a result of not being vigilant and not having the necessary tools to make that vigilance effective - these are the same whiners who bleated endlessly that Bush was responsible for 9/11 because he didn't have the necessary intelligence to stop it.
 
So, if I've got this straight, the proposal here is that the Patriot Act should be abolished because no major terrorist threats were unearthed up until 2009, a full six years ago. Anyone have any relevant recent information? I certainly know that several plots in Canada have been uncovered in the past several years using the provisions of similar legislation.

And let's just think about the 2004 to 2009 time frame. I'm pretty sure many of the world's terrorists were spending most of their time trying to stay alive in the Middle East and to fight off coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. With the draw down in troop levels on those two fronts and the civil war in Syria, terrorists since 2009 have had more time and opportunity on their hands as also witnessed by the rise of ISIL/ISIS/IS in Syria/Iraq.

I'd bet there isn't anyone on this site - I'll give you maybe one or two - who could actually claim how the Patriot Act has directly, adversely, affected your personal life and day to day living. For the vast majority of people, well above 90%, it's a non-issue. But just like Gitmo and other issues Americans like to wail endlessly about, you'll soon be blaming Obama or the next President should some other terrorist action take place on American soil as a result of not being vigilant and not having the necessary tools to make that vigilance effective - these are the same whiners who bleated endlessly that Bush was responsible for 9/11 because he didn't have the necessary intelligence to stop it.
I will only speak for myself here when I say that what is in bold is NOT the reason I think The Patriot Act should be abolished. It should be abolished because it is an infringement of liberty, it has and will continue to be abused, and it gave rise to the practice of data mining.

The very concept of data mining is evil.
 
I will only speak for myself here when I say that what is in bold is NOT the reason I think The Patriot Act should be abolished. It should be abolished because it is an infringement of liberty, it has and will continue to be abused, and it gave rise to the practice of data mining.

The very concept of data mining is evil.

That's fair - as long as you're also prepared to accept the inevitable increase in insecurity that will result and you're also prepared to hold your government and its agents blameless for that increase.

And I'm curious - how has "data-mining" directly and adversely affected you personally? You are aware that the very fact that you're on the internet now viewing a site, you're likely having your usage and travels monitored and mined by private businesses and entities that have nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

I could argue the same against policing of all sorts - police patrols - CCTV cameras both public and privately held - security guards in businesses/shopping centers, etc. It's a trade off I'm prepared to make.
 

Since it has been shown that 60% of Fox News claims are inaccurate, that isn't much better than the yellow journalism rag run by the moonies. I mean, it just points back to the original article from the Washington times, and is written by someone that is writing from a right wing blog. Do you have an independent source? A source that says 'According to the Washington time' is not really providing a reliable source, you know.
 
Since it has been shown that 60% of Fox News claims are inaccurate, that isn't much better than the yellow journalism rag run by the moonies. I mean, it just points back to the original article from the Washington times, and is written by someone that is writing from a right wing blog. Do you have an independent source? A source that says 'According to the Washington time' is not really providing a reliable source, you know.

I didn't realize The Washington Times isn't a reliable news source. At this moment in time I do not have another source.
 
In a day and age where partisanship seems to have penetrated every nook and cranny of our lives there are precious few opportunities for us to cast that aside and unite, together, around an issue that SHOULD receive unanimous support from EVERYONE. This is such an issue.

The Patriot Act was a mistake and needs to expire. The very concept of data mining is evil.


It is an intrusion on privacy, and does need to expire. However, data mining happens all the time around you. For example, my mother was telling me when she went to the grocery story, and got her groceries, the coupons that spat out automatically were all the things that she normally buys, down to the exact brands. That's data mining right there. If you have a cell phone, the phone companies knows what your location was for the last year. If you browse the internet, you will get targeted add. That's data mining.

Or, is it you object to 'the government using data mining' , rather than coporations?
 
I didn't realize The Washington Times isn't a reliable news source. At this moment in time I do not have another source.

The Washington times was started by Sun Yen Moon, and quite often promotes right wing conspiracy theories as fact. They promoted the 9/11 being an inside job, and claim Obama is a Muslim and was born in Kenya (never mind he has pork BBQ's at the white house).

While they often will have accurate news articles, there are a fair number that are totally off the wall. That's why I want an independent source when I see a news article from them.
 
"Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations."

I hate these kind of stories. When did he testify, 6 years ago? That's when his data is from. Maybe they don't have any analysts that could actually look between 2009 and 2015.
 
That's fair - as long as you're also prepared to accept the inevitable increase in insecurity that will result and you're also prepared to hold your government and its agents blameless for that increase.

And I'm curious - how has "data-mining" directly and adversely affected you personally? You are aware that the very fact that you're on the internet now viewing a site, you're likely having your usage and travels monitored and mined by private businesses and entities that have nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

I could argue the same against policing of all sorts - police patrols - CCTV cameras both public and privately held - security guards in businesses/shopping centers, etc. It's a trade off I'm prepared to make.


It is an intrusion on privacy, and does need to expire. However, data mining happens all the time around you. For example, my mother was telling me when she went to the grocery story, and got her groceries, the coupons that spat out automatically were all the things that she normally buys, down to the exact brands. That's data mining right there. If you have a cell phone, the phone companies knows what your location was for the last year. If you browse the internet, you will get targeted add. That's data mining.

Or, is it you object to 'the government using data mining' , rather than coporations?
What has come out about this program thus far is a clear cut invasion of privacy and reason enough to **** can the whole thing, IMO, but what truly scares the hell out of me are the applications and uses of it that haven't even been thought of yet.:shock:
 
What has come out about this program thus far is a clear cut invasion of privacy and reason enough to **** can the whole thing, IMO, but what truly scares the hell out of me are the applications and uses of it that haven't even been thought of yet.:shock:


If you want to truly get out of the whole data-mining concept, you have to get rid of data mining from corporations and ad companies too. But, if you use the internet, use a credit card, or a 'membership card' for shopping at a grocery story, or use a cell phone (even a dumb one, not a smartphone), then corporate America is already data mining the heck out of you.

You would be SHOCKED to know what is out there about you. For example, if you have a cell phone, in the bowls of the various phone companies information is the cell tower reception data on direction for each cell tower to your phone. They triangulate, and can tell where you have been , to the exact house , for probably at least the last 6 months. It would not be difficult to write a program that would be able to spit out a report to track the location of any specific cell phone. And that is even without it being a smartphone that the gps is enabled on
 
What has come out about this program thus far is a clear cut invasion of privacy and reason enough to **** can the whole thing, IMO, but what truly scares the hell out of me are the applications and uses of it that haven't even been thought of yet.:shock:

Perhaps you're younger than I am - I have no fear of what the government is doing in this regard - hell, government agents would die of boredom following my every move. But I don't object to majority rule and if enough people feel as you do then by all means elect representatives who'll move to stop or curtail these encroachments. I'm also not a person who's frequently or ever in situations where a terrorist may take my life, so lack of these programs won't adversely affect me personally.
 
And I'm curious - how has "data-mining" directly and adversely affected you personally?
The very fact that my government is overstepping its authority by conducting an unwarranted and unreasonable search of my affairs is a direct and adverse affect on me personally. That alone is enough, no other adverse affect is necessary.
 
The very fact that my government is overstepping its authority by conducting an unwarranted and unreasonable search of my affairs is a direct and adverse affect on me personally. That alone is enough, no other adverse affect is necessary.

We shouldn't have to justify our right to privacy.
 
The very fact that my government is overstepping its authority by conducting an unwarranted and unreasonable search of my affairs is a direct and adverse affect on me personally. That alone is enough, no other adverse affect is necessary.

The way that 'meta data' works is that it looks at patterns in the whole data, and there is just too much data there for any specific individual to be targeted, as it it being used now. The metadata allows them to find patterns linking specific key people togather to know if/when they should pay stricter attention to specific people, and as an 'early warning' system if certain groups communicate with each other more. As such, the way it's being used now doesn't overly intrude on the average person. THe problem is that the potential is there. It STILL should be terminated, but the intrusion on your personal business is not there. It just COULD be there with this data, and that is concerning enough.

The problems I see with the laws is not that the government has access to it, but that the companies are allowed to keep it and act on it in their own data collection schemes. It's not enough to restrict the government from it. There should be regulations concerning it for how companies collect and use it. Why just control the government, when we should be regulating corporations about it too?
 
The very fact that my government is overstepping its authority by conducting an unwarranted and unreasonable search of my affairs is a direct and adverse affect on me personally. That alone is enough, no other adverse affect is necessary.

If the government is following legislation that hasn't as yet been ruled unconstitutional, how is it "overstepping its authority"? If you believe the government is "overstepping its authority", what makes you think it will stop doing it if the Patriot Act is repealed or isn't renewed?
 
Perhaps you're younger than I am - I have no fear of what the government is doing in this regard - hell, government agents would die of boredom following my every move. But I don't object to majority rule and if enough people feel as you do then by all means elect representatives who'll move to stop or curtail these encroachments. I'm also not a person who's frequently or ever in situations where a terrorist may take my life, so lack of these programs won't adversely affect me personally.

But you know it isn't about you, don't you?
 
I will only speak for myself here when I say that what is in bold is NOT the reason I think The Patriot Act should be abolished. It should be abolished because it is an infringement of liberty, it has and will continue to be abused, and it gave rise to the practice of data mining.

The very concept of data mining is evil.

I'm not sure that "evil" is the right word to describe data mining, but certainly "unconstitutional" would apply, given the words of the Fourth Amendment.

Any legislation that does not comply with the US Constitution is null and void, and no citizen has an obligation to obey it.
 
I will only speak for myself here when I say that what is in bold is NOT the reason I think The Patriot Act should be abolished. It should be abolished because it is an infringement of liberty, it has and will continue to be abused, and it gave rise to the practice of data mining.

The very concept of data mining is evil.

You speak for more than yourself. ;) but I think CJ's going to make the liberty for security argument, but I know your not buying it!
 
It is an intrusion on privacy, and does need to expire. However, data mining happens all the time around you. For example, my mother was telling me when she went to the grocery story, and got her groceries, the coupons that spat out automatically were all the things that she normally buys, down to the exact brands. That's data mining right there. If you have a cell phone, the phone companies knows what your location was for the last year. If you browse the internet, you will get targeted add. That's data mining.

Or, is it you object to 'the government using data mining' , rather than coporations?

One can avoid corporate data mining by opting out. That is why corporations often provide incentives, such as discounts, to encourage it. The laws in many states and some federal laws also require that businesses provide disclosures on how they use customer information and provide their customers with a method for opting out. Also, corporations risk losing customers and ruining their reputation when they abuse their customer data.

Our government does not provide disclosure or opt out options and has a well documented record of using personal information to discredit and disrupt people and organizations for political reasons, ie. Cointelpro Other governments are even worse and we seem to be headed in the wrong direction.
 
It is an intrusion on privacy, and does need to expire. However, data mining happens all the time around you. For example, my mother was telling me when she went to the grocery story, and got her groceries, the coupons that spat out automatically were all the things that she normally buys, down to the exact brands. That's data mining right there. If you have a cell phone, the phone companies knows what your location was for the last year. If you browse the internet, you will get targeted add. That's data mining.

Or, is it you object to 'the government using data mining' , rather than coporations?

If you don't think meta-data or data mining involves an invasion of privacy, you are invited to prove the point by posting a copy of your phone bill on this forum.
 
If the government is following legislation that hasn't as yet been ruled unconstitutional, how is it "overstepping its authority"? If you believe the government is "overstepping its authority", what makes you think it will stop doing it if the Patriot Act is repealed or isn't renewed?

Politicians routinely pass unconstitutional laws despite knowing that it is unconstitutional. Legislative bodies have staff attorneys that can and should advise them when a law is clearly unconstitutional. In my opinion elected officials should be charged with a crime when they do that because it requires a huge expenditure by civil liberties advocates and the government and years of process to get a Supreme Court ruling.

Without authorization for invading our privacy at least the government can not use the information to convict someone in court. (for those who get a real trial)
 
Back
Top Bottom