• 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!

Retiring NSA chief doesn't understand why people hate the NSA

What else is protected that isn't mentioned? A nice pair of suede boots? Free education? Lakefront property? What needs to be mentioned in it and what doesn't?
Are you deliberately being facetious? The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

Constitution said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I would think any human capable of rational thought should be able to make the judgment that privacy is protected.

Anyway, it's beside the point: freedom of speech is in the Bill of Rights and it's protected, but we still don't assume that means literally any speech at any time.
It is true that no right is absolute, but that doesn't mean that said right should be disregarded entirely. If a judge issues a warrant based on probable cause to search through someone's computer and phone data, I'm fine with that, as that constitutes a reasonable and lawful violation of the right to privacy in order to ensure the security of our society.
Regardless, the government storing metadata that Verizon already has but will eventually throwaway isn't some horrible Nazi-esque moment anyway.

I don't think it's a big deal either; I just don't like it. This isn't some Orwellian scheme where the NSA's actually monitoring what we're doing, it's just the collection of private data without our consent to be sieved through in case any useful information turns up. That's not North Korea, but it's still unpleasant and unnecessary.
 
Are you deliberately being facetious? The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:


I would think any human capable of rational thought should be able to make the judgment that privacy is protected.

I am deliberately being facetious. I think it's ridiculous that someone can say the Bill of Rights protects something that it doesn't even mention, just because they think it should. That's what that boils down to. But, as I said, that's neither here nor there and is in fact peripheral to the discussion because of what we agreed upon regarding absolute rights.

It is true that no right is absolute, but that doesn't mean that said right should be disregarded entirely. If a judge issues a warrant based on probable cause to search through someone's computer and phone data, I'm fine with that, as that constitutes a reasonable and lawful violation of the right to privacy in order to ensure the security of our society.

My argument is that NSA collection on US persons doesn't entirely disregard this "right to privacy" that remains unmentioned in the Bill of Rights. It's storage of metadata, and that metadata can't even be looked at without a FISA warrant.

I don't think it's a big deal either; I just don't like it. This isn't some Orwellian scheme where the NSA's actually monitoring what we're doing, it's just the collection of private data without our consent to be sieved through in case any useful information turns up. That's not North Korea, but it's still unpleasant and unnecessary.

I think that as technology expands, the forces in the world that have internal monopolies on the authorized use of force will scramble to keep up with it. That's all this is. There's no going to be some revolutionary method of communication that suddenly arises that the whole population can use that governments are just going to ignore. If they did, those governments would end up falling. And nothing would replace them. Now, there are some people in the world that think general anarchism is good, but I'm not one of them, so I understand that governments are a necessary part of civilization.
 
Because there are very dangerous crazy people. Most terrorist plots and attempts are by Americans, not foreigners.

Yes, but they are low probability events and do not excuse gross expansion of government and general force against the Populace. Between the probability of terrorist attack and the certainty of government interference, I'll take the former.
 
I think it's ridiculous that someone can say the Bill of Rights protects something that it doesn't even mention, just because they think it should.

9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You were saying?
 
9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You were saying?

I said it doesn't mention it. And it doesn't. What were you saying? That I never told you what me degree was in? Is that what you were saying?
 
I said it doesn't mention it. And it doesn't. What were you saying? That I never told you what me degree was in? Is that what you were saying?

"what me degree was in" obviously not English.

Anyway, the Bill of Rights most certainly does reserve for the People and States rights and powers not mentioned directly in the Bill of Rights; so it seems you're wrong.

So maybe when you go back for another degree, you can take some English and American History courses to round out that "education" of yours.
 
"what me degree was in" obviously not English.

Is that what I have to do to get you to acknowledge your colossal **** up? lol

Anyway, the Bill of Rights most certainly does reserve for the People and States rights and powers not mentioned directly in the Bill of Rights;

Okay? What rights are those? Any right anyone wants?

so it seems you're wrong.

Really? When I said the word "privacy" was never mentioned in the Bill of Rights I was wrong? Was I? Hmmm.

So maybe when you go back for another degree, you can take some English and American History courses to round out that "education" of yours.

Yeah, you don't take any of those in International Relations. loool

Learn to Crtl+F
 
Is that what I have to do to get you to acknowledge your colossal **** up? lol



Okay? What rights are those? Any right anyone wants?



Really? When I said the word "privacy" was never mentioned in the Bill of Rights I was wrong? Was I? Hmmm.



Yeah, you don't take any of those in International Relations. loool

Learn to Crtl+F

"Colossal "**** up"? Not so much. I think mixing up pronouns and adjectives is a bit more embarrassing.

But yes, it does reserve all rights, even those that one may desire. Privacy is, in fact, the basis of the 4th Amendment and furthermore, we've reserved rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Additionally, as per the 10th, the Federal government only has powers which it was specifically granted in the Constitution, and that not barred to the States are reserved by the States and the People.

Maybe if I mix up some pronouns and adjectives, you'll understand better. However, I did take English in University, so it's not really a skill I possess. Kudos to you.
 
I am deliberately being facetious. I think it's ridiculous that someone can say the Bill of Rights protects something that it doesn't even mention, just because they think it should. That's what that boils down to.
It's not "just because they think it should." The 9th Amendment adequately covers the right to privacy, and one of the primary concerns of the Founders is that without a catch-all amendment the government would just proclaim that rights not specifically listed do not exist. There is substantial legal and historical evidence to suggest that rights (such as privacy) not directly mentioned in the Bill of Rights can still be assumed to fall under its protection.

But, as I said, that's neither here nor there and is in fact peripheral to the discussion because of what we agreed upon regarding absolute rights.
I beg to differ; the authority of the federal government to do this and whether or not it violates the democratic principles upon which our government is founded are both essential to any discussion about potential violations of civil liberties.

My argument is that NSA collection on US persons doesn't entirely disregard this "right to privacy" that remains unmentioned in the Bill of Rights. It's storage of metadata, and that metadata can't even be looked at without a FISA warrant.
When I send an email, or make a Word document, or do a Google search, my understanding is that such communication is solely between me and whatever parties are directly involved. Information that I don't want other parties to see is suddenly being collected without my knowledge or consent. Again, I don't think this is something directly out of 1984, but it still violates privacy.

If it's warranted, though, that changes things a little.
I think that as technology expands, the forces in the world that have internal monopolies on the authorized use of force will scramble to keep up with it. That's all this is. There's no going to be some revolutionary method of communication that suddenly arises that the whole population can use that governments are just going to ignore. If they did, those governments would end up falling. And nothing would replace them. Now, there are some people in the world that think general anarchism is good, but I'm not one of them, so I understand that governments are a necessary part of civilization.

Come on, it's not as if it's NSA spying or the collapse of state society as we know it.
 
Last edited:
It's not "just because they think it should." The 9th Amendment adequately covers the right to privacy, and one of the primary concerns of the Founders is that without a catch-all amendment the government would just proclaim that rights not specifically listed do not exist. There is substantial legal and historical evidence to suggest that rights (such as privacy) not directly mentioned in the Bill of Rights can still be assumed to fall under its protection.


I beg to differ; the authority of the federal government to do this and whether or not it violates the democratic principles upon which our government is founded are both essential to any discussion about potential violations of civil liberties.


When I send an email, or make a Word document, or do a Google search, my understanding is that such communication is solely between me and whatever parties are directly involved. Information that I don't want other parties to see is suddenly being collected without my knowledge or consent. Again, I don't think this is something directly out of 1984, but it still violates privacy.

If it's warranted, though, that changes things a little.


Come on, it's not as if it's NSA spying or the collapse of state society as we know it.

Not 100% sure certain folk understand what "reserved by the States and the People" really means.
 
Not 100% sure certain folk understand what "reserved by the States and the People" really means.

Or, for that matter, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
 
Or, for that matter, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

Definitely, it's clear if you actually read it. But that's for people versed in the art of English I suppose.
 
"Colossal "**** up"? Not so much. I think mixing up pronouns and adjectives is a bit more embarrassing.

That's funny. Odd you ran away from it for so long, then. Did I, in fact, tell you what my major was?

But yes, it does reserve all rights, even those that one may desire. Privacy is, in fact, the basis of the 4th Amendment and furthermore, we've reserved rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Additionally, as per the 10th, the Federal government only has powers which it was specifically granted in the Constitution, and that not barred to the States are reserved by the States and the People.

So does it say the word privacy in it? Or are you reading into it?

Maybe if I mix up some pronouns and adjectives, you'll understand better. However, I did take English in University, so it's not really a skill I possess. Kudos to you.

Ahhh, so we're learning what we're good at what we're not. Like how you don't know much about national defense or intelligence!
 
That's funny. Odd you ran away from it for so long, then. Did I, in fact, tell you what my major was?

Yes, and I congratulated you on the one instance you actually backed up your claim. In case you missed it, kudos. Those kudos are for you because you proved a point that one time. Good job

So does it say the word privacy in it? Or are you reading into it?

It says that not numerated in the Bill of Rights and not prohibited to the States is reserved by the States and the People. It doesn't need to say "privacy". Privacy rights are also derived from the 4th amendment that protects persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. It's clear to anyone who has successfully completed rudimentary English.



Ahhh, so we're learning what we're good at what we're not. Like how you don't know much about national defense or intelligence!

Or like how you have no idea what the Bill of Rights says.
 
It's not "just because they think it should." The 9th Amendment adequately covers the right to privacy, and one of the primary concerns of the Founders is that without a catch-all amendment the government would just proclaim that rights not specifically listed do not exist. There is substantial legal and historical evidence to suggest that rights (such as privacy) not directly mentioned in the Bill of Rights can still be assumed to fall under its protection.

I don't think we can "assume" anything does. If they wanted to say it, they could've. But they didn't. The 9th Amendment isn't something where you can just say "Oh, I think it should be a right and oh! Hey, look! The 9th Amendment says other rights are covered so it looks like the Constitution is on my side!" That's incredibly intellectually dishonest.

I beg to differ; the authority of the federal government to do this and whether or not it violates the democratic principles upon which our government is founded are both essential to any discussion about potential violations of civil liberties.

We agree that no rights are absolute, so whether privacy was mentioned in the Constitution really wouldn't matter either way. I'm just pointing out that no, it is not mentioned, and that's factually airtight. It's not mentioned.

When I send an email, or make a Word document, or do a Google search, my understanding is that such communication is solely between me and whatever parties are directly involved. Information that I don't want other parties to see is suddenly being collected without my knowledge or consent. Again, I don't think this is something directly out of 1984, but it still violates privacy.

First, it's not just between you and the recipient of the email: read the fine print of your email provider. Regardless, yelling fire in a crowded theater violates free speech. Yet we find it allowable.

If it's warranted, though, that changes things a little.

Collection of metadata without analysis (viewing) is what this is all about. Analysis requires a warrant.

Come on, it's not as if it's NSA spying or the collapse of state society as we know it.

The point is that governments are always going to be seeking to have power of technology. Is that bad? What happens when individuals have the power of technology over governments? Can you imagine?
 
Last edited:
Yes, and I congratulated you on the one instance you actually backed up your claim. In case you missed it, kudos. Those kudos are for you because you proved a point that one time. Good job

Fantastic! You're learning!

It says that not numerated in the Bill of Rights and not prohibited to the States is reserved by the States and the People. It doesn't need to say "privacy". Privacy rights are also derived from the 4th amendment that protects persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. It's clear to anyone who has successfully completed rudimentary English.

So anyone can claim any right they want under the 9th, that's a very creative reading of it! The right to have a steak dinner every night is covered in the 9th Amendment guys!

Or like how you have no idea what the Bill of Rights says.

I know it doesn't have the word in privacy in it. And you said I was wrong about that. Hmmm. Ikari, does it have the word privacy in it? Yes or no. Okay then. Sit down.
 
I don't think we can "assume" anything does. If they wanted to say it, they could've. But they didn't. The 9th Amendment isn't something where you can just say "Oh, I think it should be a right and oh! Hey, look! The 9th Amendment says other rights are covered so it looks like the Constitution is on my side!" That's incredibly intellectually dishonest.
It's even more dishonest to suggest that the Ninth Amendment doesn't guarantee anything at all by using reductio ad absurdum until it is rendered meaningless. We are creatures endowed with rational judgment; it should be obvious to anyone that privacy - a right that we embrace instinctively as well as culturally - would be implicitly protected by the Ninth Amendment, while something that doesn't constitute a right of the people but an obligation on the part of the government (such as a steak dinner) would not.


Regardless, yelling fire in a crowded theater violates free speech. Yet we find it allowable.
That's because falsely yelling fire presents a credible and quantifiable harm to society, and so it's obvious that the government should prevent it. This holds true for privacy as well - I'm perfectly fine with reading the electronic data of a suspected domestic terrorist or a mob boss, provided all of the legalisms have been adhered to. But that still doesn't mean the government can do anything and violate any right in the name of security.


Collection of metadata without analysis (viewing) is what this is all about. Analysis requires a warrant.
That creates a tricky fine line. Does collection of the metadata, even without viewing it, qualify as an unwarranted and unreasonable search or seizure of someone's digital property? I think it does.


The point is that governments are always going to be seeking to have power of technology. Is that bad? What happens when individuals have the power of technology over governments? Can you imagine?

I have nothing wrong with the government developing powerful strains of malware or making new technological devices that ordinary citizens cannot access, because there's a world of difference between maintaining a monopoly on the use of force and essentially subjugating the citizenry with that monopoly.
 
Last edited:
It's even more dishonest to suggest that the Ninth Amendment doesn't guarantee anything at all by using reductio ad absurdum until it is rendered meaningless. We are creatures endowed with rational judgment; it should be obvious to anyone that privacy - a right that we embrace instinctively as well as culturally - would be implicitly protected by the Ninth Amendment, while something that doesn't constitute a right of the people but an obligation on the part of the government (such as a steak dinner) would not.

We're not going to agree on this. You're saying the 9th Amendment covers what you'd like it to cover, and are falling back on saying it's obvious that it should cover what you think it should cover...so obvious the word wasn't even mentioned in the Constitution. Simply: I don't agree.

That's because falsely yelling fire presents a credible and quantifiable harm to society, and so it's obvious that the government should prevent it.

Well it wasn't "obvious" until the early 20th century, when that famous quote that we're paraphrasing was made with regards to the Sedition Act. But regardless, we're about to agree:

This holds true for privacy as well - I'm perfectly fine with reading the electronic data of a suspected domestic terrorist or a mob boss, provided all of the legalisms have been adhered to. But that still doesn't mean the government can do anything and violate any right in the name of security.

And I never said otherwise. I just don't find NSA storing metadata to be a violation.

That creates a tricky fine line. Does collection of the metadata, even without viewing it, qualify as an unwarranted and unreasonable search or seizure of someone's digital property? I think it does.

So what is Verizon doing, exactly, when they store their records of you using their network?

I have nothing wrong with the government developing powerful strains of malware or making new technological devices that ordinary citizens cannot access, because there's a world of difference between maintaining a monopoly on the use of force and essentially subjugating the citizenry with that monopoly.

I don't think there's any subjugation. Regardless, I wouldn't want a form of communication to exist that couldn't be hacked/accessed in the right situation.
 
Since I work for government intelligence, I'm not being lazy. I'm actually doing it. It is dangerous. But I do it for you: you're welcome.

That, friend is a bald faced lie if I ever heard one. You DON'T do your job for anyone but yourself. I don't have a problem spying on OTHER nations, that's part and parcel. What I do have a problem with is spying on our own county. The Cap said it best in his latest movie we need to tear our organizations down and start over. We have gone well beyond routine intelligence gathering of foreign entities. Its time to clean house.
 
That, friend is a bald faced lie if I ever heard one. You DON'T do your job for anyone but yourself. I don't have a problem spying on OTHER nations, that's part and parcel. What I do have a problem with is spying on our own county. The Cap said it best in his latest movie we need to tear our organizations down and start over. We have gone well beyond routine intelligence gathering of foreign entities. Its time to clean house.

Yeah, I was mocking him. I don't give a **** about it, I like the fun of the job. But anyway no, no one is spying on you.
 


He doesn't know that people think he did a peeper's job.


I don't understand it, either; The NSA is only following orders it recieved from a higher authority in the Exeutive Branch.
 
Yeah, I was mocking him. I don't give a **** about it, I like the fun of the job. But anyway no, no one is spying on you.

I have difficult time believing that US citizens are not being surveyed, after what I abuses I have seen first hand, and the various leaks revealing other abuses. Sorry but I am standing pat on the need to clean house thoroughly.
 
We're not going to agree on this. You're saying the 9th Amendment covers what you'd like it to cover, and are falling back on saying it's obvious that it should cover what you think it should cover...so obvious the word wasn't even mentioned in the Constitution. Simply: I don't agree.
I'm going to keep on pressing this, because I think it is one of the most important aspects of any discussion of civil liberties in general. The Founders were the children of a time period in which it was believed that humans are fundamentally rational beings capable of determining their own interests and rights. The Founders (and the Federalists especially) feared that enumerating rights in a bill would implicitly give the government the right to infringe upon and restrict all of the other rights that were forgotten. Thus, the Ninth Amendment. The "steak dinner" reduction of the right that you put forth doesn't apply at all. It's an absurd exaggeration that no one actually believes, it does not fit in at all with what the authors of the BoR believed in, and it carries with it an expansion of the federal government rather than a limitation of it.

Do you not see how your reductio ad absurdum effectively makes the Ninth Amendment meaningless?

So what is Verizon doing, exactly, when they store their records of you using their network?
They are providing us a service, and in doing so keep records of what happens (and thus have the right to view it, although it'd be nice if they'd be more honest about it). And as you said before, they'd probably chuck the data anyway.


I don't think there's any subjugation. Regardless, I wouldn't want a form of communication to exist that couldn't be hacked/accessed in the right situation.

I see a huge distinction between being able to access private information and already having it within grasp. The former implies that the government has the right to obtain information when necessary, while the latter implies that the government having private digital information should a given and that it is effectively up to the government whether or not they may arbitrarily analyze it.
 
I'm going to keep on pressing this, because I think it is one of the most important aspects of any discussion of civil liberties in general. The Founders were the children of a time period in which it was believed that humans are fundamentally rational beings capable of determining their own interests and rights. The Founders (and the Federalists especially) feared that enumerating rights in a bill would implicitly give the government the right to infringe upon and restrict all of the other rights that were forgotten. Thus, the Ninth Amendment. The "steak dinner" reduction of the right that you put forth doesn't apply at all. It's an absurd exaggeration that no one actually believes, it does not fit in at all with what the authors of the BoR believed in, and it carries with it an expansion of the federal government rather than a limitation of it.

Do you not see how your reductio ad absurdum effectively makes the Ninth Amendment meaningless?

That's funny, because I do find it to be particularly meaningless. Nothing more than a platitude. I can see how you see it as a stick, though, so say "Well...the 9th Amendment covers that...". I just don't agree. And I absolutely don't agree someone can just point to that in a discussion and say "See? It is a right!"

They are providing us a service, and in doing so keep records of what happens (and thus have the right to view it, although it'd be nice if they'd be more honest about it). And as you said before, they'd probably chuck the data anyway.

They do after awhile. When you find the next shoebomber (or whatever) though, you'd really want more than just the last two months of communications. Should they be lost forever? I don't see a reasonable argument why they should be.

I see a huge distinction between being able to access private information and already having it within grasp. The former implies that the government has the right to obtain information when necessary, while the latter implies that the government having private digital information should a given and that it is effectively up to the government whether or not they may arbitrarily analyze it.

In this context, I don't really. Getting access is getting access. Just win, baby.
 
That's funny, because I do find it to be particularly meaningless. Nothing more than a platitude.
If you think it means nothing and protects nothing already, than from what standpoint can you argue that it's an unfounded assumption to say that the Ninth protects privacy?

I can see how you see it as a stick, though, so say "Well...the 9th Amendment covers that...". I just don't agree. And I absolutely don't agree someone can just point to that in a discussion and say "See? It is a right!"
I don't either, but as I said, the almost universal acknowledgement of privacy as a right as well as the beliefs of the founders make it a reasonable guess. And if we got that wrong, so what? It's not like the Founders would have thought it idiotic to assume that the Ninth covers privacy.


They do after awhile. When you find the next shoebomber (or whatever) though, you'd really want more than just the last two months of communications. Should they be lost forever? I don't see a reasonable argument why they should be.

I actually wouldn't mind a law mandating that communications companies (Verizon, et al.) keep hold of such data for at least a year, but as I said, it's different when the government already has it within their possession. Whether or not that is an overreach is entirely subjective, and I don't think we're likely to reach an agreement on that anytime soon.
 
Back
Top Bottom