So The NSA Surveillance Is OK With The Courts, What Next?

[rhinefire]

It appears we are at the point "Fail Safe" for our rights to privacy according to the latest court ruling. Do not lose sight of the fact this will be irreversible as long as we are told it is for our own good to prevent attacks from terrorists. "We are changed forever" one man said shortly after 911. How wise he was. The main reason America went the decision to use nuclear force against Japan is the staggering American death toll that would have occurred in a ground war on the soil of Japan. This was due to the incredible resolve of the Japanese people, not just their military. I think we Americans should duplicate that resolve as the same government that decided to vaporize Japanese civilians has decided it worth imprisoning American civilians in order to protect their jobs in Washington DC. Hopefully we will respond I believe we will not.

 

[iacardsfan]

find a way for the courts to overturn the Patriot Act and there is no NSA. Also, if it were to go to SCOTUS, the ruling would be in favor of the constitution.

 

[ecofarm]

if it were to go to SCOTUS, the ruling would be in favor of the constitution.

Meta data collection doesn't violate the constitution any more than a DUI checkpoint. Let's not lend undue weight to your opinion.

 

[iacardsfan]

Meta data collection doesn't violate the constitution any more than a DUI checkpoint. Let's not lend undue weight to your opinion.

Just because a judge rules it as public data, doesn't mean it is. Plus, the difference between this and DUI checkpoints are that the Federal government owns the roads.

 

[SBu]

Just because a judge rules it as public data, doesn't mean it is. Plus, the difference between this and DUI checkpoints are that the Federal government owns the roads.

I tend to agree with you. Just because we are told time and time again that everything on the internet is public and we have no reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't mean that it is true with respect to the government. I believe I have a reasonable expectation of privacy for my personal email, 1 on 1 chats via skype, texting, etc., and social media outlets in which I discriminate who is my "friend". I don't really mind companies trying to advertise to me via data mining because, hey it's their company's website, but if the government wants to "search and seize" my "papers and effects" (which I believe extends to the digital equivalent), then I believe "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[Dittohead not!]

Sometimes I wonder if the terrorists have won.

 

[specklebang]

It appears we are at the point "Fail Safe" for our rights to privacy according to the latest court ruling. Do not lose sight of the fact this will be irreversible as long as we are told it is for our own good to prevent attacks from terrorists. "We are changed forever" one man said shortly after 911. How wise he was. The main reason America went the decision to use nuclear force against Japan is the staggering American death toll that would have occurred in a ground war on the soil of Japan. This was due to the incredible resolve of the Japanese people, not just their military. I think we Americans should duplicate that resolve as the same government that decided to vaporize Japanese civilians has decided it worth imprisoning American civilians in order to protect their jobs in Washington DC. Hopefully we will respond I believe we will not.

The courts are just a tool of the government. They get to dress up in those cool black robes and get called "Your Honor" but they have no army, no guns and no real power. So, they do as they are told and if some renegade judge sides with the people, why they just take the case to a more malleable court and I bet those renegade judges have a very boring career after their boo-boo.

The "privacy" era has ended. The best you can hope for is benevolence from the rulers. Try to keep a low profile.

 

[Helix]

the battle was lost the second that FISA was created. well, it was lost a long time before that, but the signed surrender was FISA. everything else has just been icing on the cake.

i mean, come on. we actually have a sanctioned kangaroo court that has only denied eleven of 33,900 surveillance requests. just think about that.

if you really want to blow your mind, think about this : the average American, though pissed off about the patriot act, FISA, and the NSA, would probably be secretly ok with it as long as it keeps preventing attacks and they can still publicly claim outrage over it while it works in the background. that's part of the reason why no politician ever does anything to reverse the policies.

 

[SBu]

The courts are just a tool of the government. They get to dress up in those cool black robes and get called "Your Honor" but they have no army, no guns and no real power. So, they do as they are told and if some renegade judge sides with the people, why they just take the case to a more malleable court and I bet those renegade judges have a very boring career after their boo-boo.

The "privacy" era has ended. The best you can hope for is benevolence from the rulers. Try to keep a low profile.

And so we must ask ourselves why we aren't more inclined to demand more freedom from government overreach. The answer is probably because we are more happy with our standard of living and comfortable lives than we are unhappy with something that is relatively out of sight, out of mind. A good economy and general happiness of a populace remains government's closest ally.

The opposite is true in Thailand at the moment which makes that struggle quite interesting as it is somewhat close to ours ideologically.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves -- there have been conflicting rulings now in 2 Federal courts, which just about guarantees a trip to the Supreme Court. The only question is whether or not they will punt.

 

[ecofarm]

I tend to agree with you. Just because we are told time and time again that everything on the internet is public and we have no reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't mean that it is true with respect to the government. I believe I have a reasonable expectation of privacy for my personal email, 1 on 1 chats via skype, texting, etc., and social media outlets in which I discriminate who is my "friend". I don't really mind companies trying to advertise to me via data mining because, hey it's their company's website, but if the government wants to "search and seize" my "papers and effects" (which I believe extends to the digital equivalent), then I believe "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Collecting meta data is not searching anything.

 

[SBu]

Collecting meta data is not searching anything.

But it is seizing something with the intention of possibly searching it at an undisclosed time and place without an issued warrant.

 

[ecofarm]

But it is seizing something with the intention of possibly searching it at an undisclosed time and place without an issued warrant.

It's meta data. Doing anything more than looking at the connections requires a warrant (at least of some sort).

 

[WCH]

Collecting meta data is not searching anything.

What proof do we have that they're not collecting 'all' info? Clapper lied to Congress that they were collecting no info and then......who knows.

 

[SBu]

It's meta data. Doing anything more than looking at the connections requires a warrant (at least of some sort).

Issued to?

 

[ecofarm]

Issued to?

A warrant will be issued by a 'special panel of judges' in the case of one end of the communication being foreign and one of them on the terrorist list, or via regular means when otherwise. Info gained via the special warrant (this touted as "warrantless") cannot be used in obtaining a proper warrant through normal channels (required or the info cannot be used against someone).

 

[ecofarm]

What proof do we have that they're not collecting 'all' info? Clapper lied to Congress that they were collecting no info and then......who knows.

I'm sure they're playing world of warcraft, looking for Muhammad and Abdul of the AlQ Clan. Because terrorists play that crap. That's how they train.

 

[Ikari]

It appears we are at the point "Fail Safe" for our rights to privacy according to the latest court ruling. Do not lose sight of the fact this will be irreversible as long as we are told it is for our own good to prevent attacks from terrorists. "We are changed forever" one man said shortly after 911. How wise he was. The main reason America went the decision to use nuclear force against Japan is the staggering American death toll that would have occurred in a ground war on the soil of Japan. This was due to the incredible resolve of the Japanese people, not just their military. I think we Americans should duplicate that resolve as the same government that decided to vaporize Japanese civilians has decided it worth imprisoning American civilians in order to protect their jobs in Washington DC. Hopefully we will respond I believe we will not.

It would be nice if we had the resolve to live by the consequences and responsibilities of freedom. But it seems that fear mongering has won the day and the result shall be the death of privacy.

 

[ludin]

Yeah but that ruling contradicts another court ruling which means it will head to the supreme court. i figure it will be a 5-4 decision against the NSA or that the NSA has to have provided enough info to get the taps going.

i agree i do not like the fact that they can willy nilly listen to whoever they want too. this is a direct violation of the 4th amendment.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Collecting meta data is not searching anything.

If it isn't searching anything, then they should be able to obtain it without demanding the private records of phone companies.

 

[ecofarm]

i agree i do not like the fact that they can willy nilly listen to whoever they want too. this is a direct violation of the 4th amendment.

Nonsense. It's just meta data collection.

 

[ludin]

Nonsense. It's just meta data collection.

It doesn't matter if it was 1 bit out of a 2 bit string. without probable cause and a search warrant according to the 4th amendment they have no right to that data period.
Everything they gather on anyone should be inadmissible in court.

so it isn't nonsense it is a violation of the constitution.

if they want to track terrorist communications fine I am all for that, but listening and tracking and collecting data on millions of people including our allies is huge over-reach.
more so when they lack the proper etiquette and there is no evidence that this supposed secret court rejected on submission.

this is a country of laws not government overreach.

 

[ecofarm]

It doesn't matter

No, it does matter. Collecting a list of connections to check for terrorist links is not the same as spying on someone.

 

[ludin]

No, it does matter. Collecting a list of connections to check for terrorist links is not the same as spying on someone.

first way to ignore 99% of the post.

if they can prove that those list of connections have ties to terrorists with a court order per the constitution fine. randomly listening to and collecting data without probable cause
and without a warrent is unconsitutional.

that is the reason the constitution exists to stop these types of governmental intrusions into our lives.

 

[ecofarm]

first way to ignore 99% of the post.

When you start with a false premise, I'll ignore the rest. "Randomly listening" does not occur. I'll only debate reality, thanks.