what exigent circumstance could exist that would make it so you would not need a warrant for months of surveillance data? The time it takes for a business like Verizon to comply with the request would give ample amount of time to get a warrant. (don't know am asking) Wouldn't exigent circumstances only apply if there was a time table where these records would no exist? If Verizon deleted their records every month on a certain date it seems like it would be exigent circumstances...but they don't. If an impending attack was beleived to be happening their would be justification, but they never have to explain it.
Your last line is exactly how I could see them justifying it. Certain Congressional members have said as much (stopping a train attack on the east coast was one I heard). If the government can say, "look, we got information that a certain person with said phone number was making a call to a person who was believed to be participating in a planned attack," I can easily see that qualifying as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless search of that person's phone records or internet communications.
We will never know if it is a true violation of the fourth because things are happening in secrecy. We do need more information. As you said, I am fairly certain that this isn't right. Wouldn't an arrest based on information gathered due to using fruit from a poisonous tree be thrown out in court anyway?
But I don't believe that the NSA is intent on using this to bring charges, but rather to disrupt actions they believe harmful to the United States. To me that is where this gets into scary territory.
Exactly. We simply need facts and information. Assuming its unconstitutional because it smells like it is just bad business. Do your homework if you can, but don't lob unsupported charges. That's what the other side does.
Another good point you raise is what I've called the "remedy problem." Typically, a Fourth Amendment violation is remedied by suppressing the evidence in court. I previously used the example of a Miranda violation. An officer who violates Miranda will have any evidence gained from that violation suppressed in court. What remedy would we have against this program if it's not being used in Court? Who's the victim? Someone would have to file civil suit to claim the violation, which again, brings us to the secrecy problem. We need facts to allege a violation, and if it's in secret, we can't get those facts. We just don't have the facts or the forum to make that claim. This is why I continue to say that persisting with this Fourth Amendment argument is a dead-end, because we simply can't win it. It may be there, but what are the facts that prove it? We'll never know. Why pursue that when the real argument has to do with transparency and the myriad of legislation (PATRIOT, for instance) that cut away civil liberties in the past 13 years?
In short, taking this on from a Fourth Amendment angle is the wrong way. We just can't win that argument, not currently or without more information. Those who persist in doing so, without facts, lose credibility. We owe it to ourselves to make claims when we can support them, and when we can't, work toward ends that will allow us the most information possible.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
The Criminal N.S.A.
By JENNIFER STISA GRANICK and CHRISTOPHER JON SPRIGMAN
Published: June 27, 2013
THE twin revelations that telecom carriers have been secretly giving the National Security Agency information about Americans’ phone calls, and that the N.S.A. has been capturing e-mail and other private communications from Internet companies as part of a secret program called Prism, have not enraged most Americans. Lulled, perhaps, by the Obama administration’s claims that these “modest encroachments on privacy” were approved by Congress and by federal judges, public opinion quickly migrated from shock to “meh.”
...This view is wrong — and not only, or even mainly, because of the privacy issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and other critics. The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law. No statute explicitly authorizes mass surveillance. Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear-mongering and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House — and from President Obama, who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught.
The administration has defended each of the two secret programs. Let’s examine them in turn.
Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contract employee and whistle-blower, has provided evidence that the government has phone record metadata on all Verizon customers, and probably on every American, going back seven years. This metadata is extremely revealing; investigators mining it might be able to infer whether we have an illness or an addiction, what our religious affiliations and political activities are, and so on.
The law under which the government collected this data, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, allows the F.B.I. to obtain court orders demanding that a person or company produce “tangible things,” upon showing reasonable grounds that the things sought are “relevant” to an authorized foreign intelligence investigation. The F.B.I. does not need to demonstrate probable cause that a crime has been committed, or any connection to terrorism.
Even in the fearful time when the Patriot Act was enacted, in October 2001, lawmakers never contemplated that Section 215 would be used for phone metadata, or for mass surveillance of any sort. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican and one of the architects of the Patriot Act, and a man not known as a civil libertarian, has said that “Congress intended to allow the intelligence communities to access targeted information for specific investigations.” The N.S.A.’s demand for information about every American’s phone calls isn’t “targeted” at all — it’s a dragnet. “How can every call that every American makes or receives be relevant to a specific investigation?” Mr. Sensenbrenner has asked. The answer is simple: It’s not.
The government claims that under Section 215 it may seize all of our phone call information now because it might conceivably be relevant to an investigation at some later date, even if there is no particular reason to believe that any but a tiny fraction of the data collected might possibly be suspicious. That is a shockingly flimsy argument — any data might be “relevant” to an investigation eventually, if by “eventually” you mean “sometime before the end of time.” If all data is “relevant,” it makes a mockery of the already shaky concept of relevance.
Let’s turn to Prism: the streamlined, electronic seizure of communications from Internet companies. In combination with what we have already learned about the N.S.A.’s access to telecommunications and Internet infrastructure, Prism is further proof that the agency is collecting vast amounts of e-mails and other messages — including communications to, from and between Americans.
The government justifies Prism under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Section 1881a of the act gave the president broad authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance. If the attorney general and the director of national intelligence certify that the purpose of the monitoring is to collect foreign intelligence information about any nonAmerican individual or entity not known to be in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can require companies to provide access to Americans’ international communications. The court does not approve the target or the facilities to be monitored, nor does it assess whether the government is doing enough to minimize the intrusion, correct for collection mistakes and protect privacy. Once the court issues a surveillance order, the government can issue top-secret directives to Internet companies like Google and Facebook to turn over calls, e-mails, video and voice chats, photos, voiceover IP calls (like Skype) and social networking information.
Like the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act gives the government very broad surveillance authority. And yet the Prism program appears to outstrip that authority. In particular, the government “may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.”
The government knows that it regularly obtains Americans’ protected communications. The Washington Post reported that Prism is designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness” — as John Oliver of “The Daily Show” put it, “a coin flip plus 1 percent.” By turning a blind eye to the fact that 49-plus percent of the communications might be purely among Americans, the N.S.A. has intentionally acquired information it is not allowed to have, even under the terrifyingly broad auspices of the FISA Amendments Act.
How could vacuuming up Americans’ communications conform with this legal limitation? Well, as James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told Andrea Mitchell of NBC, the N.S.A. uses the word “acquire” only when it pulls information out of its gigantic database of communications and not when it first intercepts and stores the information.
If there’s a law against torturing the English language, James Clapper is in real trouble.
The administration hides the extent of its “incidental” surveillance of Americans behind fuzzy language. When Congress reauthorized the law at the end of 2012, legislators said Americans had nothing to worry about because the surveillance could not “target” American citizens or permanent residents. Mr. Clapper offered the same assurances. Based on these statements, an ordinary citizen might think the N.S.A. cannot read Americans’ e-mails or online chats under the F.A.A. But that is a government fed misunderstanding.
A “target” under the act is a person or entity the government wants information on — not the people the government is trying to listen to. It’s actually O.K. under the act to grab Americans’ messages so long as they are communicating with the target, or anyone who is not in the United States.
Leave aside the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act for a moment, and turn to the Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment obliges the government to demonstrate probable cause before conducting invasive surveillance. There is simply no precedent under the Constitution for the government’s seizing such vast amounts of revealing data on innocent Americans’ communications.
The government has made a mockery of that protection by relying on select Supreme Court cases, decided before the era of the public Internet and cellphones, to argue that citizens have no expectation of privacy in either phone metadata or in e-mails or other private electronic messages that it stores with third parties.
This hairsplitting is inimical to privacy and contrary to what at least five justices ruled just last year in a case called United States v. Jones. One of the most conservative justices on the Court, Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote that where even public information about individuals is monitored over the long term, at some point, government crosses a line and must comply with the protections of the Fourth Amendment. That principle is, if anything, even more true for Americans’ sensitive nonpublic information like phone metadata and social networking activity.
We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government’s professed concern with protecting Americans’ privacy. It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal.
The Criminal N.S.A.
By JENNIFER STISA GRANICK and CHRISTOPHER JON SPRIGMAN
Published: June 27, 2013
THE twin revelations that telecom carriers have been secretly giving the National Security Agency information about Americans’ phone calls, and that the N.S.A. has been capturing e-mail and other private communications from Internet companies as part of a secret program called Prism, have not enraged most Americans. Lulled, perhaps, by the Obama administration’s claims that these “modest encroachments on privacy” were approved by Congress and by federal judges, public opinion quickly migrated from shock to “meh.”
...This view is wrong — and not only, or even mainly, because of the privacy issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and other critics. The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law. No statute explicitly authorizes mass surveillance. Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear-mongering and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House — and from President Obama, who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught.
The administration has defended each of the two secret programs. Let’s examine them in turn.
Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contract employee and whistle-blower, has provided evidence that the government has phone record metadata on all Verizon customers, and probably on every American, going back seven years. This metadata is extremely revealing; investigators mining it might be able to infer whether we have an illness or an addiction, what our religious affiliations and political activities are, and so on.
The law under which the government collected this data, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, allows the F.B.I. to obtain court orders demanding that a person or company produce “tangible things,” upon showing reasonable grounds that the things sought are “relevant” to an authorized foreign intelligence investigation. The F.B.I. does not need to demonstrate probable cause that a crime has been committed, or any connection to terrorism.
Even in the fearful time when the Patriot Act was enacted, in October 2001, lawmakers never contemplated that Section 215 would be used for phone metadata, or for mass surveillance of any sort. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican and one of the architects of the Patriot Act, and a man not known as a civil libertarian, has said that “Congress intended to allow the intelligence communities to access targeted information for specific investigations.” The N.S.A.’s demand for information about every American’s phone calls isn’t “targeted” at all — it’s a dragnet. “How can every call that every American makes or receives be relevant to a specific investigation?” Mr. Sensenbrenner has asked. The answer is simple: It’s not.
The government claims that under Section 215 it may seize all of our phone call information now because it might conceivably be relevant to an investigation at some later date, even if there is no particular reason to believe that any but a tiny fraction of the data collected might possibly be suspicious. That is a shockingly flimsy argument — any data might be “relevant” to an investigation eventually, if by “eventually” you mean “sometime before the end of time.” If all data is “relevant,” it makes a mockery of the already shaky concept of relevance.
Let’s turn to Prism: the streamlined, electronic seizure of communications from Internet companies. In combination with what we have already learned about the N.S.A.’s access to telecommunications and Internet infrastructure, Prism is further proof that the agency is collecting vast amounts of e-mails and other messages — including communications to, from and between Americans.
The government justifies Prism under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Section 1881a of the act gave the president broad authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance. If the attorney general and the director of national intelligence certify that the purpose of the monitoring is to collect foreign intelligence information about any nonAmerican individual or entity not known to be in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can require companies to provide access to Americans’ international communications. The court does not approve the target or the facilities to be monitored, nor does it assess whether the government is doing enough to minimize the intrusion, correct for collection mistakes and protect privacy. Once the court issues a surveillance order, the government can issue top-secret directives to Internet companies like Google and Facebook to turn over calls, e-mails, video and voice chats, photos, voiceover IP calls (like Skype) and social networking information.
Like the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act gives the government very broad surveillance authority. And yet the Prism program appears to outstrip that authority. In particular, the government “may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.”
The government knows that it regularly obtains Americans’ protected communications. The Washington Post reported that Prism is designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness” — as John Oliver of “The Daily Show” put it, “a coin flip plus 1 percent.” By turning a blind eye to the fact that 49-plus percent of the communications might be purely among Americans, the N.S.A. has intentionally acquired information it is not allowed to have, even under the terrifyingly broad auspices of the FISA Amendments Act.
How could vacuuming up Americans’ communications conform with this legal limitation? Well, as James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told Andrea Mitchell of NBC, the N.S.A. uses the word “acquire” only when it pulls information out of its gigantic database of communications and not when it first intercepts and stores the information.
If there’s a law against torturing the English language, James Clapper is in real trouble.
The administration hides the extent of its “incidental” surveillance of Americans behind fuzzy language. When Congress reauthorized the law at the end of 2012, legislators said Americans had nothing to worry about because the surveillance could not “target” American citizens or permanent residents. Mr. Clapper offered the same assurances. Based on these statements, an ordinary citizen might think the N.S.A. cannot read Americans’ e-mails or online chats under the F.A.A. But that is a government fed misunderstanding.
A “target” under the act is a person or entity the government wants information on — not the people the government is trying to listen to. It’s actually O.K. under the act to grab Americans’ messages so long as they are communicating with the target, or anyone who is not in the United States.
Leave aside the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act for a moment, and turn to the Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment obliges the government to demonstrate probable cause before conducting invasive surveillance. There is simply no precedent under the Constitution for the government’s seizing such vast amounts of revealing data on innocent Americans’ communications.
The government has made a mockery of that protection by relying on select Supreme Court cases, decided before the era of the public Internet and cellphones, to argue that citizens have no expectation of privacy in either phone metadata or in e-mails or other private electronic messages that it stores with third parties.
This hairsplitting is inimical to privacy and contrary to what at least five justices ruled just last year in a case called United States v. Jones. One of the most conservative justices on the Court, Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote that where even public information about individuals is monitored over the long term, at some point, government crosses a line and must comply with the protections of the Fourth Amendment. That principle is, if anything, even more true for Americans’ sensitive nonpublic information like phone metadata and social networking activity.
We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government’s professed concern with protecting Americans’ privacy. It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal.
I understand you use all these articles to support your view, as do all of us, but even you should know that what is published in all these articles is biased and they lack information.
It doesn't matter what Snowden said, or how the reporters interpret it, we do not know enough about this program and what Snowden's 100% intent was.
I am not saying there is zero truth in these articles, but they should not be taken 100% seriously.
But I am glad you are at least providing some kind of evidence.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
we do not know enough about this program and what Snowden's 100% intent was.
We know enough about the programs to know they're in breach of the Constitution. As for Snowden's intentions, he's already explained what they are.
Just because he said it does not make it true. :
For all we know he could be telling us lies while hiding something else. I am not saying that is what I believe, but just because someone says something does not mean its true.
And like someone said earlier, whether or not it was a breach of the Constitution can be debated. Personally I think the Constitution should be changed to fit modern times (don't worry conservatives I'm not a liberal or a Communist. ).
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
"Last night, I gave my first speech on the NSA stories, Edward Snowden and related issues of journalism, delivered to the Socialism 2013 Conference in Chicago. Because it was my first speech since the episode began, it was the first time I was able to pause a moment and reflect on everything that has taken place and what the ramifications are. I was originally scheduled to speak live but was unable to travel there and thus spoke via an (incredibly crisp) Skype video connection. I was introduced by Jeremy Scahill, whose own speech is well worth watching." - Glenn Greenwald
US army blocks access to Guardian website to preserve 'network hygiene'
Military admits to filtering reports and content relating to government surveillance programs for thousands of personnel
Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 28 June 2013
The US army has admitted to blocking access to parts of the Guardian website for thousands of defence personnel across the country.
A spokesman said the military was filtering out reports and content relating to government surveillance programs to preserve "network hygiene" and prevent any classified material appearing on unclassified parts of its computer systems.
The confirmation follows reports in the Monterey Herald that staff at the Presidio military base south of San Francisco had complained of not being able to access the Guardian's UK site at all, and had only partial access to the US site, following publication of leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The Pentagon insisted the Department of Defense was not seeking to block the whole website, merely taking steps to restrict access to certain content.
But a spokesman for the Army's Network Enterprise Technology Command (Netcom) in Arizona confirmed that this was a widespread policy, likely to be affecting hundreds of defence facilities.
"In response to your question about access to the guardian.co.uk website, the army is filtering some access to press coverage and online content about the NSA leaks," said Gordon Van Vleet, a Netcom public affairs officer...
The plan to spirit the surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden to sanctuary in Latin America appeared to be unravelling on Friday, amid tension between Ecuador's government and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.
President Rafael Correa halted an effort to help Snowden leave Russia amid concern Assange was usurping the role of the Ecuadoran government, according to leaked diplomatic correspondence published on Friday.
Amid signs Quito was cooling with Snowden and irritated with Assange, Correa declared invalid a temporary travel document which could have helped extract Snowden from his reported location in Moscow.
Correa declared that the safe conduct pass issued by Ecuador's London consul – in collaboration with Assange – was unauthorised, after other Ecuadorean diplomats privately said the WikiLeaks founder could be perceived as "running the show".
According to the correspondence, which was obtained by the Spanish-language broadcaster Univision and shared with the Wall Street Journal, divisions over Assange have roiled Ecuador's government.
Ecuador's ambassador to the US, Nathalie Cely, told presidential spokesman Fernando Alvarado that Quito's role in the drama was being overshadowed by the WikiLeaks founder, who has sheltered in Ecuador's London embassy for the past year to avoid extradition.
"I suggest talking to Assange to better control the communications. From outside, [Assange] appears to be running the show."
Earlier this week a senior foreign diplomat in Quito told the Guardian that some – though not all – factions in the government were annoyed with what they saw as Assange grandstanding.
In a message attributed to Assange sent to Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, and other top officials, the WikiLeaks founder apologised "if we have unwittingly [caused] Ecuador discomfort in the Snowden matter." The note continued: "There is a fog of war due to the rapid nature of events. If similar events arise you can be assured that they do not originate in any lack of respect or concern for Ecuador or its government."
Assange appears to have had a strong role in obtaining the travel document for Snowden, dated 22 June which bore the printed name, but not signature, of the London consul, Fidel Narvaez, a confidante. By mid-week Narvaez was reportedly in Moscow.
The document could have helped Snowden, whose US passport has been revoked, leave the transit lounge of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport where he has reportedly holed up since fleeing Hong Kong last weekend.
On Thursday, Correa, who previously has hailed Snowden for exposing US spying, and has earned kudos for defying Washington pressure over the affair, reduced Snowden's chances of making it to Quito.
At a press conference the president declared the travel document invalid and said Ecuador would not consider an asylum request unless Snowden reached Ecuadorean territory, an increasingly remote prospect.
"The situation of Mr Snowden is a complex situation and we don't know how he will solve it."
Correa did however ramp up defiance of the US by waiving preferential trade rights to thwart what officials called Washington "blackmail". Analysts said Correa, an economist who specialised in game theory, had so far skilfully extracted political capital from the saga without drawing US retaliation.
In a TV interview on Friday, Snowden's father said said he was worried about the involvement of WikiLeaks. "I don't want to put him in peril, but I am concerned about those who surround him," Lonnie Snowden told NBC.
"I think WikiLeaks, if you've looked at past history … their focus isn't necessarily the constitution of the United States. It's simply to release as much information as possible."
Snowden said he did not believe his son had betrayed his country. "At this point, I don't feel that he's committed treason. He has broken US law, in a sense that he has released classified information. And if folks want to classify him as a traitor, in fact he has betrayed his government. But I don't believe that he's betrayed the people of the United States."
Snowden said he had told US attorney general Eric Holder through his lawyer that his son might return home if he would not be detained before trial, could choose the location for his trial and would not be subjected to a gag order. It was not clear that Lonnie Snowden was communicating his son's views, as he also said they had not spoken since April.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I think this is where I check out of this thread. If the best we can do toward impuning this program as unconstitutional is cite op-ed stories, then I'll gladly hop off before the credibility train derails any further.
You can't prove a Fourth Amendment violation without facts or details about the alleged searches and you can't have any viable remedy without a forum to challenge. A program run in secret doesn't lend itself to giving out facts or details. I must have said this a hundred times.
Like I've also said about a hundred times, I desperately want to believe this program is unconstitutional. But I also refuse to let my own biases get in the way of dispassionate reason and scrutiny. I refuse to label a program something I can't prove it to be. Op-ed pieces are not facts. My own suspicions are not facts. Links or long quotes or someone else's words are not facts. What I want to believe is not license to dispense with doing my homework.
Until we have facts that can prove the full use of this program, we cannot prove a Fourth Amendment violation. Because the very secrecy of the program gets in the way of obtaining those facts, the use of this program is a transparency issue first, (and thus a legislative or electoral issue), and a Constitutional issue second. The requirement of facts to prove a Constitutional violation necessitates it so.
Persisting in a dead-end campaign, whether because it's fun to throw around excerpts from the Constitution or because it's easier to level charges we can't prove, is counterproductive to the cause (whatever that is these days) and only allows this program to continue further.
I've spent enough time on the merry-go-round with this one. Hopefully those that are truly appalled and concerned about this program will stop attacking it from the top-down, and instead work on the issues that allow programs like this, constitutional or not, to exist in the first place.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Personally I think the Constitution should be changed to fit modern times (don't worry conservatives I'm not a liberal or a Communist. ).
yes, and we can start with the 2nd amendment...
Agreed. Unfortunately I don't think we are currently capable of amending the Constitution given the
political climate in which we live.
Yep. I don't see it changing anytime soon. The country is too divided and the NRA has too much power.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I think this is where I check out of this thread. If the best we can do toward impuning this program as unconstitutional is cite op-ed stories, then I'll gladly hop off before the credibility train derails any further.
You can't prove a Fourth Amendment violation without facts or details about the alleged searches and you can't have any viable remedy without a forum to challenge. A program run in secret doesn't lend itself to giving out facts or details. I must have said this a hundred times.
Like I've also said about a hundred times, I desperately want to believe this program is unconstitutional. But I also refuse to let my own biases get in the way of dispassionate reason and scrutiny. I refuse to label a program something I can't prove it to be. Op-ed pieces are not facts. My own suspicions are not facts. Links or long quotes or someone else's words are not facts. What I want to believe is not license to dispense with doing my homework.
Until we have facts that can prove the full use of this program, we cannot prove a Fourth Amendment violation. Because the very secrecy of the program gets in the way of obtaining those facts, the use of this program is a transparency issue first, (and thus a legislative or electoral issue), and a Constitutional issue second. The requirement of facts to prove a Constitutional violation necessitates it so.
Persisting in a dead-end campaign, whether because it's fun to throw around excerpts from the Constitution or because it's easier to level charges we can't prove, is counterproductive to the cause (whatever that is these days) and only allows this program to continue further.
I've spent enough time on the merry-go-round with this one. Hopefully those that are truly appalled and concerned about this program will stop attacking it from the top-down, and instead work on the issues that allow programs like this, constitutional or not, to exist in the first place.
:thumbup:
Exactly!!!
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
So now he can stay in Russia, but only if he stops leaking secrets. I am sure the Russians are going to set him up in a comfy apartment with plenty of fine food and drink and never expect him to reveal to them any classified information he may have. Sounds completely plausible.
So now he can stay in Russia, but only if he stops leaking secrets. I am sure the Russians are going to set him up in a comfy apartment with plenty of fine food and drink and never expect him to reveal to them any classified information he may have. Sounds completely plausible.
Putin, being a spy himself, is loving this. He is like, this is the guy that cracked your system??? HA!
Which leads me to believe that whatever data a 29 year old can get within three months of taking a job means that every country with half a reasonable intelligence network has to have everything that Snowden has. There is no way in hell that the KGB or whatever they call themselves hasn't been plugged into this for years, right?
Pure gamesmanship and pouring salt in the wounds by Putin, and based on his smile he is loving every second of it.
So now he can stay in Russia, but only if he stops leaking secrets. I am sure the Russians are going to set him up in a comfy apartment with plenty of fine food and drink and never expect him to reveal to them any classified information he may have. Sounds completely plausible.
Putin, being a spy himself, is loving this. He is like, this is the guy that cracked your system??? HA!
Which leads me to believe that whatever data a 29 year old can get within three months of taking a job means that every country with half a reasonable intelligence network has to have everything that Snowden has. There is no way in hell that the KGB or whatever they call themselves hasn't been plugged into this for years, right?
Pure gamesmanship and pouring salt in the wounds by Putin, and based on his smile he is loving every second of it.
An entire planet to explore and he chooses China and Russia as his first ports of call. :fp:
I do agree that learning of this surveillance was probably no surprise to many intelligence agencies around the world. But as for what he might have...I do worry that a 29 year old who took his job specifically to collect and release classified information may have been able to get access to much more than your average employee who just went to work everyday.
If they have nothing to hide, and it's all legal, then why have they been carrying it out in total secrecy?
Because if everyone knew then people trying to commit crimes would know how to avoid the government!!!! lol. Regular Americans can be terrorists too, not just people who are officially part of a terrorist organization.
Yes, terrorist organizations knew how what to avoid in some cases, but they are not the only threat. Regular Americans are capable of carrying out such devastating attacks.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
The world is a scary place. We have many terrorists out there who are more willing to hurt the U.S. than before (or possibly just the same, except now they are more well-organized in a way).
This program, although intrudes on us, to me is no big deal. Yeah it sucks it happens, but if it protects us, WHO CARES. If I am doing nothing wrong, WHO CARES! What they gonna do, find out I have a free pizza waiting from Papa Johns? ( i dont at the moment, but hopefully soon! lol)
This program has not harmed anyone. It was set up for good intentions. Today I saw a new interview with George W. Bush supporting Obama saying how this program is the best for the country, which obviously it is. If they know about Americans, who cares! Maybe now they know my Bday by heart and can send me a gift.
It was kept secret so it could capture criminals and find out the truth about their intentions. It covers all Americans because any one of us can be a terrorist or criminal.
Sorry I am not one of those paranoid Americans who thinks everything the government does is an effort to take away our rights and make us all slaves (not saying you are Byrnzie. I applaud and praise you for making known an issue and trying to have a discussion on an issue you believe is worth talking about )
Snowden's opinion is that this program is bad because it intrudes on civil liberties. In the world today, we need a balance. In some cases our liberties would have to be intruded on to make sure we are safe. That is the world today. So I applaud him for trying to do what's right, but I'm sorry, he is living in 1788. It is 2013, the world is different. Like I said earlier, the Constitution needs to be updated a little bit.
I'm not a government lover and I don't always try to defend them, by the way. In this case I get what they did and why they did it, but I also understand I can be wrong and don't have all the details.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
An entire planet to explore and he chooses China and Russia as his first ports of call. :fp:
I do agree that learning of this surveillance was probably no surprise to many intelligence agencies around the world. But as for what he might have...I do worry that a 29 year old who took his job specifically to collect and release classified information may have been able to get access to much more than your average employee who just went to work everyday.
You clearly have zero interest in this case, and are only interested in your own personal fantasies regarding it. It's already been made perfectly clear that Snowden was in possession of material that could have been very useful to countries such as China, or Russia, but that he chose not to release such material. The only material he has been willing to release is that which is of benefit to the citizens of the U.S and other countries who have been spied on.
But just keep ignoring that and indulging in your fantasies.
The world is a scary place. We have many terrorists out there who are more willing to hurt the U.S. than before (or possibly just the same, except now they are more well-organized in a way).
This program, although intrudes on us, to me is no big deal. Yeah it sucks it happens, but if it protects us, WHO CARES. If I am doing nothing wrong, WHO CARES! What they gonna do, find out I have a free pizza waiting from Papa Johns? ( i dont at the moment, but hopefully soon! lol)
This program has not harmed anyone. It was set up for good intentions. Today I saw a new interview with George W. Bush supporting Obama saying how this program is the best for the country, which obviously it is. If they know about Americans, who cares! Maybe now they know my Bday by heart and can send me a gift.
It was kept secret so it could capture criminals and find out the truth about their intentions. It covers all Americans because any one of us can be a terrorist or criminal.
Sorry I am not one of those paranoid Americans who thinks everything the government does is an effort to take away our rights and make us all slaves (not saying you are Byrnzie. I applaud and praise you for making known an issue and trying to have a discussion on an issue you believe is worth talking about )
Snowden's opinion is that this program is bad because it intrudes on civil liberties. In the world today, we need a balance. In some cases our liberties would have to be intruded on to make sure we are safe. That is the world today. So I applaud him for trying to do what's right, but I'm sorry, he is living in 1788. It is 2013, the world is different. Like I said earlier, the Constitution needs to be updated a little bit.
I'm not a government lover and I don't always try to defend them, by the way. In this case I get what they did and why they did it, but I also understand I can be wrong and don't have all the details.
I just hope that your views are not widely held views in the U.S. Because if they are, then that's a very, very sad state of affairs. 'America, the land of the free.' What a fucking joke.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -australia '...you have four times the chance of being struck by lightning as you do from being killed by a terror attack. You are nine times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit; you are eight times more likely to die at the hands of a police officer than a terrorist. You are also something like a thousand times more likely to lose your life in a car crash than from a terror plot.'
Yet the U.S government has convinced it's citizens that it needs to spy on every single one of them, and carry out this spying program in total secrecy, with no transparency or accountability. And the American public nod their heads like obedient sheep.
The world is a scary place. We have many terrorists out there who are more willing to hurt the U.S. than before (or possibly just the same, except now they are more well-organized in a way).
This program, although intrudes on us, to me is no big deal. Yeah it sucks it happens, but if it protects us, WHO CARES. If I am doing nothing wrong, WHO CARES! What they gonna do, find out I have a free pizza waiting from Papa Johns? ( i dont at the moment, but hopefully soon! lol)
This program has not harmed anyone. It was set up for good intentions. Today I saw a new interview with George W. Bush supporting Obama saying how this program is the best for the country, which obviously it is. If they know about Americans, who cares! Maybe now they know my Bday by heart and can send me a gift.
It was kept secret so it could capture criminals and find out the truth about their intentions. It covers all Americans because any one of us can be a terrorist or criminal.
Sorry I am not one of those paranoid Americans who thinks everything the government does is an effort to take away our rights and make us all slaves (not saying you are Byrnzie. I applaud and praise you for making known an issue and trying to have a discussion on an issue you believe is worth talking about )
Snowden's opinion is that this program is bad because it intrudes on civil liberties. In the world today, we need a balance. In some cases our liberties would have to be intruded on to make sure we are safe. That is the world today. So I applaud him for trying to do what's right, but I'm sorry, he is living in 1788. It is 2013, the world is different. Like I said earlier, the Constitution needs to be updated a little bit.
I'm not a government lover and I don't always try to defend them, by the way. In this case I get what they did and why they did it, but I also understand I can be wrong and don't have all the details.
I just hope that your views are not widely held views in the U.S. Because if they are, then that's a very, very sad state of affairs. 'America, the land of the free.' What a fucking joke.
I am getting the hint you think my views are complete bullshit. Well, my views are mine. In America you can think what you want, and believe what you want. Is it wrong I have hope that my government isn't using their powers for evil against us? I know the gov't does some shady stuff, but I bet every country does. Sorry your country (whatever it is) is so perfect. No one is perfect.
Regarding those statistics, I don't give a shit. The PRISM program can be used to fight more than terrorism. I hope it caught and stopped many criminals. If it hasn't, it should be used for that. It doesn't matter if terrorism rarely happens, when it does it is terrifying and it hurts people more than just a simple death from a car accident; it means that someone purposely killed you (or someone you know) because of religious, social, racial means. If those people can be stopped, that is great. You can't predict a lightning strike, you can't predict when you are about to choke, you never know when a police officer is gonna abuse and/or kill you, you never know when you will be in an accident, but you CAN stop a PLANNED attack despite it rarely happening. If you can stop it despite the fact it kind of intrudes on our lives, is that wrong? Yeah, its secretive, but has it hurt you? No.
You live in China, you are not here. If you were, you'd also realize that it doesn't affect us personally. Yeah, most of us are mad civil liberties are intruded upon, but at the same time we get it. Sorry we think rationally.
I understand your main argument is that its secretive, but many powerful countries probably do something like this as well. China isn't perfect (I know u are not Chinese); they do many shady things as well.
Take secretive out of the equation, what is so bad about it? If its the statistics crap, then reread what I said earlier.
Snowden's motive was genuine, but it was also illegal to give up any kind of defensive strategies to anyone, even if it was a newspaper. Taking that job he knew the consequences of such a situation; hero or not he broke the law. (which I am sure you will counter-argue that the gov't broke the law, but that could be debated due to interpretations of the 4th Amendment).
To me there is no other way to fight terrorism, so they did not convince me of anything. If thinking rationally is being a sheep, then you should try it. :roll:
Sorry if any of this sounded like I am being an asshole. I do not think negatively toward you. I enjoy our conversations on this thread. (I always like to clarify this, sorry if it sounds dumb. lol)
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
To make another point, we are not obedient sheep. You act like no one in America protests or gets mad at the government, or react with violence. You need to get out of China more. :roll:
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I hope the government allows him to come back under his conditions. They are being too brutal on him. I saw his conditions this morning.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I am getting the hint you think my views are complete bullshit. Well, my views are mine. In America you can think what you want, and believe what you want. Is it wrong I have hope that my government isn't using their powers for evil against us? I know the gov't does some shady stuff, but I bet every country does. Sorry your country (whatever it is) is so perfect. No one is perfect.
Regarding those statistics, I don't give a shit. The PRISM program can be used to fight more than terrorism. I hope it caught and stopped many criminals. If it hasn't, it should be used for that. It doesn't matter if terrorism rarely happens, when it does it is terrifying and it hurts people more than just a simple death from a car accident; it means that someone purposely killed you (or someone you know) because of religious, social, racial means. If those people can be stopped, that is great. You can't predict a lightning strike, you can't predict when you are about to choke, you never know when a police officer is gonna abuse and/or kill you, you never know when you will be in an accident, but you CAN stop a PLANNED attack despite it rarely happening. If you can stop it despite the fact it kind of intrudes on our lives, is that wrong? Yeah, its secretive, but has it hurt you? No.
You live in China, you are not here. If you were, you'd also realize that it doesn't affect us personally. Yeah, most of us are mad civil liberties are intruded upon, but at the same time we get it. Sorry we think rationally.
I understand your main argument is that its secretive, but many powerful countries probably do something like this as well. China isn't perfect (I know u are not Chinese); they do many shady things as well.
Take secretive out of the equation, what is so bad about it? If its the statistics crap, then reread what I said earlier.
Snowden's motive was genuine, but it was also illegal to give up any kind of defensive strategies to anyone, even if it was a newspaper. Taking that job he knew the consequences of such a situation; hero or not he broke the law. (which I am sure you will counter-argue that the gov't broke the law, but that could be debated due to interpretations of the 4th Amendment).
To me there is no other way to fight terrorism, so they did not convince me of anything. If thinking rationally is being a sheep, then you should try it. :roll:
Sorry if any of this sounded like I am being an asshole. I do not think negatively toward you. I enjoy our conversations on this thread. (I always like to clarify this, sorry if it sounds dumb. lol)
For the record, I don't think your views are bullshit, and I don't think you're an asshole. The only issue I have here is that It sounds to me like you have too much faith in your government. Those fuckers could begin using the information they've gleaned from you and every other American at any time in the future, for nefarious ends. They only need to make a radical policy change - such as widening the definition of the term 'terrorism' to include anything they deem threatening to their interests - and then everything else will fall into place for them, and by then it will be too late.
For the record, I don't think your views are bullshit, and I don't think you're an asshole. The only issue I have here is that It sounds to me like you have too much faith in your government. Those fuckers could begin using the information they've gleaned from you and every other American at any time in the future, for nefarious ends. They only need to make a radical policy change - such as widening the definition of the term 'terrorism' to include anything they deem threatening to their interests - and then everything else will fall into place for them, and by then it will be too late.
I find it very interesting there are no comments from you in the Chinese worker thread yet you continue to trash the US in every post in this thread.
Comments
Your last line is exactly how I could see them justifying it. Certain Congressional members have said as much (stopping a train attack on the east coast was one I heard). If the government can say, "look, we got information that a certain person with said phone number was making a call to a person who was believed to be participating in a planned attack," I can easily see that qualifying as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless search of that person's phone records or internet communications.
Exactly. We simply need facts and information. Assuming its unconstitutional because it smells like it is just bad business. Do your homework if you can, but don't lob unsupported charges. That's what the other side does.
Another good point you raise is what I've called the "remedy problem." Typically, a Fourth Amendment violation is remedied by suppressing the evidence in court. I previously used the example of a Miranda violation. An officer who violates Miranda will have any evidence gained from that violation suppressed in court. What remedy would we have against this program if it's not being used in Court? Who's the victim? Someone would have to file civil suit to claim the violation, which again, brings us to the secrecy problem. We need facts to allege a violation, and if it's in secret, we can't get those facts. We just don't have the facts or the forum to make that claim. This is why I continue to say that persisting with this Fourth Amendment argument is a dead-end, because we simply can't win it. It may be there, but what are the facts that prove it? We'll never know. Why pursue that when the real argument has to do with transparency and the myriad of legislation (PATRIOT, for instance) that cut away civil liberties in the past 13 years?
In short, taking this on from a Fourth Amendment angle is the wrong way. We just can't win that argument, not currently or without more information. Those who persist in doing so, without facts, lose credibility. We owe it to ourselves to make claims when we can support them, and when we can't, work toward ends that will allow us the most information possible.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
The Criminal N.S.A.
By JENNIFER STISA GRANICK and CHRISTOPHER JON SPRIGMAN
Published: June 27, 2013
THE twin revelations that telecom carriers have been secretly giving the National Security Agency information about Americans’ phone calls, and that the N.S.A. has been capturing e-mail and other private communications from Internet companies as part of a secret program called Prism, have not enraged most Americans. Lulled, perhaps, by the Obama administration’s claims that these “modest encroachments on privacy” were approved by Congress and by federal judges, public opinion quickly migrated from shock to “meh.”
...This view is wrong — and not only, or even mainly, because of the privacy issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and other critics. The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law. No statute explicitly authorizes mass surveillance. Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear-mongering and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House — and from President Obama, who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught.
The administration has defended each of the two secret programs. Let’s examine them in turn.
Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contract employee and whistle-blower, has provided evidence that the government has phone record metadata on all Verizon customers, and probably on every American, going back seven years. This metadata is extremely revealing; investigators mining it might be able to infer whether we have an illness or an addiction, what our religious affiliations and political activities are, and so on.
The law under which the government collected this data, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, allows the F.B.I. to obtain court orders demanding that a person or company produce “tangible things,” upon showing reasonable grounds that the things sought are “relevant” to an authorized foreign intelligence investigation. The F.B.I. does not need to demonstrate probable cause that a crime has been committed, or any connection to terrorism.
Even in the fearful time when the Patriot Act was enacted, in October 2001, lawmakers never contemplated that Section 215 would be used for phone metadata, or for mass surveillance of any sort. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican and one of the architects of the Patriot Act, and a man not known as a civil libertarian, has said that “Congress intended to allow the intelligence communities to access targeted information for specific investigations.” The N.S.A.’s demand for information about every American’s phone calls isn’t “targeted” at all — it’s a dragnet. “How can every call that every American makes or receives be relevant to a specific investigation?” Mr. Sensenbrenner has asked. The answer is simple: It’s not.
The government claims that under Section 215 it may seize all of our phone call information now because it might conceivably be relevant to an investigation at some later date, even if there is no particular reason to believe that any but a tiny fraction of the data collected might possibly be suspicious. That is a shockingly flimsy argument — any data might be “relevant” to an investigation eventually, if by “eventually” you mean “sometime before the end of time.” If all data is “relevant,” it makes a mockery of the already shaky concept of relevance.
Let’s turn to Prism: the streamlined, electronic seizure of communications from Internet companies. In combination with what we have already learned about the N.S.A.’s access to telecommunications and Internet infrastructure, Prism is further proof that the agency is collecting vast amounts of e-mails and other messages — including communications to, from and between Americans.
The government justifies Prism under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Section 1881a of the act gave the president broad authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance. If the attorney general and the director of national intelligence certify that the purpose of the monitoring is to collect foreign intelligence information about any nonAmerican individual or entity not known to be in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can require companies to provide access to Americans’ international communications. The court does not approve the target or the facilities to be monitored, nor does it assess whether the government is doing enough to minimize the intrusion, correct for collection mistakes and protect privacy. Once the court issues a surveillance order, the government can issue top-secret directives to Internet companies like Google and Facebook to turn over calls, e-mails, video and voice chats, photos, voiceover IP calls (like Skype) and social networking information.
Like the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act gives the government very broad surveillance authority. And yet the Prism program appears to outstrip that authority. In particular, the government “may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.”
The government knows that it regularly obtains Americans’ protected communications. The Washington Post reported that Prism is designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness” — as John Oliver of “The Daily Show” put it, “a coin flip plus 1 percent.” By turning a blind eye to the fact that 49-plus percent of the communications might be purely among Americans, the N.S.A. has intentionally acquired information it is not allowed to have, even under the terrifyingly broad auspices of the FISA Amendments Act.
How could vacuuming up Americans’ communications conform with this legal limitation? Well, as James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told Andrea Mitchell of NBC, the N.S.A. uses the word “acquire” only when it pulls information out of its gigantic database of communications and not when it first intercepts and stores the information.
If there’s a law against torturing the English language, James Clapper is in real trouble.
The administration hides the extent of its “incidental” surveillance of Americans behind fuzzy language. When Congress reauthorized the law at the end of 2012, legislators said Americans had nothing to worry about because the surveillance could not “target” American citizens or permanent residents. Mr. Clapper offered the same assurances. Based on these statements, an ordinary citizen might think the N.S.A. cannot read Americans’ e-mails or online chats under the F.A.A. But that is a government fed misunderstanding.
A “target” under the act is a person or entity the government wants information on — not the people the government is trying to listen to. It’s actually O.K. under the act to grab Americans’ messages so long as they are communicating with the target, or anyone who is not in the United States.
Leave aside the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act for a moment, and turn to the Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment obliges the government to demonstrate probable cause before conducting invasive surveillance. There is simply no precedent under the Constitution for the government’s seizing such vast amounts of revealing data on innocent Americans’ communications.
The government has made a mockery of that protection by relying on select Supreme Court cases, decided before the era of the public Internet and cellphones, to argue that citizens have no expectation of privacy in either phone metadata or in e-mails or other private electronic messages that it stores with third parties.
This hairsplitting is inimical to privacy and contrary to what at least five justices ruled just last year in a case called United States v. Jones. One of the most conservative justices on the Court, Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote that where even public information about individuals is monitored over the long term, at some point, government crosses a line and must comply with the protections of the Fourth Amendment. That principle is, if anything, even more true for Americans’ sensitive nonpublic information like phone metadata and social networking activity.
We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government’s professed concern with protecting Americans’ privacy. It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal.
I understand you use all these articles to support your view, as do all of us, but even you should know that what is published in all these articles is biased and they lack information.
It doesn't matter what Snowden said, or how the reporters interpret it, we do not know enough about this program and what Snowden's 100% intent was.
I am not saying there is zero truth in these articles, but they should not be taken 100% seriously.
But I am glad you are at least providing some kind of evidence.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
We know enough about the programs to know they're in breach of the Constitution. As for Snowden's intentions, he's already explained what they are.
Why do you care about the constitution so much? Secondly, why do you care about this surveillance so much?
Just because he said it does not make it true. :
For all we know he could be telling us lies while hiding something else. I am not saying that is what I believe, but just because someone says something does not mean its true.
And like someone said earlier, whether or not it was a breach of the Constitution can be debated. Personally I think the Constitution should be changed to fit modern times (don't worry conservatives I'm not a liberal or a Communist.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
As if they're the questions that need to be asked?
Once again, trying to turn the discussion into being all about me, in order to detract from the important issues.
Glenn Greenwald Speaks Out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... RJ8#at=576
"Last night, I gave my first speech on the NSA stories, Edward Snowden and related issues of journalism, delivered to the Socialism 2013 Conference in Chicago. Because it was my first speech since the episode began, it was the first time I was able to pause a moment and reflect on everything that has taken place and what the ramifications are. I was originally scheduled to speak live but was unable to travel there and thus spoke via an (incredibly crisp) Skype video connection. I was introduced by Jeremy Scahill, whose own speech is well worth watching." - Glenn Greenwald
Are they worried that it would be bad for morale if troops read about their government engaging in illegal surveillance programs?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... ite-access
US army blocks access to Guardian website to preserve 'network hygiene'
Military admits to filtering reports and content relating to government surveillance programs for thousands of personnel
Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 28 June 2013
The US army has admitted to blocking access to parts of the Guardian website for thousands of defence personnel across the country.
A spokesman said the military was filtering out reports and content relating to government surveillance programs to preserve "network hygiene" and prevent any classified material appearing on unclassified parts of its computer systems.
The confirmation follows reports in the Monterey Herald that staff at the Presidio military base south of San Francisco had complained of not being able to access the Guardian's UK site at all, and had only partial access to the US site, following publication of leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The Pentagon insisted the Department of Defense was not seeking to block the whole website, merely taking steps to restrict access to certain content.
But a spokesman for the Army's Network Enterprise Technology Command (Netcom) in Arizona confirmed that this was a widespread policy, likely to be affecting hundreds of defence facilities.
"In response to your question about access to the guardian.co.uk website, the army is filtering some access to press coverage and online content about the NSA leaks," said Gordon Van Vleet, a Netcom public affairs officer...
Agreed. Unfortunately I don't think we are currently capable of amending the Constitution given the
political climate in which we live.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... an-assange
The plan to spirit the surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden to sanctuary in Latin America appeared to be unravelling on Friday, amid tension between Ecuador's government and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.
President Rafael Correa halted an effort to help Snowden leave Russia amid concern Assange was usurping the role of the Ecuadoran government, according to leaked diplomatic correspondence published on Friday.
Amid signs Quito was cooling with Snowden and irritated with Assange, Correa declared invalid a temporary travel document which could have helped extract Snowden from his reported location in Moscow.
Correa declared that the safe conduct pass issued by Ecuador's London consul – in collaboration with Assange – was unauthorised, after other Ecuadorean diplomats privately said the WikiLeaks founder could be perceived as "running the show".
According to the correspondence, which was obtained by the Spanish-language broadcaster Univision and shared with the Wall Street Journal, divisions over Assange have roiled Ecuador's government.
Ecuador's ambassador to the US, Nathalie Cely, told presidential spokesman Fernando Alvarado that Quito's role in the drama was being overshadowed by the WikiLeaks founder, who has sheltered in Ecuador's London embassy for the past year to avoid extradition.
"I suggest talking to Assange to better control the communications. From outside, [Assange] appears to be running the show."
Earlier this week a senior foreign diplomat in Quito told the Guardian that some – though not all – factions in the government were annoyed with what they saw as Assange grandstanding.
In a message attributed to Assange sent to Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, and other top officials, the WikiLeaks founder apologised "if we have unwittingly [caused] Ecuador discomfort in the Snowden matter." The note continued: "There is a fog of war due to the rapid nature of events. If similar events arise you can be assured that they do not originate in any lack of respect or concern for Ecuador or its government."
Assange appears to have had a strong role in obtaining the travel document for Snowden, dated 22 June which bore the printed name, but not signature, of the London consul, Fidel Narvaez, a confidante. By mid-week Narvaez was reportedly in Moscow.
The document could have helped Snowden, whose US passport has been revoked, leave the transit lounge of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport where he has reportedly holed up since fleeing Hong Kong last weekend.
On Thursday, Correa, who previously has hailed Snowden for exposing US spying, and has earned kudos for defying Washington pressure over the affair, reduced Snowden's chances of making it to Quito.
At a press conference the president declared the travel document invalid and said Ecuador would not consider an asylum request unless Snowden reached Ecuadorean territory, an increasingly remote prospect.
"The situation of Mr Snowden is a complex situation and we don't know how he will solve it."
Correa did however ramp up defiance of the US by waiving preferential trade rights to thwart what officials called Washington "blackmail". Analysts said Correa, an economist who specialised in game theory, had so far skilfully extracted political capital from the saga without drawing US retaliation.
In a TV interview on Friday, Snowden's father said said he was worried about the involvement of WikiLeaks. "I don't want to put him in peril, but I am concerned about those who surround him," Lonnie Snowden told NBC.
"I think WikiLeaks, if you've looked at past history … their focus isn't necessarily the constitution of the United States. It's simply to release as much information as possible."
Snowden said he did not believe his son had betrayed his country. "At this point, I don't feel that he's committed treason. He has broken US law, in a sense that he has released classified information. And if folks want to classify him as a traitor, in fact he has betrayed his government. But I don't believe that he's betrayed the people of the United States."
Snowden said he had told US attorney general Eric Holder through his lawyer that his son might return home if he would not be detained before trial, could choose the location for his trial and would not be subjected to a gag order. It was not clear that Lonnie Snowden was communicating his son's views, as he also said they had not spoken since April.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
You can't prove a Fourth Amendment violation without facts or details about the alleged searches and you can't have any viable remedy without a forum to challenge. A program run in secret doesn't lend itself to giving out facts or details. I must have said this a hundred times.
Like I've also said about a hundred times, I desperately want to believe this program is unconstitutional. But I also refuse to let my own biases get in the way of dispassionate reason and scrutiny. I refuse to label a program something I can't prove it to be. Op-ed pieces are not facts. My own suspicions are not facts. Links or long quotes or someone else's words are not facts. What I want to believe is not license to dispense with doing my homework.
Until we have facts that can prove the full use of this program, we cannot prove a Fourth Amendment violation. Because the very secrecy of the program gets in the way of obtaining those facts, the use of this program is a transparency issue first, (and thus a legislative or electoral issue), and a Constitutional issue second. The requirement of facts to prove a Constitutional violation necessitates it so.
Persisting in a dead-end campaign, whether because it's fun to throw around excerpts from the Constitution or because it's easier to level charges we can't prove, is counterproductive to the cause (whatever that is these days) and only allows this program to continue further.
I've spent enough time on the merry-go-round with this one. Hopefully those that are truly appalled and concerned about this program will stop attacking it from the top-down, and instead work on the issues that allow programs like this, constitutional or not, to exist in the first place.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yep. I don't see it changing anytime soon. The country is too divided and the NRA has too much power.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Exactly!!!
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Which leads me to believe that whatever data a 29 year old can get within three months of taking a job means that every country with half a reasonable intelligence network has to have everything that Snowden has. There is no way in hell that the KGB or whatever they call themselves hasn't been plugged into this for years, right?
Pure gamesmanship and pouring salt in the wounds by Putin, and based on his smile he is loving every second of it.
An entire planet to explore and he chooses China and Russia as his first ports of call. :fp:
I do agree that learning of this surveillance was probably no surprise to many intelligence agencies around the world. But as for what he might have...I do worry that a 29 year old who took his job specifically to collect and release classified information may have been able to get access to much more than your average employee who just went to work everyday.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Because if everyone knew then people trying to commit crimes would know how to avoid the government!!!! lol. Regular Americans can be terrorists too, not just people who are officially part of a terrorist organization.
Yes, terrorist organizations knew how what to avoid in some cases, but they are not the only threat. Regular Americans are capable of carrying out such devastating attacks.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
This program, although intrudes on us, to me is no big deal. Yeah it sucks it happens, but if it protects us, WHO CARES. If I am doing nothing wrong, WHO CARES! What they gonna do, find out I have a free pizza waiting from Papa Johns? ( i dont at the moment, but hopefully soon! lol)
This program has not harmed anyone. It was set up for good intentions. Today I saw a new interview with George W. Bush supporting Obama saying how this program is the best for the country, which obviously it is. If they know about Americans, who cares! Maybe now they know my Bday by heart and can send me a gift.
It was kept secret so it could capture criminals and find out the truth about their intentions. It covers all Americans because any one of us can be a terrorist or criminal.
Sorry I am not one of those paranoid Americans who thinks everything the government does is an effort to take away our rights and make us all slaves (not saying you are Byrnzie. I applaud and praise you for making known an issue and trying to have a discussion on an issue you believe is worth talking about
Snowden's opinion is that this program is bad because it intrudes on civil liberties. In the world today, we need a balance. In some cases our liberties would have to be intruded on to make sure we are safe. That is the world today. So I applaud him for trying to do what's right, but I'm sorry, he is living in 1788. It is 2013, the world is different. Like I said earlier, the Constitution needs to be updated a little bit.
I'm not a government lover and I don't always try to defend them, by the way. In this case I get what they did and why they did it, but I also understand I can be wrong and don't have all the details.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
You clearly have zero interest in this case, and are only interested in your own personal fantasies regarding it. It's already been made perfectly clear that Snowden was in possession of material that could have been very useful to countries such as China, or Russia, but that he chose not to release such material. The only material he has been willing to release is that which is of benefit to the citizens of the U.S and other countries who have been spied on.
But just keep ignoring that and indulging in your fantasies.
I just hope that your views are not widely held views in the U.S. Because if they are, then that's a very, very sad state of affairs. 'America, the land of the free.' What a fucking joke.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -australia
'...you have four times the chance of being struck by lightning as you do from being killed by a terror attack. You are nine times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit; you are eight times more likely to die at the hands of a police officer than a terrorist. You are also something like a thousand times more likely to lose your life in a car crash than from a terror plot.'
Yet the U.S government has convinced it's citizens that it needs to spy on every single one of them, and carry out this spying program in total secrecy, with no transparency or accountability. And the American public nod their heads like obedient sheep.
I am getting the hint you think my views are complete bullshit. Well, my views are mine. In America you can think what you want, and believe what you want. Is it wrong I have hope that my government isn't using their powers for evil against us? I know the gov't does some shady stuff, but I bet every country does. Sorry your country (whatever it is) is so perfect. No one is perfect.
Regarding those statistics, I don't give a shit. The PRISM program can be used to fight more than terrorism. I hope it caught and stopped many criminals. If it hasn't, it should be used for that. It doesn't matter if terrorism rarely happens, when it does it is terrifying and it hurts people more than just a simple death from a car accident; it means that someone purposely killed you (or someone you know) because of religious, social, racial means. If those people can be stopped, that is great. You can't predict a lightning strike, you can't predict when you are about to choke, you never know when a police officer is gonna abuse and/or kill you, you never know when you will be in an accident, but you CAN stop a PLANNED attack despite it rarely happening. If you can stop it despite the fact it kind of intrudes on our lives, is that wrong? Yeah, its secretive, but has it hurt you? No.
You live in China, you are not here. If you were, you'd also realize that it doesn't affect us personally. Yeah, most of us are mad civil liberties are intruded upon, but at the same time we get it. Sorry we think rationally.
I understand your main argument is that its secretive, but many powerful countries probably do something like this as well. China isn't perfect (I know u are not Chinese); they do many shady things as well.
Take secretive out of the equation, what is so bad about it? If its the statistics crap, then reread what I said earlier.
Snowden's motive was genuine, but it was also illegal to give up any kind of defensive strategies to anyone, even if it was a newspaper. Taking that job he knew the consequences of such a situation; hero or not he broke the law. (which I am sure you will counter-argue that the gov't broke the law, but that could be debated due to interpretations of the 4th Amendment).
To me there is no other way to fight terrorism, so they did not convince me of anything. If thinking rationally is being a sheep, then you should try it. :roll:
Sorry if any of this sounded like I am being an asshole. I do not think negatively toward you. I enjoy our conversations on this thread. (I always like to clarify this, sorry if it sounds dumb. lol)
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
For the record, I don't think your views are bullshit, and I don't think you're an asshole. The only issue I have here is that It sounds to me like you have too much faith in your government. Those fuckers could begin using the information they've gleaned from you and every other American at any time in the future, for nefarious ends. They only need to make a radical policy change - such as widening the definition of the term 'terrorism' to include anything they deem threatening to their interests - and then everything else will fall into place for them, and by then it will be too late.
I find it very interesting there are no comments from you in the Chinese worker thread yet you continue to trash the US in every post in this thread.
America Is Not A Democracy - Noam Chomsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTHXnNsWdWg