Screaming "stop it" on the intertubes serves no purpose without action.

[Skidmore]

I get really sick of the misdirected blaming and intramural finger pointing and demands to sign loyalty oaths here. Focus on what needs to be done. Get the FISA law and Patriot Act repealed, amended, or ruled unconstitutional. Otherwise nothing changes and the gnashing of teeth and practices continue. We are still a civilized nation based on law the last time I heard. There are mechanisms and procedures for effecting such change and they are not limited to railing at the heavens in the internet.

[randome]

1. What gets me is those who say "It's CLEARLY a violation of the 4th Amendment!"

With no regard to anyone else's opinion. It's the same type of fundamentalism religionists use. "It's God's Law and you can't dispute it!"

I agree, enough with the "See? They've always been out to get us." If people want change, they need to get off their asses and get something done.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Fearless]

3. Do you know case law on the fourth amendment?

I do. It is so insanely illegal it makes people who do understand the precedent throw things. That is why.

[randome]

4. Third party records have been ruled many, many times to not be people's personal effects.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Fearless]

5. Those already in the public domain.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. If you know “case law” …

Then you know Courts, up to and through the SCOTUS, have ruled that telephone numbers dialed are not afforded an expectation of privacy. (See: Smith v Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)

But you know case law, so you know this already, right?

[Fearless]

8. And you know that

Tracking people based on cell tower contact, private internet profiles, web browsing habits and so on is clearly a violation of the expectation of privacy.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Not according to the SCOTUS ...

the only authority that matters. (Warrants were obtained)

Let me alter that ... Your strawman fails because that is not (from what is being reported) being done.

[Fearless]

11. There were no warrants.

This is mass data mining. And it is being done. State the precedent from the court that states that these actions are allowed without a warrant.

For a basic understanding of the expectation of privacy, see this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. Are you sure? ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

Did you not read the case law I cited to?

And BTW, never ... ever ... ever ... state you know case law; then cite to wikipedia in the same thread.

[Fearless]

13. Funny that I did read that before

And by the way I'm giving you a simple explanation out of courtesy. I could suggest several law journals' articles if you'd prefer?

Also please reread your article... it states that no identifying data such as names, addresses, etc. are to be delivered to the US government. That would be on page two.

This is not what is going on in this case.

For instance:

Data mined from Facebook:

your name and profile bio information including birthday, hometown, work history and interests
your username and unique identifier
your subscriptions
your location
your device activity date, time and timezone
your messages
your activities, likes, checkins and events

Or email:

sender's name, email and IP address
recipient's name and email address
server transfer information
date, time and timezone
unique identifier of email and related emails
content type and encoding
mail client login records with IP address
mail client header formats
priority and categories
subject of email
status of the email
read receipt request


Uniquely identified information is NOT permitted by this judicial document.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. So there is no warrant; but ...

there is.

And that what was subpoenaed (that wasn't) is not what has been delivered?

Okay!

[Fearless]

15. No warrants were obtained to collect personally identifiable information

AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED.

Even your warrant link for non-personally identifiable information states that EXPLICITLY in its text.

I'll repeat it again:

No warrant has been issued to seize personally identifiable information. This is BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL.

All of the aforementioned data mining (which I have highlighted in bold in the post above) is ILLEGAL because it is personally identifiable information.

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. Okay ...

Maybe we should establish what IS being collected and how you know.

[Fearless]

17. I have listed it above.

In part.

This is where I took the information from that I gave you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/interactive/2013/jun/12/what-is-metadata-nsa-surveillance#meta=0000000

Understand that is by no means the only source, just the one that I had at hand. I will also cite the ACLU's lawsuit against the US Government. This may help: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/12/more_intrusive_than_eavesdropping_nsa_collection

But really what you're trying to say is this:

Have you seen this information with your own eyes?

And the answer you're digging for is this:

No, of course not.

And then you state:

Ah hah! Got you. You can't prove anything.

To which I reply with three statements:

One, at least one Administration official has admitted to lying about the program. That means, when the truth came out, he fessed up to the fact that he was lying. Why would he fess up if the actual truth hadn't come out? He wouldn't.

Two, the Obama Administration has invoked "state secrets" so that they don't have to go to court to defend themselves. This shows their intent to continue the program and equally that they don't want the public to know something about what is going on.

Three, Congress was briefed on this program recently. Simple Google searches will show you their statements afterward. I am talking about remarks from respected Democrats.

So, taking these three statements, a very clear picture of what is going on here is made:

Something is going on that they don't want you to know about, something that has outraged respectable Congresspersons whom we Democrats trust.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Please don't try to project my thoughts ...

From what I have gathered, the meta-data was approved via the FISA court. If I am mistaken, then inform me.

[Fearless]

20. Meta-data collection was approved by the warrant you provided

ONLY insofar as it is not personally identifiable information. It is on page two of the document you linked above.

The data which is being mined is personally identifiable as I stated above. It is not covered by the terms of the warrant you've provided. The warrant actually explicitly states that it is not for obtaining personally identifiable information:


"Telephony metadata does not include the substantive content of any communication, as defined by 18 USC 2510(8), or the name, address, financial information of a subscriber or customer."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

Additionally this warrant only applies to the following metadata described in the warrant:

"...An electronic copy of the following tangible things: all call detail records or "telephony metadata" created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls... Telephony metadata includes comprehensive communications routing information, including but not limited to session identifying information (e.g., originating and terminating telephone number, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, etc.), trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration of call."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

That means: origin of a call... destination of a call... calling card numbers... regional identification... and the time and duration of the call.

When combined with the restrictions quoted above it is limited to only data that is NOT personally identifiable.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. And this is the basis ...

for the ACLU suit, no?

I guess the courts will sort it out.

[Fearless]

22. No they won't

The Administration has invoked "state secrets". There will be no court date.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. Source. n/t

[Fearless]

24. Here it is...

"The government has cited the privilege in two active lawsuits being heard by a federal court in the northern district of California – Virginia v Barack Obama et al, and Carolyn Jewel v the National Security Agency. In both cases, the Obama administration has called for the cases to be dismissed on the grounds that the government's secret activities must remain secret.

The claim comes amid a billowing furore over US surveillance on the mass communications of Americans following disclosures by the Guardian of a massive NSA monitoring programme of Verizon phone records and internet communications.

The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has written in court filings that "after careful and actual personal consideration of the matter, based upon my own knowledge and information obtained in the course of my official duties, I have determined that the disclosure of certain information would cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States. Thus, as to this information, I formally assert the state secrets privilege."

The use of the privilege has been personally approved by President Obama and several of the administration's most senior officials: in addition to Clapper, they include the director of the NSA Keith Alexander and Eric Holder, the attorney general. "The attorney general has personally reviewed and approved the government's privilege assertion in these cases," legal documents state."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/us-government-special-privilege-scrutiny-data

[graham4anything]

2. Can anyone else not see the irony that THIS SCOTUS would rule on it, so why now?

Why?
Because Bush and Rand and Ron (they blame Bush but accomplish each others goals) want it decided with THIS court,
knowing the court will rule it legal.

Isn't this better to be decided once the court switches with then a different SCOTUS?

because it can't happen now and won't happen now

That more than anything makes me suspicious.

After all going back to Vietnam and Ellsberg-, look what happened, and Nixon kept the war going 6 years longer than it should have.
It all helped Nixon get elected and stop the peace plan of 1968.

[99Forever]

7. Uh huh uh huh uh huh...

... 'cuz they've listened so well and responded so quickly to so many other issues that are important to the vast majority of America...

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. Action? Maybe later. First, I must brilliantly rebuke an online commenter with whom I disagree.

DU seems curiously disconnected from any actual activism.

[Number23]

18. But "Kick and Rec if you don't like surveillance!one!1" threads are sooo FULFILLING!!

By the way, the first lawsuit against the NSA has been filed.

"A $3 billion class-action complaint by Mary Ann and Charles Strange of Philadelphia was believed to be the first civil case against the Obama administration since last week's blockbuster disclosure in published reports about the super-secret National Security Agency surveillance efforts.

...The Stranges' son, Navy SEAL Michael Strange, was killed in a 2011 helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

Along with the government watchdog Freedom Watch, the Stranges say their phone records were illegally accessed by domestic spy agencies because they "have been vocal about their criticism of President Obama as commander-in-chief, his administration, and the U.S. military."

...The Stranges have sued Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, NSA director Keith Alexander, Verizon, government agencies and the judge who signed the secret order on phone monitoring. The lawsuit offered no specifics of any targeted surveillance. The Stranges based their allegations on "information and belief." http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/11/politics/nsa-court-challenges/index.html?iid=article_sidebar