Rob's House Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 Regarding the phone calls, content isn't. Basically source and destination information. Relatively benign. PRISM stores more, but is limited in scope to foreign contacts. According to reports. Whether or not you choose to believe those reports is a different story. This is where I am - not sure what to believe
dayman Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 (edited) This is where I am - not sure what to believe Well there is a lot of chatter about potential abuse and lies and more things that have yet to come out...but the leak didn't show any of that...you know...the kind of stuff good leaks show...nobody has shown any of that Edited June 16, 2013 by SameOldBills
Cinga Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 (edited) This whole debate is somewhat comical... As I said before, I don't care about Snowden!!!! I care about the breach to our liberties that are taking place. And especially that there are some on both the right and the left that are in favor of this government over reach.... Weird even, that I may be more of a Constitutionist than anyone else on this board, and have an Allie in non other than Al Gore who thinks this is disgusting? Oh, and of course, Gore's former TV channel.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2-B7BibG8U But this could get to be fun too.... Since the American People have nothing to fear so long as they have nothing to hide, how will Obama respond to be called out in the same way? http://www.humaneven...hite-house-irs/ Stockman’s office hand delivered a letter Tuesday afternoon to the Committee’s office requesting a subpoena “of all records of every phone call made from all public and private telephones of all IRS personnel to all public and private telephones of all White House personnel” collected under the NSA’s recently-revealed PRISM program. “Obama assures the public he only collected this information to uncover wrongdoing and protect civil liberties. Clearly he would want us to use it to investigate this case, because otherwise he’d be lying,” said Stockman. “If Obama has nothing to hide he has nothing to fear,” said Stockman. “This case must be investigated fully, given admitted wrongdoing by the IRS, its potentially criminal implications and revelations the White House has been less than honest about what they knew and when,” said Stockman. “Obama says the PRISM program is perfectly legal, so there should be no problem whatsoever in providing the information on White House and IRS phone calls.” “The only possible scenario in which the administration refuses to comply would be if it would reveal unconstitutional or illegal behavior,” said Stockman. Edited June 16, 2013 by Cinga
dayman Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 This whole debate is somewhat comical... As I said before, I don't care about Snowden!!!! I care about the breach to our liberties that are taking place. And especially that there are some on both the right and the left that are in favor of this government over reach.... Weird even, that I may be more of a Constitutionist than anyone else on this board, and have an Allie in non other than Al Gore who thinks this is disgusting? Oh, and of course, Gore's former TV channel.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2-B7BibG8U That is what we are talking about in large part. And to the point, what reasonable privacy expectations are being violated here?
Azalin Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 And to the point, what reasonable privacy expectations are being violated here? you mean other than the feds sticking their noses into our day to day affairs?
Cinga Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 That is what we are talking about in large part. And to the point, what reasonable privacy expectations are being violated here? What privacy expectations??? Ever read the 4th?? Unreasonable searches and SEIZURES!! What part of that is so difficult to understand?? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Tell me... is it the seizure part?? Or is it the warrant??? Maybe the probable cause? I got it.... it's the oath or affirmation part.... I guess we all must have something to hide then because it's ALL of us the government is seizing these records from. Personally, I'd like to see what a stack of 330 million warrants look like...
Azalin Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 What privacy expectations??? Ever read the 4th?? Unreasonable searches and SEIZURES!! What part of that is so difficult to understand?? you're obviously forgetting that our constitution is a living, breathing document that requires modern interpretation and occasional adjustments due to the unforeseeable societal needs of advancing American society.
Cinga Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 you're obviously forgetting that our constitution is a living, breathing document that requires modern interpretation and occasional adjustments due to the unforeseeable societal needs of advancing American society. Yeah, I know... I'm one of those silly people that actually READ the Constitution, as well as the history surrounding it; the Federalist Papers, and some of the Anti; and seem stuck in that era... Funny though that even OwlGore himself, the main proponent of the "Living, Breathing" argument, seems to think this goes well beyond even a modern interpretation...
dayman Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 (edited) What privacy expectations??? Ever read the 4th?? Unreasonable searches and SEIZURES!! What part of that is so difficult to understand?? The unreasonable part. And I'm not attacking what I'm saying is you have said over and over that you care about the substance of the program. So instead of raging like that idiot in the video you posted...lay out why the specifics of this program go to far. And I'm not asking for a detailed legal argument with supporting precedent (although that would be nice and I would read it)....just for you to flesh out what has you so upset in way that is a bit more articulate and technical... Edited June 16, 2013 by SameOldBills
Cinga Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 The unreasonable part. And I'm not attacking what I'm saying is you have said over and over that you care about the substance of the program. So instead of raging like that idiot in the video you posted...lay out why the specifics of this program go to far. And I'm not asking for a detailed legal argument with supporting precedent (although that would be nice and I would read it)....just for you to flesh out what has you so upset in way that is a bit more articulate and technical... Then turnaround must be fair play... go back up, and read the second link in that post... And btw... the video is of a STAUNCH supporter of Obama only a couple days ago...
Cinga Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 The unreasonable part. And I'm not attacking what I'm saying is you have said over and over that you care about the substance of the program. So instead of raging like that idiot in the video you posted...lay out why the specifics of this program go to far. And I'm not asking for a detailed legal argument with supporting precedent (although that would be nice and I would read it)....just for you to flesh out what has you so upset in way that is a bit more articulate and technical... Have to add... Your backwards... read the 4th again... It's not me that has to prove anything, it's you, and the government, that has to prove a warrant, search and seizure, is valid...
dayman Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Have to add... Your backwards... read the 4th again... It's not me that has to prove anything, it's you, and the government, that has to prove a warrant, search and seizure, is valid... Have to add... Your backwards... read the 4th again... It's not me that has to prove anything, it's you, and the government, that has to prove a warrant, search and seizure, is valid... So in other words, on an anonymous Internet message board where you are screaming about civil liberty violations, you simply decline to comment with any specificity on why you are so worked up?
Azalin Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 So in other words, on an anonymous Internet message board where you are screaming about civil liberty violations, you simply decline to comment with any specificity on why you are so worked up? how is he not being specific? accumulation of private phone records and email exchanges to review or for storage in a national database?! it's a mystery to me why even the most rabid lefties, righties, and liberatarians aren't in complete agreement over this. how is this any different than if the feds opened and read your personal mail while it's enroute to you via the postal system? do you need to have the fourth amendment cut and pasted here so you can see it for yourself? in my opinion, everybody with a functioning cerebrum should be appalled and outraged at this, regardless of their party affiliation, and I would just love to see a level headed attempt at explaining anything otherwise.
GG Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 how is he not being specific? accumulation of private phone records and email exchanges to review or for storage in a national database?! it's a mystery to me why even the most rabid lefties, righties, and liberatarians aren't in complete agreement over this. how is this any different than if the feds opened and read your personal mail while it's enroute to you via the postal system? do you need to have the fourth amendment cut and pasted here so you can see it for yourself? in my opinion, everybody with a functioning cerebrum should be appalled and outraged at this, regardless of their party affiliation, and I would just love to see a level headed attempt at explaining anything otherwise. Because it's not the same. Telephone numbers and telephone traffic are owned by the telecom carriers, not the individuals. They did not listen in on phone calls without warrants, they just studied telecom traffic patterns. Kind of like studying car and pedestrian traffic before singling out individuals, or using your example, examining the mail that went through each FEDERAL postal facility that could have been used to send anthrax. Did people get similarly worked up during the anthrax and ricin scares when the government was looking at the mail records?
....lybob Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Then turnaround must be fair play... go back up, and read the second link in that post... And btw... the video is of a STAUNCH supporter of Obama only a couple days ago... I watch TYT almost every day and Cenk hasn't been a staunch supporter of Obama for at least two years and he has crucified Obama on many issues - Drones, Gitmo, Grand Bargain, not going after banker/Wall Street corruption, fast and furious, ObamaCare (a Heritage foundation plan that is a give away to insurance companies), torture outsourcing, going after medical marijuana, fusion centers that had a merging of FBI, DHS, local police and banking security coordinating together to go after OWS., treatment of wiki leaks and Bradly Manning, Private prisons, the continued merry-go-round of corporate executives becoming regulators/government dept heads then back to corporate executives etc etc. Of course almost none of this displeasure with Obama translates to any love of republicans except occasionally someone like Rand Paul gets a shout out for defending personal freedoms or being against some military entanglements.
Azalin Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Because it's not the same. Telephone numbers and telephone traffic are owned by the telecom carriers, not the individuals. I've been in telecom for the last 19 years, and I can tell you that the phone companies only keep those records for billing purposes, and they purge them after several months so they can have the server space to continually update them. from what I understand...and I may be wrong...the feds are taking those records and storing them permenantly in a massive database of their own. I do not like them having that information, whether they plan to do anything nefarious with it or not. perhaps my comparison to the feds snooping through our personal mail was a bad one, but I believe that both activities merit the same level of outrage by the public.
Joe Miner Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 What privacy expectations??? Ever read the 4th?? Unreasonable searches and SEIZURES!! What part of that is so difficult to understand?? Tell me... is it the seizure part?? Or is it the warrant??? Maybe the probable cause? I got it.... it's the oath or affirmation part.... I guess we all must have something to hide then because it's ALL of us the government is seizing these records from. Personally, I'd like to see what a stack of 330 million warrants look like... Who does the data belong to?
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Who does the data belong to? I have a contract with my provider stating that my data "will not be shared or sold".
Azalin Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 I have a contract with my provider stating that my data "will not be shared or sold". I'd be interested to know if that keeps the feds from collecting it. I wouldn't expect it would though.
Joe Miner Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 I have a contract with my provider stating that my data "will not be shared or sold". You should figure out what constitutes "your" personal information, and what constitutes "their" data.
Recommended Posts