The dangers of our new normal...

[Deranged Rhino]

 

The data provided illegally under the auspices of FISA and subsequent amendments?

 

As was discussed at the time, there is a valid argument that FISA itself is illegal. But until that ruling is handed down, how is activity that is sanctioned by FISA with full acknowledgement of Congressional intelligence committees, be considered illegal?

 

Ask the second circuit court. Or the congresscritters who drafted the original Patriot Act. That said, I added the controversial adjective in question so let's not get too side-tracked by that.

 

The intent of my post was to show you, per your request, that the government has been collecting far more than just the duration of your phone calls.

 

 

 

“The interpretation that the government asks us to adopt defies any limiting principle. The same rationale that it proffers for the ‘relevance’ of telephone metadata cannot be cabined to such data, and applies equally well to other sets of records,” Lynch added. “If the government is correct, it could use § 215 to collect and store in bulk any other existing metadata available anywhere in the private sector, including metadata associated with financial records, medical records, and electronic communications (including email and social media information) relating to all Americans.”

 

 

 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/nsa-phone-data-collection-illegal-court-ruling-117725.html

When did I say it couldn't? Wake up. I am saying that not ONLY phone call meta data, but texts, pics, posts, ALL of it, AND its meta data, is the PROPER way to do the job.

 

 

To do what job exactly?

[GG]

 

Ask the second circuit court. Or the congresscritters who drafted the original Patriot Act. That said, I added the controversial adjective in question so let's not get too side-tracked by that.

 

The intent of my post was to show you, per your request, that the government has been collecting far more than just the duration of your phone calls.

 

 

Those articles add up to the hysteria over the collection methods, because even the articles admitted that the data collection gathered tangential information, which is inevitable in any investigation. Yet, the scaremongering articles go out of their way to make everyone think that NSA is blankedly collecting and storing all information of digital and phone activity of every US resident. Again, there's very little difference in a phone number or email getting caught in a broad sweep of bad guys from your picture being taken when you innocently drive through a crime stake out. Do you get out of shape that the government collects your fingerprints, even though you probably did nothing? Don't you find that a far greater intrusion of personal liberty?

 

The same thing goes with PATRIOT Act. No one stops to ask why such a behemoth act could be passed so quickly with so little opposition, until you realize that for most part, the Act simply took a whole bunch of EXISTING, but disparate laws and regulations and threw them under a gigantic Act.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Those articles add up to the hysteria over the collection methods, because even the articles admitted that the data collection gathered tangential information, which is inevitable in any investigation. Yet, the scaremongering articles go out of their way to make everyone think that NSA is blankedly collecting and storing all information of digital and phone activity of every US resident. Again, there's very little difference in a phone number or email getting caught in a broad sweep of bad guys from your picture being taken when you innocently drive through a crime stake out. Do you get out of shape that the government collects your fingerprints, even though you probably did nothing? Don't you find that a far greater intrusion of personal liberty?

 

The same thing goes with PATRIOT Act. No one stops to ask why such a behemoth act could be passed so quickly with so little opposition, until you realize that for most part, the Act simply took a whole bunch of EXISTING, but disparate laws and regulations and threw them under a gigantic Act.

 

Over the past two years the topic has moved from "hysteria" to facts, thanks to whistleblowers and public outcry. If you believe that only a handful of Americans' information is being swept up tangentially, you should really inform yourself on the realities of the program and the collection. This isn't hysteria or hype -- if anything, those words are best applied to the government's PR campaign of fearmongering about this issue.

 

It's a far greater breach of privacy than you're seemingly willing to admit. I'm not going to debate whether or not it's happening, it is and it's been proven to be extensive.

[GG]

 

Over the past two years the topic has moved from "hysteria" to facts, thanks to whistleblowers and public outcry. If you believe that only a handful of Americans' information is being swept up tangentially, you should really inform yourself on the realities of the program and the collection. This isn't hysteria or hype -- if anything, those words are best applied to the government's PR campaign of fearmongering about this issue.

 

It's a far greater breach of privacy than you're seemingly willing to admit. I'm not going to debate whether or not it's happening, it is and it's been proven to be extensive.

 

The whisteleblower's (traitor, in reality) contribution has been to expose the programs. They have not shown that the programs targeted US residents. The subsequent investigations have not unearthed any misuse of the data that had been collected.

 

And if you are so stuck on the 2nd Circuit decision, if it was so cut and dry, why did the court not stop the program immediately? Yeah, they punted it back to Congress to work out the law, which they eventually will, which will very likely continue the program, once the hysteria dies down.

 

Again, there's been nothing that's been shown that the vast collection of data has done anything other than gather the data to be analyzed. But it's easier to imagine the evils of the theoretical Orwellian state that we're living in, and ignoring the every day beat downs that the government throws at us.

[Deranged Rhino]

The whisteleblower's (traitor, in reality) contribution has been to expose the programs. They have not shown that the programs targeted US residents.

This is false. Demonstrably so.

And, if you're willing, I'd love to hear what qualifies Binney as a traitor.

[TakeYouToTasker]

This is false. Demonstrably so.

 

And, if you're willing, I'd love to hear what qualifies Binney as a traitor.

GG's feelings.

[GG]

This is false. Demonstrably so.

And, if you're willing, I'd love to hear what qualifies Binney as a traitor.

 

 

There's a world of difference between obtaining tangential information in an overall sweep (that is never used) and targeting someone for the information.

 

Again, how is that different than your car, your license plate and your face appearing in a police photo in a dragnet? If you happened to drive on Rte 374 in upstate NY over the last six days, your personal activity was monitored and collected to a far greater extent than any phone or email snoop over the last two decades.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

There's a world of difference between obtaining tangential information in an overall sweep (that is never used) and targeting someone for the information.

 

Again, how is that different than your car, your license plate and your face appearing in a police photo in a dragnet? If you happened to drive on Rte 374 in upstate NY over the last six days, your personal activity was monitored and collected to a far greater extent than any phone or email snoop over the last two decades.

 

I agree there is. The point you're hung up on, where we disagree, is that you believe that's all that's happening when I'm telling you (with sources and evidence) that you're wrong. Maybe it's because you haven't looked into this matter beyond the "hype", but I assure you there is real sizzle there. They are collecting, storing and USING the information collected, retroactively and in real time. To claim they're not is admitting to not knowing what's really happening on this issue.

 

Binney, the man who created the initial programs says such:

 

 

 

For Binney, the decision to quit the NSA and become a whistleblower began a few weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when he says he discovered the spy agency had begun using software he'd created to scoop up information on Americans — all without a court order.

 

"I had to get out of there, because they were using the program I built to do domestic spying, and I didn't want any part of it, I didn't want to be associated with it," he says. "I look at it as basically treason. They were subverting the Constitution."

 

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil

 

Before you label him a traitor, understand he has never been charged. He broke no laws and tried to work within the system. This is a man who dedicated his life to serving his country, creating the very systems we're discussing. For his trouble, he was greeted at gunpoint by FBI agents who raided his home, shuttered his business and confiscated private property -- all without charges ever being filed. In fact, he was cleared prior to the raid and subsequent legal battles.

 

This isn't hype. This happened to someone who by all measurables was nothing more than a staunch patriot who had served his country with honor -- and to this day has never been charged. He knows the system. He built it.

[DC Tom]

 

I agree there is. The point you're hung up on, where we disagree, is that you believe that's all that's happening when I'm telling you (with sources and evidence) that you're wrong. Maybe it's because you haven't looked into this matter beyond the "hype", but I assure you there is real sizzle there. They are collecting, storing and USING the information collected, retroactively and in real time. To claim they're not is admitting to not knowing what's really happening on this issue.

 

Binney, the man who created the initial programs says such:

 

 

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil

 

Before you label him a traitor, understand he has never been charged. He broke no laws and tried to work within the system. This is a man who dedicated his life to serving his country, creating the very systems we're discussing. For his trouble, he was greeted at gunpoint by FBI agents who raided his home, shuttered his business and confiscated private property -- all without charges ever being filed. In fact, he was cleared prior to the raid and subsequent legal battles.

 

This isn't hype. This happened to someone who by all measurables was nothing more than a staunch patriot who had served his country with honor -- and to this day has never been charged. He knows the system. He built it.

 

Legally, Binney's a whistleblower.

 

Snowden's the traitor.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I'm rapidly tiring at the OUTRAGE over what is merely competently going about one's analytics business.

 

If you ignore privacy concerns, there are many types of data that could potentially be useful to analyze to establish patterns or correlations that would enable the analyzer to identify "bad guys," whether those "bad guys" are overseas or hiding in the US.

 

Serious question, OC:

 

Are there ANY types of data collection about US citizens that you would be willing to put off limits, because of how intrusive the collected information would be? From reading your posts, my guess is that your answer will be "no," because the "bad guy" hunters shouldn't simply assume that they know what types of data will be important to the process of identifying the "bad guys." It's entirely possible that the most intrusive information imaginable just happens to be the key variable that allows the analyzer to find a pattern that allows the hunters to identify the "bad guys" with a high degree of confidence. You have to let the data tell you what's important to the analysis, rather than making assumptions up-front about what data will help the hunters. I get that.

 

So stated a different way, my question for you is - - is absolutely every type of data imaginable about US citizens fair game to be collected by the hunters because that makes for a better hunt? If your answer is yes, that's not irrational from the perspective of empowering the hunters. I think most people would put some types of data collection off-limits to the hunters, though, even if they understood (most probably don't) that doing so might make the hunt less efficient/successful. I'm in that camp.

 

Check back with me, though, when somebody sneaks a shielded backpack nuke past the radiation detectors that I assume are secretly in use at our borders, and the first mushroom cloud goes up.

Edited June 11, 2015 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Legally, Binney's a whistleblower.

 

Snowden's the traitor.

 

But as the Binney case shows, no one believed Binney without documentation. (Hell, most people still don't believe him evidenced by GG and others in this thread). Even though he didn't break the law, he was still made to suffer the consequences as if he had.

 

Nothing changed for almost a decade until Snowden fled with proof in hand. Does that him less of a traitor? No, not according to the letter of the law. But it shouldn't be ignored either.

Edited June 11, 2015 by GreggyT

[GG]

 

Legally, Binney's a whistleblower.

 

Snowden's the traitor.

 

And that's who I was referring to. A big part of Binney's issue was that his program was passed over by another one. Was there professional jealousy?

 

So stated a different way, my question for you is - - is absolutely every type of data imaginable about US citizens fair game to be collected by the hunters because that makes for a better hunt? If your answer is yes, that's not irrational from the perspective of empowering the hunters. I think most people would put some types of data collection off-limits to the hunters, though, even if they understood (most probably don't) that doing so might make the hunt less efficient/successful. I'm in that camp.

 

Ask differently. Is data collection of US citizens' data who correspond with regions where bad actors reside totally off limits without a warrant? Or is some high level data gathering permissible?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

And that's who I was referring to. A big part of Binney's issue was that his program was passed over by another one. Was there professional jealousy?

 

 

What's more likely? Binney invented these stories about the FBI raiding his home to keep him quiet, seizing personal property, and dragging him through an expensive litigation process (without ever pressing charges) in a passive aggressive expression of his professional jealousy, or, Binney was telling the truth?

 

Knowing what we know now, there's no way on Earth I'll ever believe this was driven by jealousy. There's too much fire -- not even smoke -- to think otherwise.

[GG]

 

 

What's more likely? Binney invented these stories about the FBI raiding his home to keep him quiet, seizing personal property, and dragging him through an expensive litigation process (without ever pressing charges) in a passive aggressive expression of his professional jealousy, or, Binney was telling the truth?

 

Knowing what we know now, there's no way on Earth I'll ever believe this was driven by jealousy. There's too much fire -- not even smoke -- to think otherwise.

 

No, I was referring to his role in ThinThread vs Trailblazer, which got picked up by Hayden at the NSA.

 

All these discussions go back to the use of intelligence under Executive's war powers as authorized in the aftermath of 9/11, and that's where the question of whether FISA even applies.

 

But on the bigger picture, given the huge amounts of data collected, I'm far less outraged at the invasion of my privacy of my number being caught up when I call overseas than I am in having to wait an hour, lose my water bottle, have my toiletries inspected and take my shoes off just to get on a plane.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

No, I was referring to his role in ThinThread vs Trailblazer, which got picked up by Hayden at the NSA.

 

 

Gotcha.

 

 

 

 

All these discussions go back to the use of intelligence under Executive's war powers as authorized in the aftermath of 9/11, and that's where the question of whether FISA even applies.

 

But on the bigger picture, given the huge amounts of data collected, I'm far less outraged at the invasion of my privacy of my number being caught up when I call overseas than I am in having to wait an hour, lose my water bottle, have my toiletries inspected and take my shoes off just to get on a plane.

 

Again, it's not just when you call overseas. Servers for a lot of tech companies found at home and abroad. Any time your data is moved to an overseas server (which happens constantly, without your knowledge), that information is sopped up.

[GG]

 

Again, it's not just when you call overseas. Servers for a lot of tech companies found at home and abroad. Any time your data is moved to an overseas server (which happens constantly, without your knowledge), that information is sopped up.

 

I have no problem with that either because I also recognize that once I place a phone call on a telephone network that I do not own, and am subject to the ToS of that network, that call can be intercepted by virtually anyone. I also recognize that if the US government intercepts my communication, anything they get without proper authorization will be inadmissible in a court of law.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

 

Ask differently. Is data collection of US citizens' data who correspond with regions where bad actors reside totally off limits without a warrant? Or is some high level data gathering permissible?

 

That's generally a good question, but not the first one I'd like OC to answer.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I have no problem with that either because I also recognize that once I place a phone call on a telephone network that I do not own, and am subject to the ToS of that network, that call can be intercepted by virtually anyone. I also recognize that if the US government intercepts my communication, anything they get without proper authorization will be inadmissible in a court of law.

 

There's a giant flaw in that logic.

[GG]

 

There's a giant flaw in that logic.

 

Not to me there isn't. I filter things through a prism of what's truly important and what is going to affect my life. And by extension that is probably the same for most people. So to borrow a line from a podcast king, think of fixing things small to big. But that's not how people are wired. People look at big things and get scared and think that it's a really big problem for them, when in reality it's not. Yeah mass data surveillance capture is big and sounds scary. But is it really affecting lives of 99.99% of the people? No. Global warming sounds scary. But it will be a blip on the reality scale for most people over the next century.

 

But what's getting the disproportionate share of headlines? It's the big stuff, because the people who have access to the Internet megaphone are scared of the big stuff because they think the little stuff is beneath their worries. Then it turns into a self perpetuating echo-chamber, because I honestly can't tell all the new Internet publications apart, other than guessing that one slants right and another slants left (and only due to the proclivity of the posters here who source it). In my life in dealing with journalists, I have a sense that the modern day reporters already have the story in mind and are talking to sources/experts to reinforce the theory. If they hear a logical counter-argument, it will not make it into the story.

 

So when you look at the history of the NSA snooping, there is evidence that vast amounts of data were collected. What's been swept under the rug is that collecting the tangential data on innocent Americans is inevitable in any such exercise, and the important part is what has been done with that data once its been collected. The analysis that I have seen and the subsequent investigations have not shown any abuse of that data. So I'm fine with the program, because I'm not afraid of its bigness.

 

But, I am afraid of the small. Because the small is the regular, day to day interaction you and I have with the state. It's the TSA checkpoints, it's the regular shakedowns of government agents and inspectors of small business, it's the thousands of droplets of taxes, fees and charges at every step. It's the thousands of little check boxes and forms that your life is increasingly controlled by, with no apparent rationale other than having to check the box, so that a bureaucrat can justify his existence. That to me is far more dangerous.

[KD in CA]

 

Not to me there isn't. I filter things through a prism of what's truly important and what is going to affect my life. And by extension that is probably the same for most people. So to borrow a line from a podcast king, think of fixing things small to big. But that's not how people are wired. People look at big things and get scared and think that it's a really big problem for them, when in reality it's not. Yeah mass data surveillance capture is big and sounds scary. But is it really affecting lives of 99.99% of the people? No. Global warming sounds scary. But it will be a blip on the reality scale for most people over the next century.

 

But what's getting the disproportionate share of headlines? It's the big stuff, because the people who have access to the Internet megaphone are scared of the big stuff because they think the little stuff is beneath their worries. Then it turns into a self perpetuating echo-chamber, because I honestly can't tell all the new Internet publications apart, other than guessing that one slants right and another slants left (and only due to the proclivity of the posters here who source it). In my life in dealing with journalists, I have a sense that the modern day reporters already have the story in mind and are talking to sources/experts to reinforce the theory. If they hear a logical counter-argument, it will not make it into the story.

 

So when you look at the history of the NSA snooping, there is evidence that vast amounts of data were collected. What's been swept under the rug is that collecting the tangential data on innocent Americans is inevitable in any such exercise, and the important part is what has been done with that data once its been collected. The analysis that I have seen and the subsequent investigations have not shown any abuse of that data. So I'm fine with the program, because I'm not afraid of its bigness.

 

But, I am afraid of the small. Because the small is the regular, day to day interaction you and I have with the state. It's the TSA checkpoints, it's the regular shakedowns of government agents and inspectors of small business, it's the thousands of droplets of taxes, fees and charges at every step. It's the thousands of little check boxes and forms that your life is increasingly controlled by, with no apparent rationale other than having to check the box, so that a bureaucrat can justify his existence. That to me is far more dangerous.

 

Excellent post. Couldn't agree more.

 

I'm pretty sure I'm never going to see a giant tidal wave destroy Manhattan (or whatever other nonsense scenarios the Global Warming^TM crowd likes to invent), but I've already seen and dealt with much of the bullsh-- you mention in the last paragraph and have watched that crap get progressively worse over recent years.