10
   

This is interesting, and disturbing

 
 
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2013 07:22 pm
I guess our rights don't matter after all.
Actually, according to CI, this means that our right to privacy has been totally taken away.

http://www.rr.com/articles/2013/12/27/n/ny-judge-rules-nsa-phone-surveillance-is-legal


Quote:
NEW YORK (AP) — The heated debate over the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records fell squarely into the courts Friday, when a federal judge in Manhattan upheld the legality of the program and cited its need in the fight against terrorism just days after another federal judge concluded it was likely not constitutional.


The ruling by U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III and an opposing view earlier this month by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington D.C. sets the stage for federal appeals courts to confront the delicate balance developed when the need to protect national security clashes with civil rights established in the Constitution.


Pauley concluded the program was a necessary extension of steps taken after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He said the program lets the government connect fragmented and fleeting communications and "represents the government's counter-punch" to the al-Qaida's terror network's use of technology to operate decentralized and plot international terrorist attacks remotely.


"This blunt tool only works because it collects everything," Pauley said. "The collection is broad, but the scope of counterterrorism investigations is unprecedented."

 
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2013 07:26 pm
@mysteryman,
It isn't final until it goes to the supreme court. It is the same process most constitutional conflicts go through.


By the way, do you have the same concerns about our privacy violations and data collections done by marketing firms and corporations?

If not, what do you see as the difference?


Nom de plume
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2013 07:40 pm
@mysteryman,
Unfortunately, in this post 9/11 and high tech world we live in has very little privacy. There are video cameras everywhere, people take video of everything they see in public and post on social networking sites without our permission. TSA has the right to scan, xray, grope and search our bodies and property every time we fly. Every time you log onto your computer and visit sites you are tracked by marketing programs. What NSA is doing isn't really anything different, but is supposed to be in the name of "security". There needs to be oversight and laws in place defining what is legal. Laws are lagging far behind technology. Believe me, I am all for privacy, but those golden days are long gone.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2013 07:42 pm
@Butrflynet,
As far as I am concerned, there is no difference.
And yes, I do have the same concerns.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2013 07:47 pm
Whether the decision is correct or not depends on the exact nature of the phone data being collected, and I can't say that I know its nature, except that I've heard it described as meta-data. If a marketing firm were to gain access to who I was talking to on the phone, then, yes, it would be improper. Also, it is worse for the government to violate my rights than for some corporation to because of the nature of the relationship between government and the governed. With government, there is always the possibility of it becoming a dictatorship or police state. The proper relationship between government and the governed is described perfectly in the Declaration of Independence. Government is simply a convenient way of providing useful services for the people and when it significantly stops serving them, it should be shut down and replaced.

It's not in our interest to see the Bill of Rights eroded. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence are America's greatest resources and are, I think, responsible in large measure for America's success and prosperity.

As for this court case, the only relevant issue is whether the NSA program violates the 4th Amendment. Any judge who is an accessory to the erosion of the 4th Amendment needs to be removed from civil service at once.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2013 08:18 pm
The collection of personal data by the NSA (or any other government agency) is a different kettle of fish from the collection of marketing data by private enterprise. I don't approve of either practice on moral grounds, but legally the Constitution protects us only from prying by the government. That is what the "right to privacy" provisions in the Bill of Rights are all about. In the absence of specific legislation, there is no Constitutional bar against a marketing firm getting too damn' nosy about what we eat or watch on TV.

But, as has already been said, this hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet and I suspect that that's where it's headed.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2013 08:29 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Agree on all points
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 12:01 pm
Well, evidently the erosion of civil liberties by government is a subject of little interest on A2K.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 04:20 pm
@Brandon9000,
So it seems. Maybe because we are still mentally in the '60s and think we're completely free because each floor of our East German apartment complex doesn't have some nasty little old lady sending in daily reports on our coming and going. What we've got is less noticeable and intrusive, but much more effective.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 04:50 pm
There's a thread with 217 pages (4,337 posts) on the subject here.
http://able2know.org/topic/217301-216#post-5533520
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 07:45 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
So it seems. Maybe because we are still mentally in the '60s and think we're completely free because each floor of our East German apartment complex doesn't have some nasty little old lady sending in daily reports on our coming and going. What we've got is less noticeable and intrusive, but much more effective.

Alternate explanation: Most of the people here have little understanding of or interest in civil liberties except for the big, well known, showy talking points.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 08:47 pm
@Brandon9000,
Many of us have been vociferous, in our ways. You two seem tuned to your own cigars.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 09:15 pm
@Brandon9000,
Back to you, Brandon. Explain that cigar - if you can.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 09:30 pm
I had a cigarette. It grew up.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 09:43 pm
I agree with Andy. I have no idea what you two are rolfing about. Read up.
roger
 
  4  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 09:57 pm
@ossobuco,
Do you ever go back and actually read and try to understand the **** you post?
trying2learn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 10:13 pm
@mysteryman,
If the ASA didn't bother me or anyone I know of, why would the NSA?
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 10:16 pm
@roger,
Yes.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 10:22 pm
@trying2learn,
trying2learn wrote:

If the ASA didn't bother me or anyone I know of, why would the NSA?

It wouldn't unless you value the Bill of Rights and the philosophy it represents.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2013 10:29 pm
@roger,
You're raging at me about your own opinions. Moderately annoying.

Jpb gave a good link.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » This is interesting, and disturbing
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2020 at 05:07:11