General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOk, so tell me why you are concerned about the government having this data...
Last edited Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:09 AM - Edit history (2)
... when no one blinks when the private industry had it before them.
It seems to me that it's not the access to the data, but the application of the data that we should be focused on.
I think it's a good opportunity for a broad discussion about security and privacy. But don't get suckered into this being a "big bad government" issue.
That's what the right wants here. Adopt polices that the public might reject, keep it secret, and then let the left take the political fall for the policies and (here's the key) frame the whole thing around "we told you the big-goverment left is evil".
The truth is that every objection I've heard on this board about the collection of this data adopts the right's framing. And at the same risks for abuse exist when private industry holds the same data. And the consequences are worse because there's effectively no accountability for what a private firm chooses to do in private.
----
Note: I added the content to this post taken from a follow up post below, because it goes further to my point...
I don't condem the left.
I'm challenging the conversation of the moment on the left and across the entire country.
I'm asking that those on the left, not let the right - particularly the Tea Party, anti-government right - allow the discussion to be framed as bag government.
I'm also asking that all people recognize the specific point of failure, which is in the agreements with Verizon and Google, that permit these companies to keep and own the data like this.
This discussion of privacy starts in the private sector.
And when we on the left allow the discussion to focus specifically and only the actions of the government, we lose both the immediate battle over the left-right today, specifically voter enthusiasm and turnout in 2014 (just like what happened in 2010 after healthcare). And we lose the two longer, more essential policy discussions. Both the discussion about the role of government in our lives and the nature of privacy and how we should handle all of this mounting private data.
If you are concerned about the use of that data by the government, you should also be concerned about it's use by private interests. And if you trust Obama or Google, then think Bush and Koch.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)or kill me.
And now, not even a judge is needed to do this.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)unconstitutional
zaj
(3,433 posts)... the data is actually Verizons.
zaj
(3,433 posts)Not that it's collected.
markiv
(1,489 posts)you could require a warrent to actually USE anything they find
zaj
(3,433 posts)Over and over again.
mercymechap
(579 posts)You must like to feed the conservatives fuel for their accusations that libs like "big government"!
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Whats to stop them from changing the rules? You didn't even know it existed until it was leaked. You seem to be ultimately trusting of the current administration with no regard for how the next one might misuse it. So short sighted...
zaj
(3,433 posts)We shouldn't excuse Obama when we wouldn't excuse Bush.
But if you are going to object, don't be suckered into attacking government instead of the phone companies that collected the data in the first place and used it in far less admirable ways.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)and get a court order to determine if they are holding your data or not. Try that with the NSA. You'll get disappeared just like this Snowden guy.
RC
(25,592 posts)The phone company's use for it is basically done with when they print your bill.
zaj
(3,433 posts)They certainly also use it for predicting call volumes and patterns. For forecasting where to install new towers.
You assume they use it for things that are good and true.
To counter your point, at the very least, they also use it to give to the Feds.
Verizon's collection of this data is the root. Ignoring that is foolish for all the reasons I have articulated.
RC
(25,592 posts)The can compute that on the fly and store those results. They do not need to know who called who and when. Save that for 60 to 90 days for in case of legal, law inforcement investigations, and then delete it, if not used.
And what is Verizon or who ever giving it to anyone for?
You think the government having this information is a good thing? Not in a reasonable free democracy it ain't.
You and I are the real targets, not any would be terrorists. Those are just incidental to the real purpose.
RobinA
(10,478 posts)Before they can use it, they have to collect it. No collection, no use. That's why the Constitution addresses collection. Caselaw addresses use, as in fruit from the poison tree. Which really means - collect it constitutionally or you can't use it.
On your other point - The Constitution doesn't apply to business, so their collection of it isn't unconstitutional. Troubling, yes.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Really?
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)MannyGoldstein is a good DUer. No need to smear him or her.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)As far as I know, I am not here to support the Ron/Rand Paul libertarian party nor the republican party,
which of course, Rand and Ron are proud and paid members of, and Rand Paul would instantly accept the VP if Jeb was forced to
ask him.
and no, I myself am not going to apologize for not playing the stand with Rand and Jeb game.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)
okaawhatever
(9,565 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)supposedly donated to Ron Paul? Some here are having a real hard time with their denial bubbles.
zaj
(3,433 posts)... in fact, if Bush had 1/100th of the courage of Snowden, he'd have water boarded people himself and stood up and taken the legal responsibilty for doing so.
I'd have respected that.
Snowden's politics have little or nothing to do with this for me.
The discussion must be all invasion of privacy is wrong, including what your cellphone company is keeping about you such that it can be transferred to another party (public or private) at a later date.
Or, if it's OK for them to do it. Then it's OK for them to transfer it to the US Gov't to track down 'bad guys'.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I'm using their SERVICE. The content is MINE.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Somebody can even ask such an ignorant question. Read on the KGB and the Stasi.
Those were pikers in the capabilities incidentally.
zaj
(3,433 posts)... you and I can both object to such behavior.
I don't care whether those actions are taken by the private or public institution. Guard against them. But don't single out the government's use of that data to find a terrorist and excuse the private industry's use of that data to target the timing of collection calls, or plan to maximize their pricing models or better target their advertising.
Don't allow the privacy discussion to be defined as "evil government".
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)To kill me. The government does.
No, corporations should not either, but the day a corporation can use police powers to kill me it will be (we are moving in that direction) a post nation state. For the momemt, Walmart does not have the power of the state yet, neither does verizon or Facebook.
There are days.
And if you defend a police state, I have no use for this so called discussion. Many police state citizens come to mind. Congrats, for electing leaders, not representatives.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)to have rational debate over whether cannibalism is a good idea. It's a propaganda tactic, and it should be ridiculed rather than engaged.
And, because it's desperately needed too, these days...
zaj
(3,433 posts)... who's rights are being violated here.
The data under discussion is the personal property of Verizon.
Not Joe Customer.
Just saying, that's sorta important when you start going to the constitution card.
Perhaps Verizon can sue.
zaj
(3,433 posts)And we can then agree that Verizon's role here is non-trival and equally objectionable to that of the Gov't.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Is amazing, isn't it?
zaj
(3,433 posts)And they own it, then the problem is Verizon's. And your problem is with Verizon.
That's important to recognize.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)If you are to thick to get it, it's really not my fault.
Really...this is ignorant in ways that are breath taking
zaj
(3,433 posts)This data. It's a thing. It has an owner. That owner is NOT you. That owner is Verizon. Verizon has property rights to this data. They can get a loan on it. Take investments based on it's value and usefulness. THey can sell it. They own it.
If the Feds come it and take it. That's the feds taking Verizon's property. That is Verizon's issue.
If you willingly give away your ownership interest in that data through the signing of a contract with Verizon that specifies who own's what and they own this data. Then any use or misuse of that data is between you and Verizon.
My point, that I think you are missing, is that the objects that the feds are using, that have ownership rights. You haven't been searched. You haven't had anything seized.
In fact, you most likely donated that data set to Verizon along with a check, both in return for a phone service.
For all of these reasons, the role of Verizon and the threat they may pose to your personal privacy, needs to be at the center of this discussion right along with any objections directed toward the goverment.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You are...
Read the Fourth Amendment, and chiefly try to understand it I am not sure you can.
I am not sure if you are purposely obtuse, or ignorant. I guess I will send more money to the ACLU because of ignorant idiots on the internets. My rights, and yours, are not up for debate.
zaj
(3,433 posts)... so that we can have a meaningful discussion. You punt on an inkind effort and tell me to go read a book and through magic, some how intuit your counter argument.
This is productive.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The fact that you have no idea (or pretend to) what it is, tells me all I need to know. So in an effort to help you...
MAIN PAGEANNOTATIONS
FOURTH AMENDMENT
Text
Learn more
AMENDMENT IV
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.
Though you would be do to read the whole Constitution, at the very least the bill of rights.
zaj
(3,433 posts)... and ask you to articulate your point or directly discussion any of mine.
You are being lazy, which is your right, but I'm not going send much more time on you if you aren't going to spend time on me.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Or snooping by the Feds, cause we are afraid. Many of us have told you this.
Your excuses, they are excuses, and they smell, lead to the kind of police state you cannot conceive off. We already live in an inverted totalitarian system. Don't willingly surrender more.
Again, read the fucking fourth amendment. The founders, sadly, must be doing flips in graves...how weak kneeded and afraid Americans have become. The land of the free and the brave...my ass.
zaj
(3,433 posts)largely.
I'm saying, IF YOU HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH government having and using this sort of data. DON'T STOP THERE!
Recognize that the source of your objections is the private sectors collection of this sort of data. Their actions in collecting and retaining this data for their own use is the source of the power for abuse.
And the abuse is not limited to the federal government.
So if you object to the potential abuse of power, then you should be working to limit the source of the power (in this case the data sets collected, owned and controlled by Verizon).
Not IN PLACE of the focus on the actions of the Gov't. But IN ADDITION TO it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)All I am reading, and plenty of other Du'ers...are hearing.
As well as conflating.
Must be frustrating when not all of us take the shiny.
zaj
(3,433 posts)You are reading and you did make one last effort to articulate a point in some mall depth.
But you appear to be putting your fingers in your ears and saying "lalala".
Which is your right.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)My point is my rights are not up for sale...and you are excusing, trying to, the government through the two wrongs.
Must be damn frustrating...but knowing where all this started...such as Carnivore...no son, I put the blame squarely on the US government. Corporations, not just verizon, are following the letter of the law. Unless I missed my cue, corporations do not pass laws.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)and they gave it to the agencies without question? So the govt now has access to Verizon's "property." So they are in cahoots. That's the way it works in corporatocracy.
You have no idea what has been searched and seized. That's the problem.
What a weak argument. 
zaj
(3,433 posts)... you gave it to Verizon. And they gave it to the feds.
Your claim is to Verizon. Verizon's claim is to the Feds.
The specifics matter.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)and the lack of protections under the 4th amendment.
You're splitting hairs. Corporates and government = a two-headed monster now anyway.
That today we have NO protections under the 4th amendment is proven by the extent of this merging of information--as others have stated here more effectively than I.
But you just go on beating your little drum 
Nah--not buying this line of thought--our beef is with Verizon and not the govt. Government is in cahoots.
Government should PROTECT us from the abuses of Corporates.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)can be used to extort people.
PRISM is designed to look for relationships in the metadata. For instance, finding out that a congressman is calling a psychiatrist, or a prostitute, or a bankruptcy lawyer, these things can be used to extort. PRISM undoubtedly links to FBI, CIA and local law enforcement for information that is probably inaccessible to telecoms.
And even if they did design something like this, they couldn't keep it secret by classifying it. Corporations can't classify information. So if say AT&T were trying to mine embarrassing information from Nancy Pelosi's records, the people in charge could legally call her and inform her she's going to be extorted. Or merely call the police.
In fact, it's probably illegal for them to do so.
zaj
(3,433 posts)Google knows all.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)But for instance, criminal convictions that are sealed. Of course, google isn't complete either. They have email, and they have a small telephone app, but don't necessarily have the metadata for every call in the country.
PRISM is unique because it puts together all the information along with government data. And most importantly, it can be classified, shielded from shareholder and public scrutiny, and probably illegal as well.
That's why they can't do it.
zaj
(3,433 posts)That they gave to the NSA. And they use the same basic data mining techniques to make their own predictions. Private industry is the point of failure in the privacy chain.
Venting at Obama today doesn't address the underlying issues. We are fools to respond the way we are right now, IMO. There's a better way.
okaawhatever
(9,565 posts)like something the nsa would put out. The program exists, but not in the way the slides show. The CIA can't operate domestically. Several officials and former officials have said none of these programs target Americans, nor do they use calls made exclusively inside the United States. This information is based on international calls, whether originating overseas or ending there. The government has long had the capabilities to track people. Most private detectives do. The question is how is it being used? This isn't being done under executive order. All three branches of gov't are familiar with it. The stuff you're talking about either doesn't happen or if it does it's illegal. Prism won't create or stop that from happening.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)in the first place.
And corporations do classify information. Its part of how they protect their intellectual property. If they don't classify their information, they can't argue that some 3rd party stole intellectual property. If your information is not classified, then its all considered PUBLIC information and so it can't be stolen from you.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)zaj
(3,433 posts)Exactly my point.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I've been thinking for quite a while now and I have yet to come up with a single example of a national security state that has been significantly freed without major societal upheaval.
The fact is that a national security state is a one way ratchet that has no natural means of release, they always get tighter and more restrictive as time goes on until eventually... Boom.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)when the US gubmint's SWAT team kicks in your door, shoots your dog, and handcuffs you.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The event gained national and international media attention. While the Calvos were cleared of wrongdoing, the police were accused by the Calvos and civil rights groups of lacking a proper search warrant, excessive force, and failure to conduct a proper background investigation of the home being raided. Despite the criticisms, no action has been taken against the officers or their respective police departments. In August 2010, Sheriff Jackson stated that "we'd do it again. Tonight."
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)metadata collection?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)So, 'since we have no way of knowing', let's go ahead and assume that metadata gathering is at the bottom of this - and everything else.
Reads more like an out-of-control sheriff's office and police department. But I wouldn't want to even consider the more obvious conclusion here.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Shocking.
Now show us where the Google SWAT team has gotten out of control and shot some poor people's dogs while holding them at gunpoint.
That was the original complaint, that Google or Verizon having your information could end just as badly as the government having it.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Google or Verizon, nor compared them to the gov't.
The hysteria about the megadata collection is - well, in a word, hysterical.
The gleaning of information does not equal 'spying'. If that were the case, your doctor, dentist, bank manager, phone service provider, FaceBook friends - and many, many more - are also 'spying' on you just by virtue of having certain information about you.
The fact that one passes in front of a security camera for a second or two does not equal 'being monitored', is having their 'every move watched'.
And yet, many here seem to believe all of the above.
Hysterical.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You have already admitted that law enforcement gets out of control in America, you seemed to be using that as some kind of defense of your position although how you expected that to work I cannot fathom.
And we all know that if Obama completely changed his opinion and said so tonight you'd be arguing just the opposite tack tomorrow on this subject.
I can't say that I blame Obama completely, certainly Congress is at fault but this NSA program was evidently authorized and that does not necessarily imply that it was mandated by Congress.
Unless Congress mandated this then it's on Obama since he would be the one responsible for the decision to do it.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)I was responding to you.
"law enforcement gets out of control in America, you seemed to be using that as some kind of defense"
Excuse me? You're the one who posted the story about the police/sheriff's department, not me.
You used it as your defence in there being no comparison between Verizon/Google and the gov't.
"And we all know that if Obama completely changed his opinion and said so tonight you'd be arguing just the opposite tack tomorrow on this subject."
Obama's opinion on the topic is irrelevant to me on this topic. We live in an age of data-mining - it's been going on for a long time, and will continue to go on. It's just the nature of the internet/instant communication/computer software beast we all share a love-hate relationship with.
So my phone records are being dumped into a database somewhere - along with millions upon millions of others. Does that keep me awake at night? Not by a longshot.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You were the one who mentioned law enforcement getting out of control, I merely posted a link and some facts.
There isn't a comparison, government is not business, isn't that something that Democrats believe?
If government and business are the same then we might as well have voted for Rmoney because he certainly knows how to make a business hum.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Go back through our discussion and tell me WHO posted the link to the police busting the mayor story!
I didn't mention anything about law enforcement getting out of control except in response to your link!
I never said that government and business are the same. What I did say is that data-mining has been going on for years, and will continue.
And the data the gov't is collecting - phone records, no content, numbers contacted and duration of call - has been known to my phone company for years. And yours. And everyone else's.
And what the gov't is collecting right now is WAY less informative about me than the info my doctor has on his office computer - ditto my accountant, my dentist, my bank, etc.
The yeah, but the gov't has the power to arrest you cry is rather silly. Know anyone who has been arrested because someone, somewhere in the Big Bad Gubmint decided to search the database out of idle curiosity, and subsequently had them charged with having called their grandma in Jersey six times in one month, always for less than fifteen minutes a clip?
This current poutrage-de-jour, over systems that have been in place and operating for years, is just plain - hysterical hysteria.
But I do admit to enjoying the show. No doubt it will, like all other poutrages-de-jour, have a short run - because there will be a new show premiering any minute now to take its place.
sikofit3
(145 posts)You should be concerned about metadata collection. I don't think people understand how far sweeping, intelligent and powerful these databases are. There is always an ethical question with data, you know, how it is used and put together to form a scenario or conclusion to the reason the data exists at all on servers for programs like PRISM. This is the future that we have all discussed about that we have feared and we are witnessing the process, thanks to whistle blowers and seeing them chip at our privacy. Data can be skewed and interpreted in different ways during statistical analysis. There is always ethics and procedures when dealing with data like QC to make sure it keeps its integrity and tells the truth. After seeing, climate deniers manipulate data to show their side of it or any type of analysis that we have all SEEN and ripped apart and were able to debunk it is the key. We were able to see it, discuss it and call them out on it. With these "secret" programs we can't do that and have to take their word for it and that doesn't sit to well with me. Understandably there has to be some secret programs but this one is getting to close to that all knowing controlling "entity" over us. I can't see how anyone wouldn't be uncomfortable with this in the least and believe anyone who says, its alright trust me we are using it correctly, you have nothing to worry about and lets move along now, like good little children.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)the tree.
markiv
(1,489 posts)or your dont have enough protections now, so why have any protections?
they had the exact same arguement in the judiciary committee last week over h-1b guest worker visas, there was a provision to require that firms try to find americans first, but industry and schumer claimed that doesnt work well, so they killed ALL protections in the bill
the democratic party has been playing the 'we're not quite as bad as them card' for a long time, but that has to actually be true for that tactic to work
zaj
(3,433 posts)If you see it as 2 wrongs, don't get suckered into allowing the debate to be about only the 1 wrong. When there was an identical act for a less honorable reason that we've sat here for years allowing day after day.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)is trying to equate the evil left with the right. I never did like sock puppets, I always thought they were so amateur.
zaj
(3,433 posts)You don't know me, so I get any suspicion about my identity or motives. I'll say I've been here for nearly a decade. That's a long run of a sock puppet.
But I don't get how my argument, purely on it's merits, either either the work of a sock puppet (presumably for the right?). And more specifically, how do you specifically interpret my argument as saying anything about the "evil left" in any way.
I don't condem the left.
I'm challenging the conversation of the moment on the left and across the entire country.
I'm asking that those on the left, not let the right - particularly the Tea Party, anti-government right - allow the discussion to be framed as bag government.
I'm also asking that all people recognize the specific point of failure, which is in the agreements with Verizon and Google, that permit these companies to keep and own the data like this.
This discussion of privacy starts in the private sector.
And when we on the left allow the discussion to focus specifically and only the actions of the government, we lose both the immediate battle over the left-right today, specifically voter enthusiasm and turnout in 2014 (just like what happened in 2010 after healthcare). And we lose the two longer, more essential policy discussions. Both the discussion about the role of government in our lives and the nature of privacy and how we should handle all of this mounting private data.
If you are concerned about the use of that data by the government, you should also be concerned about it's use by private interests. And if you trust Obama or Google, then think Bush and Koch.
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm sure this thread will draw the usual comparisons to, let's see, Hitler, McCarthy, George Orwell, Founding Fathers, the original Constitution and, of course, 'our rights', even though that means different things to different people.
It's fear and unhappiness.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
zaj
(3,433 posts)... this has been allowed to be defined as the big bad government. Those complaining now weren't complaining last week when it was private industry mining this same data for less honorable reasons.
randome
(34,845 posts)Then it becomes instant Constitutional Crisis Time. I swear, too many people are living on the edge looking for an 'excuse' that the world is unfair.
So I guess to answer your original question, I don't know.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
reformist2
(9,841 posts)zaj
(3,433 posts)If you are going to be pissed about this, be pissed at Verizon for gathering the data to begin with.
magellan
(13,257 posts)...what information Verizon is gathering that it doesn't need in order to bill its customers. Time of call. Caller's location. Call destination. Duration. Caller's number, recipient's number. This is more or less the alleged "metadata" the government insists it's using. In fact all of it is necessary for telcos to bill for services.
Here's what some of us continue to be pissed at. The court order requires Verizon to hand over record details on ALL calls whether they're domestic or international, meaning every call made by Americans is under potential NSA scrutiny one way or another.
Do you think the government stopped there? If they're demanding all the call detail records from Verizon, they'll be getting that info from the other telcos as well.
And there are good reasons dating back to Bush** to suspect that it doesn't stop at "metadata", but that call and email contents are being vacuumed up as well. What you say and what you write with some legitimate expectation of privacy can be scrutinized by government spies at their leisure.
Now explain again why we should be pissed at Verizon instead of the government.
zaj
(3,433 posts)... since I'm not Verizon.
But they gather all of the data given to the feds.
They can do anything they want with that data, without your knowledge or recourse.
That is exactly the same conditions as the feds.
They could mine it for terrorist connections if they wanted. They certainly can take those call records, find out when your are most in need of making phone calls, and develop a pricing model that increases your spending based on that mined data, and very directly used that information against you.
To your specific point, they don't need those mined insights to bill you. Just like they don't need the terrorist tracking insights to bill you. But they can extract both from the data you willingly give them.
And they could do anything they want with that data. And for a profit, the might likely sell it to be used in some unwelcome say.
magellan
(13,257 posts)Telcos aren't in the business of chasing terrorists, and they aren't going to imprison or kill Americans for their political views.
And I'd love to know how you think telcos bill their customers without recording the essential details of calls made using their services.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)
SpearthrowerOwl
(71 posts)about how the data will be used. One simply has to know something about history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO) and drop the idea that America is somehow "exempt" from power considerations...
markiv
(1,489 posts)if you're insinuating that objections come from a sinister right wing plot as opposed to sincere and legitimate concerns, you're about to turn off a lot of people, both parties members and independents
it stinks of 'PARTY UBER ALLES"
zaj
(3,433 posts)on our terms... not theirs.
If you object to the mining of private data, don't let the right limit the discussion to big bad government's mining of the data.
If you don't object to private industry using your data to identify your price sensitivity and develop pricing models that maximize your over payment for their product... then apply that same patience when the good guys use the same data to chase bag guys.
And if you take a wait and see approach to Google's collection of your data, then demand that the public discussion apply that same rationale to the federal gov't's use of that same sort of data.
There a straght forward way for anyone holding any view on this to have this discussion, voice their objects and still demand that the media not adopt the right's framing.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)zaj
(3,433 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)zaj
(3,433 posts)So feel free to focus on my more detailed comments.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)zaj
(3,433 posts)... their dollars against healthcare policy that would save lives at the cost of a higher tax rate for them.
Yet, government is evil.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Government is neither "good" nor "evil". However, certain governmental policies are unequivocally BAD and contrary to the words and spirit of the US Constitution, particularly a little bit called the 4th Amendment.
I support NASA and, for instance, Public Education, that doesn't mean I cheer because we spend upwards of $60 billion a year so we can fill our prisons with pot smokers.
http://boingboing.net/2011/09/07/patriot-act-search-warrants-overwhelmingly-used-for-drugs.html
zaj
(3,433 posts)This is Verizon's system. You use it willingly. You assign that data to them. They turn it over the whomever they want, perhaps the Koch Brothers, or the highest bidder. Perhaps a few terrorist hunters.
I don't see on the surface how that's an unconstitutional act.
I do see where the original sin act happens. It happens when you sign over yourself and your data in the fire print of a contract with Verizon.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)However, I do wish that the government would re-prioritize.
And this is about far more than just the Veriozon metadata, however I highly doubt they're selling the information of who is calling who (not to mention users' geolocation data) to other corporations.
zaj
(3,433 posts)... Koch Industries (or anyone), I assure you they are selling it.
rug
(82,333 posts)zaj
(3,433 posts)... come on.
rug
(82,333 posts)Every citizen is a potential threat.
Am I missing something?
zaj
(3,433 posts)That existing resource is used, not under the assumption that it's filled with guilty people, but that it contains an unknown, single potential threat.
rug
(82,333 posts)The government, on the other hand, considers that any of its ctizens on the list could be a presently unknown threat/
That's wrong. It's the reason constitutional provisions require a specific reasonable articulable suspicion.
I could make that same "The government... considers ... any of its ctizens on the list could be a presently unknown threat" argument in response the a police car driving down my block searching the front and side yards for a reported burglar.
The act of a search for a presumed guilty party across a list of innocent people is not an evil act. It's a natural phenomena of the fact that the bag guys are out numbered by good guys 10,000 to 1.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)They've been fighting to get the administration to release the secret FISA ruling that says PRISM was being run under an unconstitutional interpretation of the law.
I don't care if it reflects badly on Obama politically, or if that makes the right happy, or not. They're actually going to have a hard time riding that horse, because the law-breaking began under their guy.
But no, private industry did not (and should) engage in large scale surveillance of telephone metadata or private e-mail. And no one I know of is okay with it trying.
And the government needs to stop claiming the right to keep it's own lawbreaking secret. That was wrong under Bush, and it's not magically okay now under a Democrat.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/doj-tells-court-its-reconsidering-secrecy-surrounding-patriot-acts-spying
Until now, the government has taken the position that what it thinks it's allowed to do under Section 215 should stay hidden from the public. This is unacceptable, because it's impossible to debate the wisdom of a law if the public doesn't know how the government interprets it. But today, following last night's release of classified aspects of the NSA's surveillance practices by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the government asked the court for 30 days to consider whether to change its position in our FOIA case. Here's an excerpt from the DOJ letter to the court:
In light of the DNI's decision to declassify certain previously classified information, the Government requires time to consider what effect, if any, the DNI's decision has on the classification of information in some of the withheld documents still at issue in this case.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Yes corporations have had numerous programs to get user data. My first experience was with Radio Shack back in the 1980's. They wanted a name and address to buy something. Starting then I gave them a fake name and address. A different one every time. The point there must be obvious. In the case of corporate America, I have the power to opt out. I can buy from Amazon, or I can buy locally with cash. Then I am just another sale, one that nobody notices at the end of the week. I can use a cell phone with a plan and a contract. Or I can get a prepaid, and use it as a burner, tossing it at the end of the month, and firing up a new one with another name. I can use a credit/debit card, or I can pay cash. With a little effort, I can live my life my way while hurting not one single soul. I can opt out of much if not a vast majority of the data tracking going on by Corporations.
How do I opt out of the Government programs? When I must present biometric identification including fingerprints, photographs, and documentation to get a License that meets the "Real ID" standard inflicted by the US Government. If I was to get a job at the dock, or an airport, I would need even more documentation presented to a contractor who is administering the program. We've all seen the devices at airports and other locations. Hand print readers, palm readers and the like.
But let's get back to the difference. If I don't like AOL and how they apply their policies on privacy, I can go with someone else. If I want, I can use a laptop at some sort of public WiFi location, possibly at a McDonalds. Now, how do I opt out of the Government snooping on me and watching what I do online?
The Fourth Amendment says that Warrants shall specifically list the place to be searched, and describe the evidence being searched for. Give us everything is hardly a specific search term. Thou shalt not speak of it or else is another problem, constitutionally.
So let's turn this around. What in the Constitution allows the Government to take this information? Are they investigating a crime? What crime? Who is the suspect? No they are investigating shadowy forces that are lurking out there like boogiemen in the darkness. Boo.
So they have no specific crime. They don't know what evidence they'll find sifting through all the metadata, but they know it will be good. What kind of blackmail information could they get from such information? Politicians having affairs? Possibly. Wouldn't that be handy to have information on when your funding comes around. They see you texting a competitor and calling a competitor's business. Knowing that you are in the aerospace business, they make the conclusion that you are getting ready to merge and buy stock knowing that this will really jack the price of the stock up.
What they can do is limited only by their imaginations. And lets be honest. There has never been a database that wasn't abused, and some of those abuses are pretty imaginative. From Cops setting up private investigation companies and running "background" checks by punching names into the NCIC, to every other known abuse. The question is not will it be abused, the question is how often?
Finally, I utterly reject your assertion that the arguments adopt the rights framing, and are somehow invalid. Even a blind squirrel will get a nut now and then. What if in this one instance, the right is well, right? Churchill met objections that they would partner with Stalin, a Dictator, to fight Hitler, a Dictator. Churchill said that if Satan declared war on Hitler, that Churchill would give him a positive mention on the floor of the House of Commons. The idea is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Corporations are accountable. They can be sued, they can be investigated and fined or otherwise punished if they are doing something wrong. Only governments have the power to declare something secret, and prohibit anyone knowing anything about it. Corporations can't throw you in prison for talking about their programs. Governments can.
Corporations that abuse the trust placed in them are bad. Governments that do so are infinitely worse, because you have no recourse with the latter.
zaj
(3,433 posts)Government is accountable to regular elections by and of the people. If Koch choose to buy Verizon or Google. You have zero recourse.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I could go with any number of cell phone companies. I could use Yahoo, or any other search engine. If we thought they were doing illegal things like capturing data they weren't supposed to have, we could sue, or launch an investigation into the Google Mobiles and if it turned out to be true, the company would be fined.
What punishment did the Government get when they accidentally got some data they weren't supposed to have? They claim they destroyed the data, but who was fined or otherwise punished? Nobody.
Google paid millions in fines for gathering web data with their Street View camera cars. They were also fined for taking private roads they were not authorized to use.
So you think Governments are accountable? Are you saying we should vote out all the Democrats who voted for this in Congress? What if they win the primary and it's a choice between a Democrat who voted for this, and a Republican who didn't?
zaj
(3,433 posts)... for terrorist links or political donations. Even if you leave subsequent to giving them that data.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--if government is not protecting us against abuses of data mining & info collecting???
We can have no further trust in government unless protections under the 4th amendment are guaranteed.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)The silly kernel of wisdom that is to dense to understand that by it's nature the credit card must do this to do what I want them to do for such purchases that I elect.
No, I don't give a shit that some folks put all of their business on Facebook.
It also forgets that all of this information (in whatever amount it exists) isn't collected, isn't processed, though should be bound by law to the expressed purposes of the consumer but even then the company has no power to prosecute, imprison, or kill anyone. I'm sure it happens but you take my reasoning, if you have any thought.
The comparisons are largely silly and those that aren't obviously should be locked down and /or sued into oblivion.
"But...but...FACEBOOK!" is a goofy and I can't help but to imagine disingenuous argument.
zaj
(3,433 posts)... for answering any question. Hell, they could be payed by the feds as contractors to mine those call logs for exactly the same purpose. That's their prerogative; they own the data.
The person who fears the gov't over abuse of their privacy and ignores the private industry over abuse of their privacy... is at best, kidding themselves.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)OK?
zaj
(3,433 posts)Good.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)2.) Plenty of people are concerned with private industry having this data.
3.) One of the reasons they are concerned is because of private industry giving it to government.
4.) The Government is not private industry.
5.) See #s 1 and 4.
zaj
(3,433 posts)... and make the argument about the collection of the data by anyone.
Or go in one level and make it about the specific use of the data.
But we are fools if we let the discussion sit where it is now, where the right laughs because the left (Obama) is implementing their security procedures as the law says, while the left (his supporters) are making THEIR argument about the evils of big government.
All the while, Verizon is looking at the same data sets, violating the same privacy, and doing it for far less honorable reasons than trying to catch suspected mass murders. In fact, they are quiet likely trying to find ways to screw you out of your money.
rucky
(35,211 posts)To fire people, or not hire them in the first place, deny them credit/loans or raise their rates, based on their interpretation of whatever big data algorithm they're judging people by. These actions could really fuck up someone's life - for life, without the victim ever really knowing why they're being flagged.
At least if the government comes knocking at my door, I know I'll have some due process before I'm found guilty and punished. Not that that's much more comforting.
We need comprehensive laws protecting our information and how it can be used. But this will never happen in our congress.
Yep, exactly.
And just like Obama's reaction to the AP leak investigation, he immediately responded by going big picture. The left should not fall into the small picture, 'bad government' trap here. Go big picture and look at private industries use of this data. Take away their abillity to collect your data, and you take away their ability to give it to government if that's your beef.
Go give Rand Paul a big hug on this issue, and while he's trying to demonize the government, demand that he hold Verizon to the same standard.
Political problem solved AND underlying policy issue is then fully addressed.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)"Governments should be afraid of their people. People shouldn't be afraid of their governments." ~V