Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Are The American People Being Spied On Or Not? [View all]
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)74. It Requires A Lot Of Change...
...as we get the politicians and government we vote for. Unfortunately datamining is too lucrative a business and politicians are some of the biggest beneficiaries...just sign a "petition" that asks for your email and the barrage of emails begging for contributions are sure to follow. There needs to be a redefinition of what privacy is...or to straight-up honest with us as to how our names and identities are bought and sold.
The NSA issue is only shocking for those who've been either sleeping at the switch for the past decade or are using it to stir shit and further their own agendas. Not quite the bedfellows who are gonna be there in the long haul in attempting to put walls around what few privacy rights we still have. Sadly the partisan nature of this country is so polarized and Congress so dysfunctional all we do is go from out outrage to the next...nothing is resolved...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
254 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
'Storing' data that can never be viewed except with a legal warrant is not 'spying' to me.
randome
Jun 2013
#1
Storing data is only part of the issue. Where did they get the data? Accessing the data is the main
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#5
You didn't answer the question. The President has confirmed the allegations that they are storing
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#9
And you still haven't answered the question as to what probable cause did they cite
GoneFishin
Jun 2013
#182
Let's assume that I accept that as the entire story. In that case there are no limits on what they
GoneFishin
Jun 2013
#242
Right. No limits. Except the law that says they need a warrant to search the data.
randome
Jun 2013
#247
You are contradicting yourself. You can't have it both ways. Either the records are ours and
GoneFishin
Jun 2013
#249
Maybe, maybe not. The warrant for searches could go through a regular court. (nt)
jeff47
Jun 2013
#206
How did they get the warrant? I have provided you with the text of the 4th Amendment, the law of
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#70
Ron Wyden has stated that if the 'American people knew how the law was being applied they would be
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#162
Sabrina I think you bring up the whole knot in this secret... We don't know how the law is being
midnight
Jun 2013
#186
It would be nice if you would answer my question about who is telling you this stuff.
reusrename
Jun 2013
#225
And the 'meta data' surveillance program spies on AMERICANS. There are two separate 'programs'
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#234
why would they need to "copy everything" when the ISP's already have it stored in multiple places
VanillaRhapsody
Jun 2013
#214
You might want to read that discussion there for the logistics of such a thing....
VanillaRhapsody
Jun 2013
#213
That's why law enforcement cannot get a warrant without probable cause. That is why cases
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#47
Greenwald published the warrant that allowed the telecom companies to turn over copies.
randome
Jun 2013
#49
Third party records have been ruled many, many times to not be people's personal effects.
randome
Jun 2013
#62
You nailed it. This is exactly what is so disturbing about the apologists for this egregious
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#166
My phone records are my phone records. The original, now altered to protect Bush, FISA Bill
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#89
Good, then I will let them pay the bills from now on. When I am paying the bills, all records
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#127
We are talking about the US Government, NOT private businesses other than those the US Government
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#144
They can make unconstitutional rulings, we know it has happened in the past, but those rulings
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#150
Thanks for the personal psychological opinion. I don't like any of Bush's policies.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#197
I asked you a question. This IS a Bush policy, I don't like Bush policies, didn't like them he
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#199
Then why do they need a warrant to get them? If they don't belong to me, they could just take them.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#146
Because they can't just take them from Verizon, just like they can't just take them from you.
jeff47
Jun 2013
#148
But since they already have these "3rd party records" stored, under jeff47 scenario they now
GoneFishin
Jun 2013
#185
Actually no, they are not third party records, that is WHY they need a warrant. Don't know if I made
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#189
if "Third party records ... [are not] people's personal effects" then why do they need a warrant
GoneFishin
Jun 2013
#184
I'm still waiting for an answer to that question also. Those arguing for a surveillance state need
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#188
Well, they handed them over to Bush without a warrant and nothing happened to any of them.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#230
Well I know what they are claiming re what they are doing with the data. However, the 4th
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#232
The government has no right to access them without a warrant and probable cause.
woo me with science
Jun 2013
#73
Congress or atleast those debriefed on the program as well as the FISA courts seemed to
cstanleytech
Jun 2013
#94
Thank you. What short memories people have. I remember the outrage from the Left when
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#167
We are not concerned about the Corporations. We are concerned about people like me, a customer of
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#85
My phone is my personal effect. What do you not understand about that? I paid for it, I pay the
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#109
My records, phone or otherwise, are mine. And unless they have MY permission to access them
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#115
I am stating a fact that third party records are not yours. Courts have ruled on this.
randome
Jun 2013
#131
Every record is third party if you are buying something from someone else. Courts have made
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#135
Thank you, excellent post. It is absolutely beyond belief and frightening frankly, to see anyone
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#179
How very sad, for that poor woman. I had a friend from Northern Ireland who exhibited the same
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#201
You can't store something without finding it first. The warrant permmitted the Govt, and/or the
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#64
Bin Laden never called anyone directly. So there was no chance of tracking him by seizing
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#112
I added that no terrorist who might be any kind of threat to us would directly call contacts.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#129
A warrant is not legal without probable cause. What was the probable cause that caused
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#145
We are all suspects. And if they did this legally, which we have no way of knowing, they had to show
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#229
I thought that both congress and FISA were jointly providing oversight? nt
cstanleytech
Jun 2013
#121
30+ briefings to Congress and returning to the FSIA court every 3 months isn't oversight? (nt)
jeff47
Jun 2013
#124
No, not any more. Congress just rubber stamps all of Bush's policies except for a few real Democrats
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#159
They are collecting it, they had to get a warrant, according to the supporters of all of this, so
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#88
Yes, because it is impossible to provide probable cause on that many people. That would mean
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#253
Which story? I have them all and one of my daughters would get a kick out of relating him to today.
randome
Jun 2013
#27
There you go using that nasty word "spying". It has such terrible connotations. Use surveil.
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#32
How is it 'surveillance' if the telecom companies turn over copies of their records?
randome
Jun 2013
#50
Snowden looked at the data. So did Greenwald and others. Lots of people have access to the data
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#52
Wait, didn't you say they got a warrant? Now you're saying they don't need one unless they want to
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#200
No corporation is going to say 'Sure. Here you go' to a verbal request from the government.
randome
Jun 2013
#221
Lol, this is what happens when you to defend the indefensible. i believe that the claim of the
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#226
Can you cite where the government needs a warrant (a court-ordered one) to look at the data?
BlueCheese
Jun 2013
#84
Very well said. You made it very clear for anyone who honestly doesn't understand.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#254
But, but, there were no phones or computers when that was written. The printed page
geckosfeet
Jun 2013
#4
I think it is covered, but that's just me, I like the 4th Amendment not just when Republicans are in
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#7
Which is why I said the FFs were so clever. My cell phone is one of my effects.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#59
"His guilt or innocence however has nothing to do with what we have learned over the past week"
Matariki
Jun 2013
#8
Well, if you want to apply for a job that requires you reveal information and you agree to do so,
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#14
I don't disagree with at all. But this is what we got by ignoring the creeping surveillance, the
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#67
We weren't all sleeping at the switch. This issue of data mining for business purposes came up
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#78
I certainly agree that corporate surveilling should also be included in this conversation.
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#35
I believe but dont have a link handy that Verizon got a nice contract for the data.
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#46
What? The Boston Bombers were warned about by the Russian Govt. The FBI had already
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#77
Big Business is everywhere, especially now, in our government. A perfect example revealed this week
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#87
I'm so sorry if I misunderstood you. I am heartbroken to see people even try to defend these
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#171
We did find agreement, when Bush was president and was caught using the Telecoms to spy
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#23
It's sickening: this should be about PRINCIPLES - not POLITICS. What happened to right and wrong?
chimpymustgo
Jun 2013
#128
Thank you chimpy, I appreciate every person who refuses to change their stand on principles
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#130
What a nonsensical post. The US Constitution is about the PEOPLE and their RIGHTS. It is about
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#38
Lol, that is another ridiculous argument. We are talking about the US Constitution and our RIGHTS
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#133
I read it again, it's still ridiculous. Anything that doesn't defend and protect the law of the land
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#175
Did I say we could not? I said they are two separate issues. So we agree. However his motives, crim
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#39
Well that's good then, but I just saw an OP here calling people who are concerned about their
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#63
THEY make it about Snowden and then claim he is a narcissist -- more weapons of mass distraction.
KurtNYC
Jun 2013
#24
No, I had not seen it, thanks for the links. I'm glad to see people are not being side-tracked by
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#68
My big question: Do we even have a right to know whether the government is recording everyone?
limpyhobbler
Jun 2013
#36
We will not be distracted from the most important issue, which is our Rights under the US Constituti
whttevrr
Jun 2013
#37
You may be right. I hope not, I hope that people are not as gullible as they used to be.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#228
Yes, and we answered that question by voting for Democrats. Now it appears that was not the
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#103
It's astounding, isn't it? But not one of those trying so desperately to defend it, can answer
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#93
OMFG Manny, you are correct, I had no idea. I hate people who do that! It''s a vile thing to do.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#137
Whats weird is the same persons here that decry the 2nd amendment suddenly
Historic NY
Jun 2013
#156
What is so weird to me is that those who are rabid about the 2nd Amendment are so willing to destroy
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#163
I agree with your OP but there is no correlation between those who are unwilling to give
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2013
#170
You make some good points, and I do not oppose people who own firearms. I have many friends
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#174
No. Not spied on. Surveilled on. Like "collateral damage" rather than icky copses.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2013
#161
"Probable cause" is being disregarded by a great many people. Briefly, probable cause means
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2013
#173
You can't have it both ways. If they did not show probable cause to get the warrant to do the
GoneFishin
Jun 2013
#187
Chris Hedges has noted that this blanket gathering of metadata will SHUT DOWN a free press!
cascadiance
Jun 2013
#190
Excellent point made by Hedges. The defenders of this surveillance argue that our phone records do
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#194
I don't think you are missing anything. The 4th Amendment is pretty clear on this. I have been told
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#202
Yes, more than pathetic, dangerous to this democracy. I blame them now for the horrible state we are
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#217
Well, first they would have to explain what possible purpose there is to this.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#237