General Discussion

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)

196. Storing data, for possible future use by the government,

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 02:20 PM

Jun 2013

with respect to an individuals actions which have yet to occur, seems terribly wrong. I really think I am missing something here. Because if it is the way I put it, I don't know how anyone can be for it.

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:

Are The American People Being Spied On Or Not? [View all] sabrina 1 Jun 2013 OP

'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

What private security firm? Booz? randome Jun 2013 #6

You didn't answer the question. The President has confirmed the allegations that they are storing sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #9

That's because you are conflating multiple questions jeff47 Jun 2013 #19

What? nineteen50 Jun 2013 #56

They have a warrant to collect. Not to search it. jeff47 Jun 2013 #116

How do you know that two warrants are involved? JDPriestly Jun 2013 #164

And you still haven't answered the question as to what probable cause did they cite GoneFishin Jun 2013 #182

supreme court dennis4868 Jun 2013 #227

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

Warrants that go thru secret courts you mean? marions ghost Jun 2013 #183

Crickets! Lol! sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #191

I apologize for having a job. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #207

Courts that exist under a law upheld by the judiciary courts treestar Jun 2013 #193

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

They got the collection warrant from the FISA court. jeff47 Jun 2013 #120

THEY don't have to store it... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #153

They have to store it because the telecoms don't. jeff47 Jun 2013 #157

So how do you know that Verizon et. al dumps data.. VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #158

Because this subject isn't new. jeff47 Jun 2013 #160

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

They dont have to save it....they have constant access to it... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #172

How, exactly, do you search through information that no longer exists? jeff47 Jun 2013 #208

I think I see where you are falling off the rails here. reusrename Jun 2013 #178

The key element you are not including jeff47 Jun 2013 #209

Prism stores a copy of EVERYTHING... reusrename Jun 2013 #211

It stores a copy of everything from non-US persons. jeff47 Jun 2013 #212

Whoever is telling you this stuff is just wrong. reusrename Jun 2013 #215

If you actually pay attention to your links jeff47 Jun 2013 #222

It would be nice if you would answer my question about who is telling you this stuff. reusrename Jun 2013 #225

My answer is the same as yours. The media jeff47 Jun 2013 #243

And the 'meta data' surveillance program spies on AMERICANS. There are two separate 'programs' sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #234

My political affiliation does not override reality. jeff47 Jun 2013 #244

why would they need to "copy everything" when the ISP's already have it stored in multiple places VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #214

Although I just recently learned what a yottabyte of data is, reusrename Jun 2013 #216

I think your facts are....read your own link.. VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #219

You must be misreading it. reusrename Jun 2013 #220

You might want to read that discussion there for the logistics of such a thing.... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #213

Who's to stop the NSA from doing it? davidn3600 Jun 2013 #12

And you know this because.....? jeff47 Jun 2013 #20

That's the whole point! davidn3600 Jun 2013 #21

Every law enforcement agency has the potential for abuse. randome Jun 2013 #26

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

Seized and stored. woo me with science Jun 2013 #61

Third party records have been ruled many, many times to not be people's personal effects. randome Jun 2013 #62

Probable cause is needed for access. woo me with science Jun 2013 #65

'Probable cause' applies to personal effects, not third party records. randome Jun 2013 #107

what an apologist. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #114

You nailed it. This is exactly what is so disturbing about the apologists for this egregious sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #166

Phone records are only a small part of this issue Fearless Jun 2013 #122

Thank you for this excellent post. woo me with science Jun 2013 #134

Be my guest! n/t Fearless Jun 2013 #136

Excellent post, thank you: sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #142

Exactly! Fearless Jun 2013 #143

My phone records are my phone records. The original, now altered to protect Bush, FISA Bill sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #89

No, they aren't your records. jeff47 Jun 2013 #123

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

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. jeff47 Jun 2013 #140

We are talking about the US Government, NOT private businesses other than those the US Government sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #144

No, you were talking about private businesses. jeff47 Jun 2013 #147

They can make unconstitutional rulings, we know it has happened in the past, but those rulings sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #150

SCOTUS rulings stand until they are overturned by the SCOTUS. jeff47 Jun 2013 #152

The Courts can interpret the constitution treestar Jun 2013 #195

Thanks for the personal psychological opinion. I don't like any of Bush's policies. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #197

Huh? You are claiming duly passed laws should be treestar Jun 2013 #198

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

You're contradicting yourself. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #168

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

Just to answer the question.... ManiacJoe Jun 2013 #223

Well, they handed them over to Bush without a warrant and nothing happened to any of them. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #230

Sometimes they just get lucky. ManiacJoe Jun 2013 #231

Well I know what they are claiming re what they are doing with the data. However, the 4th sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #232

The ACLU law suit works for me. ManiacJoe Jun 2013 #233

Except they arent siezing your your papers cstanleytech Jun 2013 #66

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

It is unconstitutional. woo me with science Jun 2013 #99

Its legal if they had a FISA warrant woo. cstanleytech Jun 2013 #104

No, because woo me with science Jun 2013 #105

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

And I don't understand why you don't get what I am saying. randome Jun 2013 #106

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

You keep moving to some other subject. randome Jun 2013 #111

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

Wrong TM99 Jun 2013 #176

Thank you, excellent post. It is absolutely beyond belief and frightening frankly, to see anyone sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #179

Thank you Sabrina TM99 Jun 2013 #181

How very sad, for that poor woman. I had a friend from Northern Ireland who exhibited the same sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #201

That poor girl! TM99 Jun 2013 #240

You can't store something without finding it first. The warrant permmitted the Govt, and/or the sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #64

And what are they looking for? secondvariety Jun 2013 #76

I think they are probably looking for cells of them. cstanleytech Jun 2013 #100

Bin Laden never called anyone directly. So there was no chance of tracking him by seizing sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #112

This message was self-deleted by its author cstanleytech Jun 2013 #118

Ok, why are you trying to argue? cstanleytech Jun 2013 #126

I added that no terrorist who might be any kind of threat to us would directly call contacts. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #129

Well I doubt they are sending smoke signals. nt cstanleytech Jun 2013 #139

They are not looking for anything until they have a legal warrant to do so. randome Jun 2013 #113

A warrant is not legal without probable cause. What was the probable cause that caused sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #145

Then why are they pulling secondvariety Jun 2013 #203

They don't look at the data unless a specific warrant is issued. randome Jun 2013 #218

So, secondvariety Jun 2013 #224

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

There is a lack of oversight davidn3600 Jun 2013 #54

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

I trust that nineteen50 Jun 2013 #58

The abuse is in the fact that they are conducting surveillance. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #165

President Obama isn't the one maintaining the database. jeff47 Jun 2013 #29

They are collecting it, they had to get a warrant, according to the supporters of all of this, so sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #88

A warrant to track every phone call made by or to all Americans for years? bowens43 Jun 2013 #251

Yes, because it is impossible to provide probable cause on that many people. That would mean sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #253

I suggest you read a little Kafka. hobbit709 Jun 2013 #25

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

I've been under surveillance since the early sixties WHEN CRABS ROAR Jun 2013 #75

Here is what VP Biden has to say: rhett o rick Jun 2013 #92

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

It is to me. ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #69

Can you cite where the government needs a warrant (a court-ordered one) to look at the data? BlueCheese Jun 2013 #84

It is to me. nt Mojorabbit Jun 2013 #125

Yes. I would not go with "spying" treestar Jun 2013 #192

The issue is.. Abq_Sarah Jun 2013 #239

I'm sorry but you are wrong. randome Jun 2013 #246

No, I am not wrong Abq_Sarah Jun 2013 #250

Very well said. You made it very clear for anyone who honestly doesn't understand. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #254

The FISA "Court" is appointed by Chief Justice Roberts tblue Jun 2013 #252

Using pen registers does not equal spying. Not by a long shot BenzoDia Jun 2013 #2

Metadata collection and usage has moved far beyond pen-registers. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #108

No. n/t zappaman Jun 2013 #3

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

The meaning of "effects" can be as broad or narrow as one wishes it to be. geckosfeet Jun 2013 #31

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

+1 blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #41

Yes. It's a DELIBERATE distraction FiveGoodMen Jun 2013 #71

I'd Be More Concerned About Corporate America's Snooping... KharmaTrain Jun 2013 #10

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

Personal Privacy Is Personal Privacy... KharmaTrain Jun 2013 #48

I don't disagree with at all. But this is what we got by ignoring the creeping surveillance, the sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #67

It Requires A Lot Of Change... KharmaTrain Jun 2013 #74

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

It's Been The Other Way Around... KharmaTrain Jun 2013 #40

I believe but dont have a link handy that Verizon got a nice contract for the data. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #46

Yep...Anytime someone asks for your Email address... KharmaTrain Jun 2013 #51

What? The Boston Bombers were warned about by the Russian Govt. The FBI had already sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #77

Here's The Hole In The Big Brother Is Everywhere... KharmaTrain Jun 2013 #86

Big Business is everywhere, especially now, in our government. A perfect example revealed this week sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #87

This is a gross violation of the 4th amendment bluedeathray Jun 2013 #11

What are we becoming? A lot of people are asking that question right now. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #98

Dear Sabrina 1 bluedeathray Jun 2013 #169

I'm so sorry if I misunderstood you. I am heartbroken to see people even try to defend these sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #171

A lot of people are above the law. Autumn Jun 2013 #13

Absolutely...that is the Issue...and given the attacks there must be a big fire KoKo Jun 2013 #15

+1 blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #43

I think it depends on what your definition of "spying" is ...... dumbcat Jun 2013 #16

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

Yes. But keep in mind that Big Brother by and large is Corporations Hekate Jun 2013 #17

Your theory runs aground here: jeff47 Jun 2013 #18

What a nonsensical post. The US Constitution is about the PEOPLE and their RIGHTS. It is about sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #38

I'm sorry that you dislike reality. jeff47 Jun 2013 #132

Lol, that is another ridiculous argument. We are talking about the US Constitution and our RIGHTS sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #133

You should read the post instead of just skimming it for keywords. jeff47 Jun 2013 #141

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

Can't we be concerned about the NSA etc. and still talk about Snowden? OKNancy Jun 2013 #22

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

but I don't see anyone stopping anyone OKNancy Jun 2013 #42

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

+1 blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #44

It would be difficult to agree more Savannahmann Jun 2013 #28

Spying is not in the Constitution Progressive dog Jun 2013 #30

Did you have time to check this out... KoKo Jun 2013 #33

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

We are being spied on, hamster Jun 2013 #34

TRUST US blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #45

i, for one, welcome our new insect overlords frylock Jun 2013 #72

My big question: Do we even have a right to know whether the government is recording everyone? limpyhobbler Jun 2013 #36

Lying and coverups. woo me with science Jun 2013 #82

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

IMO Jeff R Jun 2013 #53

All The Fuckng Time... WillyT Jun 2013 #55

Absolutely MissDeeds Jun 2013 #60

Where There Is Smoke There Is Most Likely Fire cantbeserious Jun 2013 #57

Isn't the real question here, if we are being spied on, WHEN CRABS ROAR Jun 2013 #79

Yes, and we answered that question by voting for Democrats. Now it appears that was not the sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #103

There is a camera on every hall where I work. 24/7/365. Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2013 #80

yes HiPointDem Jun 2013 #81

I find it astonishing that on a liberal board... BlueCheese Jun 2013 #83

It's astounding, isn't it? But not one of those trying so desperately to defend it, can answer sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #93

Oh, yes. cordelia Jun 2013 #90

K&R forestpath Jun 2013 #91

Every minute of every day. n/t cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #95

As hard as they have tried Aerows Jun 2013 #96

Yes, it has been going on for a long time. nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #97

yes they have Go Vols Jun 2013 #101

Don't have to go there nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #102

Yes. H2O Man Jun 2013 #110

Very well stated, Sabrina. 99Forever Jun 2013 #117

I'll bet you wrote this before you knew... MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #119

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

Snowden's next bombshell MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #149

No way, Manny, where do you get your information? Did they get a warrant? sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #151

What is this "probable cause" that you speak of? MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #154

They have been for years Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2013 #138

Absolutely, we are being spied on MrMickeysMom Jun 2013 #155

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

Peace AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2013 #177

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

Sad WovenGems Jun 2013 #180

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

Storing data, for possible future use by the government, NCTraveler Jun 2013 #196

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

K&R suffragette Jun 2013 #204

Laws are only for the little people me b zola Jun 2013 #205

Yes of course we are. The deniers are pathetic. Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #210

Yes, more than pathetic, dangerous to this democracy. I blame them now for the horrible state we are sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #217

Yes, started in WWII...but really was encoded in 1948 nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #235

Here is a legit question for you all. cstanleytech Jun 2013 #236

Well, first they would have to explain what possible purpose there is to this. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #237

Well the purpose could be to try and link up a known terrorists cstanleytech Jun 2013 #238

Our judicial system is public. Trials are conducted in public so that no one is denied the right to sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #241

FBI spokesman admits desire for ALL email traffic data temmer Jun 2013 #245

Well, so much for those who claim they aren't spying on us. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #248