General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

200. Wait, didn't you say they got a warrant? Now you're saying they don't need one unless they want to

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 04:27 PM

Jun 2013

read those records that you claim don't belong to us? Why would they need a warrant to read stuff that doesn't belong to us in the first place? Unless it DOES belong to us? The telecoms must have refused to hand over OUR records, otherwise they would not have needed a warrant, would they?

So which is it, if its not our stuff to begin with, why are trying to calm people down by claiming they got a warrant? And if the records belong to the telecoms, as you claim, and it IS true the got a warrant, why did they need unless the telecoms refused to hand over the records? If the telecoms just handed them over, there was no need for a warrant.

But there was a warrant, which can only mean, since they didn't ask us and they claim the records belong to the telecoms, that the telecoms refused to hand over the records. Why would they do that if they belonged to them?

This is getting more and more confusing, but I'm glad we had this discussion. Now I have even more questions which I doubt will be answered either.

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