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]
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)233. The ACLU law suit works for me.
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