Latest Breaking News

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

34. Those aren't contradictory statements.

Fri Dec 27, 2013, 04:20 PM

Dec 2013

Congress could make this illegal quite easily regardless of SCOTUS precedent.

The problem isn't just the COLLECTION of the metadata. It is the analysis and use of the metadata to group people, to study social networks, etc. That is what is politically dangerous and negates the idea of democracy and freedom.

And the problem with that argument is no one has provided evidence that such analysis is taking place.

The phone companies discard the data over time. From 3 months to years to never, depending on the company. As far as we currently know, the NSA is storing the data to prevent it from being discarded. No one has provided evidence of a large-scale analysis of the metadata of US persons.

If your response is "Well duh! Of course they're looking at our data!" I'd like to remind you there's a few billion people who are not US persons, and the NSA is very interested in what they do. Because that's the NSA's job.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge Rules N.S.A. Phone Surveillance Is Lawful in Case Filed by A.C.L.U. [View all] onehandle Dec 2013 OP

this is so sad I wonder what they have on the judge. nt littlewolf Dec 2013 #1

A previous Pauley ruling on DU: "Oh... This Is Rich... Literally... Goldman Sachs Wins Again..." deurbano Dec 2013 #4

LOL, They have the SCOTUS prescidents "on him"... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #20

They "have" a 1979 SCOTUS ruling jeff47 Dec 2013 #23

this blunt tool works, just don't ask us to provide evidence that it does work frylock Dec 2013 #2

Can you think of a reason why the evidence may not be furnished? Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #5

i would venture to guess, by the shifting stories of how many attacks the program has prevented.. frylock Dec 2013 #7

You may need to think on more simple paths. Inasmuch as this involves national security reasons Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #13

and yet folks on the intel committee state that there is zero evidence of prevented attacks.. frylock Dec 2013 #17

Who has stated this, I have seen this ask for and it was not given but not there there is Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #26

Udall, Wyden Call On National Security Agency Director to Clarify Comments.. frylock Dec 2013 #29

Let me remind you, this information is collected by providers, it is passed to NSA through Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #30

and this has fuckall to do with the claims of Wyden and Udall? frylock Dec 2013 #31

When has national security been required to reveal classified information to the general Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #61

uhhh.. the classified intel has been revealed to wyden and udall.. frylock Dec 2013 #65

Uhhhhh..... jeff47 Dec 2013 #40

video at link questionseverything Dec 2013 #67

Lovely wishful thinking. (nt) jeff47 Dec 2013 #68

This is the same guy who ruled for Goldman Sachs jsr Dec 2013 #3

That's One Corrupt Judge billhicks76 Dec 2013 #9

Appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton. But keep the ruling in perspective, he didn't say 24601 Dec 2013 #6

BLACKMAIL!!! billhicks76 Dec 2013 #8

Sure, it's not like there's an on-point 1979 SCOTUS ruling or anything. jeff47 Dec 2013 #25

There is no on point ruling. Congress could make this illegal quite easily. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #33

Those aren't contradictory statements. jeff47 Dec 2013 #34

If they aren't analyzing the data, JDPriestly Dec 2013 #35

Because there's 7 billion people who aren't Americans. jeff47 Dec 2013 #37

If they want to search my data, they need to serve ME with a warrant. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #47

It isn't your data. jeff47 Dec 2013 #58

+10 (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #52

To keep a history of that data so it CAN be analyzed - **UNDER COURT ORDER** ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #38

+10 (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #53

Yes!!! And when the government does ANYTHING to enforce the law... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #51

So If... billhicks76 Dec 2013 #46

No, it wouldn't be OK, because... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #54

Am I wrong? billhicks76 Dec 2013 #56

There are various laws and regulations prohibiting and restricting... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #59

BTW, Welcome to DU !!! (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #62

It would be legal. jeff47 Dec 2013 #60

+10 (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #50

Lawful? Fuck Off! The fix was apparently in. As if Al Qaeda doesn't encrypt already n/t. davidlynch Dec 2013 #10

I'm very interested to see how you encrypt the phone number you are dialing. (nt) jeff47 Dec 2013 #24

Off to the SCOTUS. Jefferson23 Dec 2013 #11

"this blunt tool only works because it collects everything"... grasswire Dec 2013 #12

What evidence? Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #14

Right. It's "lack of evidence" grasswire Dec 2013 #16

Just because they do not give you evidence does not mean it does not exist, it simply means Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #28

"Works" as in "is legal". jeff47 Dec 2013 #19

One court has said it is "likely illegal" iandhr Dec 2013 #15

Private citizens (cpmpanies) acting at the behest of the police eggplant Dec 2013 #18

Except they are not collecting the data for the government jeff47 Dec 2013 #21

Sold to third parties and subpoenaed in court - e.g. divorce proceedings. (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #55

As I read it, snot Dec 2013 #22

The question has to be worded differently mitty14u2 Dec 2013 #36

How do you think the people owns the phone companies, etc? Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #27

Uh MarcoS Dec 2013 #32

If only there wasn't a 1979 SCOTUS precedent on this topic... jeff47 Dec 2013 #39

You are not the Supreme Court... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #41

It's our Senate's pronouncement not mine, MarcoS Dec 2013 #48

They *FUND* the NSA ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #63

Every one of our Constitutional rights is limited. OilemFirchen Dec 2013 #43

911 powers were supposed to be temporary MarcoS Dec 2013 #49

"Just another brick in the wall..." blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #42

It does not apply to third parties treestar Dec 2013 #44

Kick n/t Tx4obama Dec 2013 #45

Looks like SCOTUS will get the case.. DCBob Dec 2013 #57

Whole lot of personal opinion in this ruling brentspeak Dec 2013 #64

I have a question for the lawyers out there lovuian Dec 2013 #66