Latest Breaking News

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

12. Read more than the conclusion, and you will see that this poster is imprecise. nt

Reply to 2banon (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 23, 2014, 01:08 PM

Jan 2014

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Independent review board says NSA phone data program is illegal and should end [View all] muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 OP

Racist Ron Paul supporters..... ForgoTheConsequence Jan 2014 #1

They are, if they expect the President to do Congress's job. What you have here, though, is a msanthrope Jan 2014 #4

The report concludes essentially that Section 215 doesn't need fixing. eomer Jan 2014 #8

hmm. haven't read it yet. thanks for the heads up. n/t 2banon Jan 2014 #10

Read more than the conclusion, and you will see that this poster is imprecise. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #12

That's the problem when you read only the 'conclusion.' Specific statutory construction msanthrope Jan 2014 #11

It's basically impossible for legislation to be a bulwark against this type of abuse. eomer Jan 2014 #23

No--it's not. If you accept that the most powerful branch of the government, as defined msanthrope Jan 2014 #26

The Executive Branch is ignoring the clear language that prohibits what they're doing. eomer Jan 2014 #30

No--they are using the imprecise language of the statute! AND, Congress can still BAN msanthrope Jan 2014 #31

There is no way that the language of 215 can reasonably be interpreted to justify what they're doing eomer Jan 2014 #84

"The NSA's interpretation, as explained by hack James Clapper, is absurd and outrageous." Titonwan Jan 2014 #104

Thanks for the reminder wrt that asshat Sensenbrenner 2banon Jan 2014 #9

Well--- I think you and I are in agreement here....strict stautory construction of msanthrope Jan 2014 #13

I remember trying to make Congress do "their job" and vote the Patriot Act down. 2banon Jan 2014 #17

And now we have a chance to modify one of the more repugnant sections. 215 needs a hiding. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #20

Give it the "ole college try"? Worth doing. 2banon Jan 2014 #22

The point of the OP is that the independent review group adjuged that the NSA activities JDPriestly Jan 2014 #114

The Commission's conclusions are useful for political work but have no legal force struggle4progress Jan 2014 #115

It's about time. Titonwan Jan 2014 #2

Well, we will see if Congress reauthorizes 215. Do you think Obama should veto it, if it passes? n msanthrope Jan 2014 #5

I guess it's what the NSA have on him. Titonwan Jan 2014 #105

Excellent--Congress should act, and soon! nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #3

Nothing is more permanent christx30 Jan 2014 #14

Indeed, a government program established under the auspices of Article 1, Section 8 msanthrope Jan 2014 #16

But they never will. christx30 Jan 2014 #69

I was about to say that "Congress" and "act" shouldn't be in the same sentence mindwalker_i Jan 2014 #15

They are too invested in blaming Obama, instead of doing their jobs. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #18

Post removed Post removed Jan 2014 #6

Duh /nt dickthegrouch Jan 2014 #7

Good, we need to dismantle the bush national security state...nt Jesus Malverde Jan 2014 #19

Can anyone think of an alternative to metadata storage? randome Jan 2014 #21

That would make sense if... Indi Guy Jan 2014 #25

But they aren't storing massive amounts of data on Americans. Not that we know of. randome Jan 2014 #34

I mean no disrespect when I ask - You really don't know? Indi Guy Jan 2014 #42

First 2 links are in regard to the metadata, just phrased differently. randome Jan 2014 #45

The OP points out that the NSA is storing massive amounts of data on Americans muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #43

They're still talking about the metadata, though. randome Jan 2014 #46

Then edit your post to remove "they aren't storing massive amounts of data on Americans" muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #49

"Massive amounts of data" implies 'data vacuuming' to me. randome Jan 2014 #51

Well, that 's your idiosyncratic interpretation; 'massive' does not imply 'vacuuming' muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #53

Is there an alternative? SHOULD there be an alternative? randome Jan 2014 #54

You still haven't edited your falsehood (nt) muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #55

I honestly don't consider metadata phone records to be 'massive amounts of data'. randome Jan 2014 #56

There's probably as much in one day's metadata as in all the certificates for a person muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #57

Okay, but there is no evidence that this data is being searched... randome Jan 2014 #59

I believe I've just shown the metadata is far larger than SSA or IRS data muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #60

My 'okay' was impetuous. (I'M MULTI-TASKING HERE!) I disagree with you about the metadata. randome Jan 2014 #62

One birth. No death (for anyone living). An average of 2 marriage/divorces combined. muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #64

SSA is about so much more than retirement or disability. randome Jan 2014 #67

Again, that accumulates yearly, not daily muriel_volestrangler Jan 2014 #82

Thanks for the posts Titonwan Jan 2014 #106

Lots of things could be useful...... ForgoTheConsequence Jan 2014 #27

Of course. randome Jan 2014 #35

Seems pretty safe...... ForgoTheConsequence Jan 2014 #36

And it was the government that brought the situation to the attention of the judge. randome Jan 2014 #37

oh lordy lordy...... grasswire Jan 2014 #39

I doubt it costs much of anything to transfer data from the telecoms to the NSA. randome Jan 2014 #41

have you ever considered the possibility that some day dissent could be criminalized? grasswire Jan 2014 #48

Of course that's possible. It's always possible. randome Jan 2014 #52

a tyrant would turn first to the IRS... grasswire Jan 2014 #74

IRS and SSA have much more personal data about individual Ameicans. randome Jan 2014 #77

Did I misunderstand you? grasswire Jan 2014 #78

Yes, I meant personal data. Sorry I wasn't clear. randome Jan 2014 #80

I don't believe they don't have content. grasswire Jan 2014 #81

The GWOT is completely unjustifiable. ronnie624 Jan 2014 #44

I agree with everything you said except for the last. randome Jan 2014 #47

Where do you get this "4 levels of approval" from? I can't find it. neverforget Jan 2014 #100

'Levels of documentation' would be more accurate. randome Jan 2014 #103

Are you seriously arguing that we should give up our privacy now on the off chance that someday Vincardog Jan 2014 #58

I'm asking a couple of questions. randome Jan 2014 #61

The alternative is to investigate crimes after they happen. There is NO reason to treat us all like Vincardog Jan 2014 #63

And I appreciate an honest response. Really! randome Jan 2014 #65

The cost of Billions could be saved. The data has been stored for years and has Vincardog Jan 2014 #66

The cost is likely negligible. Data is easily transmitted and stored. randome Jan 2014 #68

The data center alone cost $1.7 Billion to build. You call that 'likely negligible'. You ignore my Vincardog Jan 2014 #71

I thought we were talking about the metadata. randome Jan 2014 #72

The data center is there to store the metadata forever. It is never discarded. An insurance policy Vincardog Jan 2014 #73

Geeze, ease up! I'm only explaining what I think they are thinking. randome Jan 2014 #75

Prove it. Vincardog Jan 2014 #76

You should know how this one goes by now. randome Jan 2014 #79

You said the data fits on a drive and is discarded. You said it, I say prove it. Vincardog Jan 2014 #83

I'm an IT developer. I can't prove shit to you as an anonymous poster whom you will never meet. randome Jan 2014 #87

You make statements of fact. When challenged you change the statement to an opinion. From now on Vincardog Jan 2014 #91

Is that a fact? randome Jan 2014 #92

How Drones Help Al Qaeda ronnie624 Jan 2014 #107

The 'vast amounts of data' relate to non-Americans. randome Jan 2014 #109

Your post typifies your propensity for pulling 'facts' out of your ass. n/t ronnie624 Jan 2014 #110

Then tell me why you think the metadata referred to above relates to Americans. randome Jan 2014 #111

Whatever 'metadata' the NSA isn't collecting ronnie624 Jan 2014 #112

The sharing of data, IMO, is the more serious issue. randome Jan 2014 #113

That's really creepy thinking. DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2014 #94

How would they find the phone numbers of potential co-conspirators if they don't have the metadata? randome Jan 2014 #96

How did they do this before they started spying on all Americans. There's your answer. DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2014 #97

Telecoms and the Information Age are relatively new phenomenon. randome Jan 2014 #98

Insert the Ben Franklin quote about the balance between security and liberty FOR THE1000x riderinthestorm Jan 2014 #102

Warrants are so quaint. neverforget Jan 2014 #101

Can the NSA defenders point to even a single instance JEB Jan 2014 #24

I cannot. ForgoTheConsequence Jan 2014 #28

That and the massive piles of US Treasury money at stake. JEB Jan 2014 #29

I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing. ForgoTheConsequence Jan 2014 #32

It is also worth pointing out (repeatedly) that having this kind of metadata Maedhros Jan 2014 #88

good that the truth is coming out - but on some levels the right response to this report is simply Douglas Carpenter Jan 2014 #33

No kidding. davidthegnome Jan 2014 #38

Is God a terrorist? polynomial Jan 2014 #40

yeah, it's only one hop from Bush to bin Laden family. grasswire Jan 2014 #50

Recommend. n/t Jefferson23 Jan 2014 #70

Then just why is big brother spending gazillions to watch us if not for indepat Jan 2014 #85

Link to the report (pdf, 238pp): struggle4progress Jan 2014 #86

Membership of PCLOB: struggle4progress Jan 2014 #89

Excerpt from Executive Summary: struggle4progress Jan 2014 #90

Up to the courts treestar Jan 2014 #93

Possibly because we aren't sheep? DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2014 #95

Well, some of us aren't. Luminous Animal Jan 2014 #99

You have to be a sheep to believe the in the rule of law? treestar Jan 2014 #116

So if there were cases where the program helped thwart terrorist activities then it would be ok? DCBob Jan 2014 #108

No, it wouldn't be "ok". It might not be a complete joke and a waste. TheKentuckian Jan 2014 #117

There is another possiblity sadoldgirl Jan 2014 #118

Yes. More than plausible. I'm sure its happened, just like rendition for torture... riderinthestorm Jan 2014 #119

Of course, it is. Titonwan Jan 2014 #120