Has any of these people that are bashing the NSA actually read the Constitution, which in no way guarantees a right to privacy?

[quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=13945.msg142219#msg142219 date=1137546277]
Has any of these people that are bashing the NSA actually read the Constitution, which in no way guarantees a right to privacy?
[/quote]Illegal searches & seizures.
I believe it is an illegal search of their speach/communication.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13945.msg142221#msg142221 date=1137546361]
[quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=13945.msg142219#msg142219 date=1137546277]
Has any of these people that are bashing the NSA actually read the Constitution, which in no way guarantees a right to privacy?
[/quote]Illegal searches & seizures.
I believe it is an illegal search of their speach/communication.
[/quote]
Yeah, that's exactly it.

[quote]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/quote]

That doesn't say privacy...

Aren't they defining privacy?  Or do we have differing opinions of what "privacy" means?

[quote]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/quote]

What is an effect?...from what I gather it would be anything someone creates.
I believe that effects/papers would be like their conversations.

That only defines the right to not have your door kicked in without a warrant.  Telephone conversations do not fall within that domain.

[quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=13945.msg142259#msg142259 date=1137551678]
That only defines the right to not have your door kicked in without a warrant.  Telephone conversations do not fall within that domain.
[/quote]
I think that telephone conversations fully fall under that.  So I guess the amendment is ambiguous? 

The main reason theres nothing about telephones in there is they were quite non-existant when that was written. And because, at that time, paper was the main form of communication over distances, this should apply to telephones as well.

It's not now, and wasn't illegal then for them to open your mail, either.  Telephones and mail fall under the same domain, and listening to your phone calls is neither illegal nor unconstitutional.

The government reads mail now just as it has done in the past.

I don't think that is constitutional.  They're searching w/out a warrant.
Too big brother

What possible reason would the framers have for writing an amendment prohibiting unwarranted searches other than to protect privacy?

The real problem I have with this "controversy" is the following:

- The media are making this out to be something serious. In reality, less than 500 people had their conversations recorded, and less than half of them were even American citizens.

- The media have also spun this to make people think that any Tom, Dick or Harry will have their phone calls listened in on. In reality, the people who were wiretapped were known to have had telephone contact with al-Qaeda operatives overseas. They were not randomly selected.

- The reason why this was covered up was that by nature it's an operation that HAS to be covered up. If your targets know you're watching, it becomes that much more difficult to monitor them effectively. In that regard, the "outing" of this "scandal" does in fact threaten our national security, which disgusts me. The NSA must be allowed to operate to the fullest extent of their abilities, within reason; I think that the circumstances make this monitoring a perfectly reasonable action.

The whole debacle just further proves that the American Angry Left Wing will stop at nothing to smear George W. Bush and those who support him, even if it means violating national security or making things up.

[quote author=Stealth link=topic=13945.msg142326#msg142326 date=1137609668]
- The media are making this out to be something serious. In reality, less than 500 people had their conversations recorded, and less than half of them were even American citizens.
[/quote]
I read in a non-American article somewhere that it has affected over 1,000,000 people, in one way or another.

[quote author=Stealth link=topic=13945.msg142326#msg142326 date=1137609668]
- The media have also spun this to make people think that any Tom, Dick or Harry will have their phone calls listened in on. In reality, the people who were wiretapped were known to have had telephone contact with al-Qaeda operatives overseas. They were not randomly selected.
[/quote]
I also read a story by an American man who had his mail searched and his phone tapped because he has frequent contact with a friend in New Zealand, and any frequent over-seas correspondance is enough to get a search warrent. 


I hope that the terrorists are smart enough to use encrypted communications.  I'm sure they are, anyway :)

somewhere I read that if you used encrypted communications duing a crime you get in more trouble. Not that the terrorist really care.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13945.msg142329#msg142329 date=1137609871]
[quote author=Stealth link=topic=13945.msg142326#msg142326 date=1137609668]
- The media are making this out to be something serious. In reality, less than 500 people had their conversations recorded, and less than half of them were even American citizens.
[/quote]
I read in a non-American article somewhere that it has affected over 1,000,000 people, in one way or another.

[quote author=Stealth link=topic=13945.msg142326#msg142326 date=1137609668]
- The media have also spun this to make people think that any Tom, Dick or Harry will have their phone calls listened in on. In reality, the people who were wiretapped were known to have had telephone contact with al-Qaeda operatives overseas. They were not randomly selected.
[/quote]
I also read a story by an American man who had his mail searched and his phone tapped because he has frequent contact with a friend in New Zealand, and any frequent over-seas correspondance is enough to get a search warrent. 

[/quote]If they have a search warrant it is legal

Even if Stealth's source is correct, that is the number is less than half of 500, that means the federal government is investigating Americans by invading their private conversations without a search warrant nearly 250 times, knowingly and willfully.

I dont have any problem with the NSA investigating Arta, or anyone overseas.  But let's say I am talking to Arta and they are using a wiretap on American soil to listen to my conversation.  I expect to be informed and give prior consent, or be given a search warrant.

We the People created those laws for our own protection.  We also created and granted specific powers to the federal government for them to use to protect us.  At no time did we grant them the power to grab their own powers to investigate us in any way which we did not authorize.

When the federal government starts creating their own powers, they are no longer of the people.  They are no longer a servant government.

That is the problem with this.  Nobody has a problem with the NSA doing their jobs.  We rightfully expect them to do their jobs within the parameters of law that We the People have set forth.

Even Alito will tell you that "the rule of law" is paramount.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13945.msg142340#msg142340 date=1137611833]
Even if Stealth's source is correct, that is the number is less than half of 500, that means the federal government is investigating Americans by invading their private conversations without a search warrant nearly 250 times, knowingly and willfully.[/quote]

I misread. The report is that "as many as" 500 people were wiretapped at any given time, including overseas people and non-Americans -- the total number of people would thus be higher. (ABC News)

[quote]I dont have any problem with the NSA investigating Arta, or anyone overseas.  But let's say I am talking to Arta and they are using a wiretap on American soil to listen to my conversation.  I expect to be informed and give prior consent, or be given a search warrant.[/quote]

The problem, of course, is that if you tell a potential terrorist they're being monitored, there won't be anything left for you to monitor. It's all about a balance between rights and security -- in this case, I think the balance is pretty decent. A few strong suspects were wiretapped without their consent. The assumption is that the results of those wiretaps would only be used to prevent a terrorist action -- if the people in question were dealing drugs or some other criminal offense, the evidence of their wiretap would clearly not be admissible in court. I think it's perfectly reasonable.

[quote]We the People created those laws for our own protection.  We also created and granted specific powers to the federal government for them to use to protect us.  At no time did we grant them the power to grab their own powers to investigate us in any way which we did not authorize.

That is the problem with this.  Nobody has a problem with the NSA doing their jobs.  We rightfully expect them to do their jobs within the parameters of law that We the People have set forth.[/quote]

It seems that similar actions were taken by Clinton and possibly Carter as well. Where was the ACLU, where was the outrage at that time?

It's my opinion that during time of war, our elected representatives (including Bush, who is an elected representative despite what many left-wing types believe) should be more than able to take reasonable actions like this one, even if they infringe upon rights. It's a razor-thin line between use and abuse, but we seem to be walking the use side of it at the moment, so if it's effective against terrorist action, then it should definitely continue.

More of you people should read Bruce Schneier's blog.

More protection is afforded to society by making sure that our authorities are subject to oversight and are required to act within the law than is afforded by allowing secret surveillance to catch a few terrorists.

This is, in part, because terrorism is a minor security threat. Compare, over the last decade, the number of deaths from terrorism to the number of deaths from preventable disease, and you'll start to see what I mean. See also my blog post written shortly after the attacks in London in July last year.

The reason why terrorism is given so much attention is because, if unchecked, it would begin to interfere with daily life. The typical American doesn't think about horrible diseases every time they touch a door handle -- but, as the airline industry saw following 9/11, if there's that possibility looming in the back of someone's mind that their subway car could be blown up or their airplane could be hijacked or poisonous gas could be let loose in a public place, they're more hesitant to put themselves in such situations. Fear is a powerful tool, and it is the reason why terrorism looks horrible on paper but can be highly effective in the real world.

Of course there is no final defense for terrorism. The only thing we can do is give law enforcement the tools, within reason, to do as much as possible to prevent it; I feel that wiretaps fit the bill of a reasonable tool.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13945.msg142354#msg142354 date=1137620917]
More protection is afforded to society by making sure that our authorities are subject to oversight and are required to act within the law than is afforded by allowing secret surveillance to catch a few terrorists.
[/quote]

More protection from what?  I'm not doing anything illegal.  I don't care if they listen to me having phone sex with some 900-number girl (I don't do that, it's an example) because if they are THAT bored, then fine.  I'm not going to be arrested for it; IT'S LEGAL.

Protection from the power of the state. Whether or not you care if your privacy is invaded by the government is not the point. States which are granted undue power - where there is little oversight, where checks & balances are absent - end up oppressing the citizen rather than serving the citizen.

The reason civil liberties are important is not that any particular one freedom that we enjoy is particularly important - it's that the erosion of civil liberties in general is a slippery slope. There exist oppressive governments at one end of the scale, and liberal ones at the other, and the freedom afforded to the individual is an excellent measure of where a government falls on that scale.

This is not some academic fluffy concept possesed only by the liberal intelligensia. This is a clear-cut principle, bourne out by history (the rise of nazism in Germany, and of communist societies around the world, for example). FREE societies are liberal in the freedoms afforded to the citizen. OPPRESSIVE societies are not. Civil liberties are the measure of progress of a society. in that regard.


First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13945.msg142386#msg142386 date=1137631587]

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

[/quote]

I fail to see how the wholesale slaughter of millions is REMOTELY like listening to a select few possible terrorists' phone conversation.

You are mistaken in interpreting that poem soley as a reference to the holocaust.

It is equally as much -- perhaps more --  a description of the way people tend to ignore things that do not relate immediately to their own lives. You do not oppose unwarrant, secret, illegal wiretapping because you do not see the relevance it has in your own life. The person in that poem did not oppose the government 'coming for' the Jews, Communists, or trade unionists, because he did not see the relevance of those actions to his own life. He saw the relevance, however, when the couse of events that he previously ignored reached the point where it did influence his life.

These types of issues are not of overbearing significance in isolation, although they are, of course, important. Each time this kind of thing happens, though, it's a chip off the block. You might not notice that the block is much smaller, but it is. Eventually, if you take too many chips off the block, there won't be much block left. Eventually there'll be nothing, and there'll be nothing anyone can do about it. It might not have happened in 1984, but it will happen eventually, unless people are vigilant. All to often the immediate takes precedence over the important, and when that happens, it's to everyone's disadvantage in the long term.

Who was it who said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance? Jefferson maybe? Whoever it was, he was absolutely right.

While the Constitution insures a reasonable expectation of privacy on/in one's property/person.  Those phone calls are intercepted off US telecommunication satelites, additionally  I have always held a single belief, "Until you are ready to march off for the good of your country to some god forsaken rock in the middle of nowhere to die for a cause that you may not even believe in then you need to shut the fuck up and observe your democratic right not to participate in your free government."   

[quote author=111787 link=topic=13945.msg142399#msg142399 date=1137638874]
"Until you are ready to march off for the good of your country to some god forsaken rock in the middle of nowhere to die for a cause that you may not even believe in then you need to shut the fuck up and observe your democratic right not to participate in your free government." 
[/quote]
There is so much wrong with that statement that I don't even know where to start. 

The obvious one is that this has nothing to do with the topic. 

Next, what is the point of sacrificing yourself on "some god forsaken rock in the middle of nowhere" if your deeds aren't going to let your brother and friends live in freedom?  And part of freedom is your rights, which is exactly what's being abused here.  So in other words, you are saying that people are dying for nothing. 

Of course everybody has a democratic right to not participate in the government; of course, they also have a democratic right and responsibility to participate in the government.  Just because somebody isn't going to die for their country, they shouldn't exercise their right to participate in government?  I don't really understand the connectioni there. 

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13945.msg142386#msg142386 date=1137631587]

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller


[/quote]
They came for the pirates & I cheered
They came for the crooks & theives & I cheered
They came for the crooked businessmen & I cheered
They came for the gangbangers & hoodlums & I cheered
They came for the terrorists & I cheered

...Tyler Benting

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13945.msg142434#msg142434 date=1137648702]
They came for the pirates & I cheered
They came for the crooks & theives & I cheered
They came for the crooked businessmen & I cheered
They came for the gangbangers & hoodlums & I cheered
They came for the terrorists & I cheered

...Tyler Benting
[/quote]
They listened to my phone call and figured out that I wasn't a threat to anything, & I cheered.
--Me

Sigh. You're totally missing the point.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13945.msg142442#msg142442 date=1137658278]
They listened to my phone call and figured out that I wasn't a threat to anything, & I cheered.
--Me
[/quote]

They listened to your phone call and heard you mention the word "hack", and five years later you unexplainedly could not get the job you wanted. And then the credit card company refused to issue you a card. And then your close friends were fired from their government jobs. And you could not understand why this was happening to you.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13945.msg142452#msg142452 date=1137677800]
They listened to your phone call and heard you mention the word "hack", and five years later you unexplainedly could not get the job you wanted. And then the credit card company refused to issue you a card. And then your close friends were fired from their government jobs. And you could not understand why this was happening to you.
[/quote]

Then you woke up, and realized this would never happen to you, and it has never happened to anyone.

(Proof please?)

[quote author=Newby link=topic=13945.msg142454#msg142454 date=1137679812]
Then you woke up, and realized this would never happen to you, and it has never happened to anyone.

(Proof please?)
[/quote]

Actually, that was a bit exaggerated, but not at all impossible for the future to hold in store. It all depends on what you currently consider a possible threat. Right now threats are mostly muslims with bombs, but hackers could be just as big a threat.


What has happened in the past is that people have been monitored as subscribing to certain newspapers/magazines, handing out leaflets, participating in meetings, or having relatives involved in such activities. This has placed them on watchlists. Those people have then been denied jobs because of checks run against these secret watchlists.

The watchlists in this case were mainly for people suspected of being or sympatizing with communists.

Interestingly enough though, once information starts to be gathered, it tends to accumulate in different ways. Accordingly, at the same time as gathering information on who might be a communist, information was also gathered on drinking habits of monitored people. Obviously useful to identify people who might be dangerous.

The government has been red-flagging phone conversations that include certain key words for decades.

Not domestically, without a warrant.  All of the NSA voice recognition keyword flagging has been on international calls or calls utilizing satellites.

Note that Americans have no problem with wiretaps used for investigations, we have spoken loud and clear that wiretaps are legal, and even provided for such within the law.  We provide any law enforcement wishing a wiretap a procedure where they can go before a judge or grand jury and present their request.  If the judge is satisfied that there is sufficient justification, he will provide the warrant.  This warrant can even be sealed for up to 30 days so that those being tapped would be unaware of it.  The wiretap is almost always granted if the judge feels that the wiretap is likely to result in the evidence being sought.

What Americans do have a problem with is illegal wiretaps, those being done outside the legal framework.  Law enforcement investigators must use warrants for wiretaps.

Too slow you say?  There are special provisions to allow wiretaps to be done before the warrant is obtained.  If the investigators feel time prevents getting the warrant in advance, they can still submit the request afterwards.  The judge will decide then whether to grant the warrant.  I believe this allows up to 30 days in most cases.  30 days past beginning the wiretap to go before a judge and request a warrant.

No reasonable person can see this safeguard as dangerous to anyone except to investigators doing wrongful illegal wiretaps.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13945.msg142465#msg142465 date=1137692715]
Not domestically, without a warrant.  All of the NSA voice recognition keyword flagging has been on international calls or calls utilizing satellites.

Note that Americans have no problem with wiretaps used for investigations, we have spoken loud and clear that wiretaps are legal, and even provided for such within the law.  We provide any law enforcement wishing a wiretap a procedure where they can go before a judge or grand jury and present their request.  If the judge is satisfied that there is sufficient justification, he will provide the warrant.  This warrant can even be sealed for up to 30 days so that those being tapped would be unaware of it.  The wiretap is almost always granted if the judge feels that the wiretap is likely to result in the evidence being sought.

What Americans do have a problem with is illegal wiretaps, those being done outside the legal framework.  Law enforcement investigators must use warrants for wiretaps.

Too slow you say?  There are special provisions to allow wiretaps to be done before the warrant is obtained.  If the investigators feel time prevents getting the warrant in advance, they can still submit the request afterwards.  The judge will decide then whether to grant the warrant.  I believe this allows up to 30 days in most cases.  30 days past beginning the wiretap to go before a judge and request a warrant.

No reasonable person can see this safeguard as dangerous to anyone except to investigators doing wrongful illegal wiretaps.
[/quote]

And then what happens is that a judge decides that there's not probable cause to listen to someone.  FISA requires that you have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed or will be committed in order to place a wiretap.  In other words, there has to be reason you believe that the person you're listening to is a terrorist.  In the current situation under scrutiny, that's not the case; we're listening to people's phone conversations where the person on the other end is the suspected terrorist.  That isn't covered by probable cause under FISA.

Also, FISA requires the warrant petition be filed within 48 hours, not 30 days.

Furthermore, with the new cell phone technology, people are buying the pre-paid phones without IDs.  Terrorists can literally go through hundreds or thousands of different numbers during the course of a week.  Is it really necessary to go through the process of clogging up the courts?

You're right, I don't see the safeguard as dangerous.  I just don't see the current NSA program as dangerous, either.  That doesn't make me unreasonable.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13945.msg142411#msg142411 date=1137642265]
[quote author=111787 link=topic=13945.msg142399#msg142399 date=1137638874]
"Until you are ready to march off for the good of your country to some god forsaken rock in the middle of nowhere to die for a cause that you may not even believe in then you need to shut the fuck up and observe your democratic right not to participate in your free government."   
[/quote]
There is so much wrong with that statement that I don't even know where to start. 

The obvious one is that this has nothing to do with the topic. 

Next, what is the point of sacrificing yourself on "some god forsaken rock in the middle of nowhere" if your deeds aren't going to let your brother and friends live in freedom?  And part of freedom is your rights, which is exactly what's being abused here.  So in other words, you are saying that people are dying for nothing. 

Of course everybody has a democratic right to not participate in the government; of course, they also have a democratic right and responsibility to participate in the government.  Just because somebody isn't going to die for their country, they shouldn't exercise their right to participate in government?  I don't really understand the connectioni there. 
[/quote]

You miss my point entirely.  What I said has everything to do with the topic at hand, I am tired of people running their mouth off about how the government encroaches on their freedom when infact they abuse the freedom given to them by the government and fail to give up anything in order to ensure their freedom they just expect it.

Hahahaha. 30 days in court for a wiretap. By then, the stupid terrorist could have completely planned out his attack, and could kill possibly millions of lives because your attitude towards our privacy apparently outweighs our safety.

Good job.

EDIT -- Whoops, mis-read.

Well, what if the judge decides to throw the warrant out, but the person they listened in on discussed the bombing of some popular event? What do you do? Let him bomb it because its his privacy and he is entitled to it?

Also, I'm interested, what if the judge throws it out and nothing happens? What happens to the government?

[quote author=Newby link=topic=13945.msg142497#msg142497 date=1137709081]
Hahahaha. 30 days in court for a wiretap. By then, the stupid terrorist could have completely planned out his attack, and could kill possibly millions of lives because your attitude towards our privacy apparently outweighs our safety.

Good job.

EDIT -- Whoops, mis-read.

Well, what if the judge decides to throw the warrant out, but the person they listened in on discussed the bombing of some popular event? What do you do? Let him bomb it because its his privacy and he is entitled to it?
[/quote]
Yup, cause here in America ALL civil rights are absolute.  ::) ::)

[quote]international calls[/quote]

And who do you think they're tapping?  People calling their grandmothers?  I think not.

[quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=13945.msg142500#msg142500 date=1137710724]
[quote]international calls[/quote]

And who do you think they're tapping?  People calling their grandmothers?  I think not.
[/quote]Maybe if their grandma lives in freakin Iran or something & constantly talks about blowing up the US. ;)

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13945.msg142480#msg142480 date=1137699750]
And then what happens is that a judge decides that there's not probable cause to listen to someone.  FISA requires that you have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed or will be committed in order to place a wiretap.  In other words, there has to be reason you believe that the person you're listening to is a terrorist.  In the current situation under scrutiny, that's not the case; we're listening to people's phone conversations where the person on the other end is the suspected terrorist.  That isn't covered by probable cause under FISA.

Also, FISA requires the warrant petition be filed within 48 hours, not 30 days.

Furthermore, with the new cell phone technology, people are buying the pre-paid phones without IDs.  Terrorists can literally go through hundreds or thousands of different numbers during the course of a week.  Is it really necessary to go through the process of clogging up the courts?

You're right, I don't see the safeguard as dangerous.  I just don't see the current NSA program as dangerous, either.  That doesn't make me unreasonable.
[/quote]
That argument is circular.  If they don't have sufficient evidence that the person is a terrorist, then they shouldn't be tapping a possibly innocent person's phonelines.