4 ms·

> the government had already stated the program would be replaced. Has the program been replaced? How do comments from high level officials denying that US ci

> the government had already stated the program would be replaced. Has the program been replaced? How do comments from high level officials denying that US citizens were being surveilled en mass fit into the picture? What justification exists for such a program to be created without any public debate? Why should we believe that clearly illegal programs don't also exist? Considering that there is outrage about Trump commenting that he wishes to re-institute a "Muslim watch list", how is a metadata program that is essentially a meta-watchlist about all affiliations, creeds, etc., not expected to be rejected by the public?

lern_too_spel 10y ago
> Has the program been replaced? Yes. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/29/457779757/nsa-ends-sept-11th-era-surveillance-program http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/29/457779757/... > How do comments from high level officials denying that US citizens were being surveilled en mass fit into the picture? There was a comment, singular, from a high-level official, singular, denying collection of data on US citizens en masse. There was never surveillance en masse, so any denying that would be completely kosher. > What justification exists for such a program to be created without any public debate? Most government programs are created without a public debate, just as most private sector advertising programs are created without a public debate. As long as in-house counsel says it is probably fine, the programs go ahead. > Why should we believe that clearly illegal programs don't also exist? We have no way to know for sure, but since no clearly illegal programs existed in the indiscriminate dump provided by Snowden, and since the one program that was questionably legal had plenty of legal documentation in the dumps, we can conclude that it is unlikely that any clearly illegal program exists. > Considering that there is outrage about Trump commenting that he wishes to re-institute a "Muslim watch list", how is a metadata program that is essentially a meta-watchlist about all affiliations, creeds, etc., not expected to be rejected by the public? The difference is in how the data is used. One is used to harass Muslims and their acquaintances. The other is used solely to find affiliates of a known threat to national security by anonymized ID, which then requires a court order to be deanonymized.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > As long as in-house counsel says it is probably fine, the programs go ahead. Yes, I know that all agencies have a John Yoo who is ready to write a learned legal argument for why their actions are within the law. This means nothing. > The difference is in how the data is used. One is used to harass Muslims and their acquaintances. The other is used solely to find affiliates of a known threat to national security Not true. The muslim watch list was created after 9/11 and was not shut down until late in Barack Obama's first term. It was only shut down because the metadata program came online and offered a more comprehensive version. Both programs have the same goal, which is to find threats to national security. Both were created with good intentions in mind. The problem with both, in my opinion, is the potential for abuse.
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    > Yes, I know that all agencies have a John Yoo who is ready to write a learned legal argument for why their actions are within the law. This means nothing. As I explained, this happens everywhere, not just in government agencies. That is why no reasonable person would have expected a public discussion prior to implementation. > Not true. The muslim watch list was created after 9/11 and was not shut down until late in Barack Obama's first term. We were discussing the Muslim registry that Trump wanted to implement, which goes far beyond NSEERS. He has at times ramblingly suggested that he wants all Muslims to be registered, not just some foreigners visiting the US as in NSEERS.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      > We were discussing the Muslim registry that Trump wanted to implement, which goes far beyond NSEERS. Right. Trump stopped calling for this after he was briefed on the metadata program and told "hey we have the best registry you could ever want, no need to call for one, it's already built and at your disposal". Trump's decision to call for a Muslim registry was born out of the political appeal of saying something that is both commonplace and controversial. Obama wanted a Muslim registry and utilized it for several years as well. Yet when a guy like Trump talks about it he does it in a way that angers people and generates newspaper headlines. > s I explained, this happens everywhere, Right, it's a risk mitigation strategy not a law-compliance strategy.

lern_too_spel 10y ago

> Has the program been replaced? Yes. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/29/457779757/nsa-ends-sept-11th-era-surveillance-program http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/29/457779757/... > How do comments from high level officials denying that US citizens were being surveilled en mass fit into the picture? There was a comment, singular, from a high-level official, singular, denying collection of data on US citizens en masse. There was never surveillance en masse, so any denying that would be completely kosher. > What justification exists for such a program to be created without any public debate? Most government programs are created without a public debate, just as most private sector advertising programs are created without a public debate. As long as in-house counsel says it is probably fine, the programs go ahead. > Why should we believe that clearly illegal programs don't also exist? We have no way to know for sure, but since no clearly illegal programs existed in the indiscriminate dump provided by Snowden, and since the one program that was questionably legal had plenty of legal documentation in the dumps, we can conclude that it is unlikely that any clearly illegal program exists. > Considering that there is outrage about Trump commenting that he wishes to re-institute a "Muslim watch list", how is a metadata program that is essentially a meta-watchlist about all affiliations, creeds, etc., not expected to be rejected by the public? The difference is in how the data is used. One is used to harass Muslims and their acquaintances. The other is used solely to find affiliates of a known threat to national security by anonymized ID, which then requires a court order to be deanonymized.

grandalf 10y ago
> As long as in-house counsel says it is probably fine, the programs go ahead. Yes, I know that all agencies have a John Yoo who is ready to write a learned legal argument for why their actions are within the law. This means nothing. > The difference is in how the data is used. One is used to harass Muslims and their acquaintances. The other is used solely to find affiliates of a known threat to national security Not true. The muslim watch list was created after 9/11 and was not shut down until late in Barack Obama's first term. It was only shut down because the metadata program came online and offered a more comprehensive version. Both programs have the same goal, which is to find threats to national security. Both were created with good intentions in mind. The problem with both, in my opinion, is the potential for abuse.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  > Yes, I know that all agencies have a John Yoo who is ready to write a learned legal argument for why their actions are within the law. This means nothing. As I explained, this happens everywhere, not just in government agencies. That is why no reasonable person would have expected a public discussion prior to implementation. > Not true. The muslim watch list was created after 9/11 and was not shut down until late in Barack Obama's first term. We were discussing the Muslim registry that Trump wanted to implement, which goes far beyond NSEERS. He has at times ramblingly suggested that he wants all Muslims to be registered, not just some foreigners visiting the US as in NSEERS.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > We were discussing the Muslim registry that Trump wanted to implement, which goes far beyond NSEERS. Right. Trump stopped calling for this after he was briefed on the metadata program and told "hey we have the best registry you could ever want, no need to call for one, it's already built and at your disposal". Trump's decision to call for a Muslim registry was born out of the political appeal of saying something that is both commonplace and controversial. Obama wanted a Muslim registry and utilized it for several years as well. Yet when a guy like Trump talks about it he does it in a way that angers people and generates newspaper headlines. > s I explained, this happens everywhere, Right, it's a risk mitigation strategy not a law-compliance strategy.