5 ms·

I appreciate the editor trying to make it sound sinister by implying that it is a government cover-up, but the very person behind the story to begin with, Rep J

by skwirl 13y ago

I appreciate the editor trying to make it sound sinister by implying that it is a government cover-up, but the very person behind the story to begin with, Rep Jerrold Nadler, claims his words were misconstrued by CNet. In a statement today: "I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant." Read more at http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does-not-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadl...

lsiebert 13y ago
collecting and recording isn't listening. Reading an SMS isn't listening. And the content of a phone call is only part of the information gathered... you have metadata including cell phone tower location data, duration etc. Ultimately, What I want to read isn't a congress person saying, "don't worry, it's cool." It's the EFF or ACLU saying it. I feel like I have to parse anything being said by public officials or government employees with maximum paranoia, just because they know that if they explained what was going on, we would object. Which is sad, because I'm an American, I love my country, and I want to trust my government.
- skwirl 13y ago
  The point wasn't that you should take a congressman at his word that "everything is cool," but when what the issue is (THIS issue - no conflation please) an interpretation of what that congressman said in the first place, then I think he has some authority in the matter so long as he isn't outright contradicting himself (but is in this case contradicting someone's interpretation).
  - lsiebert 13y ago
    I think you make a fair point, and thank you for calling me on some implied BS. I don't necessarily believe he is lying. I am sorry if I conflated his statements. I also think that it's better to have such statements then not to have them, assuming they are true. However it seems apparent to me that his statement is intended to imply to the American public that the surveillance problem isn't problematic because it's legal. Something can be legal, and still be wrong. Sometimes laws need to change, or interpretations need to be challenged. When legal authorization isn't a meaningful restriction, when warrants aren't issued by a judge, or when judges rubberstamp even the broadest of warrants, that is problematic, in my opinion. The issue for me isn't the legality, but the appropriateness/morality of such surveillance. I would like to think that such programs are unconstitutional, but I don't think we have to limit our laws to the constitution... we can make laws that are more restrictive on what the American government can do then the constitution is interpreted to allow. Because if the constitution's 4th amendment protections allow the government to siphon this massive quantity of data, then it isn't restrictive enough. It also, for the record, isn't the number of incidents prevented by the current practices that justifies them, unless they can be meaningfully compared to incident prevention rates from more restrictive information gathering.
tlrobinson 13y ago
At this point it's hard to believe anything anyone says. Perhaps Nadler was threatened or blackmailed. Or maybe I've been watching too much House of Cards.
declan 13y ago
Nadler's statement this weekend is consistent with his statement last week. He's happy that the Obama administration is now saying (where? to whom? who said it? is this legally binding?) that they will obtain a specific warrant.

by skwirl 13y ago

lsiebert 13y ago

collecting and recording isn't listening. Reading an SMS isn't listening. And the content of a phone call is only part of the information gathered... you have metadata including cell phone tower location data, duration etc. Ultimately, What I want to read isn't a congress person saying, "don't worry, it's cool." It's the EFF or ACLU saying it. I feel like I have to parse anything being said by public officials or government employees with maximum paranoia, just because they know that if they explained what was going on, we would object. Which is sad, because I'm an American, I love my country, and I want to trust my government.

skwirl 13y ago
The point wasn't that you should take a congressman at his word that "everything is cool," but when what the issue is (THIS issue - no conflation please) an interpretation of what that congressman said in the first place, then I think he has some authority in the matter so long as he isn't outright contradicting himself (but is in this case contradicting someone's interpretation).
- lsiebert 13y ago
  I think you make a fair point, and thank you for calling me on some implied BS. I don't necessarily believe he is lying. I am sorry if I conflated his statements. I also think that it's better to have such statements then not to have them, assuming they are true. However it seems apparent to me that his statement is intended to imply to the American public that the surveillance problem isn't problematic because it's legal. Something can be legal, and still be wrong. Sometimes laws need to change, or interpretations need to be challenged. When legal authorization isn't a meaningful restriction, when warrants aren't issued by a judge, or when judges rubberstamp even the broadest of warrants, that is problematic, in my opinion. The issue for me isn't the legality, but the appropriateness/morality of such surveillance. I would like to think that such programs are unconstitutional, but I don't think we have to limit our laws to the constitution... we can make laws that are more restrictive on what the American government can do then the constitution is interpreted to allow. Because if the constitution's 4th amendment protections allow the government to siphon this massive quantity of data, then it isn't restrictive enough. It also, for the record, isn't the number of incidents prevented by the current practices that justifies them, unless they can be meaningfully compared to incident prevention rates from more restrictive information gathering.

tlrobinson 13y ago

At this point it's hard to believe anything anyone says. Perhaps Nadler was threatened or blackmailed. Or maybe I've been watching too much House of Cards.

declan 13y ago

Nadler's statement this weekend is consistent with his statement last week. He's happy that the Obama administration is now saying (where? to whom? who said it? is this legally binding?) that they will obtain a specific warrant.