5 ms·

First, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source for government programs in which little is known by the public. By the very nature of being information which is

First, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source for government programs in which little is known by the public. By the very nature of being information which is classified or higher, in order for details of actual usage to be outlined on Wikipedia, an editor with access to that classified information would need to break federal law and put Wikipedia in a position of question legality. That's not to say that it's not a fact that PRISM data is only used against a person when there is a warrant, but it is to say that we don't know that that is the case. Second, no reasonable person with a decent understanding of this issue is claiming that the NSA isn't legally justifying their actions. Indeed, the NSA is using--as expected--national security in part as a motivating legal justification, and invoking Article IV Section 4. It is agreed: national security is their intelligence directive. Nor are such people claiming that the government hasn't previously used secret surveillance programs, or that the government is necessarily intentionally tyrannical. What we are saying is that legal justification aside, we want the details of this directive in the public conversation so that We the People can decide if we approve of the actions. We the People are the governors of this country, and We the People have the power to change the laws or the Constitution if we decide that the actions are not justifiable, are not reconcilable with liberty, or if the system of checks and balances have failed to check or balance. This is a dangerous situation. If Snowden's claims are correct, not only are we being overbearingly surveilled, but that data is dangerously aggregated. Even if we are to assume complete benevolence and complete competence in our government (even government actors who may be under-paid and under-invested in their duties), then there is still a very real possibility that people who would seek destruction could acquire possession of that data, gaining a catastrophic trove of information about not just the American public--who would probably be protected by the overbearing force of the U.S. Military--but also the public of the rest of the world. In conclusion, it seems to me that we can't know that PRISM or associated programs are necessary and justified government functions, because we know nothing about them. Of the 300,000,000+ people in the United States, 435 are in a position of both knowledge and decision on those policies, and given the importance of this issue that's just not good enough. Especially when it is undisputed that those 435 people can't do their job even minimally effectively.

lupatus 13y ago
I'm pretty sure that pg _was_ implying that the NSA program was frowned upon by the laws in the Bill of Rights; while it seems that the NSA is in fact complying with all applicable laws (based on what the government has revealed, as quoted in Wikipedia and other media outlets). Regardless of whether Snowden is correct or not, I think that there are government functions that the general public should not be informed of. Having a policy of detailing the exact nature of PRISM could be just as damaging as, say, having a policy of publicly detailing all planned drone strikes. I bet the NSA's job is already harder because of Snowden's leaks. I also think that there is a very real possibility that people who would seek destruction could acquire possession of an aircraft carrier's control systems or the control systems of the missile defense shield. Should the US not pursue those tools because of that possibility, too? The citizenry will have a hard time exercising it's natural rights to participate in debates about national policies in the American Republic if each citizen has to also worry about protecting himself from thieves/bandits/pirates/foreign armies.
- ericd 13y ago
  The 4th protects against search of those effects by the govt. without a warrant. What do you think the computers that store and index those things are doing, without a warrant? There is no functioning missile defense shield, that program was a huge costly boondoggle. There is next to no chance that terrorists would be able to take over an aircraft carrier or any other significant military target for any significant length of time. They're full of armed soldiers. Can you imagine what would happen if real, actually well funded militaries and spy agencies could do that? You should try not to live in fear of extremely unlikely dangers.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > The 4th protects against search of those effects by the govt. without a warrant. What do you think the computers that store and index those things are doing, without a warrant? You're pretty conveniently leaving out several important words, and also ignoring the ", and" between the first and second clauses of the amendment. 1) You left out the word "unreasonable" from "search." The 4th amendment doesn't protect against "search of those effects" it protects against "unreasonable" searches thereof. 2) You left out the word "their". The 4th amendment doesn't protect against searches of effects. It protects against searches of your effects. You might reasonably say that a Word document on your hard drive is your effect. It's a little harder to say that a Word document on Google's hard drives is nonetheless your effect. I think it strains the definition of the word "your" to say that Google's records about what you search for, or AT&T's records about who you call are your effects, rather than AT&T's effects, when you didn't generate those records and indeed when those records were never even in your possession. 3) Searches don't necessarily require probable cause. The ", and" separates the two parts of the sentence. Searches must be reasonable, and also for any search that requires a warrant, the warrant must be supported by probable cause.

lupatus 13y ago

I'm pretty sure that pg _was_ implying that the NSA program was frowned upon by the laws in the Bill of Rights; while it seems that the NSA is in fact complying with all applicable laws (based on what the government has revealed, as quoted in Wikipedia and other media outlets). Regardless of whether Snowden is correct or not, I think that there are government functions that the general public should not be informed of. Having a policy of detailing the exact nature of PRISM could be just as damaging as, say, having a policy of publicly detailing all planned drone strikes. I bet the NSA's job is already harder because of Snowden's leaks. I also think that there is a very real possibility that people who would seek destruction could acquire possession of an aircraft carrier's control systems or the control systems of the missile defense shield. Should the US not pursue those tools because of that possibility, too? The citizenry will have a hard time exercising it's natural rights to participate in debates about national policies in the American Republic if each citizen has to also worry about protecting himself from thieves/bandits/pirates/foreign armies.

ericd 13y ago
The 4th protects against search of those effects by the govt. without a warrant. What do you think the computers that store and index those things are doing, without a warrant? There is no functioning missile defense shield, that program was a huge costly boondoggle. There is next to no chance that terrorists would be able to take over an aircraft carrier or any other significant military target for any significant length of time. They're full of armed soldiers. Can you imagine what would happen if real, actually well funded militaries and spy agencies could do that? You should try not to live in fear of extremely unlikely dangers.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > The 4th protects against search of those effects by the govt. without a warrant. What do you think the computers that store and index those things are doing, without a warrant? You're pretty conveniently leaving out several important words, and also ignoring the ", and" between the first and second clauses of the amendment. 1) You left out the word "unreasonable" from "search." The 4th amendment doesn't protect against "search of those effects" it protects against "unreasonable" searches thereof. 2) You left out the word "their". The 4th amendment doesn't protect against searches of effects. It protects against searches of your effects. You might reasonably say that a Word document on your hard drive is your effect. It's a little harder to say that a Word document on Google's hard drives is nonetheless your effect. I think it strains the definition of the word "your" to say that Google's records about what you search for, or AT&T's records about who you call are your effects, rather than AT&T's effects, when you didn't generate those records and indeed when those records were never even in your possession. 3) Searches don't necessarily require probable cause. The ", and" separates the two parts of the sentence. Searches must be reasonable, and also for any search that requires a warrant, the warrant must be supported by probable cause.