5 ms·

Here's a zinger: The officials said one central concept connects a number of the court’s opinions. The judges have concluded that the mere collection of enormo

by bcn 13y ago

Here's a zinger: The officials said one central concept connects a number of the court’s opinions. The judges have concluded that the mere collection of enormous volumes of “metadata” — facts like the time of phone calls and the numbers dialed, but not the content of conversations — does not violate the Fourth Amendment, as long as the government establishes a valid reason under national security regulations before taking the next step of actually examining the contents of an American’s communications. This concept is rooted partly in the “special needs” provision the court has embraced. “The basic idea is that it’s O.K. to create this huge pond of data,” a third official said, “but you have to establish a reason to stick your pole in the water and start fishing.”

wavefunction 13y ago
A pond of circular reasoning, built on sandy foundations of quid pro quo and legal memos hidden from the sunlight of day it seems.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  Americuh! Fuck Yeah!
- cinquemb 13y ago
  And of course it is only fitting that access to the information collected is all for sale to the Carlyle Groups of the world and their portfolio companies like BAH.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  drivebyacct2: your last few posts are dead. No idea what could have happened; you've been here a while and have twice the karma I do.
  - pyre 13y ago
    I believe that there is an automatic profanity filter.
dclowd9901 13y ago
"Fishing" being the operative word. I'd love to understand the internal reasoning these judges have embraced to allow this to happen (as the court is the last defender of the constitution), but I fear it's little more than unchecked power/stupidity.
- niels_olson 13y ago
  What 11 judges nominated by Roberts, 10 of them appointed by Republican presidents, and anyone thinks they'll tell DoD no? Surely you jest. They're not a rubber stamp. They're cheerleaders.
- untog 13y ago
  "IM conversations aren't like mailed letters- when they're received, they disappear forever. So it's vitally important that we gather all the information that we can before it disappears, so that we can later use it in intelligence efforts" That's probably the start of how I'd sell it. Exploit the judges (probable) lack of technical understanding, prioritise the urgency involved. Ta-da!
pvnick 13y ago
I'm curious to see how this fits with the coming leak that the NSA is collecting and storing all cell phone call contents (not just metadata) [1]. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa-cell-phone-calls_n_3520424.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa... - read: "it means they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time"
- andreyf 13y ago
  What do you mean by "how this fits"?
  - pvnick 13y ago
    From the parent comment: >The judges have concluded that the mere collection of enormous volumes of “metadata” ... does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Like I said, they're collecting much more than metadata. Therefore, fits with that statement, reality does not.
- untog 13y ago
  I'm going to take that article with a pinch of salt until Greenwald shows the evidence. It's entirely possible that a phone tapping technology + the vast new NSA data centre = "the ability to tap a billion calls a day". How many do they actually tap is the operative question here. The original leaks were compromised by a lack of technical understanding stemming from the presentation slides we all saw, so I'll wait and see what he is basing this claim on first.
  - sophacles 13y ago
    It is reasonable to say "why would they build the capacity if they don't intend to use it?" In fact it is reasonable enough given the cost that the onus of "they won't use it to it's fullest" is a claim you have to defend with evidence.
    - untog 13y ago
wdewind 13y ago
David Simon, creator of The Wire, has written extensively about this starting with this post: http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/ http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/ It is well worth a read for an extremely well argued, and informed, opinion from the other side.
- mcphilip 13y ago
  It's worth noting that this article by David Simon was written on June 7th, purely in reaction to the leaked information about Verizon metadata being collected. As more information about PRISM became available, Simon acknowledge that the leaks did point to something more serious than he had acknowledged in his original post [1]. With that context in mind, I still think it's worth reading Simon's original post that you linked to. He's a very articulate writer who has clearly shown he's no puppet of the establishment through his work on shows like The Wire. [1]http://davidsimon.com/nsa-and-fisa-commentary-calling-it/ http://davidsimon.com/nsa-and-fisa-commentary-calling-it/
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  His basic point seems to be that the government should be allowed to do it as long as we don't hear about any specific abuses. There are two problems. The first is the one he points out: when everything is classified and anyone who notifies the public is subject to the treatment given to Manning and Snowden, even finding out about the abuses much less holding those responsible accountable is extraordinarily difficult. The second problem is that the really bad abuses of an accumulation of power like this are so bad that we can't just wait until they happen before we do anything about it. He also says some questionable stuff. Like this: >We asked for this. We did so because we measured the reach and possible overreach of law enforcement against the risks of terrorism and made a conscious choice. Everyone in Congress who read the Patriot Act before voting on it voted against it. So no, we didn't. We had a gut reaction to a tragedy, somebody pulled a defense contractor wish list out of a drawer and they passed it in a moment of sorrow and anger. The country is only now starting to reach the point that we can have a rational conversation about anti-terrorism without the pain of a recent tragedy allowing self-interested warmongers to goad us into an overreaction, and it's time that we seriously reevaluate what we allow the government to do on our behalf. And I'm reminded of what John Oliver said hosting the Daily Show when all of this came out: "I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to."
gwu78 13y ago
"A common misconception is that an analyst must review the content of communications between people in order to establish a link between them. In fact, an NSA analyst would regard a person's association and the persistence of that association with other persons as being of greater relevance to a determination of whether the person is a member of a Community of Interest than the actual words used in a series of communcations." - J. Kirk Wiebe, former NSA employee in his sworn Declaration in Jewel v. NSA, September 28, 2012 https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/wiebedeclaration.pdf https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/wiebedeclar... I think people fail to realise that the "metadata" would actually be the "damning evidence" that innocent citizens should fear, not the content of their communications. It's like a nationwide pen register. But no one needs to be identified as a suspect (that deserves to have her call records inspected). Everyone is a suspect, by default. They have all call records for every American. Crazy.
niels_olson 13y ago
reasons = ['I\'m hungry', 'boss is hungry', 'wife is hungry'] The people at the analyst level making these decisions are suffering under the strain of increasing economic disparity just as much as you and I. And if fishing returns the occasional fish, that will relieve their distress, however temporarily.
alan_cx 13y ago
Reason? Yeah, that's the power of the bogey man word "terror". So, no matter what, the government have that as a get out of jail free card. What ever the situation, they will always cite "terror" as an excuse for every and any excess.
nateabele 13y ago
That jumped out at me as well. I think the most amazing thing is how arbitrary this all is. The court tries to make it appear is if they have 'guiding principles', but it strikes me much more as 'patterns that appear to hold in retrospect while we make this up as we go'.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by bcn 13y ago

wavefunction 13y ago

A pond of circular reasoning, built on sandy foundations of quid pro quo and legal memos hidden from the sunlight of day it seems.

drivebyacct2 13y ago
Americuh! Fuck Yeah!
cinquemb 13y ago
And of course it is only fitting that access to the information collected is all for sale to the Carlyle Groups of the world and their portfolio companies like BAH.
nitrogen 13y ago
drivebyacct2: your last few posts are dead. No idea what could have happened; you've been here a while and have twice the karma I do.
- pyre 13y ago
  I believe that there is an automatic profanity filter.

dclowd9901 13y ago

"Fishing" being the operative word. I'd love to understand the internal reasoning these judges have embraced to allow this to happen (as the court is the last defender of the constitution), but I fear it's little more than unchecked power/stupidity.

niels_olson 13y ago
What 11 judges nominated by Roberts, 10 of them appointed by Republican presidents, and anyone thinks they'll tell DoD no? Surely you jest. They're not a rubber stamp. They're cheerleaders.
untog 13y ago
"IM conversations aren't like mailed letters- when they're received, they disappear forever. So it's vitally important that we gather all the information that we can before it disappears, so that we can later use it in intelligence efforts" That's probably the start of how I'd sell it. Exploit the judges (probable) lack of technical understanding, prioritise the urgency involved. Ta-da!

pvnick 13y ago

I'm curious to see how this fits with the coming leak that the NSA is collecting and storing all cell phone call contents (not just metadata) [1]. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa-cell-phone-calls_n_3520424.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa... - read: "it means they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time"

andreyf 13y ago
What do you mean by "how this fits"?
- pvnick 13y ago
  From the parent comment: >The judges have concluded that the mere collection of enormous volumes of “metadata” ... does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Like I said, they're collecting much more than metadata. Therefore, fits with that statement, reality does not.
untog 13y ago
I'm going to take that article with a pinch of salt until Greenwald shows the evidence. It's entirely possible that a phone tapping technology + the vast new NSA data centre = "the ability to tap a billion calls a day". How many do they actually tap is the operative question here. The original leaks were compromised by a lack of technical understanding stemming from the presentation slides we all saw, so I'll wait and see what he is basing this claim on first.
- sophacles 13y ago
  It is reasonable to say "why would they build the capacity if they don't intend to use it?" In fact it is reasonable enough given the cost that the onus of "they won't use it to it's fullest" is a claim you have to defend with evidence.
  - untog 13y ago

wdewind 13y ago

David Simon, creator of The Wire, has written extensively about this starting with this post: http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/ http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/ It is well worth a read for an extremely well argued, and informed, opinion from the other side.

mcphilip 13y ago
It's worth noting that this article by David Simon was written on June 7th, purely in reaction to the leaked information about Verizon metadata being collected. As more information about PRISM became available, Simon acknowledge that the leaks did point to something more serious than he had acknowledged in his original post [1]. With that context in mind, I still think it's worth reading Simon's original post that you linked to. He's a very articulate writer who has clearly shown he's no puppet of the establishment through his work on shows like The Wire. [1]http://davidsimon.com/nsa-and-fisa-commentary-calling-it/ http://davidsimon.com/nsa-and-fisa-commentary-calling-it/
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
His basic point seems to be that the government should be allowed to do it as long as we don't hear about any specific abuses. There are two problems. The first is the one he points out: when everything is classified and anyone who notifies the public is subject to the treatment given to Manning and Snowden, even finding out about the abuses much less holding those responsible accountable is extraordinarily difficult. The second problem is that the really bad abuses of an accumulation of power like this are so bad that we can't just wait until they happen before we do anything about it. He also says some questionable stuff. Like this: >We asked for this. We did so because we measured the reach and possible overreach of law enforcement against the risks of terrorism and made a conscious choice. Everyone in Congress who read the Patriot Act before voting on it voted against it. So no, we didn't. We had a gut reaction to a tragedy, somebody pulled a defense contractor wish list out of a drawer and they passed it in a moment of sorrow and anger. The country is only now starting to reach the point that we can have a rational conversation about anti-terrorism without the pain of a recent tragedy allowing self-interested warmongers to goad us into an overreaction, and it's time that we seriously reevaluate what we allow the government to do on our behalf. And I'm reminded of what John Oliver said hosting the Daily Show when all of this came out: "I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to."

gwu78 13y ago

"A common misconception is that an analyst must review the content of communications between people in order to establish a link between them. In fact, an NSA analyst would regard a person's association and the persistence of that association with other persons as being of greater relevance to a determination of whether the person is a member of a Community of Interest than the actual words used in a series of communcations." - J. Kirk Wiebe, former NSA employee in his sworn Declaration in Jewel v. NSA, September 28, 2012 https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/wiebedeclaration.pdf https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/wiebedeclar... I think people fail to realise that the "metadata" would actually be the "damning evidence" that innocent citizens should fear, not the content of their communications. It's like a nationwide pen register. But no one needs to be identified as a suspect (that deserves to have her call records inspected). Everyone is a suspect, by default. They have all call records for every American. Crazy.

niels_olson 13y ago

reasons = ['I\'m hungry', 'boss is hungry', 'wife is hungry'] The people at the analyst level making these decisions are suffering under the strain of increasing economic disparity just as much as you and I. And if fishing returns the occasional fish, that will relieve their distress, however temporarily.

alan_cx 13y ago

Reason? Yeah, that's the power of the bogey man word "terror". So, no matter what, the government have that as a get out of jail free card. What ever the situation, they will always cite "terror" as an excuse for every and any excess.

nateabele 13y ago

That jumped out at me as well. I think the most amazing thing is how arbitrary this all is. The court tries to make it appear is if they have 'guiding principles', but it strikes me much more as 'patterns that appear to hold in retrospect while we make this up as we go'.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]