4 ms·

As usual, rayiner has answered these questions better than I can. Here is my take anyway: 1) The short version is that there is a difference between collecting

As usual, rayiner has answered these questions better than I can. Here is my take anyway: 1) The short version is that there is a difference between collecting information and looking at it. The NSA doesn't look at or act upon any metadata it collects without first obtaining a warrant from a judge. It just sits there on a server until government lawyers can convince a judge that evidence shows that the data is relevant to a time sensitive security matter. You may not personally believe the government when they say that, or trust that they will always get a warrant to look at information that's already in their possession. But, that's the process. As of right now, the judicial system takes them at their word. That's why the 4th amendment isn't being violated. They still need a warrant. 2) Evidence collected via parallel construction is not withheld from the defendant, just the method of obtaining it. If the DEA says "We have a tape of the accused discussing drug trafficking", that defense will be notified of that tape's existence during discovery and will be able to hear it and prepare for it before trial. It's just that the DEA won't have to say exactly how they got the tape, as not to reveal the full extent of surveillance programs. This may or may not be an unfair advantage for the prosecution, depending on the details of the case. That's why we have judges, who are in fact specialists at deciding what's fair or not fair to present as evidence during a trial. 3) The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government have all weighed in on these programs and approved them in some form. That's the bottom line. You may disagree vehemently with their judgement, but this is how the American system of government works. If all three branches of the government agree that something is legal, then it's legal. Everyone is allowed to interpret the language of the constitution in their own way, but that has nothing to do with the rule of law. If you have a different interpretation than the government, vote as many of them out of office as you can and encourage others to do so as well. I don't agree with you, but I fully support your use of the democratic process to change public policy to suit your beliefs.

diafygi 12y ago
First, thanks very much for replying. This the first time I've been able to get direct answers to these questions. I really appreciate that you took the time to reply. That being said, we do seem to have a significantly different interpretation of the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. Hooray! We've identified a big root cause of our disagreement! It's a start. Additionally, I do not agree that the Legislative has been sufficiently informed of mass surveillance programs, and sometimes they have even been knowingly misinformed[1][2][3]. Finally, I do not agree that the Judiciary have signed off on these programs. For the public-facing Judiciary, they haven't even been able to get to the point where they can address the legality of these programs because the Executive have always blocked with standing and state secrets claims[4][5][6]. For the secret Judiciary, it seems that the Executive has also misled them[7][8]. Also, these courts are not adversarial, which opens them up to severe bias and capture[9][10]. Thanks again for your response. Would mind giving some citations to support your positions? I've tried to cite evidence for all of my positions. Normally, the next step is to try to think of a set of criteria that would settle the differences. Here's mine: 1. The Supreme Court rules that mass collection of domestic information by the Executive does not require a warrant (thus confirming your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment). 2. The Supreme Court rules that parallel construction is constitutional (thus confirming you interpretation of the Sixth Amendment). What are yours? What criteria would change your position? [1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/06/watch-top-u-s-intelligence-officials-repeatedly-deny-nsa-spying-on-americans-over-the-last-year-videos/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/06/watch-t... [2]: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congress-nsa-denied-access http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congres... [3]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/sanders-nsa-spying-congress-/4483351/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/sanders... [4]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/supreme-court-dismisses-challenge-fisa-warrantless-wiretapping-law-effs-lawsuit https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/supreme-court-dismisse... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union_v._National_Security_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... [6]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/fbi-really-doesnt-want-anyone-to-know-about-stingray-use-by-local-cops/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/fbi-really-doesnt... [7]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130821/16331524274/declassified-fisa-court-opinion-shows-nsa-lied-repeatedly-to-court-as-well.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130821/16331524274/decla... [8]: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/17/government_distorts_facts_on_nsa_targeting_americans_for_surveillance.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/17/governmen... [9]: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-... [10]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-...
- karmacondon 12y ago
  Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret the Constitution. Whatever they say about the Fourth and Sixth Amendments is the law of the land. I might change my mind based on the actual arguments used and the logic in the written decisions, rather than the ruling itself. It seems like you would be open to change as well, which is indeed a good sign. rayiner is the one to go to for citations and case law. If you think that something in particular that I've said is factually incorrect, then I will gladly stand corrected. After going through your citations, there seems to be a lot of differing opinion and blame shifting regarding who said what and when. I'm not surprised that politicians and judges would say "The NSA never told me about X or Y" if the programs appear to be unpopular. If the Legislative branch is really unhappy with the NSA, they can propose a budget that cuts their funding. The Executive can threaten to veto a budget unless NSA funding is reduced. The Supreme Court can take up any number of cases, including Wikimedia's, at any time. I'm glad that we were able to exchange ideas, but the decision is ultimately up to the political process. We'll see how it turns out.

diafygi 12y ago

First, thanks very much for replying. This the first time I've been able to get direct answers to these questions. I really appreciate that you took the time to reply. That being said, we do seem to have a significantly different interpretation of the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. Hooray! We've identified a big root cause of our disagreement! It's a start. Additionally, I do not agree that the Legislative has been sufficiently informed of mass surveillance programs, and sometimes they have even been knowingly misinformed[1][2][3]. Finally, I do not agree that the Judiciary have signed off on these programs. For the public-facing Judiciary, they haven't even been able to get to the point where they can address the legality of these programs because the Executive have always blocked with standing and state secrets claims[4][5][6]. For the secret Judiciary, it seems that the Executive has also misled them[7][8]. Also, these courts are not adversarial, which opens them up to severe bias and capture[9][10]. Thanks again for your response. Would mind giving some citations to support your positions? I've tried to cite evidence for all of my positions. Normally, the next step is to try to think of a set of criteria that would settle the differences. Here's mine: 1. The Supreme Court rules that mass collection of domestic information by the Executive does not require a warrant (thus confirming your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment). 2. The Supreme Court rules that parallel construction is constitutional (thus confirming you interpretation of the Sixth Amendment). What are yours? What criteria would change your position? [1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/06/watch-top-u-s-intelligence-officials-repeatedly-deny-nsa-spying-on-americans-over-the-last-year-videos/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/06/watch-t... [2]: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congress-nsa-denied-access http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congres... [3]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/sanders-nsa-spying-congress-/4483351/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/sanders... [4]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/supreme-court-dismisses-challenge-fisa-warrantless-wiretapping-law-effs-lawsuit https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/supreme-court-dismisse... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union_v._National_Security_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... [6]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/fbi-really-doesnt-want-anyone-to-know-about-stingray-use-by-local-cops/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/fbi-really-doesnt... [7]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130821/16331524274/declassified-fisa-court-opinion-shows-nsa-lied-repeatedly-to-court-as-well.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130821/16331524274/decla... [8]: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/17/government_distorts_facts_on_nsa_targeting_americans_for_surveillance.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/17/governmen... [9]: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-... [10]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-...

karmacondon 12y ago
Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret the Constitution. Whatever they say about the Fourth and Sixth Amendments is the law of the land. I might change my mind based on the actual arguments used and the logic in the written decisions, rather than the ruling itself. It seems like you would be open to change as well, which is indeed a good sign. rayiner is the one to go to for citations and case law. If you think that something in particular that I've said is factually incorrect, then I will gladly stand corrected. After going through your citations, there seems to be a lot of differing opinion and blame shifting regarding who said what and when. I'm not surprised that politicians and judges would say "The NSA never told me about X or Y" if the programs appear to be unpopular. If the Legislative branch is really unhappy with the NSA, they can propose a budget that cuts their funding. The Executive can threaten to veto a budget unless NSA funding is reduced. The Supreme Court can take up any number of cases, including Wikimedia's, at any time. I'm glad that we were able to exchange ideas, but the decision is ultimately up to the political process. We'll see how it turns out.