Kay. Then my apologies for lumping you with the likes of Tad. I'm not really sure what you mean by ethics and morals, cause you know, that shit differs by the person. If you want to explain to me a step by step guide on how to nail down ethics or morals and analyze what's going on through that lens, I'm all ears, cause right now those words have no meaning.
So I take it you're speaking of prism and not just the NSA metadata collection. Prism targets non-U.S. citizens outside the United States, and as such no warrant is needed. Even the leaks and the Guardian confirm that that's the original intent of the program. But the reason people raise a stink is the possibility of the program incidentally collecting information on U.S. citizens -- such data are supposed to be purged when discovered. Sometimes, they are not. That's a fair criticism, but even conceding that, the correct response is to rehabilitate the program to make sure that U.S. citizens' data is not collected, and if collected incidentally, promptly purged. Even among the senators who are trying to reign in Prism, chiefly Wyden and Udall, they have both affirmed that they think PRISM is a legitimate tool to fight terrorists. They don't want to shut it down; they just want to fix it to make sure Americans' information isn't collected.
The constitution protects Americans; it does not protect a Saudi citizen living in Afghanistan. Your supper warrant wouldn't serve any purpose because it's trying to protect the rights of individuals who have none under the U.S. constitution. Do you want Obama to apply for a search warrant before storming a terrorist compound in Yemen ?
Answered. And does this mean that you concede that metadata can be collected without a warrant ?
Ok, that's fair.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I'm not saying it's ok because everyone is doing it -- I'm saying everyone is doing it, so therefore I have no real privacy. If I don't use Google, I have to use Bing, or Yahoo, or (god forbid) MSN. If I don't use Sprint, I have to use Verizon, AT&T, etc. I'm really confused. You admit that the government has more restrictions on it, and more checks against their abuses, yet despite this fact you trust the companies, who have no checks against their power, over the government. The government has to deal with citizens complaints, congressional oversight, judicial oversight, and the fucking constitution. What holds the companies in check ? I mean, if I was a terrorist, what stops me from starting up a shell company, purchase a "user data information package" from Verizon, and using that information to gleam the areas with most civilian foot traffic so I know where best to plant my bomb ?
If the next Harvey Milk was being persecuted, we would know about it and he would have access to the legal system. I referred you to a case previously about an American citizen captured as an enemy combatant in a war zone during the wild west days of the war on terrorism under Bush -- and even he was able to vindicate his constitutional rights through the SCOTUS and win. I won't say things are perfect now, but I doubt that you will argue that access to the judiciary is worse now than in the years immediately after 9/11.
Terrorists have been wanting to kill us since, forever. We're creating them ? Ok sure, I don't care to argue politics. But even if the government creates them doesn't change the fact that the government is still trying to protect us. If you won't even admit that the safety of American citizens is a concern for the government, then you're a fool.
This argument is absolute bullshit and I can't believe you would even try making it.
First, the balancing test isn't between your chance of dying from a terrorist attack and your chance of dying from any other threat of death. Obviously, I have a much higher chance of death driving to pick up my dry cleaners than I do being blown up by a jihadist. But that isn't the fucking balancing test you must make. The balance is the threat of a terrorist attack -- both in casualties and economic damages -- weighed against the civil liberties you are asked to surrender; you know, the metadata scoop, prism, and all the shit we've been talking about. Now, I get that privacy is important and all -- but how much privacy will you be willing to give up to save an American life ? Don't blather on about how "those who give up freedoms for security deserve neither" or any related bullshit. We give up plenty of freedoms to be secure (WHAT ?! I can't drink and drive ?! YOU STOLED MY FREEDOMSSS!!!!) So the question is, is this additional surrender of freedom worth it to save American lives ?
Secondly, aside from the human casualties, calculate for me the economic damages created by 9/11. Death from a freak lightning bolt is still death, but it doesn't rustle jimmies as much as death from a suicide bomber while you sip your chai at Starbucks.
Yea, you're wrong. I read that fucking link -- it doesn't say that the indiscriminate metadata scooping revealed by Snowden was ever shared by the NSA. You realize that the NSA has other ways to collect evidence than just what Snowden disclosed, right ? They also collect evidence through normal warrant sanctioned wiretaps. If they share other intelligence collected legally and not from the intelligence detailed in the Snowden leaks, where is the fucking problem ?
Obviously, you assume the worst and think that 1) because the NSA does warrantless collection of phone metadata, and 2) because the NSA shares intelligence with other agencies, then naturally, 3) that HAS to mean that the phone metadata is being shared. Logic fail much ?
Reuters knew that once they disclosed the SOD, people -- like you -- would immediately confuse it with the recent disclosures made by Snowden, so they wrotethis articleto explain the difference. The intelligence disclosed by Snowden and the program under SOD are separate entities and Reuters makes no claims that they are linked. Disregard it if you want, but considering how Reuters was the news agency that first broke news about the SOD in the first place, I'd assume you would give them some credibility over the rights-zealots that are just simply parroting the Reuters article in the first place.
Carefully read that quote. Notice how it does not say that the NSA phone-records database was shared by the NSA. In fact,others have reportedthat the NSA has been warding off constant pressure from other federal agencies wanting unfettered access to the NSA surveillance apparatus. This suggests that, despite your assumptions, the NSA is much more careful with your data than you give them credit for.
Additionally,per this Washington Post article:
You are free to assume that the NSA's phone metadata records are being shared with the DEA and whoever else. But if you do, those assumptions are only backed by your imagination, and not by facts or any news reported by the news agencies.
I said there has been no proof that the intelligence gathered by the programs disclosed by Snowden's leaks, namely the mass gathering of metadata, has been used for any other purpose than to go after terrorists -- and that remains true. That doesn't mean the NSA can't share information, for example, that the government of Saudi Arabia gave them to the DEA, CIA, or FBI. I don't care if the DEA gets information from the NSA. I expect the agencies to share intelligence that they have legally acquired, especially if it was a tip from a foreign government or information on American citizens obtained with a warrant. I would be concerned if the NSA shared the phone records metadata, but no one, other than the misinformed, have made that claim.
