The NSA watches you poop.

fanaskin · Sep 20, 2013

Court Reveals 'Secret Interpretation' Of The Patriot Act, Allowing NSA To Collect All Phone Call Data

Basically, the court says "why of course there's an adversarial process" to protect users' privacy. It just depends on Verizon or AT&T taking up the fight on behalf of their users, and they haven't done so, so let's just assume everyone's okay with this. That's kind of crazy when you think about it. Admittedly, the public should be up in arms that Verizon and AT&T appear to have no interest in challenging these broad collections of data, but that hardly makes them constitutional.

~

From there we move onto the interpretation of how this massive data collection could possibly be seen as "relevant." First, it notes (as mentioned above) that the government doesn't need to prove that the data is actually relevant. Just that it has reasonable grounds to believe that they are relevant.

~

Then it basically says that because the NSA can sniff out terrorists within a giant database, that makes the entire database relevant. Really.

~

The government depends on this bulk collection because if production of the information were to wait until the specific identifier connected to an international terrorist group were determined, most of the historical connections (the entire purpose of this authorization) would be lost. The analysis of past connections is only possible "if the Government has collected and archived a broad set of metadata that contains within it the subset of communications that can later be identified as terrorist-related." Because the subset of terrorist communications is ultimately contained within the whole of the metadata produced, but can only be found after the production is aggregated and then queried using identifiers determined to be associated with identified international terrorist organizations, the whole production is relevant to the ongoing investigation out of necessity.

~

the FISC then claims that the mere claim that terrorists use the phone system is enough to show that all phone records are relevant.

~

Hoss · Sep 20, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
Basically, the court says "why of course there's an adversarial process" to protect users' privacy. It just depends on Verizon or AT&T taking up the fight on behalf of their users, and they haven't done so, so let's just assume everyone's okay with this. That's kind of crazy when you think about it. Admittedly, the public should be up in arms that Verizon and AT&T appear to have no interest in challenging these broad collections of data, but that hardly makes them constitutional.

That's not the impression I got. From the fact that at least one company has shut down over this, I gathered that it was impossible to refuse the order, and the companies had no recourse.

Furry · Sep 20, 2013

Hoss_sl said:
That's not the impression I got. From the fact that at least one company has shut down over this, I gathered that it was impossible to refuse the order, and the companies had no recourse.

but they CAN fight it, right. Thats justice at work.

chaos · Sep 20, 2013

Furry_sl said:
but they CAN fight it, right. Thats justice at work.

They can't, really. AT&T isn't Lavabit, they aren't going to close shop rather than deal with a national security letter. And they couldn't even if the CEO wanted to. Guy who runs Lastpass said he would do the same thing if put in Lavabit's position. But that isn't good for us, these functions are just going to be filled by larger companies that do not have that "nuclear" option.

Even the Lavabit guy is going to be facing possible consequences for closing up shop.

tad10 · Sep 20, 2013

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/358624

Good news. You too can eventually be termed a terrorist by the FBI!

The FBI is instructing local police departments and "communities against terrorism" to consider anyone who harbors "conspiracy theories" about 9/11 to be a potential terrorist, in a circular released to local police departments.

The memo thus adds 9/11-official-story skeptics to a growing list of targets described by federal law enforcement to be security threats, such as those who express "libertarian philosophies," "Second Amendment-oriented views," interest in "self-sufficiency," "fears of Big Brother or big government," and "Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties."

Agraza · Sep 20, 2013

Nope, I'm not listed there. That last one is iffy. I don't know exactly what that means, but /shrug. Holocaust deniers and hitler worshipers are also considered potential terrorists. I feel that's appropriate. Anti-government militia groups that meet in the forest around some amateur fort should be a concern for the police.

tad10 · Sep 20, 2013

Agraza_sl said:
Nope, I'm not listed there. That last one is iffy. I don't know exactly what that means, but /shrug. Holocaust deniers and hitler worshipers are also considered potential terrorists. I feel that's appropriate. Anti-government militia groups that meet in the forest around some amateur fort should be a concern for the police.

Who the fuck cares about Free Speech, Free Thought and Freedom of Association, amiright? Good to see another Brown Shirt here on RR.

Agraza · Sep 20, 2013

Freedom to assemble isn't freedom from suspicion. That's naive. We let the KKK walk down the street and the only thing the cops do is protect them from assault by onlookers. These forest dwelling gunmen are by their nature mysterious. Their intentions and ability to act on them are big question marks.

tad10 · Sep 20, 2013

Agraza_sl said:
Freedom to assemble isn't freedom from suspicion. That's naive. We let the KKK walk down the street and the only thing the cops do is protect them from assault by onlookers. These forest dwelling gunmen are by their nature mysterious. Their intentions and ability to act on them are big question marks.

I take it you've bought into the FBI/NSA civilian surveillance then. Unless somebody is going around buying ingredients for a fuel-oil bomb or equivalent WTF, they get to think and assemble as they want, without suspicion and without interference from the government. Anything else leads straight to tyranny.

Fuck the thought police.

Agraza · Sep 20, 2013

I don't know why you keep bringing up thinking and thought police. There is no provision in the first amendment that protects thoughts. Furthermore, there is no protection against suspicion, and as I said, that would be naive. Monitoring their activities is not necessarily interference. They would have grounds to respond if they are obstructed from exercising their rights.

Trying to protect against suspicion would itself be an issue of thought crime, so you're arguing with yourself.

W4RH34D_sl · Sep 20, 2013

Agraza_sl said:
I don't know why you keep bringing up thinking and thought police. There is no provision in the first amendment that protects thoughts. Furthermore, there is no protection against suspicion, and as I said, that would be naive. Monitoring their activities is not necessarily interference. They would have grounds to respond if they are obstructed from exercising their rights.

Trying to protect against suspicion would itself be an issue of thought crime, so you're arguing with yourself.

I'm sure you could slip it in freedom of religion.

tad10 · Sep 20, 2013

Agraza_sl said:
There is no provision in the first amendment that protects thoughts.

What is Speech but the expression of Thought?

Furthermore, there is no protection against suspicion

Sure there is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Trying to protect against suspicion would itself be an issue of thought crime, so you're arguing with yourself.

Ah, no. I'm arguing with you. The FBI doesn't get to identify all of these people exercising their rights to Free Speech and Assembly as possible terrorists. What we get are situations like the kid in Texas who was pissed off being thrown in jail for a joke.

Agraza · Sep 20, 2013

W4RH34D_sl said:
I'm sure you could slip it in freedom of religion.

"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," Chief Justice Waite wrote in Reynolds v. United States (1878).

Yes, you could. But it doesn't seem like the fed is doing anything to stop the formation or expansion of groups created on the basis of these opinions/beliefs. They're just watching them.

Phazael · Sep 20, 2013

tad10_sl said:
What is Speech but the expression of Thought?

Have you ever read a Melrin post, or are you new here?

Speech can be the simple parroting of propaganda or things the speaker does not even remotely understand. It is not thought. It is communication.

As for the rest of your post, keeping an eye on crazy fucktards is a lot better than tossing them in Gitmo and throwing away the key.

Agraza · Sep 20, 2013

tad10_sl said:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The requirement for a search warrant is not the same as the protection against suspicion. It's a limit on what action can be taken based upon suspicion. Suspicion is a thought. The militias suspect the government of being tyrannical. They form these groups. The government suspects these militias will commit acts of violence. They watch these groups. No laws being broken on either side. The FBI can identify whoever it wants as a possible terrorist. You've no right not to be identified as a possible terrorist, but can feel free to file suit for slander if it affects you tangibly.

tad10_sl said:
What we get are situations like the kid in Texas who was pissed off being thrown in jail for a joke.

Refresh our memories of this specific event?

chaos · Sep 20, 2013

tad10_sl said:
What is Speech but the expression of Thought?

Sure there is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ah, no. I'm arguing with you. The FBI doesn't get to identify all of these people exercising their rights to Free Speech and Assembly as possible terrorists. What we get are situations like the kid in Texas who was pissed off being thrown in jail for a joke.

You are taking it out of context. The memo doesn't say "everyone who does this is a potential terrorist." It says "potential terrorists often display one or more of the following traits" and lists them.

I don't see how you try and say this is some sort of constitutional violation. Even if, as in your example, speech is just an expression of thought, nowhere is teh freedom of "thought" or speech being attacked. They are just creating a profile.

When you freak out about everything bro, people stop paying attention.

tad10 · Sep 20, 2013

chaos_sl said:
When you freak out about everything bro, people stop paying attention.

Good.

@Agraza you can google up the Texas kid pretty easily.

Arbitrary · Sep 20, 2013

chaos_sl said:
You are taking it out of context. The memo doesn't say "everyone who does this is a potential terrorist." It says "potential terrorists often display one or more of the following traits" and lists them.

"Other traits include co-mingling with negros, the smoking of marijuana or "reefer", homosexual tendencies, and opposition to the Vietnam War."

Agraza · Sep 20, 2013

Yea, that's happened. Shit could go down. It could be some epic transgression. But this isn't that, yet. If it doesn't become that then it's nothing.

Strifen · Sep 20, 2013

tad10_sl said:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/358624

Good news. You too can eventually be termed a terrorist by the FBI!

The FBI is instructing local police departments and "communities against terrorism" to consider anyone who harbors "conspiracy theories" about 9/11 to be a potential terrorist, in a circular released to local police departments.

The memo thus adds 9/11-official-story skeptics to a growing list of targets described by federal law enforcement to be security threats, such as those who express "libertarian philosophies," "Second Amendment-oriented views," interest in "self-sufficiency," "fears of Big Brother or big government," and "Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties."

Ben Swann recently did a report on how more Americans are having doubts on the official story, especially regarding building 7.

The NSA watches you poop.

Well known agitator

Make America's Team Great Again

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

Buzzfeed Editor

Elisha Dushku

Registered Hutt

Elisha Dushku

Registered Hutt

Elisha Dushku

Registered Hutt

shitlord

Elisha Dushku

Registered Hutt

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard

Registered Hutt

Buzzfeed Editor

Elisha Dushku

Tranny Chaser

Registered Hutt

Molten Core Raider