7 ms·

Is the headline trying to mislead? A) Phone records are not wiretaps. B) They weren't warrantless. However, secret warrants can be misused, and gathering data

by jbindel 13y ago

Is the headline trying to mislead? A) Phone records are not wiretaps. B) They weren't warrantless. However, secret warrants can be misused, and gathering data on domestic calls needs further scrutiny than this collection of every call.

ahoy 13y ago
Yeah, there's a very real difference between the collection of metadata and actually recording phone conversations and text messages. Both leave a bad taste in my mouth, but conflating the two is dangerous and dishonest.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Both leave a bad taste in my mouth, but conflating the two is dangerous and dishonest. Unfortunately that is par for the course here on HN, if you pay attention to the political threads. It so often is just the same political truth-twisting, logic-bending contortions that I often saw applied by the GOP or creationists, where logic becomes subservient to the objective, instead of forming your objective based on logic. And in this case it's completely needless! Why use propaganda techniques to mislead when the truth is persuasive on its own? I'm not even shocked about collection of metadata per se, but it should not be a secret program run by secret courts issuing secret warrants. If it's important and useful the people will allow it, if not then let us live with that choice too.
- notdrunkatall 13y ago
  They're not just collecting metadata. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T
notdrunkatall 13y ago
No, it's not, you're apparently just not fully aware of what's going on. They don't only have access to phone records; they also have access to our communications, and they have had that access for at least the last 6 years without a warrant, not even one from a FISA court.
- jonknee 13y ago
  It's not like these programs just got setup without approval. I'm sure they have secret rulings from FISA to justify all this stuff (not that a secret ruling makes anything legal, but hey). The problem with secret courts is obvious.
  - notdrunkatall 13y ago
    They've been essentially bypassing the FISA courts since 9/11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co...
- codex 13y ago
  Source? The only records taken from Internet companies pertain to non-citizens living outside the U.S. Even then, a secret court order is needed.
  - SEMW 13y ago
    > The only records taken from Internet companies pertain to non-citizens living outside the U.S As a 'non-[US]-citizen living outside the US', I'm a bit disturbed by the implication that it's somehow less bad for the US government to demand any data they like about non-US citizens (from private companies based in the US) than data about US citizens. Non-US citizens do make up 95% of the world's population, and they use Google etc. too. Most European governments seem to recognise that the contents of 'human rights' documents, if they're to mean anything, should apply to, well, humans, not just the citizens of those countries. (Hence e.g. the ECHR blocking the deportation of illegal immigrants if they might be tortured in their home countries). It seems to be mostly just the US that has this strange idea that, despite one of its founding documents talking about 'all men being created equal' and 'inalienable rights', those rights shouldn't apply to non-US citizens.
    - iy56 13y ago
      It is less bad. The US government doesn't have any obligation to protect the rights of citizens of some other country not living in the US. If your government disagrees, tell them to sign a treaty.
josephlord 13y ago
I agree with you. But on (B) I'm not sure the people listening would have expected one great big warrant covering all the people in the country. It is important to be specific and accurate with claims made so that the culprits can't just pick one inaccurate claim and deny that loudly and repeatedly while ignoring the things that they actually have done.
arh68 13y ago
Here's a thought, though: if Google's data were tapped, would Google Voice phone records be within their jurisdiction?

by jbindel 13y ago

ahoy 13y ago

Yeah, there's a very real difference between the collection of metadata and actually recording phone conversations and text messages. Both leave a bad taste in my mouth, but conflating the two is dangerous and dishonest.

mpyne 13y ago
> Both leave a bad taste in my mouth, but conflating the two is dangerous and dishonest. Unfortunately that is par for the course here on HN, if you pay attention to the political threads. It so often is just the same political truth-twisting, logic-bending contortions that I often saw applied by the GOP or creationists, where logic becomes subservient to the objective, instead of forming your objective based on logic. And in this case it's completely needless! Why use propaganda techniques to mislead when the truth is persuasive on its own? I'm not even shocked about collection of metadata per se, but it should not be a secret program run by secret courts issuing secret warrants. If it's important and useful the people will allow it, if not then let us live with that choice too.
notdrunkatall 13y ago
They're not just collecting metadata. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T

notdrunkatall 13y ago

No, it's not, you're apparently just not fully aware of what's going on. They don't only have access to phone records; they also have access to our communications, and they have had that access for at least the last 6 years without a warrant, not even one from a FISA court.

jonknee 13y ago
It's not like these programs just got setup without approval. I'm sure they have secret rulings from FISA to justify all this stuff (not that a secret ruling makes anything legal, but hey). The problem with secret courts is obvious.
- notdrunkatall 13y ago
  They've been essentially bypassing the FISA courts since 9/11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co...
codex 13y ago
Source? The only records taken from Internet companies pertain to non-citizens living outside the U.S. Even then, a secret court order is needed.
- SEMW 13y ago
  > The only records taken from Internet companies pertain to non-citizens living outside the U.S As a 'non-[US]-citizen living outside the US', I'm a bit disturbed by the implication that it's somehow less bad for the US government to demand any data they like about non-US citizens (from private companies based in the US) than data about US citizens. Non-US citizens do make up 95% of the world's population, and they use Google etc. too. Most European governments seem to recognise that the contents of 'human rights' documents, if they're to mean anything, should apply to, well, humans, not just the citizens of those countries. (Hence e.g. the ECHR blocking the deportation of illegal immigrants if they might be tortured in their home countries). It seems to be mostly just the US that has this strange idea that, despite one of its founding documents talking about 'all men being created equal' and 'inalienable rights', those rights shouldn't apply to non-US citizens.
  - iy56 13y ago
    It is less bad. The US government doesn't have any obligation to protect the rights of citizens of some other country not living in the US. If your government disagrees, tell them to sign a treaty.

josephlord 13y ago

I agree with you. But on (B) I'm not sure the people listening would have expected one great big warrant covering all the people in the country. It is important to be specific and accurate with claims made so that the culprits can't just pick one inaccurate claim and deny that loudly and repeatedly while ignoring the things that they actually have done.

arh68 13y ago

Here's a thought, though: if Google's data were tapped, would Google Voice phone records be within their jurisdiction?