5 ms·

First, according to Wikipedia, they can't use the PRISM data against you without a warrant; which means that they are operating all this within the 4th Amendmen

by lupatus 13y ago

First, according to Wikipedia, they can't use the PRISM data against you without a warrant; which means that they are operating all this within the 4th Amendment's restrictions (so why do we need to restore the 4th if it isn't broken...?)[1]. Second, Article IV, Section 4, of the US Constitution states that it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect the states against invasion and domestic violence[2]. Clandestine surveillance programs have long been tools of governments to accomplish such goals; PRISM is just a 21st century version. Furthermore, the US Government has LOTS of tools at it's disposal that _could_ be used to implement a tyrannical state. But, the beauty of the American system is that we have checks and balances in place to prevent these tools from being abused in a tyrannical manner. In conclusion, it seems to me that PRISM is a necessary and justified government function. This makes me wonder who exactly is benefiting from the Obama administration receiving so much bad press because it seems that they really are being unjustly crucified (and this is coming from someone who voted against Obama both times). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program), paragraph 4. [2] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_IV https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St...

tlogan 13y ago
I'm not constitutional scholar but text just says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". In other words, I have right that my things are not subject of unreasonable search (and fishing expedition searching for patterns seems unreasonable - why do they think I might be a terrorist or connected with terrorists?). I don't care whether it will used against me or not but my right is that gov does not do that without warrant.
- ewoodrich 13y ago
  But what are intangible phone records? Are they "persons, houses, or papers"? Probably not. Maybe they're "effects", but that still would historically suggest physical property. However, the Supreme Court has clarified these issues in a number of decisions, which is why our law is primarily based on judicial precedent, and not literal interpretation. That may or not be a good thing, but it's the way our legal system is in fact designed to work.
  - tlogan 13y ago
    Yes - we did have "weird" interpretation of our constitution. Like putting of Japanese Americans in concentration camps (the Supreme Court called it "military necessity"). But eventually public perception changed and the interpretation of our constitution was corrected. So as first step I want to hear from Supreme Court whether this is constitutional. But NSA says that what they are doing is secret, so ...
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Bits are "papers" - then the only mechanism for storing information.
  - RockyMcNuts 13y ago
    I think one weird part NSA seems to rely on is... what constitutes a search? Intelligence testimony seems to have implied they thought they could hoover up all this information, and as long as only machines look at it, and when humans do, they have a 51% belief it's a foreign person <wink, wink> and do 'minimization' when it's not <wink, wink>, it's constitutional. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/director-national-intelligences-word-games-explained-how-government-deceived https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/director-national-inte... information is considered to be “collected” only after it has been “received for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence component” Of course, they also think they can lie to Congress, after being warned in advance about the question, being given a chance to correct it after the testimony, and say they didn't think about this particular activity, and gave the 'least untruthful answer'. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/james-clapper-senate-erroneous http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/james-clapper-se... So I would say we need to have an open debate about exactly what they're doing, and have the Supreme Court, whose job it is, define what those terms mean and what they can do, instead of letting them make it up as they go along, and then lie about it.
- jmccree 13y ago
  The constitution also says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", but try walking down a street in DC bearing arms. It seems the current federal view is that the constitution is a document to be worked around, not respected and followed.
rickhanlonii 13y ago
First, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source for government programs in which little is known by the public. By the very nature of being information which is classified or higher, in order for details of actual usage to be outlined on Wikipedia, an editor with access to that classified information would need to break federal law and put Wikipedia in a position of question legality. That's not to say that it's not a fact that PRISM data is only used against a person when there is a warrant, but it is to say that we don't know that that is the case. Second, no reasonable person with a decent understanding of this issue is claiming that the NSA isn't legally justifying their actions. Indeed, the NSA is using--as expected--national security in part as a motivating legal justification, and invoking Article IV Section 4. It is agreed: national security is their intelligence directive. Nor are such people claiming that the government hasn't previously used secret surveillance programs, or that the government is necessarily intentionally tyrannical. What we are saying is that legal justification aside, we want the details of this directive in the public conversation so that We the People can decide if we approve of the actions. We the People are the governors of this country, and We the People have the power to change the laws or the Constitution if we decide that the actions are not justifiable, are not reconcilable with liberty, or if the system of checks and balances have failed to check or balance. This is a dangerous situation. If Snowden's claims are correct, not only are we being overbearingly surveilled, but that data is dangerously aggregated. Even if we are to assume complete benevolence and complete competence in our government (even government actors who may be under-paid and under-invested in their duties), then there is still a very real possibility that people who would seek destruction could acquire possession of that data, gaining a catastrophic trove of information about not just the American public--who would probably be protected by the overbearing force of the U.S. Military--but also the public of the rest of the world. In conclusion, it seems to me that we can't know that PRISM or associated programs are necessary and justified government functions, because we know nothing about them. Of the 300,000,000+ people in the United States, 435 are in a position of both knowledge and decision on those policies, and given the importance of this issue that's just not good enough. Especially when it is undisputed that those 435 people can't do their job even minimally effectively.
- lupatus 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure that pg _was_ implying that the NSA program was frowned upon by the laws in the Bill of Rights; while it seems that the NSA is in fact complying with all applicable laws (based on what the government has revealed, as quoted in Wikipedia and other media outlets). Regardless of whether Snowden is correct or not, I think that there are government functions that the general public should not be informed of. Having a policy of detailing the exact nature of PRISM could be just as damaging as, say, having a policy of publicly detailing all planned drone strikes. I bet the NSA's job is already harder because of Snowden's leaks. I also think that there is a very real possibility that people who would seek destruction could acquire possession of an aircraft carrier's control systems or the control systems of the missile defense shield. Should the US not pursue those tools because of that possibility, too? The citizenry will have a hard time exercising it's natural rights to participate in debates about national policies in the American Republic if each citizen has to also worry about protecting himself from thieves/bandits/pirates/foreign armies.
monsterix 13y ago
> the beauty of the American system is that we have checks and balances in place to prevent these tools from being abused in a tyrannical manner. Are you sure about this assumption? That no brute force, human rights violation, wrong doings have been committed both inside and outside of US? Would you please explain your reasoning more? I hope we understand that the American system has worked even without PRISM for as long as I have known and read about American history. And quite efficiently at that. So why is Dragnet needed so much now? > Furthermore, the US Government has LOTS of tools at it's disposal that _could_ be used to implement a tyrannical state. Let's say such a tyrannical state is inevitably implemented one day. 1. I am curious to understand how you would logically conclude and arrive (I mean agree to agree) at evaluating a _tyrannical_presence_ = true; 2. What checks and balances you indicate are going to be mechanisms at disposal with people to get rid of such a tyranny? From what it seems none of your arguments are true at the moment.

by lupatus 13y ago

tlogan 13y ago

I'm not constitutional scholar but text just says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". In other words, I have right that my things are not subject of unreasonable search (and fishing expedition searching for patterns seems unreasonable - why do they think I might be a terrorist or connected with terrorists?). I don't care whether it will used against me or not but my right is that gov does not do that without warrant.

ewoodrich 13y ago
But what are intangible phone records? Are they "persons, houses, or papers"? Probably not. Maybe they're "effects", but that still would historically suggest physical property. However, the Supreme Court has clarified these issues in a number of decisions, which is why our law is primarily based on judicial precedent, and not literal interpretation. That may or not be a good thing, but it's the way our legal system is in fact designed to work.
- tlogan 13y ago
  Yes - we did have "weird" interpretation of our constitution. Like putting of Japanese Americans in concentration camps (the Supreme Court called it "military necessity"). But eventually public perception changed and the interpretation of our constitution was corrected. So as first step I want to hear from Supreme Court whether this is constitutional. But NSA says that what they are doing is secret, so ...
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Bits are "papers" - then the only mechanism for storing information.
- RockyMcNuts 13y ago
  I think one weird part NSA seems to rely on is... what constitutes a search? Intelligence testimony seems to have implied they thought they could hoover up all this information, and as long as only machines look at it, and when humans do, they have a 51% belief it's a foreign person <wink, wink> and do 'minimization' when it's not <wink, wink>, it's constitutional. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/director-national-intelligences-word-games-explained-how-government-deceived https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/director-national-inte... information is considered to be “collected” only after it has been “received for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence component” Of course, they also think they can lie to Congress, after being warned in advance about the question, being given a chance to correct it after the testimony, and say they didn't think about this particular activity, and gave the 'least untruthful answer'. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/james-clapper-senate-erroneous http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/james-clapper-se... So I would say we need to have an open debate about exactly what they're doing, and have the Supreme Court, whose job it is, define what those terms mean and what they can do, instead of letting them make it up as they go along, and then lie about it.
jmccree 13y ago
The constitution also says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", but try walking down a street in DC bearing arms. It seems the current federal view is that the constitution is a document to be worked around, not respected and followed.

rickhanlonii 13y ago

First, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source for government programs in which little is known by the public. By the very nature of being information which is classified or higher, in order for details of actual usage to be outlined on Wikipedia, an editor with access to that classified information would need to break federal law and put Wikipedia in a position of question legality. That's not to say that it's not a fact that PRISM data is only used against a person when there is a warrant, but it is to say that we don't know that that is the case. Second, no reasonable person with a decent understanding of this issue is claiming that the NSA isn't legally justifying their actions. Indeed, the NSA is using--as expected--national security in part as a motivating legal justification, and invoking Article IV Section 4. It is agreed: national security is their intelligence directive. Nor are such people claiming that the government hasn't previously used secret surveillance programs, or that the government is necessarily intentionally tyrannical. What we are saying is that legal justification aside, we want the details of this directive in the public conversation so that We the People can decide if we approve of the actions. We the People are the governors of this country, and We the People have the power to change the laws or the Constitution if we decide that the actions are not justifiable, are not reconcilable with liberty, or if the system of checks and balances have failed to check or balance. This is a dangerous situation. If Snowden's claims are correct, not only are we being overbearingly surveilled, but that data is dangerously aggregated. Even if we are to assume complete benevolence and complete competence in our government (even government actors who may be under-paid and under-invested in their duties), then there is still a very real possibility that people who would seek destruction could acquire possession of that data, gaining a catastrophic trove of information about not just the American public--who would probably be protected by the overbearing force of the U.S. Military--but also the public of the rest of the world. In conclusion, it seems to me that we can't know that PRISM or associated programs are necessary and justified government functions, because we know nothing about them. Of the 300,000,000+ people in the United States, 435 are in a position of both knowledge and decision on those policies, and given the importance of this issue that's just not good enough. Especially when it is undisputed that those 435 people can't do their job even minimally effectively.

lupatus 13y ago
I'm pretty sure that pg _was_ implying that the NSA program was frowned upon by the laws in the Bill of Rights; while it seems that the NSA is in fact complying with all applicable laws (based on what the government has revealed, as quoted in Wikipedia and other media outlets). Regardless of whether Snowden is correct or not, I think that there are government functions that the general public should not be informed of. Having a policy of detailing the exact nature of PRISM could be just as damaging as, say, having a policy of publicly detailing all planned drone strikes. I bet the NSA's job is already harder because of Snowden's leaks. I also think that there is a very real possibility that people who would seek destruction could acquire possession of an aircraft carrier's control systems or the control systems of the missile defense shield. Should the US not pursue those tools because of that possibility, too? The citizenry will have a hard time exercising it's natural rights to participate in debates about national policies in the American Republic if each citizen has to also worry about protecting himself from thieves/bandits/pirates/foreign armies.

monsterix 13y ago

> the beauty of the American system is that we have checks and balances in place to prevent these tools from being abused in a tyrannical manner. Are you sure about this assumption? That no brute force, human rights violation, wrong doings have been committed both inside and outside of US? Would you please explain your reasoning more? I hope we understand that the American system has worked even without PRISM for as long as I have known and read about American history. And quite efficiently at that. So why is Dragnet needed so much now? > Furthermore, the US Government has LOTS of tools at it's disposal that _could_ be used to implement a tyrannical state. Let's say such a tyrannical state is inevitably implemented one day. 1. I am curious to understand how you would logically conclude and arrive (I mean agree to agree) at evaluating a _tyrannical_presence_ = true; 2. What checks and balances you indicate are going to be mechanisms at disposal with people to get rid of such a tyranny? From what it seems none of your arguments are true at the moment.