Recent NSA leaks

[Constable Reggie]

I'm surprised no one has made a topic about this already, so here it is.

In light of all the revealing going on about the secret surveillance programs and methods used by the NSA, what are you guys' opinions on this matter? Are you totally cool with it? Are you cool with it, with the only exception being that it was secret? Are you against it? Do you think Snowden should be tried for espionage for leaking these materials?

And if you're not from the US, what are your opinions about the whole thing? Would you care if this sort of thing happened (or is happening) in your own country?

Edited June 22, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Steampunk]

I'm not particularly happy with the idea of someone listening in to all my phone conversations, but I don't really care if they are only records. The question for me is, are these phone calls and emails simply being stored somewhere or are people actually going through them? I have a hard time believing the government has people sitting around all day reading through the phone records and emails of every last citizen. If someone's not actively reading up on my daily affairs, I really don't care if the data is stored on a computer somewhere at Fort Meade.

Bear in mind that the government isn't the only entity that does this sort of thing. Google keeps track of every single thing you've ever pulled up through their search engine, browser, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean someone at Google is looking through your internet records: it just means the data is stored there somewhere. I'd prefer someone not keep records of what I do on the internet or on my phone, but I don't mind if all they do is keep the records and they aren't actually going through them.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Sheik

[Constable Reggie]

Sure, but with Google, you choose to allow them to do that in exchange for using their whatever, and it isn't kept secret. You don't sign a contract with Verizon acknowledging that the NSA's going to be tracking all your information, for example.

I guess the better question is: should they be collecting this kind of data (in secret) in the first place?

[Esau of Isaac]

While I'm not one of those "WAKE UP SHEEPLE THE GUBMENT IS CONTROLLING EVERYTHING!" guys, I assume as a general rule that everything I do that is remotely electronic can be monitored on some level by the government. As such this simply doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

As for whether I'm fine with it, I can't say that I care much. But the implications aren't terrific and there's always that slippery slope to keep in mind.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

In light of all the revealing going on about the secret surveillance programs and methods used by the NSA, what are you guys' opinions on this matter? Are you totally cool with it? Are you cool with it, with the only exception being that it was secret? Are you against it? Do you think Snowden should be tried for espionage for leaking these materials?

And if you're not from the US, what are your opinions about the whole thing? Would you care if this sort of thing happened (or is happening) in your own country?

1) With the NSA, here's the problem -- the 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, with people's effects being protected from the government with the SOLE EXCEPTION of a WARRANT. However, I *believe* the Supreme Court ruled in the late 70s something to the effect that the government can acquire records from a third party so long as they give permission or submit a subpoena; in this case, the third party being Verizon or Google -- in effect, so long as you use practically any electronic communication, which naturally involves a third party, the government is able to get proof of communication without a warrant, but not the content of the messages itself. The NSA takes this to a massive scale, absorbing pretty much EVERY phone call record of every citizen that uses these third party, period -- this is called meta-data.

The problem is that you can use this meta-data to track/stalk people and can even derive an undue amount of personal information about a person without even checking the content of the message, using basic logical deduction. I think the Supreme Court needs to review this issue again, and I hope a case comes up which presents the opportunity. My concern is A) FISA courts failing to reject more than like 1/2000 warrants given to them, which is suspicious, and B) the NSA is supposed to monitor FOREIGN conversations, or did we forget the purpose of the FISA act here?

So no, this bothers me a ton. I'm a rather conservative person, and this is one of the few issues where your stance on the matter isn't really broken down by party lines.

2) As for Snowden, I really don't know. I'm REALLY glad that he brought this to light, since we NEED to have this conversation here and we should have this information, "classified" or not. This information goes to the basic function of the NSA. A guy revealing that the government is spending vast resources to spy on its own people should not be a crime -- never mind that the entity that is guilty of espionage against its own citizens is trying to accuse Snowden of it, which is hypocritical at its core. As for the people who claim that he should be punished for breaking down the U.S. talks with China, all he did was point out that the U.S. was doing what it was accusing China of doing. Why, then, is the story that he supposedly harmed U.S. interests by uncovering the information, and not that the government compromised its own position (and morals) by doing those acts which we condemned China for doing in the first place? I think he helped the case as to why we don't need a large and inherently dysfunctional government, and how it damages both liberty and national interests.

With that being said, though, the fact that he fled to China is a wee bit suspicious. I doubt that his intentions are completely pure. I think it will suffice to leave it at that.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[Constable Reggie]

With regard to Snowden going to Hong Kong, I don't find it unreasonable for him to believe that he would not feel safe in the US, especially considering that the Obama Administration is more aggressive against whistleblowers than all other presidencies combined. This is a president that brags about persecuting whistleblowers (it's only more insulting, since one of his campaign points was to help whistleblowing). Even if Snowden has some kind of ulterior motive, I find it ridiculous that our government is trying to charge him with espionage, especially when you consider what he did and why, and compare it to actual espionage acts. I don't need to bring up Bradley Manning, and what's happened to him, do I?

Edited June 22, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[dondon151]

With that being said, though, the fact that he fled to China is a wee bit suspicious. I doubt that his intentions are completely pure. I think it will suffice to leave it at that.

hong kong and china are different political entities

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

hong kong and china are different political entities

I was actually curious/unsure about this and looked it up. I remember Hong Kong was being enveloped as part of China when I was a kid (like late 90s, early 2000s), but it's more complicated than that. From what I read:

Hong Kong can technically be considered a part of China, but is known as the "Hong Kong Special Administration Region", and I guess they refer to it as "One Country, Two Systems". Hong Kong was given over to China on July 1st, 1997, with the caveat that they keep their same political and economic system as before. So while it is a separate entity, what I don't know is how much "pull" (official or unofficial) the government of mainland China has on Hong Kong, or if it's part of China in name only, if you know what I mean; most evidence suggests the latter, though.

Also, who exactly is in charge of extradition over there? I keep on hearing people saying he's trying to get sanctuary from China -- but if Hong Kong is essentially independent, why wouldn't he go to mainland China to do that? I'll be honest, not an expert of the legal systems of Asiatic nations.

EDIT: Just read something where it says that Hong Kong's autonomy breaks down in cases of "foreign relations and military defense," so I guess mainland China would take control in this case.

EDIT2: On a random side note, Hong Kong would honestly be better off being independent from China -- my god, they seem more different from China than the U.S. is.

And I should note that Snowden's CHOICE of refuge is what makes me suspicious (note that I am not accusing him of anything, simply posing the possibility of collusion, which is reasonable given the massive incomplete information we're working with here). And no, I don't get the espionage charge -- I think there's a pretty big gap between him and, say, the Rosenbergs.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[Steampunk]

With the NSA, here's the problem -- the 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, with people's effects being protected from the government with the SOLE EXCEPTION of a WARRANT

That would be fine if it weren't for the US Constitution's biggest gremlin: Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (The Necessary and Proper Clause). This gives Congress authority to pass any legislation that is "necessary" and "proper" to help any government agency carry out its duties. Since there is nothing in the Constitution that says Amendment IV takes priority over the Necessary and Proper Clause (as far as I know), it's really quite arbitrary which carries more weight. Since invasive monitoring procedures were considered "necessary and proper" to maintain national security, the NSA hasn't technically overstepped its bounds. It's responsible for national security, and it's implementing strategies for maintaining that. Our job is to be informed about policies that allow this crap and try to keep them from getting implemented in the first place. When that fails, all we can do is bitch and moan about a law until Congress finally decides to get rid of it or change it to something everyone likes better.

And no, I don't get the espionage charge -- I think there's a pretty big gap between him and, say, the Rosenbergs.

From the government's perspective, that's just a matter of degree. He still performed espionage, technically. The CIA defines it as securing information that a country holds secret. That's pretty much what he did.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Dieselpunk

[Constable Reggie]

Does it really count though if the interpretation of the acts being utilized are kept secret from the public and, more important in this case, our own lawmakers?

It should really turn heads that the original author of the Patriot Act said that he didn't intend for it to be used to this degree.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

That would be fine if it weren't for the US Constitution's biggest gremlin: Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (The Necessary and Proper Clause). This gives Congress authority to pass any legislation that is "necessary" and "proper" to help any government agency carry out its duties. Since there is nothing in the Constitution that says Amendment IV takes priority over the Necessary and Proper Clause (as far as I know), it's really quite arbitrary which carries more weight. Since invasive monitoring procedures were considered "necessary and proper" to maintain national security, the NSA hasn't technically overstepped its bounds. It's responsible for national security, and it's implementing strategies for maintaining that. Our job is to be informed about policies that allow this crap and try to keep them from getting implemented in the first place. When that fails, all we can do is bitch and moan about a law until Congress finally decides to get rid of it or change it to something everyone likes better.

From the government's perspective, that's just a matter of degree. He still performed espionage, technically. The CIA defines it as securing information that a country holds secret. That's pretty much what he did.

A) By your logic, you can use the Necessary and Proper Clause to nullify just about any amendment of the Bill of Rights you want to for "national security" or any other obligation dictated to the government by the constitution. For example, you suggest that the Constitution, through that clause, would allow the government to disarm every American if they state that it is in the national interest because some of them might be radicalized. It was poorly worded, overly vague, and it's stupid to believe that it overrides the Bill of Rights, because if the government can arbitrarily ignore the first 10 amendments, it defeats the whole damn purpose of their existence in the first place.

The Necessary and Proper Clause seems to be used when no other logical reasoning exists for the government to legally perform an action -- usually with particularly stupid policies like price controls. I personally hope that they go back to reality concerning the interpretation of this Clause; that is, the federal government, when performing an act strictly obligated by the Constitution, that powers such as States cannot interfere with it; in other words, we should use it for its intended design, to restate the supremacy of federal law over state law, and for nothing more. Otherwise, it can be abused WAY too much.

B) If I were to make a case to defend him off the top of my head, I would argue whether a government has a right to keep that information classified as "secret" to begin with, since we are actually talking about the basic function of a government agency and not specific details that would honestly threaten national security -- it would be akin to charging somebody for espionage for revealing that the Patriot Act allows the government (with a warrant) to collect information on U.S. citizens using wire taps, if necessary. This is information that should be known by the American public to begin with, not something akin to war secrets. In other words, for it to be considered secret, the government should have probable cause that the release of such information would be against the national interest, and that it would DIRECTLY infringe upon the government's ability to perform those duties EXPRESSLY enumerated in the Constitution.

The government cannot questionably violate the fourth amendment (depending on whether we consider meta-data the "papers, and effects" described in the fourth amendment), and then prosecute the people who reveal the potential abuse to the public -- that's madness.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[Rapier]

The NSA leaks you are referring to is that polemic thing about the USA government spying calls, right? I remember hearing about it some time ago, but I don't recall it through that name.

I wonder why people are being so passive about it. It is an absurd. Even if there was no harm done, it means the government is breaking the laws it should be reinforcing and defending. And that's a serious insult.

[dondon151]

we're being passive about it because it doesn't visibly affect most of us

like, this is just really no big deal.

[Rapier]

we're being passive about it because it doesn't visibly affect most of us

like, this is just really no big deal.

It means the government does whatever it wants. Even if it doesn't affect most of you, it's still outrageous. At least in my point of view.

[Lord Raven]

What are they doing with the data it's collecting?

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

What are they doing with the data it's collecting?

So the NSA was originally designed to snoop on foreign calls to prevent foreign agents from hindering/harming the U.S. After the outrage involving the Nixon wiretaps, the FISA Act specifically made it so that the NSA was required to collect a warrant to observe the content of a message when one of the parties that they were snooping on was a U.S. citizen (or a naturalized person, IIRC). NSA is bypassing this through two arguments:

A) A Supreme Court decision that says that any data handled through a third-party carrier (in the case of the NSA scandal, Verizon and other phone companies) is different from personal information, and is subject to being taken by the government through subpoena.

B) The NSA argues that the FISA Act only applies to the "content" of a message. Apparently, they don't think that the time of the calls, the duration, who you were speaking to, and when you were doing it (this is called meta-data) counts as content.

What the NSA does is subpoena a company like Verizon and says "we want every record of every phone call of every U.S. citizen" and compels them to comply under threat of government; they say they do this because Verizon would delete this data after a certain period of time to guarantee the privacy of their customers. The NSA is saying they need everybody's information so that whenever a terrorist pings up in the system, they can search the database and look up all calls between the terrorist and anybody in the U.S. In short, they can skirt the fourth amendment without needing a warrant.

[Steampunk]

By your logic, you can use the Necessary and Proper Clause to nullify just about any amendment of the Bill of Rights you want to for "national security" or any other obligation dictated to the government by the constitution.

You say that as if the US government has never done anything like that before. May I refer you to the Japanese internment camps during WWII, where Japanese Americans had their property, businesses, and personal artifacts taken from them for no other reason that for being of Japanese descent? If we go back further, we can also look at the Sedition Act of 1918 which was, in general terms, the Patriot Act before there was a Patriot Act. So yeah, by "my logic," the government can step on any rights they feel necessary to keep things running smoothly and justify it by claiming it's a matter of national security or some other function essential to preserving US interests.

For example, you suggest that the Constitution, through that clause, would allow the government to disarm every American if they state that it is in the national interest because some of them might be radicalized.

And the efforts to ban assault weapons is in no way a step in that direction? The Constitution doesn't define what type of arms American citizens may bear, so it's completely arbitrary whether assault weapons fall under that amendment or not. We also can't use crime statistics to justify banning assault weapons as they make up an overwhelming minority of weapons used in violent crime. Still, the government uses people's shock and outrage at shooting sprees that involve assault weapons to try and whittle away at Amendment II. You know, kinda like how they used people's shock and outrage at 9/11 to pass things like the Patriot Act and to put TSA agents in every airport to grope your crotch even though there are several examples of this being completely ineffective at combating domestic terrorism. It's like Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who sacrifice their freedoms in the name of security will soon find they have neither."

The Necessary and Proper Clause seems to be used when no other logical reasoning exists for the government to legally perform an action -- usually with particularly stupid policies like price controls.

Which is why I called it the biggest gremlin of the Constitution.

we should use it for its intended design,

That's the problem: it is being used as intended. It allows the government to exercise authority not explicitly stated in the Constitution. I suspect it was written because of the Articles of Confederation. This precursor to the Constitution was very restrictive in what the Feds could do. This clause basically gave them the federal government the power to "do what needs to be done" to keep the US afloat as a country and political entity.

The government cannot questionably violate the fourth amendment (depending on whether we consider meta-data the "papers, and effects" described in the fourth amendment)

Smartphones and email didn't exist when the Constitution was written, which is why they have more room to maneuver. It's not like Thomas Jefferson wrote a thesis on phone record data mining, so it's up to people's interpretation whether that's kosher or not. If NSA agents are doing the interpreting, their opinions may differ from yours or mine.

I would argue whether a government has a right to keep that information classified as "secret" to begin with, since we are actually talking about the basic function of a government agency and not specific details that would honestly threaten national security -- it would be akin to charging somebody for espionage for revealing that the Patriot Act allows the government (with a warrant) to collect information on U.S. citizens using wire taps, if necessary.

Depends. Police in a stakeout of suspected drug dealers are under no obligation whatsoever to reveal they are police or explain what they're doing (and doing so could be counterproductive, so they actually have an incentive not to). The NSA might be able to justify itself under similar terms: by revealing a subtle method of collecting evidence, he has essentially "tipped off" any domestic terrorists that the NSA was watching them. I'm not saying I agree with this line of thinking or even that this is a strong case, but it is one approach the feds could take.

Does it really count though if the interpretation of the acts being utilized are kept secret from the public and, more important in this case, our own lawmakers?

I'm not familiar with any obligation to disclose things like that unless Congress makes an inquiry or Supreme Court gets involved. I could be wrong though.

the FISA Act specifically made it so that the NSA was required to collect a warrant to observe the content of a message when one of the parties that they were snooping on was a U.S. citizen (or a naturalized person, IIRC)

You might want to look at the 2008 Amendments to the 1978 FISA. The requirements for data collection without warrants have been...relaxed a little since then.

[Lord Raven]

The NSA is saying they need everybody's information so that whenever a terrorist pings up in the system, they can search the database and look up all calls between the terrorist and anybody in the U.S. In short, they can skirt the fourth amendment without needing a warrant.

So you're arguing this NSA thing on principle, since the only thing that really answered my question was the last sentence? My problem is that the requirements for being suspected for terrorism is like 51%; if that were fixed then I would have no problem with this wiretapping because there's no way in hell they will go through all this data on the internet, phone, and etc and spy on every single person in the united states individually. As far as I understand this whole thing is just data collection

At any rate, I find it funny that the people who bring up 911 every chance they get are the ones that are especially zealous about the PRISM debacle -_-

[Constable Reggie]

I'm not familiar with any obligation to disclose things like that unless Congress makes an inquiry or Supreme Court gets involved. I could be wrong though.

They're obligated under law to release that information under the FOIA. How is it that an interpretation of a law can be considered classified due to national security reasons?

Also, you'd think that the lawmakers who made the laws in the first place should know how the law is being used. Kind of a common sense thing, but apparently common sense and reason don't apply to the government's actions.

That's the problem: it is being used as intended. It allows the government to exercise authority not explicitly stated in the Constitution. I suspect it was written because of the Articles of Confederation.

It allows them to exercise the authority specifically granted to them by the Legislative; not allow them to secretly abuse it and refuse to explain how they're using it due to "national security" reasons.

Also, here's a video I found to be quite intriguing:

Edited June 23, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Phoenix Wright]

In the future, given our current path, I find it extremely difficult to believe we'll have much of any real privacy. Now, I don't embrace surveillance, but I'm confident that those with the ability to spy on me don't give a fuck about me in particular--making it so I don't have anything to worry about. There's simply too many of us.

Now, what I disagree with on a fundamental is the lie that this surveillance is going to offer us security. Bullshit. You all know the classic Franklin quote that belongs here.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[dondon151]

It means the government does whatever it wants. Even if it doesn't affect most of you, it's still outrageous. At least in my point of view.

yeah, and as long as it doesn't affect me, then i don't give a damn

you're acting so bewildered as to why people can willingly tolerate human rights violations. sometimes it's because they can't protest; other times it's because they just don't care. y'all are just going to find some other scandal to get your panties in a bunch about and move on, and your daily lives will go on as if nothing has changed. please.

Edited June 24, 2013 by dondon151

[shadykid]

yeah, and as long as it doesn't affect me, then i don't give a damn

you're acting so bewildered as to why people can willingly tolerate human rights violations. sometimes it's because they can't protest; other times it's because they just don't care. y'all are just going to find some other scandal to get your panties in a bunch about and move on, and your daily lives will go on as if nothing has changed. please.

ouch

he's right about that part, people will pretend to be outraged then move on to the next "scandal"

[Constable Reggie]

yeah, and as long as it doesn't affect me, then i don't give a damn

you're acting so bewildered as to why people can willingly tolerate human rights violations. sometimes it's because they can't protest; other times it's because they just don't care. y'all are just going to find some other scandal to get your panties in a bunch about and move on, and your daily lives will go on as if nothing has changed. please.

Here's an interesting article regarding the "well I've got nothing to hide, so it won't affect me" mentality surrounding the NSA stuff. So unlike say, the Benghazi scandal, this kind of thing, whether directly or indirectly, affects everyone. This isn't something that just comes and goes like a regular scandal, the surveillance will continue to go on unless it gets changed.

[dondon151]

the article misses the point that just because the government can dig up something about you doesn't mean that it will

i'm not saying that citizens should eschew principle if it doesn't affect them. of course one should feel angry, or at least mildly displeased, that the government has been somewhat duplicitous in this matter (though, really, the government is duplicitous in everything). but i'm not going to waste my time caring about this because hardly any people have been adversely affected through this data mining.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

You say that as if the US government has never done anything like that before. May I refer you to the Japanese internment camps during WWII, where Japanese Americans had their property, businesses, and personal artifacts taken from them for no other reason that for being of Japanese descent? If we go back further, we can also look at the Sedition Act of 1918 which was, in general terms, the Patriot Act before there was a Patriot Act. So yeah, by "my logic," the government can step on any rights they feel necessary to keep things running smoothly and justify it by claiming it's a matter of national security or some other function essential to preserving US interests.

Oh no, I know that it has. As I stated, "The Necessary and Proper Clause seems to be used when no other logical reasoning exists for the government to legally perform an action -- usually with particularly stupid policies like price controls." What you cited were simply more examples of what I meant.

That's the problem: it is being used as intended. It allows the government to exercise authority not explicitly stated in the Constitution. I suspect it was written because of the Articles of Confederation. This precursor to the Constitution was very restrictive in what the Feds could do. This clause basically gave them the federal government the power to "do what needs to be done" to keep the US afloat as a country and political entity.

But this is where we disagree -- it is being interpreted FAR more liberally than its intended purpose. It was indeed a response to the Articles of Confederation, but it can just as easily be read as "state law cannot interfere with the federal government performing those tasks it is expressly obligated to do under the Constitution" and not "I can do whatever the hell I want to because I say it needs to be done for national interest." I heard the original version of this clause had the word "expressly" in it (which was either accidentally or intentionally removed, we'll never know), meaning that at least the original intent of this clause was the former interpretation, not the latter.

The clause needs to be re-evaluated.

Smartphones and email didn't exist when the Constitution was written, which is why they have more room to maneuver. It's not like Thomas Jefferson wrote a thesis on phone record data mining, so it's up to people's interpretation whether that's kosher or not. If NSA agents are doing the interpreting, their opinions may differ from yours or mine.

I actually thought about this. In Jefferson's time, in most cases, both the details of a conversation and its content were inextricably linked -- that is, if you were spying on somebody, you wouldn't know, say, when and where a conversation took place, but not know what they were saying. Today, they CAN be separated -- you can know somebody called, but not necessarily what they said.

I guess a good parallel to Jefferson's time would be snail mail. Say every time you tried to mail a letter, somebody from the NSA snatched it, recorded your name, the name and address on the envelope, when you sent it, and how much you paid for postage, and then proceeded to put it in the slot. Are you saying people wouldn't be calling that a violation of the fourth amendment?

Depends. Police in a stakeout of suspected drug dealers are under no obligation whatsoever to reveal they are police or explain what they're doing (and doing so could be counterproductive, so they actually have an incentive not to). The NSA might be able to justify itself under similar terms: by revealing a subtle method of collecting evidence, he has essentially "tipped off" any domestic terrorists that the NSA was watching them. I'm not saying I agree with this line of thinking or even that this is a strong case, but it is one approach the feds could take.

Against such a case, I would argue that people know in general that police have the right to stake out a suspect, even if they don't know who those suspects are. Likewise, people knowing in general that the NSA is reserving the right to survey phone calls would be distinct from, say, informing terrorist X that the U.S. government is on to them.

You might want to look at the 2008 Amendments to the 1978 FISA. The requirements for data collection without warrants have been...relaxed a little since then.

Oh, I know. I particularly love where the FISA court made it so that agents can utilize "accidentally uncovered" data (and I think even use it as evidence). Oops, I just "accidentally" grabbed all of your personal data. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's constitutional.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Kngt_Of_Titania