Apple, Tim Cook and Others Sued Over Alleged NSA/PRISM Privacy Violations

[ThunderSkunk]

So in other words, you choose paranoia over precaution?

So do you. Do we put a breathalyzer on every freeway on-ramp or on every cars ignition? Do we have mandatory 5 point harnesses instead of seatbelts because they're safer? Do we require every car to have a cellphone jammer on while it's running because talking/texting/etc is more dangerous than driving drunk? Do we have random checkpoints and conduct random searches and demand to see your papers to run your records and look for anything suspicious? Those actions would protect millions more lives than antiterrorism efforts every year. Hell we can't even pass laws these days so much as mentioning keeping a list of who we let run amok with deadly weapons. Why? Because those would be egregious breaches into our individual freedom, protected by the constitution. If you're going to trash the constitution, then amend it the way it's supposed to be amended.

Having all ALL your data monitored for suspicious activity here treats you like a perpetual suspect, not a citizen: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

Security and Freedom are inversely proportional. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. Always has been, hence the huge array of warnings from the people who started this country, who learned this lesson the hard way.

The current and previous administrations should be tried for treason.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

If the NSA is doing what is being alleged, it is in fact blatantly and indisputably unconstitutional.

Which aspect of the constitution is being breached? 4th amendment?

 

[unplugme71]

Sometimes I wish I was a lawyer. I could make so much money from this.

 

[mrxak]

to be sued, you have to break a law
which law was broken? not like the NSA did this on their own. where did they get the money?

Anyone can sue anyone for any reason at all. Surviving summary judgement is another matter.

----------

I'm not sure these companies were actually aware of how this information is obtained. 4 years ago I saw a documentary on cable (can't remember what station, History Channel? Discovery Channel?) about a government program that taps the fiber lines coming into and out of the country. All data is fed through a government computer and is filtered including phone calls. The filter uses key words to narrow down its search. The computer has voice recognition where it takes wavelengths from phone calls and matches the voice to a database.

Needless to say I can't find any information about it anymore.

It's called ECHELON, and there's plenty of information about it on the internet. Realistically, though, it's been upgraded or replaced with more advanced programs with new names. PRISM may be one of those new names, or just the name of one part of it.

 

[mrxak]

:::::Applauds:::::

In fact, all those companies that complied should have immediately alerted us to what the government asked them to do. No more of this, in secret, violation of our constitution BS! (Democrats or Republicans alike).

These companies are really the only ones with the money and lawyers to fight the government. They have the potential to be our biggest allies against an overreaching government. If these companies had violated their gag orders and immediately alerted the general public about what is going on, they could have dragged things out for many years in court when the government tried to smack them down, and meanwhile public opinion would be turned in the companies' favor.

The fact that they'd simply roll over is quite disturbing. My guess is they don't see the long-term financial upside, and are too focused on short-term losses from a nasty court battle. We, their customers, should make sure that companies know we'll reward them for protecting us.

 

[chaosbunny]

Good thing. These criminals belong to jail. Many politicians swear an oath to the constitution, but violate it wherever possible.

It doesn't matter if you have something to hide or not - no surveillance of innocent people, innocent until proven guilty are an important fundament of democracy. Whoever violates this needs to be put out of office and to court.

 

[mrxak]

The NSA doesn't care about petty crimes. They don't care what you had to eat. They don't care what movie you're planning to go see. Their only function is national security so unless you're a terrorist, what they do and how they do it as no real effect on your life, other than perhaps to protect it from the radical elements that would like to destroy your freedoms, rather than uphold them.

No. The NSA as a bureaucratic entity doesn't care about anything you mentioned. The NSA doesn't care about petty crimes, sexual perversions, or national security. It only cares that its funding is increased each year, not decreased, that its responsibilities increase each year, not decrease. That is what a bureaucracy is, a creature always hungry for more power, more control. Every government agency you care to name is the exact same way. I guarantee you that the United States Department of Agriculture would jump at the chance to bug every American citizen, if they could figure out a way to get funding for it. After all, that kind of information flow, that kind of power, would allow them to determine more precisely what sorts of policies need to be implemented at our farms and ranches. It could figure out exactly what people like to eat, how much they're eating, etc.

Recognizing that all bureaucracies exist only to expand their own power over the world, all it really comes down to is how that power is used. The Department of Agriculture can do its job more effectively by installing cameras in every home aimed at dining room tables and kitchen counters, wiretapping the phones in every grocery store, and flying remote controlled drones over every farmer's market. That power can be used to improve nutrition, health, and the efficiency of our nation's agricultural supply chains. That power can also be used to see who's having sex in their kitchens, and what kind.

The question shouldn't be what the intention of power is, but how power can be abused. I don't care that the NSA's intention is to protect national security. I care that there are individuals working at the NSA, and individuals can be corrupt. What power would you give a stranger over you? Would you give them absolute power over your life, or would you prefer that some power be inaccessible to anyone? Maybe some strangers are more trustworthy than others. Maybe some strangers aren't strangers at all. But you have to assume the worst possible person will eventually have that power, if you create it, and allow it to exist. Many people working at the NSA are probably very interested in national security. Many government workers and leaders who use the capabilities of the NSA, are probably very interested in national security. But, inevitably, some have other interests.

This is not a partisan issue. Arguments over which party started it, or which politician is in charge of it now, are entirely irrelevant and only serve to prevent a unified resistance. The people in charge, holding the reigns, are all temporary. Even if we had a benevolent dictator for life, who behaved like an absolute saint, and made the world better for everyone, eventually they would die, and you need to worry about who will have the power next. That's what this is about. It doesn't matter what the NSA's intentions are, or even how they're using this power today. What happens in the next administration? What happens twenty years from now? What happens in a hundred? We have seen fascists elected democratically. We have seen nations, in times of great trouble, willingly hand over power to monsters.

Our constitution was meant to create a system that would not be abused, where power was distributed as much as possible to prevent a single bad actor to ruin things for everyone. It's why we have three branches of government checking each other's power. It's why the most power was reserved for the States, not the Federal government, and why the people were given the right to assemble, speak their minds, and bear arms. We've turned away from that in recent decades. We've made the Executive more and more powerful. Wars are declared by Presidents now, instead of Congress. We've created powerful Executive agencies that have massive reach into our lives at every level. This isn't about Obama having too much power, or Bush. This is about anybody having too much power. Who will sit in the Oval Office next? Who will sit in it five hundred years from now? We cannot know, and so we must assume the worst.

Some sorts of power are simply too dangerous to exist at all. I'd say mind control is top of the list, and a massive surveillance state invading everyone's privacy only serves to create thoughtcrime, and the suppression of free thought and expression. Bureaucracies will always seek to acquire as much power as possible. It's up to us to make sure that drive is reigned in. Any agency mandate can be taken to extremes.

 

[chaosbunny]

While I am not "happy" about the NSA monitoring all communications, I think one has to consider the alternative that could happen if we fail to protect this country from more Radical Islamic attacks in the long run. Radical Islam doesn't respect your freedom of speech, your freedom of thought, your freedom of anything for that matter. It expects you to obey hardline Islamic teachings or else. And while there very well may be a lot more peaceful Muslims than radical right-wing fundamentalists, they don't seem to stand up against the radical elements very often (i.e. a desire for peace doesn't overcome violence too often in this world even when it outnumbers it or small numbers of people or even individuals like Hitler couldn't have done or do the damage they do. Might may not make right, but it makes real world problems all too often).

The NSA doesn't care about petty crimes. They don't care what you had to eat. They don't care what movie you're planning to go see. Their only function is national security so unless you're a terrorist, what they do and how they do it as no real effect on your life, other than perhaps to protect it from the radical elements that would like to destroy your freedoms, rather than uphold them. All I know is that one more major terrorist attack and the attitudes screaming about violation of their right to privacy would die down instantly out of sheer fear. And you should be afraid of those groups because they don't listen to their governments. They ARE their governments in the case of many of these Middle Eastern countries. And all those people in places like Egypt that just hated their dictator run (yet mostly secular) governments, are now going to get a taste of what it's like to have NO freedoms what-so-ever or protections.

Be careful what you wish for. All those people we sent to Iraq to die in order to oust Saddam Hussein (whether or not that was the real reason for doing it doesn't really change things at this point) could find their deaths in vain if radicals take over the country in the long run. Saddam may have been an evil tyrant, but there's a difference between selfish psychopathic behavior and the lunatic fringe that think their god ordered them to kill everyone because some cleric (that is just another dictator in disguise) told them so.

All this left/right in-fighting in this country is only making it that much easier for more radical elements to get a hold here. It may start with smaller groups like the tea party that have at least some legitimate concerns, but IMO think the answer is revolution or voting to do nothing all day long, but the bigger the divides, the easier for more and more radical groups to gain followers, particularly when the large groups spread so much BS lies and propaganda nonsense (like has been done with Obama's country of origin, etc.) that ordinary people lose all their common sense and get all angry and crazy over LIES. These types are then ready to believe just about anything and that is dangerous.

My case in point are the very lawsuits mentioned in this thread. What good does it do to sue Apple or Verizon or any other private company that is simply complying with U.S. law??? (i.e. The Patriot Act gives the NSA all the authority it needs). If these groups want to change that law, start a campaign to repeal it, but SUING is just another way to hand your money over to a bunch of lawyers that will gladly take any case (even one that is guaranteed to lose) so long as you pay them enough money. It's ridiculous and it's barking up the wrong tree (i.e. it won't change the law that allows it in the first place).

Frankly, I think I sleep better at night knowing these guys are actively trying to find terrorists and stop them BEFORE they attack. Waiting until afterwards doesn't do the people that died one bit of good and yet that's what it apparently takes in this country to get people's attention that hey, it's better to PREVENT an attack than suffer one and try to get revenge for it (Iraq) as revenge cycles tend to continue on forever and the very people we want to not hate us tend to hate us that much more and listen to radical elements they might not otherwise have listened to.

Now I might agree that there should be some oversight to these sorts of government operations. I don't think the NSA should be able to just lie to Congress as has been claimed. With all the myths surrounding things like Roswell, it's obvious that they can and do lie to protect whatever the real truth is through dis-information. A simple acknowledgement of this sort of behavior would go a long way, IMO. Yes, we do use dis-information to protect national security is better than telling everyone Area 51 doesn't exist when it clearly does.

But the idea of stopping monitoring potential links to potential terrorism is a bad idea. Having dis-interested people monitor for terrorism is no different than the TSA using a metal detector or body scanner to looks for potential weapons being brought on board a plane. Yeah, it's annoying (and I don't like the idea of x-rays being used on a regular basis), but frankly, no terrorist is going to TELL the airport he's got a weapon on him. Would you rather be inconvenienced a little or would you rather be dead when the bad guy blows up the plane because they thought frisking him might violate his right to absolute freedom? I guess people are going to have to decide which one is more important to them in the long run because I don't see these radical groups being wiped off the face of the earth any time soon. It's just not realistic.

Very well, but it's been proven that the CIA funded Al Kaida and is funding radical islamic groups. You are missing this critical part. Parts of the government are funding the threats and then they claim we need the TSA, the Patriot Act and more surveillance of everybody to fight it. And even if you ignore this, all the surveillance already installed doesn't seem to help that much. The answer from the government is always well then we need even more surveillance, and more, and more, and more, just srew basic human rights in the name of "security". When does that stop?

And even if the current government doesn't abuse its new rights & laws, it will never give them away again either. Who knows who will be in power in 5, 10, 20 years? If the infrastructure is there it's easy to abuse it.

And finally I think you can sleep well at night, since you are more likely to die from a bee sting than from a terrorist attack.

 

[jnasato]

Glad this was posted about on MacRumors. Such issues should really be discussed on all forums at this time- needs attention!- because eventually, these types of threads can open eyes for those who weren't aware of how serious such Constitutional violations actually are. The USA has been screwed for maaany decades, and it's about time the majority of Americans learn of the deeper intentions of central government.

It is important that the citizens of the USA put ALL DIFFERENCES ASIDE, in order to join forces in upholding the foundations of their great nation. Granted, full integrity at all aspects of operation never really exist in any country to execute its idealistic visions of social functioning, but the Constitution was written with amazing foresight by the founding fathers to protect US citizens from great harms possible without such rights. Letting rights slip away in exchange for superficial promises of safety (well, comfort), allows for rapid gaining of power by central government. If such power were not to be abused, such power acquisition would not be necessary.

 

[VulchR]

I do not recall anybody from the FBI or NSA ever asking me whether I would rather risk injury or death from a terrorist attack than surrender my civil liberties. If they did I would point out that more people are killed or maimed by cars, alcohol, cigarettes, and junk food. I would point out that there have been two horrendous attacks in recent memory that they did not catch, and that a terrorist would be pretty stupid to use the internet (so stupid and incompetent in fact, that they would probably get caught anyway). I'd also point out that we ask soldiers, police officers, and agents to risk their lives in the name of freedom, so why shouldn't civilians do the same?

I do not mind if the government eavesdrops on specific suspects because they have specific information. I do object that they would log everything I do on the internet, including making this post. I would rather my internet use be private, even if this entails a small risk of terrorism....

 

[orthorim]

If you want to change policy, you sue the government. If you want cash, you sue Apple. Unless I'm mistaken, the other companies have no choice but to comply with federal law.

You couldn't be more wrong.

It's very important to file these class action suits against corporate collaborators because that is the only incentive these corporations have to try and resist government requests and government pressure.

If the NSA asks Google to install a surveillance device on its servers, they'll cite some dubious law - the Patriot act or any number of follow up laws that erode civil liberties.

If Google wanted, they could at this point hand the issue over to the lawyers, which could then employ any number of delaying strategies, which could challenge these deeply unconstitutional laws in the proper courts, and make it generally very hard for government agencies to get at its data. They could also simply refuse to give up anything unless there is a court order for a specific piece of data, or user.

Now why didn't Google do this? Why did they just roll over and hand over everything? Because they have nothing to gain from resistance. They can tell their users "well it's the law, right, what are we going to do?", shift the blame to those bad laws, and call it a day.

I think these companies should be held responsible for for unconstitutional behavior. That's the only way they'll put up resistance.

PS: Just using Google as an example; I think all the involved companies have now issued new statements but I have questioned Google practices in the past because just like facebook and Microsoft, they don't ask for court orders. Apple at least requires court orders.

To me this makes all the difference in the world. If the executive can just go around and listen in on anything and anyone, we have an orwellian police state. Nothing but a banana republic. Separation of judiciary and executive is one of the cornerstones of democracy. Remove that and you remove democracy.

 

[Porco]

My initial reaction was that Google, Apple, etc were just using carefully crafted weasel-words to deny something specific without revealing the real spirit of the truth.

However, after watching/listening to the latest episode of Security Now (episode 408), I think the co-host there, Steve Gibson, offers a reasonably compelling theory as to what Prism is, and how it works, and offering a good account of how this could have been going on without the knowledge, or at very least without the complicity of the companies said to be involved.

His argument is that basically the NSA are likely to have been cloning all traffic upstream of the companies at the routers nearest to them, without actually being inside the companies' private networks themselves. This theory seems to fit the facts we know pretty well, and taking a clue off the name 'Prism' would seem to fit also. It would give the NSA what they might describe as 'direct access' without the companies involved, from their point of view, ever giving 'direct access'.

The episode is available in both video and audio versions, and I think well-worth watching or listening to if you are interested in this issue. As everyone should be, IMHO.

http://twit.tv/show/security-now/408

Personally, I find the whole Prism/surveillance thing disgusting. I don't think a law suit will totally solve much, but it might put more pressure on the truth being revealed, and if it keeps the issue in the news, all the better. I understand governments' need for intelligence, but I think the balance between privacy and intelligence gathering is way too far out of whack, and has been since 2001 (for obvious reasons). I'm not just talking about the US either, I think 'my' government in the UK is just as bad. I don't want to live in a panopticon. Life is full of risk, but if you abandon privacy and freedom, and absolve those in power of proper accountability and oversight it's not a risk of a horrible society, it's a guarantee.

 

[tbrinkma]

So in other words, you choose paranoia over precaution?

No, he chose rational precautions over paranoia.

If the government doesn't have rational cause to believe *I* am involved in some *specific* crime, it has no business monitoring me.

The odds I'll get in an automobile accident tomorrow are pretty darn slim, but I still wear my seat-belt just in case. And in fact, on two occasions in a quarter century, that practice probably saved my life.

That's a rational precaution. A paranoid reaction would be to have a government agent buckle you in, and ride along to make sure you don't do anything dangerous all day. I don't see you arguing that we should have to put up with *that*, why are you arguing that we should have to put up with being monitored without cause?

Frankly, it's hard to tell how many more terrorist incidents we my have had since 2001 if we had not ramped up security and monitoring. Your "slim" odds may be very well be slim in the first place because of the precautions taken. There are people that choose to not wear their seat-belts and I read in the newspaper all the time of them going through windshields and dying. It can and does happen to someone sooner or later if precautions are thrown to the wind. I'm sure many people used to think the same about condoms at one point until diseases like AIDS became so prevalent and commonplace that people started to take the risks seriously.

Right. We *don't* know how many terrorist incidents we may have had since 2001. Here's the thing. The best way the government could demonstrate that those extra precautions have been useful would be to publicly prosecute people who were caught as a result of those precautions. They haven't done so.

Absent evidence of effect, the only rational response is to assume no effect. To do otherwise is to place unfounded trust in a 'tiger repelling rock'.

 

[GadgetDon]

These companies are really the only ones with the money and lawyers to fight the government. They have the potential to be our biggest allies against an overreaching government. If these companies had violated their gag orders and immediately alerted the general public about what is going on, they could have dragged things out for many years in court when the government tried to smack them down, and meanwhile public opinion would be turned in the companies' favor.

The fact that they'd simply roll over is quite disturbing. My guess is they don't see the long-term financial upside, and are too focused on short-term losses from a nasty court battle. We, their customers, should make sure that companies know we'll reward them for protecting us.

You can fight the government if you think these are gray areas in the law, that a court will rule for you that the government was overstepping its bounds.

The FISA warrants, as terrible and easy to abuse as they are, HAVE been fought in the courts. And to date, as far as I know, in every case the courts have ruled that it's legal and companies must comply with them. So (presuming this is the handling of FISA warrants) they could comply with these legal orders or they could defy them, get fined, and eventually have to comply with them.

Again, I'm not saying this is in any way good policy. It's terrible policy. The fact that it not only got passed but got renewed is incredible to me. I can understand the shock and panic after the towers fell leading to really bad law like this (legislators are human like the rest of us) but we've had lots of time to reflect.

But terrible policy doesn't mean it's not the law and not enforceable, and the federal government has shown that it WILL enforce it.

 

[PracticalMac]

Any company which willingly goes along with terrible gov't regulations to build in gaping wide backdoors to everything in the servers, cell phones, devices, that can activate cams, microphones and track GPS by the second deserves to be sued and lose their consumer confidence.

I am happy there are people suing every company involved and the gov't.

For a company to go along with unconstitutional laws, or in some cases FCC regulations, without fighting them, they ought to get hit hard for selling their customers out.

But, but, but,

To even resist the gobmnt program would reveal the existence, thus expose a national secret and be subject to criminal action! (more or less like this)

The roots go very, very deep. Big Bro is watching.

 

[3282868]

I'm probably late on the draw, but did anyone else notice the similarities between "PRISM" and "Prison"?

 

[xVeinx]

You couldn't be more wrong.

It's very important to file these class action suits against corporate collaborators because that is the only incentive these corporations have to try and resist government requests and government pressure.

If the NSA asks Google to install a surveillance device on its servers, they'll cite some dubious law - the Patriot act or any number of follow up laws that erode civil liberties.

If Google wanted, they could at this point hand the issue over to the lawyers, which could then employ any number of delaying strategies, which could challenge these deeply unconstitutional laws in the proper courts, and make it generally very hard for government agencies to get at its data. They could also simply refuse to give up anything unless there is a court order for a specific piece of data, or user.

Now why didn't Google do this? Why did they just roll over and hand over everything? Because they have nothing to gain from resistance. They can tell their users "well it's the law, right, what are we going to do?", shift the blame to those bad laws, and call it a day.

I think these companies should be held responsible for for unconstitutional behavior. That's the only way they'll put up resistance.

PS: Just using Google as an example; I think all the involved companies have now issued new statements but I have questioned Google practices in the past because just like facebook and Microsoft, they don't ask for court orders. Apple at least requires court orders.

To me this makes all the difference in the world. If the executive can just go around and listen in on anything and anyone, we have an orwellian police state. Nothing but a banana republic. Separation of judiciary and executive is one of the cornerstones of democracy. Remove that and you remove democracy.

A few points:
1. We don't have any reason to believe they didn't (or that they did) stall. We just don't know.
2. They could drag this out into the open to great fanfare and become "defenders of the people," yet the retaliation could cost their respective companies billions of dollars, entire markets, etc. No one is going to stick up for them, not even the people.
3. What is and is not "constitutional" is increasingly left open to discussion, though no company employs experts in that arena. Since we seem to happily ignore any historical and other context for the constitution these days, it's interpretation becomes moldable to whatever is in vogue.
4. Frankly, this entire Security versus Privacy debate has good arguments on both sides, and its quite possible that Google and others felt that PRISM wasn't overreaching. Google doesn't see privacy in the same way you do. They record everything anyway and use it for their own research; handing some of the information off to the government for a specific purpose (preventing terrorism apparently) isn't so unreasonable...

 

[objc]

Which aspect of the constitution is being breached? 4th amendment?

Yes. The 4th is a limit on searches and seizures and requires specificity in what is to be searched or seized.

The issue here is that vacuuming up and storing all Internet traffic is clearly in violation of this clause. I suspect they are splitting hairs right now and saying if they don't look at it, it's not a "search". I am sure the authors of the 4th amendment would be mad as hell if they heard that excuse. General warrants were a huge issue for the Americans who fought against England in the American Revolution, because supposedly the British would simply come through everyone's house with a general warrant and look through everything.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Yes. The 4th is a limit on searches and seizures and requires specificity in what is to be searched or seized.

The issue here is that vacuuming up and storing all Internet traffic is clearly in violation of this clause.

This is a load of bologna. Here's the 4th Amendment word for word:

The 4th Amendment:

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.

This Amendment is not talking about Phone calls, the Internet or even your mail when it leaves your house. You have no "reasonable" expectation of privacy once you or your messages leave your house. Such things never existed back then and are therefore not being referenced. If you want a modern Amendment dealing with information technology over things like cell networks, wireless transmissions and the Internet, I suggest you get a new Amendment passed. This one is about actual physical searches of your home, not the government scanning records stored at the phone company (who owns the information therein, not you).

The problem is people want things in the Constitution to mean something they DO NOT SAY and they interpret it for us all and exclaim how it "obviously means this or that" and it's a bunch of crap. The Patriot Act, by comparison gives clear and obvious powers to the government to maintain the country's safety. If you don't like the law, then change it. But until it's been declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the land, it's 100% legal and the very people YOU voted to represent you in government PASSED that legislation legally and via our Constitutions provisions. I see a bunch of whiners on here that can't deal with the fact they live in a representative democracy and that they personally don't get to decide what the government does on a day-by-day basis. Frankly, if you hate this country so much, then go live somewhere else! You are in for a RUDE AWAKENING in other countries and will quickly wish you were living here once again. The taxes alone in a country like Canada even (and they're probably more like us than any other country on earth) would scare the crap out of you.

I suspect they are splitting hairs right now and saying if they don't look at it, it's not a "search". I am sure the authors of the 4th amendment would be mad as hell if they heard that excuse. General warrants were a huge issue for the Americans who fought against England in the American Revolution, because supposedly the British would simply come through everyone's house with a general warrant and look through everything.

I don't think you have a CLUE what the authors would think, particularly if they knew the modern day dangers we face in the form of Radical Islam. In the face of the potential destruction of all Western Civilization (their goal), a simple phone record comparison against known foreign terrorists is hardly "unreasonable". They aren't taking these records from your house. Those records DON'T EVEN BELONG TO YOU. That's why they are getting them from companies like Google and Apple. Those companies are the owners of those records, NOT YOU. The day you decided to use their services you agreed to their terms, which they are allowed to change at any time. But I don't hear people crying about the companies involved here, just the government, the same government that is ensuring those companies can exist in the first place rather than be burned down as the Islamic radicals like to do to anything they consider Western or against their religion. The word is they would destroy the pyramids in Egypt if they easily could as they consider them pagan symbols of excess.

Frankly, if you aren't willing to fight or sacrifice for security and safety of this country, you don't deserve to live here. Freedom isn't free.

It is the lack of shared information that caused the tragedy of 9/11 and some of you would clearly rather repeat it than have some computer scan phone records for matches to terrorists. Yeah, as long as it doesn't happen to ME.... Hey, New York is just a bunch of liberal socialists anyway! Screw them, right?

So do you. Do we put a breathalyzer on every freeway on-ramp or on every cars ignition? Do we have mandatory 5 point harnesses instead of seatbelts because they're safer?

In personal opinion, seat belt laws are common sense items that only stupid people don't use in the first place and frankly, I think if a person is stupid enough to not wear their seat belt, they DESERVE what they have inevitably coming to them. I've been in two accidents caused by someone else (drunk driver and a lady that was falling asleep and ran a red light doing over 70mph) and frankly, I was GLAD I had my seatbelt on. Now if YOU don't want to wear a seatbelt, I wouldn't make you, but I think the law should read that if I wreck into you and I'm not drunk (i.e. a real accident) that I cannot be held even slightly responsible for anything that happens to you because you weren't wearing your seatbelt and that means you CHOSE TO DIE on the road because that is exactly what not wearing one is choosing to do. Is that "freedom" of not wearing a belt worth dying over? That would be up to you to decide, but by you choosing not to use it means you've forfeited any rights to sue in turn by your own bad decision which IMO is tantamount to suicide.

Do we require every car to have a cellphone jammer on while it's running because talking/texting/etc is more dangerous than driving drunk? Do we

Once again, if I lived in a reasonable world where people behaved in reasonable and responsible manners, I wouldn't feel any such law would be needed as people wouldn't do such flipping STUPID things. But given the fact I personally see DOZENS of people each and every day using cell phones and texting on the road, I feel such a law might very well be a necessary evil because my life (which is one the line when someone isn't paying attention to the road) is more important than your right to text someone on the freaking road while driving!

Similarly, YOU might not want the NSA scanning YOUR phone records and frankly, I'm sure the terrorists out there don't want THEIR records scanned either. But my right to live in safety in this country is more important than your right to not feel utterly paranoid that the government is out to get you.

have random checkpoints and conduct random searches and demand to see your papers to run your records and look for anything suspicious? Those

I don't know about YOU, but I have NOTHING to hide in that regard. And I have no problem with the NSA scanning my phone records SINCE I DON'T CALL TERRORISTS.

Security and Freedom are inversely proportional. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. Always has been, hence the huge array of warnings from the people who started this country, who learned this lesson the hard way.

WTF are you talking about? Taxation without representation and the idea of being ruled by hereditary monarchy from across the Pond were the primary motivators for the War of Independence. As for freedom, I choose to be free of Radical Islam and few things are too "unreasonable" to prevent those barbarians from taking over the planet. And while they may not seem like an imminent threat in the short term, I would want my grandchildren to have the secular freedoms to choose their own religions and beliefs and make their own choices and THAT is what the enemy seeks to destroy. Having some computer scan phone records for possible terrorist connections doesn't threaten or change my lifestyle one bit. In fact, it doesn't affect me AT ALL and seeing as I have nothing to hide, it never will.

Very well, but it's been proven that the CIA funded Al Kaida and is funding radical islamic groups. You are missing this critical part.

The U.S. has made missteps in the Middle East before. The problem is we need stable governments that aren't trying to destroy us and when you have to pick between a dictator that is evil (e.g. Saddam Hussein) and letting the country potentially fall to Radical Muslims (like seems to be happening in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood taking over), sometimes it's a choice between the lesser of two evils and it's not easy to see the future. That does NOT, however, mean that the CIA or U.S. government in general is trying to support radical groups as you seem to suggest. It means The Middle East is screwed up and yet the West needs oil so.... It's a screwed up situation.

 

[localoid]

This is a load of bologna. Here's the 4th Amendment word for word:

This Amendment is not talking about Phone calls, the Internet or even your mail when it leaves your house. You have no "reasonable" expectation of privacy once you or your messages leave your house. ...

Cornell University Law School's overview of electronic surveillance states otherwise...

See also: Appeals Court Holds that Email Privacy Protected by Fourth Amendment (2010)

... the Court held today,

Given the fundamental similarities between email and traditional forms of communication [like postal mail and telephone calls], it would defy common sense to afford emails lesser Fourth Amendment protection.... It follows that email requires strong protection under the Fourth Amendment; otherwise the Fourth Amendment would prove an ineffective guardian of private communication, an essential purpose it has long been recognized to serve.... [T]he police may not storm the post office and intercept a letter, and they are likewise forbidden from using the phone system to make a clandestine recording of a telephone call--unless they get a warrant, that is. It only stands to reason that, if government agents compel an ISP to surrender the contents of a subscriber's emails, those agents have thereby conducted a Fourth Amendment search, which necessitates compliance with the warrant requirement....

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Cornell University Law School's overview of electronic surveillance states otherwise...

See also: Appeals Court Holds that Email Privacy Protected by Fourth Amendment (2010)

What does a wiretap have to do with mere phone records of calls placed to another phone? As near as I can tell, the former is listening to personal phone conversations and the latter is a list of phone calls made to other numbers. If you drive to McDonalds on public roads, is it illegal for your neighbor to follow you there?

 

[Tech198]

Thats pretty big.. even the NSA...

 

[localoid]

What does a wiretap have to do with mere phone records of calls placed to another phone? As near as I can tell, the former is listening to personal phone conversations and the latter is a list of phone calls made to other numbers. If you drive to McDonalds on public roads, is it illegal for your neighbor to follow you there?

The ACLU has about 6 pages worth of links to articles regarding the legal issues involved with the "mass surveillance" of citizens by the government. In general, the ACLU appears to strongly disagree with your premise.

But if you don't want to read all 60 or so articles you could of course read just the article about ACLU recently filed a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of NSA's phone spying program, since it specifically address the subject of which you spoke.

The specifics are outlined in more detail in the complaint, but here's the jest of it:

The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a constitutional challenge to a surveillance program under which the National Security Agency vacuums up information about every phone call placed within, from, or to the United States. The lawsuit argues that the program violates the First Amendment rights of free speech and association as well as the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The complaint also charges that the dragnet program exceeds the authority that Congress provided through the Patriot Act.

 

[objc]

This Amendment is not talking about Phone calls, the Internet or even your mail when it leaves your house. You have no "reasonable" expectation of privacy once you or your messages leave your house. Such things never existed back then and are therefore not being referenced. If you want a modern Amendment dealing with information technology over things like cell networks, wireless transmissions and the Internet, I suggest you get a new Amendment passed. This one is about actual physical searches of your home, not the government scanning records stored at the phone company (who owns the information therein, not you).

Really? So that means that, for example, if I have a storage unit that I rent, the government can search it at any time WITHOUT a warrant based on probable cause, because it's outside my house, right? And even if I put a lock on it, I don't have any expectation of privacy right? What if I rent my house? No expectation of privacy there, since I don't own it. If I'm out driving, they can search my car too, because cars weren't around at the time the 4th was authored. In fact, they can stop me and search my car every day, with no probable cause, right? It's "out of my house".

"Houses, persons, papers and effects". I don't see where that just says houses.

Thank God the courts don't agree with your extreme interpretation of the 4th.

The problem is people want things in the Constitution to mean something they DO NOT SAY and they interpret it for us all and exclaim how it "obviously means this or that" and it's a bunch of crap. The Patriot Act, by comparison gives clear and obvious powers to the government to maintain the country's safety.

Hmm... according to Sen. Wyden from Oregon, the government has a SECRET interpretation of that law that congress never intended. If there's a different, secret interpretation of it, then it must not be so clear and obvious. If it was, there could only be one interpretation of it. And who's doing the secret interpretation of it? You can rest assured it's some political hack lawyer, not me. So don't worry, the "Patriot" act is being interpreted in the broadest possible way.

Frankly, if you hate this country so much, then go live somewhere else! You are in for a RUDE AWAKENING in other countries and will quickly wish you were living here once again.

Is this the go-to phrase now when someone criticizes the government? I thought freedom to criticize the government was about the most American thing there was.

Really, saying someone "hates this country" is intellectually weak.

The taxes alone in a country like Canada even (and they're probably more like us than any other country on earth) would scare the crap out of you.

Hilarious! I have friends in Canada. They have to pay U.S. taxes ON TOP OF Canadian taxes, even though they don't live here, because they were born here. The US is only one of two countries in the world that taxes based on citizenship, not residence. And if I were to sit on my ass collecting money from my mutual funds, and never do any work, my tax rate would actually drop -- for being a lazy bum! I get taxed more on work than I do on passive income from my investments. So don't tell me about how great US tax laws are. Horse *****!

Similarly, YOU might not want the NSA scanning YOUR phone records and frankly, I'm sure the terrorists out there don't want THEIR records scanned either. But my right to live in safety in this country is more important than your right to not feel utterly paranoid that the government is out to get you.

I don't know about YOU, but I have NOTHING to hide in that regard. And I have no problem with the NSA scanning my phone records SINCE I DON'T CALL TERRORISTS.

To imply that I must be a terrorist not to want the government spying on me is so unoriginal. You're damn right I don't want the NSA scanning my phone records. It's because those powers have been abused in the past. Look up the Church Committee proceedings if you want to know what I'm talking about. The truth is, YOU don't know what things this driftnet has been used for. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE! All you have is the word of the lying administration officials, who lied under oath to the Senate.

What you're really saying here is, give up your liberties for the promise of security. If this stuff is actually useful for and is USED for protecting you and me, why were those guys able to bomb the Boston Marathon? I suppose the fact that they were not caught beforehand means we all need to let the NSA put cameras in every room of our homes now?

EVERY TIME someone gets these kinds of powers, they're abused. Look up the Church Committee proceedings if you want to know what I'm talking about. Spying was done on people pushing for political change, like Martin Luther King Jr. It was also used to spy on and disrupt anti-war protestors during the Viet Nam War era. In more recent times, it's been used to spy on and disrupt Occupy Wall St. on behalf of the banks, and has probably been used to spy on the Tea Party groups and Ron Paul supporters. How many people from those groups have bombed something? ZERO. So there is hard evidence that this surveillance is harmful to our freedoms. How much freedom should we give up over fear?

YOU have no right to take away everyone else's freedom because you're scared. You're more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than a terror attack. I therefore assume you don't go outside if it's raining. If you're living in that much fear, perhaps you should seek professional help. (Notice I didn't stoop to the level of telling you to leave the country).

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Really? So that means that, for example, if I have a storage unit that I rent, the government can search it at any time WITHOUT a warrant based on probable cause, because it's outside my house, right? .... It's "out of my house".

"Houses, persons, papers and effects". I don't see where that just says houses.

There were no houses involved that I can see. They did not search your "person" (i.e. you) either. There were no "papers" involved. So right there 3 out of the 4 are just GONE from your argument. Now "effects" could potentially mean your phone records, I suppose (even though phones didn't exist at the time so there's no possible way the people passing that law could MEAN a phone or a phone record or even an e-mail when they wrote that amendment. A court could interpret it that way, but as far as I'm concerned, they could possibly "mean" something that didn't exist to even consider for the Amendment and therefore it cannot possibly infer that. If people want absolute privacy protection in the technological age, a new Amendment should be added guaranteeing freedom from even "unreasonable" searches anywhere, public or private. Ban corporations from data mining while you're at it too. That part would at least get my full support. But like all advertising, they would claim prices would go through the roof.

Thank God the courts don't agree with your extreme interpretation of the 4th.

I'm not aware of the Supreme Court addressing this particular issue at this time.

The thing is with any court or lawyer or interpretation in general is that it will tend to sway with that particular person or group's bias or belief. Getting a truly unbiased interpretation is difficult at best. The Supreme Court often likes to side-step issues like gay marriage, etc. because they don't really want to often make those kind of decisions, particularly when the nation is greatly divided on them. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. This is a democracy, but it's also one that claims to value freedom. And yet throughout its history, it shows that it doesn't value everyone's freedom equally except in words. The 1% issue right now makes that more clear than ever to me.

Hmm... according to Sen. Wyden from Oregon, the government has a SECRET interpretation of that law that congress never intended.

It was no secret to me. I've assumed since the Patriot Act was passed that this thing has been going on. I guess I was right.

Frankly, I think if people had a news story that exposed the sheer scope of spying by someone like Google on its users (even though they make this clear in their agreements, most people don't READ them! Shock Shock!), you'd be hearing similar outrage. People are like lemmings. They'll happily jump off a cliff if they don't understand what's going on just because the person in front of them jumped.

Is this the go-to phrase now when someone criticizes the government? I thought freedom to criticize the government was about the most American thing there was.

Criticize all you want. Does that mean I have to agree with you? I am, after all, ultimately only giving my own opinion on the matter here. I would never try to take away your right disagree. And yet I feel there are a LOT of people that would do that on various issues (e.g. gun control which I'm generally against, BTW except for a criminal background check, which to you might be a privacy violation, but known felons buy guns at gun shows all the time; I see no reason to make it easy for them to get a gun when someone who has nothing to hide has nothing to fear from a background check. You see your right to privacy shouldn't trump every law ever made. Or should security guards not watch customers in banks, even if the vast majority of them aren't there to rob it?)

Really, saying someone "hates this country" is intellectually weak.

That may be your opinion, but it's incredibly naive, IMO. Ever hear the phrase, "Loose lips sink ships?" There's a reason for that phrase. Not everything should be public knowledge nor should everything private be allowed to be hidden (especially if it's a crime). Oh, airports and explosives hidden in shoes come to mind, for instance. Yeah, you might not be the one on that rare plane that gets blown up, but for me taking off my shoes is a small price to pay to avoid that scenario and seeing that others will also be on that plane, I'm not about to trump their safety just because I don't lik taking off my shoes or it makes me feel like they're treating me like a criminal. When you're dealing with more than just yourself, others views have to be taken into account as well, particularly in a democracy.

Hilarious! I have friends in Canada. They have to pay U.S. taxes ON TOP OF Canadian taxes, even though they don't live here, because they were born here. ...

So don't tell me about how great US tax laws are. Horse *****!

I never said U.S. taxes were "great". I said Canadian taxes are very high, especially for visitors who get none of the benefits, but all of the charges (not to mention all those destination fees they try to sneak in on you at most tourist locales). A meal that would cost $50 here with tip, typically costs closer to $85 there (partly direct taxes; partly costs passed on to the customer on the menu as well seeing as a rack of ribs cost $27 there that at the same chain in the U.S. costs $20 and that's before the 13% tax is added to the bill there; they also like to hide "fees" like the DMF there that you DON'T have to pay but need to be aware of to avoid).

Your example of U.S. citizens working and/or living in Canada is not typical. Besides, if they love Canada so much they could always become Canadian citizens and renounce their U.S. Citizenship (seems to be becoming more common as millionaires and billionaires are often willing to do anything to avoid paying taxes even if means living Singapore or Russia). Frankly, I only need so much income before it becomes meaningless (i.e. I can only spend so much and you can't take it with you, but it highlights the sheer levels of greed/lust in this world that billionaires would rather move out of the country than pay their taxes).

To imply that I must be a terrorist not to want the government spying on me is so unoriginal.

I'm implying no such thing. I'm simply saying those that have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. In short, it is purely a psychological condition to have a "need" for privacy. Freedom of speech, freedom of will, freedom of the pursuit of happiness even aren't affected by a lack of privacy. Now if you're being harassed by the paparazzi, I can see where it's gone too far, but oddly we don't seem to want to make laws to limit their "freedom" to harass you in order to make a cheap buck off your private life, but apparently if the government does it to avoid another 9/11 (regardless of how likely you personally could be affected, even if only by the stock market or whatever collateral damage), it's just utter evil. Frankly, until this came to life, no one was being "affected" by it and hence I call the psychological card whereas celebrities are always being harassed by the paparazzi. Why no outrage there? Because YOU aren't personally affected?

You're damn right I don't want the NSA scanning my phone records. It's because those powers have been abused in the past. Look up the Church Committee proceedings if you want to know what I'm talking about. The truth is, YOU don't know what things this driftnet has been used for. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE! All you have is the word of the lying administration officials, who lied under oath to the Senate.

So...I don't have a clue what they're going to use my calls to my mother's house or Papa John's Pizza are going to be used for!?!? OMG!!! You're right. I'm in deep sheep dip!

What you're really saying here is, give up your liberties for the

What liberties? Privacy is a temporal illusion to a paranoid condition for people that are worried that someone might know what time of day they're taking a dump. OR it's a very real concern to those that are committing crimes and might get found out if someone was monitoring them.

Everything else is something I'd be more concerned if private companies like Google or Microsoft were monitoring what I do...oh wait. THEY ARE! And they're using it to get richer and richer and guess what? I'm not getting a dime for my part. Oh yeah, i get a free e-mail account. Yay.

promise of security. If this stuff is actually useful for and is USED for protecting you and me, why were those guys able to bomb the Boston Marathon? I suppose the fact that they were not caught beforehand means we all need to let the NSA put cameras in every room of our homes now?

If they don't contact terrorists (or discuss the matter over the phone) or e-mail such things, how are they going to be detected? You're actually arguing against the idea that these matters are really very invasive by the very fact they did not see it coming.

Perhaps you believe we citizens should know everything about every black project (e.g. the Stealth Fighter, Bomber, etc.) while they're being developed? I mean it IS our tax money, etc. and this is a democracy, so apparently we should have a 100% transparent government and military, even if that means enemy countries like the former Soviet Union could then counter the programs and possibly destroy our country entirely. I mean where do you draw the line? You seem to want to draw it at total privacy and that could affect my health at some point so I'd have to differ.

Yeah, I'd LOVE to know if our country has had contact with little grey space aliens, for that matter, but I can imagine the sheer panic and other negative effects that would happen if all religions suddenly fell with the knowledge that we were created not directly by God, but by an alien race having fun with genetic experimentation or creating a worker race to mine gold (as Sitchin believed). Yeah, it sounds absurd, but if it WERE true, that is probably the results one could expect if the information were made public. What to do? What to do?

EVERY TIME someone gets these kinds of powers, they're abused. Look up the Church Committee proceedings if you want to know what I'm talking

So people like George Bush Jr. deciding to invade Iraq (with a claim of a LACK of intelligence both literally and figuratively being the excuse why there were no weapons of mass destruction found) is a BETTER reason to assassinate foreign leaders than actual intelligence? Who should make foreign policy and what tools should they utilize to do it?

on and disrupt Occupy Wall St. on behalf of the banks, and has probably been used to spy on the Tea Party groups and Ron Paul supporters. How

Frankly, some groups may merit someone keeping on eye on them. I've heard some pretty crazy crap coming out of certain groups lately and while I am against gun control, I would not defend people threatening to attack the government if they passed a background check law. THAT is ridiculous. This country makes laws for majorities and minorities and people who simply don't like the result of an election trying to take the country by force is crap that happens in 3rd world countries, not the USA. I'm starting to think some of these political groups that PUSH such crazy thinking in the first place (often for their own financial gain like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh) need to be held responsible should any such group take action on their prodding.

many people from those groups have bombed something? ZERO. So there is hard evidence that this surveillance is harmful to our freedoms. How much freedom should we give up over fear?

What "freedom" have you lost from all this? Hell, you didn't even know about it the past decade. How did affect your life one bit? I maintain that all the screaming and whining on the topic only exists out of sheer paranoia. The same people a month ago lived in ignorant bliss, it seems. But by making the programs public knowledge, actual intelligence gained to stop actual threats are now less likely to occur as apparently the enemy was just as blissfully unaware we might be listening to them.

YOU have no right to take away everyone else's freedom because you're scared.

I'm not scared for my own safety in the least. In fact, if I die tonight it won't bother me in the least bit because I don't love this world. I find this world disgusting for the most part. People are greedy, egotistical and self-centered to the point of no integrity or redeeming values at all. In the East, I see crazy people that want to force their beliefs on the entire planet. In this country, I see greedy people that would live in one of those crazy countries if it meant they didn't have to pay taxes and they cold own an automatic assault rifle and a few rocket launchers. People love their lives here SO much that they would steal from and kill other human beings if it meant their own survival in any sort of crisis situation. They forget they're going to die some day anyway and if there's ANY justice in this Universe what-so-ever, they'll answer for those cowardly actions.

If I fear something, it's the idea that we might leave this country to fall into the hands of radicals that would take away our freedom of speech and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. free will). If God gave us that free will and right to choose, who the hell are these radical religious groups to think they can cram their beliefs down our throats as they often do in certain Middle Eastern countries. I know the Catholic Church pulled similar things in the Middle Ages and if they were doing that now, I'd be calling them out on it too. Convert or die should not be something anyone should ever have to hear and I don't want my kids or my neighbors' kids or even their great great grand-kids to EVER have to deal with that kind of GARBAGE ever again. NO MORE DARK AGES.

It took thousands of years for us to get to the point where we can even have a discussion about computer spying and if we end up blowing ourselves or converting ourselves back to the freaking stone ages (and that's what these people WANT because they think that's their religious DUTY), we might as well just hand it all off to the monkeys because we won't deserve to have civilization again. In this "politically correct" age, I "fear" that we won't stand up to some of these groups for fear of "insulting" them when their very beliefs insult me by trying to take away my own will.

You can laugh all you want, but history saw EXACTLY that sort of fall of civilization occur when Rome fell, and like Rome's government or not (they had their own corruption issues and in-fighting, etc.), the ALTERNATIVE was freaking anarchistic barbarism that lead to the feudal system for protection and untold years of pointless human misery.

Privacy may very well be the least of all "freedoms". As I've said, we are voluntarily giving it up all over society as it is (Facebook, Twitter are RAMPANT and NO ONE had to hold a gun to anyone's head to get them to join those services or Google's free services which make NO BONES about the fact they are going to use your information to push targeted advertising on you). Corporations have been selling mailing addresses and phone numbers for DECADES. Where is all the crying over those failings of privacy? Why do I have to PAY to keep my phone number unlisted just so I can avoid every charity on earth from calling my house all day long (and it used to be telemarketers before the Do Not Call list became law and frankly, I'm AMAZED such a law ever passed given all the potential advertising dollars that are lost through it). Where is the freedom from the paparazzi? Who decides where the line is? We're a democracy...supposedly. Maybe we need to decide what's really important. Personally, I think preserving freedom is more important than absolute privacy. For if you aren't free to make your own decisions and choices in life, what good does privacy do you? And that freedom is what is at stake. Nearly 1/4 of the world lives with a religion that doesn't believe in that freedom. Many live in countries where they aren't free to skip their prayer ceremonies if they don't feel like praying or believing in the god they are told to worship. It's do as the clerics say or ELSE. That's a pretty radical idea I don't ever want to see happen in this country regardless of the religion involved. If God wants free will, who the hell are these people to try and force their beliefs on others? Privacy doesn't mean squat to me in comparison to having someone try to take over this country (peacefully or not) and force their beliefs down my throat?

I may not agree with you or other people about whatever topic, but I'll always defend your right to disagree.

You're more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than a terror attack. I

You're more likely to be struck by lightning 6 times in this lifetime than win the Super Lotto. That doesn't seem to deter most people from playing it.

Besides, if you take all the intelligence tools away to avoid terrorism, those odds might just go up. And it's not just HERE we should be concerned about terrorism or radical groups taking root, but in our allies and other groups that value democracy and/or freedom of choice and will.

therefore assume you don't go outside if it's raining. If you're living in that much fear, perhaps you should seek professional help. (Notice I didn't stoop to the level of telling you to leave the country).

I do notice that you stoop to labeling me with fear just the same and yet you appear to be deathly afraid of people knowing who you are calling, even if it means more people have to die like in the World Trade Center bombing as a result. Who has the more fear? If my death meant this country and others didn't have to face another Dark Ages, I'd gladly give it. At least it would mean something. But ultimately taking the issue to the point of potentially letting Western Civilization potentially fall as it did in Roman times over something as trivial as a phone record of who called whom seems pretty darn petty to me. Unlikely? Maybe. But history has a way of repeating itself.