Why I Care About The NSA Spying

[Hyena Dandy]

Again: Is it right? Not entirely. Does it work? Well, look at that huge list of terrorist attacks inside America since 9/11.

Okay.

The assassination of Dr. George Tiller. The Wisconsin Sikh Temple shooting. The Los Angeles International Airport shooting of 2013. The United States Holocaust Museum shooting. The Austin Suicide Attack (probably.) The Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting.

And that's only counting the ones that people actually died in.

If we want to include ones that, if they were stopped, it was without anyone having prior knowledge, and if they weren't, led to only injuries and not death. This is things where the death would have been outside the control of the person doing it, so people like James J. Lee don't make the list because he didn't kill the hostages.

Lucas John Helder's mailbox bombings. Kyle Shaw's Starbucks bombing. The SPokane bombing attempt 2011. Bombs left outside the house of UCLA professor Lynn Fairbanks, which failed to ignite, but would have killed her and her family. April 2007, bomb failed to explode in Austin. Firebombing of the home of Professor David Feldheim*. 2001 Anthrax attacks by Bruce Ivins.

These are only ones for which the motives are known, or at least surmisable.

And for funsies, I only included non-Islamic terrorism.

*He wasn't home, but someone else's car was firebombed as well, so I'm counting these for danger of collateral.

[s_stabeler]

Action should be taken when innocent people are actually harmed by this.

WRONG. On FIVE counts. 1) infringement of rights IS harm. 2) even if the infringement of rights isn't harm, look at Gitmo. People imprisoned without trial. The majority of whom have turned out to be innocent. (and a couple of people who turned into terrorists BECAUSE they were imprisoned there) 3) what counts as an innocent person? 4) By the time an innocent person is harmed, it is too late. 5) what do you call the loveint investigations? Innocent people being harmed by their SOs scrutinizing what they do for (I assume) evidence of cheating. It's VERY easy to misinterpret someone's actions when you think they are cheating.

[Greenday]

3,000 people dying in NYC on 9/11/2001 is harm.
52 people dying and over 700 hurt in London on 7/7/2005 is harm.
Over 30 dead in Russia 12/29/2013-12/30/2013 is harm.
If I include terrorist attacks in the Middle East, I'll be here all day typing this one reply.

So excuse me if I believe that people dying and being maimed and injured from terrorist attacks is slightly more harmful than a breach of privacy.

[protege]

So excuse me if I believe that people dying and being maimed and injured from terrorist attacks is slightly more harmful than a breach of privacy.

I'm sure that the Muslims who were routinely profiled and harassed by the NYPD after 9/11 would disagree with you. So would the 684,000 people (most of whom were black or Latino) who were stopped under their "stop and frisk" program in 2011. From what I've read 90% of the people stopped are let go.

[s_stabeler]

3,000 people dying in NYC on 9/11/2001 is harm.
52 people dying and over 700 hurt in London on 7/7/2005 is harm.
Over 30 dead in Russia 12/29/2013-12/30/2013 is harm.
If I include terrorist attacks in the Middle East, I'll be here all day typing this one reply.

So excuse me if I believe that people dying and being maimed and injured from terrorist attacks is slightly more harmful than a breach of privacy.

again, I DON'T CARE about actual terrorists being spied upon. What I care about is that the current program, which monitors everybody is far too open to abuse. What I suggested as an alternative was monitoring the websites extremists use. Monitor known terrorists all you like. But do NOT spy on everybody. It'll also increase the chances of stopping a terrorist attack, because you don't have to go through vast amounts of irrelevant data.

Again, the problem is not in spying on known threats. that's been done for years.The problem is spying on someone who is no threat at all.

[Andara Bledin]

So excuse me if I believe that people dying and being maimed and injured from terrorist attacks is slightly more harmful than a breach of privacy.

That anyone believes that meeting a wrong with another wrong is depressing and just a bit twisted.

[Hyena Dandy]

3,000 people dying in NYC on 9/11/2001 is harm.
52 people dying and over 700 hurt in London on 7/7/2005 is harm.
Over 30 dead in Russia 12/29/2013-12/30/2013 is harm.
If I include terrorist attacks in the Middle East, I'll be here all day typing this one reply.

Which proves your point about how effective the NSA has been...

[Signmaker]

So excuse me if I believe that people dying and being maimed and injured from terrorist attacks is slightly more harmful than a breach of privacy.

Please try to comprehend what people are actually arguing for in this thread. None of them give two shits about the breaches in privacy. They are complaining about the breaches being done without warrant, supervision, or accountability, all while yeilding questionable results. The Constitution protects citizens' rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, not all searches and seizures.

All rights held by man must be observed in equal regard, because if we disregard one, we invalidate them all.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Just going to throw this into the mix again. The United States has no constitutional right to privacy in written form. It has a judicial interpretation of one which is only came into existence during Roe v. Wade as a legal stance. Some may not LIKE it, but it is specious to speak to any sort of authority (on either side) when it comes to this topic because it will entirely hinge on Supreme Court rulings because there is nothing written to rule on. The NSA CAN violate other clauses, but not that right.

As for the bulk of this, I don't care. I do in the sense I have a way I'd prefer it to work but since the American public seems to have developed a complete inability reconcile and prioritize conflicting priorities, it's a bit like non-stop whining for me.

I still don't see a grassroots initiative to put in a constitutional right to privacy amendment or even roll back the patriot act which would fix the issue by defining what the NSA can and can't do without the courts so honestly I don't get the fuss. The NSA isn't the problem. The problem is still us.

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, this is covered by the Fourth 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."

It's already been ruled that email accounts require either a warrant or consent, to arguing the contrary is mistaken.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Actually, this is covered by the Fourth 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."

It's already been ruled that email accounts require either a warrant or consent, to arguing the contrary is mistaken.

While I marvel at your copy and paste abilities, I fail to see how that addresses my point of a legal framework in this case entirely contingent on stare decisis (court decisions) and an absence of well-understood statutory law on this point. It also doesn't really address lack of right to general privacy at all. It seems intent on framing my previous post as a very specific stance that isn't supported by the actual post. About the closest I got was calling out people for talking out of their hind quarters when it comes to calling things unconstitutional and I stand by it. Without the specifics of each case you're talking about, unless there's a ruling that covers it you're going to have grey area.

The problem is court decisions change over time whereas the Constitution doesn't. The problem with the 4th in this case is it's fairly prescriptive and applying it digitally is vague and entirely hinges on the court (read as: not the general public's decision). That's a problem. Is a digital document I send over a public network protected? Does it constitute a paper or effect? Should the courts consider it to be published when I click "Send?" I have no physical control of these files. If I send an e-mail to you and you subsequently publish it, have you violated my rights? Did my rights terminate at some point?

The majority of our digital issues come from the fact the law isn't generally understood nor do the legal ramifications tend to be. Due respect to Ars Technica which I read or the libertarian blogosophere when it comes to these issues, there's a real debate to be had but it is in just what laws we actually want, what we define to be our digital property, and at what points that property is allowed to be viewed. And yes, where is the line between the conflicting priorities of intelligence and privacy.

In the absence of the public answering those questions (you know, by doing their job and voting on specific issues in regard to legislators and making sure they're engaged in the legislative process), everyone's going to have to get used to the seemingly arbitrary and often insidious seeming nature in which the Executive branch will continue to test the law. Until the law is clear, they'll continue to actively test its limits and take their chances with the court.

But the Orwellian nightmare slippery slopes? They're not necessary. They're just rhetoric.

[Greenday]

That was a really well written post. Nicely done.

[Signmaker]

The problem is court decisions change over time whereas the Constitution doesn't. The problem with the 4th in this case is it's fairly prescriptive and applying it digitally is vague and entirely hinges on the court (read as: not the general public's decision). That's a problem. Is a digital document I send over a public network protected? Does it constitute a paper or effect? Should the courts consider it to be published when I click "Send?" I have no physical control of these files. If I send an e-mail to you and you subsequently publish it, have you violated my rights? Did my rights terminate at some point?

I would say it's more accurate, as a commentary on the larger scope of things, to say that popular opinion changes, the Constitution doesnt. Which is the inherent beauty of the document, set in place to oppose the sway of opinions.

The 4th being applied to digital documents is not very vague at all, being no more an adaptation than the 1st or 2nd to modern times. The only people who wish to make it a difficult adaptation are those who want to twist the meaning, because it's too difficult to change the original text.

But otherwise we agree, it's up to the people to put a stop to it, and apathy has run amok.

[Andara Bledin]

Wow, way to be condescending and elitist, Yeti.

Fine. You think the 4th Amendment doesn't cover electronic communication. There is an argument to be had there about how much translates to electronic, though if one goes by the spirit of the 4th and the way it applies to, say, the USPS, it would be only reasonable to declare that all electronic communication be treated no differently, both en route and post delivery.

We've also got the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Not only does it very specifically cover electronic communication, both in transit and stored, but the SCotUS has held it up as entirely valid and appropriate. Email, both in transit and after receipt are protected by privacy laws. Although, it's worth noting that after 180 days of being stored, it's considered "abandoned" legally, and thus can be requisitioned from any third party storage with very little scrutiny.

As for the question of whether the recipient can publish, any writing you send to another party becomes their property and it would not be a privacy matter should they choose to share it. It could possibly be a copyright issue or other contractual matter, however.

[Hyena Dandy]

Actually, there is good cause for a slippery slope argument. That cause being that the United States is FOUNDED on a Slippery Slope argument. The reason we have so many checks and balances, The Senate and House BOTH need to approve something, AND the President, but then the President can be overridden if they SUPER approve, and then the Courts can still disapprove, and the President can choose the courts BUT the Senate chooses if the choice goes through... AND he can't FIRE the judges - All that is because the founders were concerned about tyranny. It was founded on the idea that, if we give people the ability to take total control, someone eventually will. That's why we have the system we have. That's why we don't just have a President who can do anything he pleases, or a legislature that can do anything they please, or courts being able to order a case be brought before them. It's all to keep us from living under a tyrannical system. The Budget issues we've had lately exist because of a slippery slope argument - That if the legislature doesn't design the budge, the President will just not fund laws he doesn't like.

George Washington didn't become King George the First, not because he thought that he would be a shitty head of state, but because he wanted to make sure that ten, twenty, thirty years on his great great grandchildren didn't. I don't disapprove of monarchies because I think that an individual monarch would be great or awful. It's because even if we get a good one, we don't know how the next will be.

And I think we've done a damn good job of it so far. But we must keep our system such that we don't let it change.

When the US was founded, it was founded by a bunch of smart people trying to do all they could to ensure it didn't become tyrannical. They wouldn't allow letters and effects to be searched without warrant because that was all they HAD. They didn't mention e-mail because, well, e-mail wasn't a THING.

Also, what type of crazy logic is it that courts shouldn't be able to decide things? That is why the Supreme Court exists, after all. To decide if something is constitutional or not.