wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by fAcEtIOUs:No additional SPYING ability was added. It has been there for decades. It is just that the terrorist sympathizers are now making a crusade about getting rid of it. said by amigo_boy:This is a classic case of backseat driving. You don't know that it did nothing. If their aggregation of data turns up a suspect, they don't announce it in the paper. They just use the information to focus traditional surveillance resources. If they find something, they may just deport the individual instead of prosecute. One says no additional spying capabilities were added, the other argues that we cannot confirm that the additional spying has NOT turned up leads... Come on guys. Talk to each other before you post. Were additional abilities added AFTER 9/11 or not?
cw |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to wentlanc
Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by wentlanc:One says no additional spying capabilities were added, the other argues that we cannot confirm that the additional spying has NOT turned up leads... I agree with TK. Nothing was added. 18 USC 2511 existed for years.
All we know is that it was exercised between 9/11/2001 and Jan/??/2007 (the date range which so-called immunity applies). We don't know how effective it was because it wasn't used as the basis of prosecution. Just the basis to obtain probable cause in order to direct traditional surveillance. And, since the terror they sought to prevent had direct correlation to immigrants, it's entirely credible that the result of traditional surveillance would be quite expulsion due to inexplicable "problems" with a person's application for residence.
Mark |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | If it was lawful, then why do they need immunity?
cw |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
Probably cause, witch hunt, what's the difference. Let me walk into your house, look around, and find probably cause to arrest you on anything. I'm sure I could find SOMETHING illegal you are doing at any given point, and stir up dirt. Give me a break. We're witch hunting, spying on soldiers, aid groups, activists, etc. We're big brother central and we are trying to hide the program behind immunity now. Get over your blind faith for everything stupid Amigo. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to wentlanc
said by wentlanc:If it was lawful, then why do they need immunity? Because personal-injury lawsuits can take years and billions of $$$ to conclude.
It wasn't really "immunity." It was just a fast-track of the discovery process which was already implied by 18 USC 2511.
That's why I call it "so-called immunity." It didn't grant the telcos anything they weren't already granted by 18 USC 2511. It even referred to 2511. And, it said telcos were only immune from prosecution if they could prove they received certification from the executive branch a warrant was not necessary (the exact requirement of 2511).
All the telcos received was a fast track to that judicial finding of whether they indeed received that certification. We know they did. So, it was just a formality to keep the details out of the public eye. The civil court judge ruled that the information had to be public because the government had discussed their data-mining operation publicly, and therefore had no credible argument that it would harm national security.
Congress essentially legislatively over ruled that trial judge's decision. Beyond that, there was nothing new in the so-called immunity deal.
Mark |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Why do they need to keep the details private? This should be printed for every customer to understand how their privacy, or lack thereof, will be handled by a company. Seems like they did not want people to know what was happening to their calls and other data.... People with something to hide, will often try to hide it.
cw |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by wentlanc:Why do they need to keep the details private? This should be printed for every customer to understand I believe it was the government who wanted to keep it secret due to national security reasons. Not the telcos.
I don't know why the government felt there was a national security issue involved. But, whether there should be is a different argument. It's not about whether the executive branch has always had this power. Nor whether Congress did anything drastic with so-called "immunity."
Mark |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | "National security reasons" Is now the defacto standard speak for "trust us... we promise we won't screw you in the ass". While I understand that spying and surveillance are necessary evils, the extent of which they have done it is potentially unconstitutional. If that is in question, they should be FORCED to provide the details to be scrutinized. Maybe not to the entire world, but there needs to be some investigation and oversight. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to wentlanc
Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by wentlanc:While I understand that spying and surveillance are necessary evils, the extent of which they have done it is potentially unconstitutional. If that is in question, they should be FORCED to provide the details I understand. However, realistically, the so-called "immunity" only applies to a specific period of time. FISA was amended to better accommodate the Executive branch's activities. The fact that the law was amended tends to support the belief that the law was lacking, and the Executive branch's actions were justified considering the circumstances.
We've had other examples like this. Such as Roosevelt violating the Neutrality Act when he transferred ships to Britain in return for bases. A few months later Congress amended the law with the Lend-Lease act to make Roosevelt's actions legal.
Mark |
|
 badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by amigo_boy:I believe it was the government who wanted to keep it secret due to national security reasons. Not the telcos. So there was no lobbying done by the telcos to get this "so-called immunity" passed? Bullshit. The telcos wanted immunity even more so than the gov't. The telcos stand to lose billions of dollars in reparations and customer confidence.
To say the telcos don't want this kept secret is ridiculous. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by badtrip:To say the telcos don't want this kept secret is ridiculous. I never heard the telcos nor the government deny that the surveillance took place. Even the government admitted that it had. That's why the trial judge dismissed the government's motion that revealing the certification in public would compromise national security. (The trial judge said that, because the government had already discussed it publicly on news shows, they'd already compromised national security.).
Even the basis of the so-called "immunity" was that the telcos had to prove they received certification from the executive branch -- not that they had to prove it didn't happen.
The whole thing explicitly or implicitly admitted that it happened.
The reason the telcos lobbied for assistance was because they didn't want to go through the costly, time-consuming cost of a personal-injury trial. They didn't care whether the details of the "certification" was public or private. It was the government that wanted to keep those details private. The telcos participated in that when they didn't have to. They could have made it public, invoked 2511, and that would have been the end of the trial.
Mark |
|
 Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | reply to wentlanc
Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by wentlanc:Why do they need to keep the details private? This should be printed for every customer to understand how their privacy, or lack thereof, will be handled by a company. Seems like they did not want people to know what was happening to their calls and other data.... People with something to hide, will often try to hide it. cw Plausable deniability. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
Gee, there's a shocker.  |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | I don't agree with TK on everything. I'm registered D and supported Obama, for example.
I just don't agree with the popular notion in this forum that any enhancement of government effectiveness will automatically lead to abuse. I think such enhancements are a natural byproduct of enhancements in our own political and personal power -- the things I mentioned in an earlier post, from worldwide travel in 12 hours, to instant telecommunication, to mass communication via the internet, to longer life spans (what greater expansion of rights than to live longer to enjoy them more?).
We just never hear self-styled freedom fighters count those things in their one-sided balancing of government vs. individual power/autonomy, which only knows one direction: less individual power/autonomy. We never hear about how even the *founding generation* wanted more effective, larger government (as they ditched the libertarian Articles of Confederation for the relatively massive Federal Constitution in 1789 ... despite all their patriotic rhetoric 12 years earlier.).
Mark |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Amigo,
I don't think that anyone would disagree with you in that times have changed. However, one thing has not, and that is the requirement for oversight. The checks and balances required to prevent abuse. Those are missing. Collecting all data, and scanning it for potential violators offers no oversight, or due process. Our current government has been using FUD as a driver to attempt make these practices acceptable to the American public. If we keep giving up our rights little bit by little bit, eventually there will be none left.
You are assuming that "self-styled freedom fighters" don't count on the changes in technology. I'm all in favor of a larger government, provided that it WORKS. At the same time, I don't like the idea of chipping away at our liberties and freedoms. Usually, the chipping knows no end, until it is too late.
cw |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by wentlanc:the requirement for oversight. The checks and balances required to prevent abuse. Those are missing. Collecting all data, and scanning it for potential violators offers no oversight, or due process. I'm not opposed to oversight. But your comments raise a few points.
1. There's nothing in the 4th amendment that specifically says when oversight is required. For example, it's taken for granted that police can derive probable cause from things they see take place in public. Does aggregating those public events constitute a search or seizure?
2. There is no guarantee of privacy on the internet. That's why SSL was invented. If someone wants privacy of their communications, I'd expect them to encrypt them. But, the people who complain the most about data-mining aren't encrypting their communications. They just want privacy which doesn't exist.
3. It's not clear whether the government is aggregating point-to-point connection details, or scanning actual communications.
I think those two activities present different challenges, and serve different purposes.
If there's no expectation of privacy on the internet, scanning for keywords (without targeting any individual) seems to be equivalent to an undercover officer standing on the street corner trying to overhear anything of interest.
Maintaining call-record history seems more problematic to me. Even though it's not examining content, it is problematic to me that a database is maintained without any legislative safeguards about who can access it.
The NCIS, AFIS, etc. databases are enabled by Congress. But, the law is pretty broad. It's morphed into something much broader (including sharing information with foreign countries) simply due to the Justice department publishing it's own implementation of the law in the Federal Register. So, even if there was a law governing the maintenance of call-record information, I don't think there would be much benefit. It would just be more public how it is maintained, and access controlled.
Personally, I think the call-record information serves a valuable purpose. It fills a gap. Traditionally, law enforcement could access this information concerning telephone communications (to see who an individual had communicated with, but not the actual communication content). ISPs don't maintain that kind of record of who you sent (received) an email to (from). They don't maintain it for long, anyway.
Therefore, in the balance between government and individual power, individuals have gained power because they can communicate on the internet and presumably be immune from LE putting together a communication trail after the individual flies a jet into a skyscraper.
If government begins collecting call-record history to fill that gap and restore the balance, it doesn't mean the balance has shifted to anything worse than the pre-internet days. Individuals still have all the enhanced power of the internet (immediate, cheap communication; ability to spread their thoughts to millions).
The only thing which might be problematic is that LE has access to that "call history" outside the laws that govern access to the same data for telephone users. But, the internet is different than traditional telephone. It may not be feasible to require ISPs to maintain such massive volumes of "call history" data just to serve a social purpose (protect us from LE).
This might be as good as it gets. But, I can agree that if such "call history" data is maintained according to rules published in the Fed. Reg. there would at least be a semblance of transparency. I would support that.
But, it never seems like we can reach a productive discussion like this because all the self-styled freedom fighters begin screaming about "lost rights" and "corrupt government," and "broken laws" (which weren't really broken). There's so much irrational pitch-forking that there's never an opportunity to rationally search for solutions that maintain a balance between serving society's needs, and protecting individuals from excessive government.
Mark |
|
