NSA "Scandal"

[Jarod]

He just explained to you that they did not willingly share the data.

Who did, did he provide a cite, or did he say it was an assumption?

When someone gets a warrant, approved by a judge, its been certified to not violate the 4th Amendment.

You may have a beef with the judge, but the person asking for the warrant did the correct thing and there is no scandal. When I was a prosecutor, I asked for warrants on behalf of police officers that were denied, it was not a scandal. Most of the time I asked for warrants, for much more intrusive searches than this, they were granted, when a warrant is granted the judge is saying "this search or seizure is reasonable under the 4th Amendment."

The forth does not protect against search and seizure, it protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

 

[Jarod]

After what we've learned about how this administration is utilizing the IRS to harass anyone perceived as an enemy, how can you be naive enough to
think that anyone is "sharing" information with the government voluntarily...if they dare refuse, they'd be audited the next day at a cost of thousands if not millions.
Get your head out of your ass and smell the coffee....

You have information that the Administration used the IRS to harass someone?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

When someone gets a warrant, approved by a judge, its been certified to not violate the 4th Amendment.

sorta like Kelo didn't violate the 5th? or that DUI checkpoints don't violate the 4th? or that the taking of DNA upon arrest without conviction doesn't violate any rights? Jarod, the courts constantly get this crap wrong, so stop worshipping the black robed tyrants.

 

[Jarod]

Don't you read the papers in Fla. Jughead...

San Diego, California - A class action lawsuit was filed in California by attorney Robert Barnes against the Internal Revenue Service for stealing and improperly accessing 60 million medical records. On March 11, Fifteen IRS agents raided a California company, only known in the lawsuit as the “John Doe Company,” in an attempt to confiscate information related to an employee that no longer worked there. The medical records belong to over 10 million Americans, most of whom live in California. According Nextgov.com , the list includes members of the Screen Actors Guild, Director’s Guild, state employees, and includes both prominent and ordinary citizens.

http://tinyurl.com/ls8ee65

1) A lawsuit was filed, that does not mean it has been proven.
2) Not the same issue.
3) If some Rogue IRS agents did that, they should be punished.

 

[Bonestorm]

Who did, did he provide a cite, or did he say it was an assumption?

When someone gets a warrant, approved by a judge, its been certified to not violate the 4th Amendment.

You may have a beef with the judge, but the person asking for the warrant did the correct thing and there is no scandal. When I was a prosecutor, I asked for warrants on behalf of police officers that were denied, it was not a scandal. Most of the time I asked for warrants, for much more intrusive searches than this, they were granted, when a warrant is granted the judge is saying "this search or seizure is reasonable under the 4th Amendment."

The forth does not protect against search and seizure, it protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

Let's assume a police officer in bad faith lies in an application for a warrant and executes the search warrant knowing full well that the application was based on lies. The officer has a warrant, approved by a judge. Does the search violate the 4th Amendment?

Also, too, if FISA permits warrants to issue on less than probable cause (say, a reasonable basis standard), does that comport with the 4th Amendment? If the Court follows the statute but the statute is unconstititional, does the search violate the 4th Amendment? Also, too, you're ignoring the 1st Amendment issues involved.

I agree that the NSA followed the Patriot Act and Protect America Act, but those laws, at least as applied to the phone records metadata may violate the 4th and 1st Amendments.

Finally, the phone metadata dragnet searches aren't the whole can of worms when it comes to the NSA scandal.

 

[Jarod]

sorta like Kelo didn't violate the 5th? or that DUI checkpoints don't violate the 4th? or that the taking of DNA upon arrest without conviction doesn't violate any rights? Jarod, the courts constantly get this crap wrong, so stop worshipping the black robed tyrants.

Do you know under what circumstances the warrant you are complaining about was granted? Or are you just calling the judge a tyrant because you assume it must be true?

I agree the courts get it wrong, but that does not mean the Administration is not following the rule of law. If a warrant is requested and granted, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt unless I hear otherwise. If they seized this information without a warrant, then Id have a problem with it right away.

The Bush Administration did not even ask for warrants when they were actually listening in on conversations, and most of the Cons here did not have a problem with it....

Now the Obama Administration is getting warrants or having the information voluntarily given to them for data that does not include listening in on conversations and they are up in arms.

 

[Jarod]

Let's assume a police officer in bad faith lies in an application for a warrant and executes the search warrant knowing full well that the application was based on lies. The officer has a warrant, approved by a judge. Does the search violate the 4th Amendment?

Also, too, if FISA permits warrants to issue on less than probable cause (say, a reasonable basis standard), does that comport with the 4th Amendment? If the Court follows the statute but the statute is unconstititional, does the search violate the 4th Amendment? Also, too, you're ignoring the 1st Amendment issues involved.

I agree that the NSA followed the Patriot Act and Protect America Act, but those laws, at least as applied to the phone records metadata may violate the 4th and 1st Amendments.

Finally, the phone metadata dragnet searches aren't the whole can of worms when it comes to the NSA scandal.

1) Yes, and that officer should be fired and prosecuted.
2) Of FOSA permits warrants for a standard that falls below what the Constitution has set (reasonable) then its vocative of the 4th and should be appealed to the Supreme Court and sanctions should be requested.
3) I don't see a 1st Amendment issue.
4) Id like to see the Constitutionality of many aspects of the PA and the PAA tested at the Supreme Court.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I agree the courts get it wrong, but that does not mean the Administration is not following the rule of law. If a warrant is requested and granted, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt unless I hear otherwise.

this is your biggest problem, right here. you giving the benefit of the doubt unless you hear otherwise. Maybe that's your law school education indoctrination telling you that government machinery is well oiled and working fine, I don't know.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) Yes, and that officer should be fired and prosecuted.

SO we agree that there are circusmtances where a search conducted pursuant to a warrant can violate the 4th Amendment. Good.

2) Of FOSA permits warrants for a standard that falls below what the Constitution has set (reasonable) then its vocative of the 4th and should be appealed to the Supreme Court and sanctions should be requested.

I assume that's "If FISA. . . " and we don't have to speculate about "if." We know that the government has sought and obtained data about millions of Americans absent any cause, leat along probable cause, to believe that they have done anything illegal whatsoever.

3) I don't see a 1st Amendment issue.

You don't see how the government having access to everyone you talk to and everywhere you've been having any chilling effect on your your freedom of association? I think you need to use your imagination a bit more.

4) Id like to see the Constitutionality of many aspects of the PA and the PAA tested at the Supreme Court.

As would I, but I'm not confident in a good result.

 

[Jarod]

this is your biggest problem, right here. you giving the benefit of the doubt unless you hear otherwise. Maybe that's your law school education indoctrination telling you that government machinery is well oiled and working fine, I don't know.

If they followed the legal process, there is no scandal. The process is set up for a reason.

 

[Bonestorm]

If they followed the legal process, there is no scandal. The process is set up for a reason.

And what about PRISM?

 

[Timshel]

I agree the courts get it wrong, but that does not mean the Administration is not following the rule of law. If a warrant is requested and granted, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt unless I hear otherwise. If they seized this information without a warrant, then Id have a problem with it right away.

[h=3]Mr. President, No One Is Saying You Broke Any Laws, We're Just Saying It's a Little Bit Weird You Didn't Have To...[/h]


http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2013/06/john-oliver-mr-president-no-one-is.html

Further Obama claims that congress has been briefed but the fact is that Clapper lied. FISA is better than nothing but they are a rubber stamp.

We have a right to know what they are doing.

 

[Jarod]

And what about PRISM?

What about it?

 

[Jarod]

SO we agree that there are circusmtances where a search conducted pursuant to a warrant can violate the 4th Amendment. Good.



I assume that's "If FISA. . . " and we don't have to speculate about "if." We know that the government has sought and obtained data about millions of Americans absent any cause, leat along probable cause, to believe that they have done anything illegal whatsoever.



You don't see how the government having access to everyone you talk to and everywhere you've been having any chilling effect on your your freedom of association? I think you need to use your imagination a bit more.



As would I, but I'm not confident in a good result.

Was the collection of data, 1) Reasonable and 2) was it a non-consensual search or seizure?

I don't see a chilling affect on the freedom of speech or religion.

 

[zappasguitar]

Think of it like this, if you take a Cab to the Opera, and someone later asks the cab driver where he took you.... is it a 4th Amendment issue?

If you want to keep where you went private... get a driver who you trust not to share.

Precisely!

 

[Bonestorm]

What about it?

Let's assume that the reporting and Snowden are 100% accurate and the government can directly access, unimpeded and without oversight, the central servers of major technology companies and obtain all sorts of unquestionably private information about individuals -- emails, chat logs, video chats, browser hisory, VOIP calls and the like -- you don't see a scandal there?

 

[zappasguitar]

Think of it like this: you email a client and Verizon is your ISP provider. Someone later asks Verizon to give them that email. Is it a 4th Amendment issue?

If you wanted to keep your communications with your client private . . . get an ISP that you trust not to share (and good luck that - they all do).

If you want to keep your communications with your client quiet...don't send an e-mail.

Snail mail will ensure your correspondence is between who you wish it to be.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If they followed the legal process, there is no scandal. The process is set up for a reason.

like the process for getting removed from a no fly list? or the process for requiring standing to sue but not being able to access classified data that you've been damaged for standing? those kinds of processes?

 

[Jarod]

Let's assume that the reporting and Snowden are 100% accurate and the government can directly access, unimpeded and without oversight, the central servers of major technology companies and obtain all sorts of unquestionably private information about individuals -- emails, chat logs, video chats, browser hisory, VOIP calls and the like -- you don't see a scandal there?

That would depend on how and why they got access to those servers.

 

[Bonestorm]

That would depend on how and why they got access to those servers.

That's nuts.