NSA "Scandal"

Check out United States v. Graham...

"information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection" because that information no longer belongs to the consumer, but rather to the telecommunications company that handles the transmissions records.[
 
Jarod said:
Check out United States v. Graham...

"information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection" because that information no longer belongs to the consumer, but rather to the telecommunications company that handles the transmissions records.[
Click to expand...


That's got nothing to do with the ECPA.
 
Jarod said:
THanks for the cite, I don't belive that law protects biographical data regarding the calls, just the content of the calls.
Click to expand...


Read the definition of electronic communication:

“electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include—
(A) any wire or oral communication;
(B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device;
(C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); or
(D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds

It doesn't just procted the disclosure of the content of calls, but all that stuff too, which, broad as it is seems to include the metadata.
 
Dungheap said:
Read the definition of electronic communication:

“electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include—
(A) any wire or oral communication;
(B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device;
(C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); or
(D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds

It doesn't just procted the disclosure of the content of calls, but all that stuff too, which, broad as it is seems to include the metadata.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, that metadata is not "communication", its simply bits of information.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it's still information about me, right?
Click to expand...

I'm coming into this thread late, apologies if I'm repeating stuff already said.

Yes, it is info about you. As the ACLU suit says - with the meta data, the govt can know a lot: who do you call; do you call churches, synagogues or mosques? how often do you call your therapist? are you calling your congressional reps a bunch? who all do you talk to? the person down the street, someone across the country? If you are a member of an organization, they can use your calls to possibly find other members of the organization - whether the PTA, NOW, or the NRA.

I can understand them wanting to collect data; heard on the radio (but can't find the quote right now) that even George Washington found value in gathering every scrap of data. And in a way it is their job to collect data and correlate it.

But to collect it BEFORE there is a cause; before they know if you are just a PTA member or if you are part of a militia planning to blow up a building; that's what is troublesome. Even without listening to the call, they can piece together a large part of your life. What auto mechanic you use, what drug store you phone your prescriptions in to (if you do that rather than online); what school your kids go to if you have kids, because sooner or later you'll call their school; where your friends and relatives are; they can put together your whole network and see where it overlaps with other people's networks. There's a guy at work who uses some kind of visual tool to show all his friends and how they overlap and what not...he loves it, seemed creepy to me, but at least that was him doing it for his own use.

It seems the data collection was legal from all we've read; but should it have been?

And what happens to the data post-collection? how protected is it from abuse?
 
tekkychick said:
I'm coming into this thread late, apologies if I'm repeating stuff already said.

Yes, it is info about you. As the ACLU suit says - with the meta data, the govt can know a lot: who do you call; do you call churches, synagogues or mosques? how often do you call your therapist? are you calling your congressional reps a bunch? who all do you talk to? the person down the street, someone across the country? If you are a member of an organization, they can use your calls to possibly find other members of the organization - whether the PTA, NOW, or the NRA.

I can understand them wanting to collect data; heard on the radio (but can't find the quote right now) that even George Washington found value in gathering every scrap of data. And in a way it is their job to collect data and correlate it.

But to collect it BEFORE there is a cause; before they know if you are just a PTA member or if you are part of a militia planning to blow up a building; that's what is troublesome. Even without listening to the call, they can piece together a large part of your life. What auto mechanic you use, what drug store you phone your prescriptions in to (if you do that rather than online); what school your kids go to if you have kids, because sooner or later you'll call their school; where your friends and relatives are; they can put together your whole network and see where it overlaps with other people's networks. There's a guy at work who uses some kind of visual tool to show all his friends and how they overlap and what not...he loves it, seemed creepy to me, but at least that was him doing it for his own use.

It seems the data collection was legal from all we've read; but should it have been?

And what happens to the data post-collection? how protected is it from abuse?
Click to expand...
Excellent analysis and good questions!
 
I think it's the govt's duty to collect as much data as possible without violating the 4th, then it's the judiciary's job to limit what they do with it.
 
Police violate the 4th ALL the time but judges usually prevent them from using the information they obtained.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I think paranoid fraidy cats who were seeing "eeeeeevil moslems" in every dark corner after 9/11 never had a problem with the Government ignoring the constitution when it was the Bush administration doing just that for 8 years.
Click to expand...

Spying isn't against the Constitution....especially spying on foreign communications coming into the US...and that is what Bush did, nothing like
what this asshole Obama is doing.
 
Dungheap said:
Read the definition of electronic communication:

“electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include—
(A) any wire or oral communication;
(B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device;
(C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); or
(D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds

It doesn't just procted the disclosure of the content of calls, but all that stuff too, which, broad as it is seems to include the metadata.
Click to expand...
Actually Jarod is right, in 1979 the Supreme court ruled that phone numbers dialed out and phone numbers that dialed in, as well as duration of calls, metadata, is not protected.
 
Jarod said:
So, the government is collecting a huge amount of data. They are collecting it by asking PRIVATE companies to give it to them, and the PRIVATE companies are agreeing to do so. They are collecting what I call outside information, who you call, how long your call lasts, when you call them, how often you call.

Unless they get a warrant, it appears they are not collecting the content of those calls.

Do you believe that there is something illegal or unconstitutional about the government collecting such data?

It seems that the free market might be effective here. If a demand exists, maybe a company would start up that would pride itself on refusing to share that data unless legally required to do so, like when the government is given a warrant or authority to issue a subpoena?



If they are collecting "inside" information, such as the content of the phone calls... it would be a different analysis for me, but from what I understand they are only collecting outside information.

The police are allowed to follow your outside movements without a warrant, but they are not allowed inside your house without a warrant. Its the same basic premise with this electronic survlance.
Click to expand...

I said the same thing in 2006......so many liberals disagreed with me.....I'm glad some of you are finally seeing the light......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top