Skip to main content

View Diary: Grayson: "There’s no probable cause here." Talking to Mom is NOT a Terrorist Act (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  that is wrong too. (13+ / 0-)

    I support efforts to end that unconstitutional practice.

    aka.  racial profiling.


    PS. I'm not claiming I'm special.

    I'm saying we used to uphold our basic constitutional rights,
    and we need to get back to that place.

    •  Do you think that's wrong too? (0+ / 0-)

      You should get a star.

      I'm unconvinced that the NSA's sweeping of metadata is unconstitutional. That data doesn't belong to you, and so long as they don't use that data to verify your identity without a warrant, it's completely anonymous.

      Stop and frisk, on the other hand, is blatantly unconstitutional. I wonder why Ed Snowden had nothing to say about that. Why do you think?

      •  thanks fou (7+ / 0-)

        for those opposing points of view.

        Once again, I agree:

        Stop and frisk, on the other hand, is blatantly unconstitutional.
        and have said as much, in previous posts on this hateful American travesty.
      •  But ain't it just a corporate scam? The NSA gets (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OldDragon, on the cusp, lunachickie, koNko

        paid billions by taxpayers to collect useless metadata for national security that is about their behavior, but owned by 3rd party corporations. So not only are no citizens paid a share of the money made on data about us, now we pay Booz Allen billions of dollars to collect it and throw it away or store it or whatever.

        Booz Allen pay any taxes or are they mail boxed in the Caymans.

        This isn't a violation of privacy, google and facebook make billions sniffing our dirty laundry and spying on us already. This is another bold daylight robbery by corporate crooks, selling American's own phone records to them and pretending its intelligence data.

        The potential for blackmail by the government, corporations, or a rogue employee working for, well who (?), is enormous.

        •  How do you know it's useless? (0+ / 0-)

          What evidence can you produce to support that claim?

          •  What good did the NSA & Booz Allen do for Boston? (0+ / 0-)

            Looks like they missed a cow's ass with a bass fiddle. 70 or 80% of the NSA budget is paid out to private companies staffed by ex-government spooks, lots from the NSA. I think Booz Allen and other private sector spook stores are selling data as useless as the phone book for catching terrorists to the NSA and the NSA knows it. The American people may be about to learn how little usable intelligence we are getting for so much money and intrusion into our daily lives.

             Booz Allen stinks. Check out some of the run ins they've had with the defense agencies who give them so much of our tax dollars.

            If Prism couldn't catch the murderers in Boston, the program can't catch a cold. So what is it for?

            My evidence is my gut feeling. You know, like Bush. And speaking of Bush, I wonder how many relatives he has on Booz Allen's board of directors?

      •  Fou, or Grayson ....... hmmmm.... (11+ / 0-)

        think I'll take Grayson.

        And

        On the News With Thom Hartmann:Sen. Bernie Sanders Introduced the "Restore Our Privacy Act" to Limit the Spying Power of the NSA and the FBI, and More
        Saturday, 15 June 2013 09:47 By Thom Hartmann, The Thom Hartmann Program | Video Report

        Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

        by divineorder on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 11:59:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  fou did have one valid point... (0+ / 0-)

          ..I'll take Philly over NY any day of the week. The cops have a "healthy fear" of its citizens here, meaning they don't  need to "profile" anybody because they're "equal opportunity ball breakers", who won't stop or talk to you (or harass you because unlike NY, they know just about everybody is packing heat here and they want to go home at the end of their shift)unless you go out of your way to get their attention. But trust me, once you get it you'll never want it again. Here's a true story for you to illustrate my point: I was walking into my (SW Philly) neighborhood Rite Aid and there's this huge black officer talking to his white partner. He says in reference to a thug he had to arrest. "I sure enjoyed beating the brakes off that thug". And that was a black officer talking about beating another black man!

          "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

          by ImpeachKingBushII on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 05:56:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A good point, but completely ridculous here (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YucatanMan, JVolvo

            in this discussion.

            Stop and frisk, on the other hand, is blatantly unconstitutional. I wonder why Ed Snowden had nothing to say about that. Why do you think?
            WTF?  Why ask why Snowden did not expose stop and frisk?

            Makes no sense other than as a distraction from the diary.

             

            Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

            by divineorder on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 07:06:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I totally agree... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jamess

              ...and I thought to myself that it was a bit of a thread jack, but nobody thought enough about it to call fou on it so I just rolled with it. I detest censorship in any form, so I strive to give people a lot of slack.  Blame it on my mellow disposition. This city has a way of humbling someone. The first week I was here in 2009, I was riding the L train and got spit in the face because I didn't get my "spare change" out of my pocket fast enough. Real world scenarios like the armed robbery I was 10 feet away from last Feb. also have a way of keeping your feet on the ground and your head out of the clouds. I like to think Philly has changed my attitude about life for the better. I don't sweat the small stuff like I used to. Or take my life for granted anymore. People get blasted daily here for absolutely no good reason. So in the grander scheme of things I can overlook a thread jacker. Can you?

              "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

              by ImpeachKingBushII on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 08:23:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Why does it make no sense? (0+ / 0-)

              Stop and frisk constitutes unreasonable search and seizure. Snowden decided to leak NSA documents to fight what is in his view unreasonable search and seizure.

              Talking about stop and frisk is quite relevant actually.

              Now, why don't you think Snowden said word one about it?

      •  If they don't even know who you are, (7+ / 0-)

        how is that metadata in any way of use to them?

        Short version: it's not. In order to use the metadata about a subject's online activities to determine whether they're suspect of a particular illegal activity, you must first know who that subject is. That's the foundation of any investigative activity: know who you're investigating.

        Which brings us back to un-Constitutional, as the Fourth Amendment does guarantee the citizenry the privacy of their homes, persons and effects.

        If the metadata are useful, it's because the NSA is going through them in the kind of detail prohibited by the Fourth without valid, specific warrants - which they aren't getting.

        If the metadata are not useful, then why spend billions in taxpayer dollars to gather it all?

        "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

        by Australian2 on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 12:51:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How do you KNOW metadata is of no use to them? (0+ / 0-)

          That claim is not true simply because you're mad and wrote it on a blog. Provide some data that it's useless and we'll talk. The claim that it's useless might well be true, but without data we can't make a claim either way.

          •  How about this? (0+ / 0-)

            Explain how the metadata of a person's calls could possibly be useful without knowing anything else at all about the person or people involved.

            "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

            by Australian2 on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 11:28:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There are PLENTY of ways that it's useful. (0+ / 0-)

              The dates, times and locations of phone calls can tell you a lot about the activities of persons of interest, without knowing who they're talking to. Perhaps the most useful function of this data is that it can be used to rule out further interest in innocent people.

              The Supreme Court has held that the collection of metadata is constitutional:

              Under the Supreme Court’s 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland, the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures simply do not apply to this kind of surveillance. According to the five justices who joined the majority opinion, individuals do not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the numbers they dial on their phones because “[t]elephone users . . . typically know that they must convey numerical information to the phone company; that the phone company has facilities for recording this information; and that the phone company does in fact record this information for a variety of legitimate business purposes.” When information is voluntarily disclosed to a third party, the Court explained the person disclosing the information “assumed the risk that the information would be divulged to police.”
              http://thinkprogress.org/...

              And ask yourself this: why would the NSA spend billions on this data if it were useless? What incentive do they have to waste billions? If you're arguing that this information is useless, you're either arguing that the NSA doesn't need to know about phone usage patterns as they relate to persons of interests, or you're arguing that there's another set of data that will yield the same information.

              If you're arguing the former, that an agency tasked with gathering foreign intelligence doesn't need to understand the phone usage patterns of persons of interest ... just cause, well that's just a stupid argument that's not even worth considering.

              If you're arguing the latter, then you need to state what alternative set of data can be used to glean the same information.

      •  WTF does this even mean? (7+ / 0-)
        That data doesn't belong to you, and so long as they don't use that data to verify your identity without a warrant,

        If it's Verizon's data, it's their data, but it identifies me by my phone number.

        To say nothing of "How would I know the NSA hasn't used that to verify my identity?", period? With or without a warrant?

        Jesus Christ, haven't you people ever heard of "reverse lookup"??

        "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

        by lunachickie on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 12:57:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  well . . . . (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koNko, orangecurtainlib, deep info, JVolvo
        Do you think that's wrong too? You should get a star.
        To hang next to yours, right?
        I'm unconvinced that the NSA's sweeping of metadata is unconstitutional. That data doesn't belong to you, and so long as they don't use that data to verify your identity without a warrant, it's completely anonymous.
        In every previous time that the NSA had this authority to surveille people, it broke the law, blatantly and unapologetically, and began sucking up as much data as it technically could on anyone and everyone that it deemed "an interest". The sordid details are all in Volume 5 of the Church Committee Report, titled, "The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights".

        Past behavior is a pretty good predictor of future behavior. So if you'd like to make the case that the NSA would not skirt or break the law (and their "oversight"), would not spy on domestic American citizens, and would not scoop up all the available information that it had the technical ability to scoop up, then first you need to explain why it already did do precisely all those things in the past (under Democratic Administrations, no less), and what it is, specifically, that would would prevent them today from doing the same thing again that they have already done in the past.

        I am all ears . . . . .

        Stop and frisk, on the other hand, is blatantly unconstitutional.
        Um, I don't recall anyone here defending "stop and frisk".  Does that mean we all get stars too?
        I wonder why Ed Snowden had nothing to say about that. Why do you think?
        Um, perhaps because neither Snowden nor the NSA have a goddamn thing to do with "stop and frisk" . . . . ?

        Would you like to condemn Snowden for not expressing his opinion on Syria, too? How about his opinion on chained CPI?

        •  Wrong, wrong, wrong. (0+ / 0-)
          Past behavior is a pretty good predictor of future behavior. So if you'd like to make the case that the NSA would not skirt or break the law (and their "oversight"), would not spy on domestic American citizens, and would not scoop up all the available information that it had the technical ability to scoop up, then first you need to explain why it already did do precisely all those things in the past (under Democratic Administrations, no less), and what it is, specifically, that would would prevent them today from doing the same thing again that they have already done in the past.
          This is the precise justification for programs such as stop and frisk or California's three strikes law. Are we now going to preemptively arrest people who've committed crimes because of their past behavior?

          Look, we have every right to decide as a society not to have an NSA or a FISA court, but the reason you give, that such a program can and will be abused, is not a reason not to have it. There are lots of people who work for the government and have access to sensitive information they can abuse. Should we not have a government because there always has been and always will be abuse of our laws?

          That argument is ridiculous.

      •  Please explain your understanding of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        orangecurtainlib, deep info

        'Constitutional/Unconstitutional' as it applies to the NSA data-capturing.

        The data does belong to you, not to the Telecoms.  The fact that the agencies have to get a 'warrant' to get the info from the Telcoms shows that even the NSA recognizes the data as belonging to the individual, rather that to the telcoms.  

        If the data belonged to the Telecoms, the NSA wouldn't have had to spend billions setting up separate Data Centers to house their copies of your data.  If the data belonged to the Telecoms, not to the individual, the Agencies could simply get a court order, not a warrant.

      •  Just a wild guess (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deep info

        He probably has no personal experience in that area, but next time we see him we'll ask.

        Snowdon claims to have voted for Obama first time and Paul second time, he might have something to say about it.

        OTOH, maybe consider this argument about the data. It becomes a handy tool for people who decide others just broke the law because they think so.

        400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

        by koNko on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 05:38:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There are no Constitutional rights, (5+ / 0-)

      other than the OBLIGATIONS of citizenship, which are not self-enforcing, either. All enforcement is up to the citizenry. Constant vigilance is required because the impulse to control and coerce other people is not likely to be bred out of the human genome. In part, that's because compliance is a socially useful, even indispensable, trait. The problem is that the line between voluntary and coerced is thin and not automatically honored.

      We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 11:25:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site