Skip to main content

View Diary: NY Times: "N.S.A. Phone Surveillance Is Lawful, Federal Judge Rules" (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In related news: (22+ / 0-)
    Grad student proves NSA can link metadata to your identity with ‘marginal effort’
    A Stanford graduate student has shown just how easily names can be matched with phone records, contradicting some of the legal justification offered by federal authorities for the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone data....

    ...“In under an hour, we were able to associate an individual or a business with 60 of the 100 numbers,” Mayer wrote. “When we added in our three initial sources, we were up to 73.”

    With a little more work, the story goes on, the student was able to get 91 of 100 phones number matched to names. And this was just using standard stuff on the internet like google and facebook.

    I imagine the NSA could do the same, but a lot quicker, if they wanted.

    * * * * * *
    On another note, I can no longer hear of anyone doing or saying anything in favor of the NSA without wondering, "Does the NSA have anything on them?"

    That's not my suspicious mind working over-time; that's the history of secret information gathering entities through all time. Including our own FBI & CIA. A person would need really extraordinary evidence to show that the NSA has somehow avoided the routine practices of decades and centuries.


    Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

    by Jim P on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 12:29:08 PM PST

    •  Regarding your aside... (13+ / 0-)

      Absolutely. There's simply no excuse for being in support of these abusive surveillance-related activities, especially in light of all that we've come to learn about them since last June, thanks to Mr. Snowden.

      Anyone speaking favorably either has something to lose if they don't, or something to gain if they do, as far as I'm concerned.

      Black-and-white thinking?

      Yes.

      For me, nuance, on this issue, is dead.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 01:02:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  i miss the days (7+ / 0-)

        when people were at least afforded the courtesy of being accused of partisanship or honest self-delusion, without resorting to implications of financial gain or blackmail.  Simple honest disagreement went out the window a long time ago, of course.

        At least it's on record you have no interest in defending your own position, but I will say between you and the NSA, the only one suggesting I have anything to hide is . . . you.

        Where did you get my e-mails, bro?

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 01:23:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have absolutely no idea... (6+ / 0-)

          what you're going on about, or why you directed your comment to me.

          I merely concurred with the above commenter. Perhaps you should see what he thinks about it.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 02:54:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  no, you took it one step further (6+ / 0-)

            the above commenter merely presumes any defense of this ruling (as i have made) is the product of blackmail.   You said it's a definite, and that "the issue is dead," which is an odd thing to say on the day a district judge has made the issue very much alive.   If it's just hyperbole, as I suspected, well, you proved it.   If you're not willing to make this claim about a random individual, you're not willing to make it as a class; as such, poor you, you should probably defend your position with logic, even if -- especially if -- it's so damn obvious that it shouldn't be too hard.   The "above commenter" made a claim about his own opinion, which is uninteresting to me; you made a claim about the debate itself.  I'd suggest you're playing dumb, but I'm not sure it'd make a difference.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 04:52:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "The Topper". (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban, fcvaguy

              If Hobby Lobby is against contraception, why does it buy its inventory from China, the country that limits the number of children by law?

              by Inland on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 05:21:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Um, no. I didn't take it any further... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Pensador, Jim P

              Here's what Jim P said:

              On another note, I can no longer hear of anyone doing or saying anything in favor of the NSA without wondering, "Does the NSA have anything on them?"
              That doesn't sound limited to this ruling to me.

              So yes, all I did was concur when I said this:

              For me, nuance, on this issue, is dead.
              "Issue" being the NSA.

              And I didn't say the "issue" itself was dead, as your misleading paraphrase of my words implies.

              Now, if you please, find someone else to irritate with your inane, word-twisting  "gotcha" attempts.

              Thank you.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 06:35:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not really, (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Inland, Hey338Too, duhban, fcvaguy

                The subject of Jim P's sentence is "I," not the predicate nominative which you incorrectly, nae "misleadingly," bold.  As i explained the first time, he made a claim about Jim P only, you made a claim about others, indirectly including myself.  (Your "as far as im concerned" is an epistemic limitation, perhaps a concession you don't know what you're talking about, but it does not change the fact that the subject of the sentence shifted in your retelling / "concurring."). And if there's no "nuance" on the issue, discussion of it is dead, and the quality of discourse is what I was referring to in each comment that went swoosh through your ears - not the NSA so much but how we discuss it, the actually very interesting questions of how courts should deal with old precedents, changing technology, evolving understandings of privacy, and the legitimacy of unelected judges superseding the judgments of elected representatives on doctrines that require parsing what is or isn't "reasonable."

                My word-play is in service of a larger point, which is that you haven't earned the right to declare contrary arguments "dead," let alone to make conclusions about the people who hold them.  If you find it irritating, feel free to click close tab, or don't overstate your case in the first place.  I find your McCarthyism more obnoxious than my rhetoric could possibly be --  I disagree with you on this issue but I don't question that you hold your views sincerely and in good faith, nor do I question your right to comment consistent with site rules and community guidelines, in reply (or, as my autocorrect just serendipitously put it, ineptly) to whomever writes a comment that inspires you to respond.

                Namaste.

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 07:28:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good God (0+ / 0-)

                  For someone so interested in discussing the merits, you sure like to hyper-focus on a relatively inconsequential comment, don't you?

                  I never claimed any right to declare anything dead for anyone else other than myself.

                  Does that make sense to you?

                  Yet here you are, taking as personally-directed a comment of mine that did not mention anyone here, or even this website, whatsoever.

                  Here it is again, for your dwelling pleasure:

                  Regarding your aside...

                  Absolutely. There's simply no excuse for being in support of these abusive surveillance-related activities, especially in light of all that we've come to learn about them since last June, thanks to Mr. Snowden.

                  Anyone speaking favorably either has something to lose if they don't, or something to gain if they do, as far as I'm concerned.

                  Black-and-white thinking?

                  Yes.

                  For me, nuance, on this issue, is dead.

                  by DeadHead on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 01:02:18 PM PST

                  I guess I can, upon rereading of my comment, see how you would've taken it personally — you have favorable things to say about the NSA, and you don't want to be discredited right out of the gate. Understandable.

                  As for my supposed "McCarthyism," it's a figment of your over-active imagination. I'm not demanding purity or agreement from you or anyone else here, which happens to be the extent of whatever essentially non-existent "influence" I have.

                  And since you took such a liking to my use of the phrase, I'll use it again:

                  As far as I'm concerned, you can blow kisses to the NSA as often and with as much passion as you so desire. I promise not to get in the way of your love affair with the surveillance state.

                  Bye bye.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 12:30:09 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  my, my. (0+ / 0-)

                    your mellow is really harshed.

                    Does one be silent by yelling about how silent one is?  The very posture of your post, and the accompanying ad hominems add an "and so should you" to the debate is dead argument.  Own up to it, dude.  You suggested anyone who disagrees with you is compromised and the position is illegitimate, so own up to that, too.  Or, make your case for itself and let the reaction to it be the reaction.  If you really were content to express your opinion, you needn't have replied, but no, you have more ambition than that, but where it falls apart is your argument as "sword" is fact, but as "shield" is opinion.  You doth protest too much.

                    I don't have particularly favorable things to say about the NSA, actually,  except "not so obviously unconstitutional as left-for-the-sake-of-left posturing presumes."  If that's going to be some "signifier," so be it.  But I think the best outcome is likely some continuation of (some) metadata collection with tighter oversight. (I think there are sound arguments to treat different types of metadata differently -- try some control-f and you can find discussion of the issues in those sub-discussions to which they are more directly germane.)  It's hard to "love" what I don't particularly care about, though.  If I believed it added up to anything deserving of the name surveillance state, perhaps that'd be different, but that's the issue, isn't it? Quite live, as noted in the first paragraph above, where i also discussed "the merits," albeit, however, to show how you find it easier to dodge those questions in favor of repeating the correctness of your own position with arguments that start out bullying and somehow get more and more hostile.

                    Now, is it the last word you want, or were your really done? Doth protest too much x2.

                    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                    by Loge on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 07:00:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  My "mellow" has harshed? (0+ / 0-)

                      Perhaps that's because you're irritating the fuck out of me.

                      But, I'm glad you liked my ad hominems.

                      You're dishonest word-twisting and demands for me to "own-up" to your mischaracterizations of my original comment deserved them.

                      Go troll someone else.




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 04:47:54 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Any "mischaracterization" (0+ / 0-)

                        was a function of trying to take your points (and their implications) somewhat seriously, and I explained why I think your statements mean what they do.  If you got "you're" own argument wrong, not my fault, but at minimum I don't think anything I said qualifies as trolling.  Leading with insults is not a recipe for universal acclaimation, so you'll have to settle for spirited debate, or else actually fucking off versus saying you will. If that's what you say will make you happier, do that.  Your actions say you like telling people off, though, so I won't apologize for helping.  Plus, you need the practice.

                        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                        by Loge on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 07:43:51 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Weird. Nothing about the NSA, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              caul, DeadHead

              nothing about whether the information, might be, or could not be, used improperly, but attacks on a commenter. For what purpose?

              Do you think the commenter is a more important issue than the NSA's potential for corruption?


              Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

              by Jim P on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 07:06:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hey338Too, duhban, fcvaguy

                Do you?  

                Your comment was directed at people outside of the NSA, and I discussed the merits of the ruling elsewhere in the thread.  Your poisoning of the well was the more immediate concern, as to you and to deadhead.  I'll discuss the issue with people who acknowledge there's something to discuss, and not to people who argue in the style of when did you stop beating your wife, which doesn't mean that style shouldn't be called out for what it is - not just disrespectful but fundamentally lazy.

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 07:34:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You've made many curious projections (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DeadHead

                  which, I'm afraid are properties of your own psyche.

                  Or is it just the "high horse" tactic combined with the "character attack"?

                  I'll give you 'poisoning the well' as a clever deployment of the phrase, but of course we are not in a court of law, we are in a court of public opinion.

                  From what I've seen and read, people don't trust anything official these days. Sorry if such disloyalty distresses you, but I figure I said what most readers think. As far as I know, that's neither a crime nor a dirty rhetorical trick.

                  When seeing a ruling, whose rationale defies known facts, logic, history, and just plain common-sense justice, it is something many people say to themselves, as I said aloud, in effect "There's something hinky here."

                  Although I'm quite prepared to believe you'd have noticed nothing peculiar, in this, or any other case where public figures break in the NSA's favor.

                  Of course, the history of the FBI, CIA, DEA, ...hell... ALL spy agencies everywhere since at least Elizabeth I shows intelligence is used corruptly. Again, I'm not sure of any extraordinary evidence that human nature or intelligence practices are suddenly different.

                  Even the NY Times Editorial Board notes

                  Judge Pauley’s opinion is perplexing in its near-total acceptance of the claim by the government that it almost always acts in accordance with the law and quickly self-corrects when it does not. For example, Judge Pauley said the N.S.A.’s director, Gen. Keith Alexander, was being “crystal clear” when he responded to charges that the agency was mining data from phone calls by saying: “We’re not authorized to do it. We aren’t doing it.”

                  That shows an alarming lack of skepticism, particularly in light of the testimony of James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, who falsely told the Senate Intelligence Committee in March that the N.S.A. was not collecting any type of data at all on hundreds of millions of Americans.

                  Should the NY Times Editorial Board, and every one else just shut up because others work themselves into being offended by unpleasant considerations?

                  I think not. Rather, I think you'd like to talk about anything other than the widespread corruption the nation suffers. Doesn't make it go away, though.


                  Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

                  by Jim P on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 10:13:09 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i specifically said downthread (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fcvaguy

                    that the judge shouldn't have accepted the government's claims as wholly true on a motion to dismiss posture, but it was not necessary to the decision, given SCOTUS precedent and questions about judicial standing.  And I'm also not sure where the reasonable expectation of privacy exists in information that exists in a reverse-lookup.  Further, the rawstory link doesn't support your position, really, and certainly doesn't contradict the government's arguments -- the name isn't discoverable until such point as someone tries to deduce the name, which is to say, the use of the data after the computers do their thing and run their regressions is what could qualify as a search, not the collection and storage.  That's independent of whether there's a recognized privacy expectation in one's name in all cases, given that the very idea of a name is inherently social.  Refusing to examine the logic on your part doesn't make it illogical.

                    I haven't made any projections, beyond those you said you yourself make.  In fact, in my initial comment I spelled out a number of possibilities as to why someone might hold a position in good faith.

                    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                    by Loge on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 06:26:08 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  In other words, (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hey338Too, duhban, fcvaguy

                for you, on this day, on this topic, the don't attack other commenters train has sailed.  Try again next time?

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 07:40:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  HaHaHaHaHa! But only YOU'VE attacked anyone. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DeadHead

                  I see my earlier suspicion about projection is on solid ground.

                  Goodbye. Like, forever.


                  Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

                  by Jim P on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 10:15:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, Jim P, I could find that ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban, fcvaguy

      ... information much quicker. It's called a reverse-telephone-number lookup. All you need is an internet connection and $15.

      Rand Paul is to civil liberties as the Disney Channel is to subtle and nuanced acting. On biblical prophesy: If you play the bible backwards, it says, "Paul is dead."

      by Tortmaster on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 09:41:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So the Officials' claim that metadata (0+ / 0-)

        doesn't lead to specific names is just massive bullshit right out of the box. Mixed with the lies told to Congress, etc, we can be high-percentage certain that corruption is embedded in the system. Experience teaches that corruption spreads.

        Thanks for the confirmation.


        Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

        by Jim P on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 09:57:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site