The Mass Surveillance of US Public Continues as USA Today Declares It Ended

[PratchettFan]

Except it wasn't "classified". This has been an ongoing conversation. A program that does not work and is not effective should not be maintained. Further, it's a revolting violation of privacy.

I think we're seeing the death throws of the individual's right to privacy. Not only are there criminals out there stealing our data out of greed, our own governments are vacuuming it up. Because, Lord knows they're the responsible ones. They know what's best. What do we need privacy for after all? It's a vestige of a different age.
Of course, governments never abuse authority, or are wrong, and people are never imprisoned or in anyway done wrong when it's the Government on the job.
Right.

Yet here you are, practically waving a flag over your head. I'll bet you post on a lot of social media. You take your information, throw it around the electronic world like confetti, and then blame the government because people see it. The only one responsible is you.

Well, yes and no. Mostly no. If someone misuses information I'd tend to put the responsibility on that person. I'm responsible for locking my doors at night. I'm not responsible for someone walking into my home and stealing my stereo simply by virtue of my having forgotten to lock my doors. I post information on social media. This doesn't give someone the right to misuse it. It certainly doesn't give those who are entrusted with authority the right to abuse citizens. We can have an open society wherein citizens have privacy rights. The two are not antithetical.
Now, realistically, there are plenty of criminals out there who take data from any source they can and use it for nefarious ends. But that's the point: they're criminals and can be sent to prison for their behavior. They know this. What recourse does the average citizen have for nefarious behavior on the part of governments? Must we all live in huts in the hills with no electronics?
I'd miss pizza and beer.

If you want absolute privacy, then you live in a hut. You want pizza and beer, then you don't get absolute privacy. When you buy something on-line, you get tracked. When you post on social media, people are watching. If you dance naked with the curtain open, then you don't get to complain when people see you naked. Now if you can show me that you have been harmed, then that will be different. But so far, no one has demonstrated that anyone has actually been harmed. Just a lot of panic and despair over the loss of something you tossed out the window years ago.

It won't be me complaining if I'm seen dancing naked.
I feel neither panic, nor despair regarding privacy issues. I do, however, think it's not unreasonable to expect governments and those whom they employ to treat citizens with respect. Simply because they can get all the data, doesn't mean they should get all the data. It's none of your business what my phone calls are about. That's all you or anybody else needs to know.
Does violating one's privacy rights constitute harm? I think it does. There are plenty of people who'd agree. We're not all tin foil hat wearing freaks either. And, yes, we can, indeed, should complain about our governments abusing their authority and spying on private citizens without due process. Just because I haven't included links to prove to that governments abuse their authority doesn't mean they don't. Do I really need to prove that to you? It's really not up for debate. They do. Daily. Citizens need to hold the government accountable the best they can. Although, maybe the power of the citizen to do so has plateaued--maybe long ago.
See, now I am in despair. Thank God for sweet, sweet chocolate. It's just what the doctor ordered.

The power of the citizen is far greater today than it ever was in the past. The level of freedom higher than ever before. At the same time, the level of threat is higher as well and for the same reasons. Welcome to the 21st century, where chocolate is more plentiful.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

USA Today (6/3/15) had a five-column headline across the top of its front page:
NSA Data Collection Ended

That would be odd, since the National Security Agency exists to collect data; it’s unlikely that a $10 billion agency would simply stop everything it was doing.

What the headline means to say is that the NSA has ended what the story calls its “controversial bulk collection of the phone data of millions of Americans who have no ties to terrorism.” But that’s not really true either. For one thing, while the headline says that the phone data collection program has ended, the vote the headline is reporting actually restarted it. While the NSA says it ended the collection of bulk metadata at the end of May in accordance with a sunset provision in the original Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act authorizes the the agency to begin collecting it again over what USA Today calls a six-month “wind down” period “to give the NSA and phone companies…time to switch over the data collection to the phone companies.”

And that points to a bigger problem with declaring that the NSA’s data collection has “ended”: The same data will still be collected, only it will be held in phone company computers rather than the NSA’s computers. The NSA will still have access to the data, only having to get an OK from the FISA court–a notorious rubberstamp that operates in secret. As NSA whistleblower J. Kirk Wiebe told FAIR, “It’s more of a psychological maneuver to make us all feel good than a true constraint.”

The Mass Surveillance of US Public Continues as USA Today Declares It Ended FAIR

None of it went away and nobody is going to fight it as long as the news headlines keep telling people it's a wrap.

"NSA ends data collection." True. What they don't volunteer though is "NSA outsources data collection to private contractors."

 

[Disir]

Except it wasn't "classified". This has been an ongoing conversation. A program that does not work and is not effective should not be maintained. Further, it's a revolting violation of privacy.

So you can't point to any instance where it has done any of the bad things people say are being done.

Now please explain to me how keeping records on phone connections is a revolting violation of privacy.

I would be more than happy to if you could be a little more specific on "the bad things people say are being done". There is quite a bit out there and some I wouldn't even bother to defend.

Heck, pick one. Tell me a bad thing that is happening to our citizens as a result of this. Because I have yet to hear of a single person being harmed by it. But you must know about some instances - so please educate me.

Unreasonable searches. No probable cause. That one's easy.

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year audit finds - The Washington Post

I'm still waiting to hear the harm. Take your time. I'll wait.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people are currently the enemy.

 

[Disir]

USA Today (6/3/15) had a five-column headline across the top of its front page:
NSA Data Collection Ended

That would be odd, since the National Security Agency exists to collect data; it’s unlikely that a $10 billion agency would simply stop everything it was doing.

What the headline means to say is that the NSA has ended what the story calls its “controversial bulk collection of the phone data of millions of Americans who have no ties to terrorism.” But that’s not really true either. For one thing, while the headline says that the phone data collection program has ended, the vote the headline is reporting actually restarted it. While the NSA says it ended the collection of bulk metadata at the end of May in accordance with a sunset provision in the original Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act authorizes the the agency to begin collecting it again over what USA Today calls a six-month “wind down” period “to give the NSA and phone companies…time to switch over the data collection to the phone companies.”

And that points to a bigger problem with declaring that the NSA’s data collection has “ended”: The same data will still be collected, only it will be held in phone company computers rather than the NSA’s computers. The NSA will still have access to the data, only having to get an OK from the FISA court–a notorious rubberstamp that operates in secret. As NSA whistleblower J. Kirk Wiebe told FAIR, “It’s more of a psychological maneuver to make us all feel good than a true constraint.”

The Mass Surveillance of US Public Continues as USA Today Declares It Ended FAIR

None of it went away and nobody is going to fight it as long as the news headlines keep telling people it's a wrap.

"NSA ends data collection." True. What they don't volunteer though is "NSA outsources data collection to private contractors."

That all by itself is a major problem and has been a problem from the get go.

AND the phone companies are trustworthy?

 

[PratchettFan]

So you can't point to any instance where it has done any of the bad things people say are being done.

Now please explain to me how keeping records on phone connections is a revolting violation of privacy.

I would be more than happy to if you could be a little more specific on "the bad things people say are being done". There is quite a bit out there and some I wouldn't even bother to defend.

Heck, pick one. Tell me a bad thing that is happening to our citizens as a result of this. Because I have yet to hear of a single person being harmed by it. But you must know about some instances - so please educate me.

Unreasonable searches. No probable cause. That one's easy.

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year audit finds - The Washington Post

I'm still waiting to hear the harm. Take your time. I'll wait.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people are currently the enemy.

The only thing being tracked without a warrant are phone numbers. Your phone number is not your person, house, papers or effects. It is just a number assigned to your phone and, in point of fact, belongs to the phone company. The only actual search that might happen of you is if your phone number is connected to the phone number of a known terrorist. At that point, there is probable cause and a warrant is obtained. This is not a violation of the IV amendment. It is an important tool in protecting this nation from attack.

I am still waiting to hear of a single case in which someone was harmed by it. I know people have been harmed by attacks. The attacks are real, your concerns are fantasy.

 

[PratchettFan]

USA Today (6/3/15) had a five-column headline across the top of its front page:
NSA Data Collection Ended

That would be odd, since the National Security Agency exists to collect data; it’s unlikely that a $10 billion agency would simply stop everything it was doing.

What the headline means to say is that the NSA has ended what the story calls its “controversial bulk collection of the phone data of millions of Americans who have no ties to terrorism.” But that’s not really true either. For one thing, while the headline says that the phone data collection program has ended, the vote the headline is reporting actually restarted it. While the NSA says it ended the collection of bulk metadata at the end of May in accordance with a sunset provision in the original Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act authorizes the the agency to begin collecting it again over what USA Today calls a six-month “wind down” period “to give the NSA and phone companies…time to switch over the data collection to the phone companies.”

And that points to a bigger problem with declaring that the NSA’s data collection has “ended”: The same data will still be collected, only it will be held in phone company computers rather than the NSA’s computers. The NSA will still have access to the data, only having to get an OK from the FISA court–a notorious rubberstamp that operates in secret. As NSA whistleblower J. Kirk Wiebe told FAIR, “It’s more of a psychological maneuver to make us all feel good than a true constraint.”

The Mass Surveillance of US Public Continues as USA Today Declares It Ended FAIR

None of it went away and nobody is going to fight it as long as the news headlines keep telling people it's a wrap.

"NSA ends data collection." True. What they don't volunteer though is "NSA outsources data collection to private contractors."

That all by itself is a major problem and has been a problem from the get go.

AND the phone companies are trustworthy?

Then don't use a phone.

 

[Disir]

USA Today (6/3/15) had a five-column headline across the top of its front page:
NSA Data Collection Ended

That would be odd, since the National Security Agency exists to collect data; it’s unlikely that a $10 billion agency would simply stop everything it was doing.

What the headline means to say is that the NSA has ended what the story calls its “controversial bulk collection of the phone data of millions of Americans who have no ties to terrorism.” But that’s not really true either. For one thing, while the headline says that the phone data collection program has ended, the vote the headline is reporting actually restarted it. While the NSA says it ended the collection of bulk metadata at the end of May in accordance with a sunset provision in the original Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act authorizes the the agency to begin collecting it again over what USA Today calls a six-month “wind down” period “to give the NSA and phone companies…time to switch over the data collection to the phone companies.”

And that points to a bigger problem with declaring that the NSA’s data collection has “ended”: The same data will still be collected, only it will be held in phone company computers rather than the NSA’s computers. The NSA will still have access to the data, only having to get an OK from the FISA court–a notorious rubberstamp that operates in secret. As NSA whistleblower J. Kirk Wiebe told FAIR, “It’s more of a psychological maneuver to make us all feel good than a true constraint.”

The Mass Surveillance of US Public Continues as USA Today Declares It Ended FAIR

None of it went away and nobody is going to fight it as long as the news headlines keep telling people it's a wrap.

"NSA ends data collection." True. What they don't volunteer though is "NSA outsources data collection to private contractors."

That all by itself is a major problem and has been a problem from the get go.

AND the phone companies are trustworthy?

Then don't use a phone.

Wrong answer.

 

[Disir]

I would be more than happy to if you could be a little more specific on "the bad things people say are being done". There is quite a bit out there and some I wouldn't even bother to defend.

Heck, pick one. Tell me a bad thing that is happening to our citizens as a result of this. Because I have yet to hear of a single person being harmed by it. But you must know about some instances - so please educate me.

Unreasonable searches. No probable cause. That one's easy.

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year audit finds - The Washington Post

I'm still waiting to hear the harm. Take your time. I'll wait.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people are currently the enemy.

The only thing being tracked without a warrant are phone numbers. Your phone number is not your person, house, papers or effects. It is just a number assigned to your phone and, in point of fact, belongs to the phone company. The only actual search that might happen of you is if your phone number is connected to the phone number of a known terrorist. At that point, there is probable cause and a warrant is obtained. This is not a violation of the IV amendment. It is an important tool in protecting this nation from attack.

I am still waiting to hear of a single case in which someone was harmed by it. I know people have been harmed by attacks. The attacks are real, your concerns are fantasy.

Except that it isn't an important tool. This is the part you're missing. There is no justification for this program. None. An internal audit in 2012 alone found 2,766 privacy violations. That's harm.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

So you can't point to any instance where it has done any of the bad things people say are being done.

Now please explain to me how keeping records on phone connections is a revolting violation of privacy.

I would be more than happy to if you could be a little more specific on "the bad things people say are being done". There is quite a bit out there and some I wouldn't even bother to defend.

Heck, pick one. Tell me a bad thing that is happening to our citizens as a result of this. Because I have yet to hear of a single person being harmed by it. But you must know about some instances - so please educate me.

Unreasonable searches. No probable cause. That one's easy.

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year audit finds - The Washington Post

I'm still waiting to hear the harm. Take your time. I'll wait.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people are currently the enemy.

Operative word usually ignored is 'unresonable searches...'

Meta data collection is perfectly reasonable.

 

[PratchettFan]

USA Today (6/3/15) had a five-column headline across the top of its front page:
NSA Data Collection Ended

That would be odd, since the National Security Agency exists to collect data; it’s unlikely that a $10 billion agency would simply stop everything it was doing.

What the headline means to say is that the NSA has ended what the story calls its “controversial bulk collection of the phone data of millions of Americans who have no ties to terrorism.” But that’s not really true either. For one thing, while the headline says that the phone data collection program has ended, the vote the headline is reporting actually restarted it. While the NSA says it ended the collection of bulk metadata at the end of May in accordance with a sunset provision in the original Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act authorizes the the agency to begin collecting it again over what USA Today calls a six-month “wind down” period “to give the NSA and phone companies…time to switch over the data collection to the phone companies.”

And that points to a bigger problem with declaring that the NSA’s data collection has “ended”: The same data will still be collected, only it will be held in phone company computers rather than the NSA’s computers. The NSA will still have access to the data, only having to get an OK from the FISA court–a notorious rubberstamp that operates in secret. As NSA whistleblower J. Kirk Wiebe told FAIR, “It’s more of a psychological maneuver to make us all feel good than a true constraint.”

The Mass Surveillance of US Public Continues as USA Today Declares It Ended FAIR

None of it went away and nobody is going to fight it as long as the news headlines keep telling people it's a wrap.

"NSA ends data collection." True. What they don't volunteer though is "NSA outsources data collection to private contractors."

That all by itself is a major problem and has been a problem from the get go.

AND the phone companies are trustworthy?

Then don't use a phone.

Wrong answer.

Sorry you don't live in a perfect world. You make your choices and you live with the consequences. You don't trust the phone companies, don't deal with the phone companies. You don't want to give up your phone, then trust the phone companies.

 

[PratchettFan]

Heck, pick one. Tell me a bad thing that is happening to our citizens as a result of this. Because I have yet to hear of a single person being harmed by it. But you must know about some instances - so please educate me.

Unreasonable searches. No probable cause. That one's easy.

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year audit finds - The Washington Post

I'm still waiting to hear the harm. Take your time. I'll wait.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people are currently the enemy.

The only thing being tracked without a warrant are phone numbers. Your phone number is not your person, house, papers or effects. It is just a number assigned to your phone and, in point of fact, belongs to the phone company. The only actual search that might happen of you is if your phone number is connected to the phone number of a known terrorist. At that point, there is probable cause and a warrant is obtained. This is not a violation of the IV amendment. It is an important tool in protecting this nation from attack.

I am still waiting to hear of a single case in which someone was harmed by it. I know people have been harmed by attacks. The attacks are real, your concerns are fantasy.

Except that it isn't an important tool. This is the part you're missing. There is no justification for this program. None. An internal audit in 2012 alone found 2,766 privacy violations. That's harm.

I'm not missing it. It is an important tool.

How is it harm? Did someone go to jail, lose their property, or be inconvenienced in some way? Explain the harm to me.

 

[Disir]

Unreasonable searches. No probable cause. That one's easy.

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year audit finds - The Washington Post

I'm still waiting to hear the harm. Take your time. I'll wait.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people are currently the enemy.

The only thing being tracked without a warrant are phone numbers. Your phone number is not your person, house, papers or effects. It is just a number assigned to your phone and, in point of fact, belongs to the phone company. The only actual search that might happen of you is if your phone number is connected to the phone number of a known terrorist. At that point, there is probable cause and a warrant is obtained. This is not a violation of the IV amendment. It is an important tool in protecting this nation from attack.

I am still waiting to hear of a single case in which someone was harmed by it. I know people have been harmed by attacks. The attacks are real, your concerns are fantasy.

Except that it isn't an important tool. This is the part you're missing. There is no justification for this program. None. An internal audit in 2012 alone found 2,766 privacy violations. That's harm.

I'm not missing it. It is an important tool.

How is it harm? Did someone go to jail, lose their property, or be inconvenienced in some way? Explain the harm to me.

The privacy violations. You don't need to be beaten to recognize that it is harmful. It's not an important tool. It's ineffective. Thus it is just sucking up cash.

 

[Idadunno]

The NSA has been around under one name or another since WWI and will continue to do so. They get "caught" spying, say they are sorry and will stop, and change names. Other countries do it too. Nothing new here. (waving to NSA guy--you look mavvvvelous today )

 

[Idadunno]

[How is it harm? Did someone go to jail, lose their property, or be inconvenienced in some way? Explain the harm to me.
Jimmy Hoffa did disappear

 

[PratchettFan]

Heck, pick one. Tell me a bad thing that is happening to our citizens as a result of this. Because I have yet to hear of a single person being harmed by it. But you must know about some instances - so please educate me.

Unreasonable searches. No probable cause. That one's easy.

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year audit finds - The Washington Post

I'm still waiting to hear the harm. Take your time. I'll wait.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people are currently the enemy.

Operative word usually ignored is 'unresonable searches...'

Meta data collection is perfectly reasonable.

I'm still waiting to hear the harm. Take your time. I'll wait.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people are currently the enemy.

The only thing being tracked without a warrant are phone numbers. Your phone number is not your person, house, papers or effects. It is just a number assigned to your phone and, in point of fact, belongs to the phone company. The only actual search that might happen of you is if your phone number is connected to the phone number of a known terrorist. At that point, there is probable cause and a warrant is obtained. This is not a violation of the IV amendment. It is an important tool in protecting this nation from attack.

I am still waiting to hear of a single case in which someone was harmed by it. I know people have been harmed by attacks. The attacks are real, your concerns are fantasy.

Except that it isn't an important tool. This is the part you're missing. There is no justification for this program. None. An internal audit in 2012 alone found 2,766 privacy violations. That's harm.

I'm not missing it. It is an important tool.

How is it harm? Did someone go to jail, lose their property, or be inconvenienced in some way? Explain the harm to me.

The privacy violations. You don't need to be beaten to recognize that it is harmful. It's not an important tool. It's ineffective. Thus it is just sucking up cash.

You are just flat wrong when it comes to the usefulness. But I don't want to get into a pointless argument on it because neither of us are going to agree.

Privacy violations are not harm in and of themselves. They are just errors. Given the amount of data, I would say that's a pretty low error rate. Who has been harmed as a result? The answer is no one. Absolutely no one. (With the exception of people whose plots to attack the US were foiled.)

 

[Disir]

Unreasonable searches. No probable cause. That one's easy.

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year audit finds - The Washington Post

I'm still waiting to hear the harm. Take your time. I'll wait.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people are currently the enemy.

Operative word usually ignored is 'unresonable searches...'

Meta data collection is perfectly reasonable.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people are currently the enemy.

The only thing being tracked without a warrant are phone numbers. Your phone number is not your person, house, papers or effects. It is just a number assigned to your phone and, in point of fact, belongs to the phone company. The only actual search that might happen of you is if your phone number is connected to the phone number of a known terrorist. At that point, there is probable cause and a warrant is obtained. This is not a violation of the IV amendment. It is an important tool in protecting this nation from attack.

I am still waiting to hear of a single case in which someone was harmed by it. I know people have been harmed by attacks. The attacks are real, your concerns are fantasy.

Except that it isn't an important tool. This is the part you're missing. There is no justification for this program. None. An internal audit in 2012 alone found 2,766 privacy violations. That's harm.

I'm not missing it. It is an important tool.

How is it harm? Did someone go to jail, lose their property, or be inconvenienced in some way? Explain the harm to me.

The privacy violations. You don't need to be beaten to recognize that it is harmful. It's not an important tool. It's ineffective. Thus it is just sucking up cash.

You are just flat wrong when it comes to the usefulness. But I don't want to get into a pointless argument on it because neither of us are going to agree.

Privacy violations are not harm in and of themselves. They are just errors. Given the amount of data, I would say that's a pretty low error rate. Who has been harmed as a result? The answer is no one. Absolutely no one. (With the exception of people whose plots to attack the US were foiled.)

And, yet, you have nothing to prove that it has ever been useful. Frankly, that makes you just so much wrong-er.........dead wrong.

Nope, we aren't going to agree on this. That's ok. Have a great day.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm still waiting to hear the harm. Take your time. I'll wait.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people are currently the enemy.

Operative word usually ignored is 'unresonable searches...'

Meta data collection is perfectly reasonable.

The only thing being tracked without a warrant are phone numbers. Your phone number is not your person, house, papers or effects. It is just a number assigned to your phone and, in point of fact, belongs to the phone company. The only actual search that might happen of you is if your phone number is connected to the phone number of a known terrorist. At that point, there is probable cause and a warrant is obtained. This is not a violation of the IV amendment. It is an important tool in protecting this nation from attack.

I am still waiting to hear of a single case in which someone was harmed by it. I know people have been harmed by attacks. The attacks are real, your concerns are fantasy.

Except that it isn't an important tool. This is the part you're missing. There is no justification for this program. None. An internal audit in 2012 alone found 2,766 privacy violations. That's harm.

I'm not missing it. It is an important tool.

How is it harm? Did someone go to jail, lose their property, or be inconvenienced in some way? Explain the harm to me.

The privacy violations. You don't need to be beaten to recognize that it is harmful. It's not an important tool. It's ineffective. Thus it is just sucking up cash.

You are just flat wrong when it comes to the usefulness. But I don't want to get into a pointless argument on it because neither of us are going to agree.

Privacy violations are not harm in and of themselves. They are just errors. Given the amount of data, I would say that's a pretty low error rate. Who has been harmed as a result? The answer is no one. Absolutely no one. (With the exception of people whose plots to attack the US were foiled.)

And, yet, you have nothing to prove that it has ever been useful. Frankly, that makes you just so much wrong-er.........dead wrong.

Nope, we aren't going to agree on this. That's ok. Have a great day.

I'm fine with disagreeing. The thing is, the NSA is not going to release classified information so I can't give you examples. However, this is an interesting article and there are others if you don't like the Heritage Foundation. 50 Terror Attacks Foiled Since 9 11

That many plots foiled. Do you think it is because we have people infiltrated in every little group in the US? Do you seriously believe the NSA isn't interested in protecting the country and that neither Bush nor Obama saw any benefit to the program?

 

[hipeter924]

NSA data collection has not ended at all, it has been only slightly scaled back, meaning basically the same procedure for acquiring data - but private companies hold the records for the NSA, and they have to name people or organizations.

So instead of acquiring the records on whole state of Nevada or all AT&T customers, they now have to request data in small chunks.

They way they get around it, would probably be multiple requests as opposed to single requests.

So not the big reform the media make it out to be, as bulk data collection continues, and phone records are only a small fraction of the data they collect.