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

[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.

Beginning to wonder why the government doesn't just start a PSA campaign of like, "Inform on family and friends. Fabulous prizes to be won!" and offer an 800 number.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Beginning to wonder why the government doesn't just start a PSA campaign of like, "Inform on family and friends. Fabulous prizes to be won!" and offer an 800 number.

Dont laugh,it's probably coming.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Notorious rubberstamp or not, the FISA court is a legitimate court and this IS how our system works. If that is a problem, then lobby for law changing the FISA court.

I disagree with the six-month wind-down. They should just stop, cold turkey.

FISA is not a legal court and the program isn't winding down,they're still getting our info,they're just letting the phone company store it until needed.
And if you believe they aren't still using the illegally obtained info I got a bridge to sell you.

Not a legal court? LOL

Why don't you provide the information that makes it illegal.

BTW...the data belongs to the phone company. How is it that allowing someone to keep their property is now illegal?

So you're just fine with the phone company storing your data so they can turn it over to the feds? Hell the phone company shouldnt be snooping on you.
And as far as FISA they are a secret court that we have ZERO say over!! They can decide any damn thing they want and we cant do shit!
Holy shit!! Where's this country heading?

Is the FISA Court constitutional Fox News

The phone company has always stored the data.....It is their property. The Feds have to have a warrant to get access to it. This is how our system has worked for over 200 years. Businesses get to keep their property, the government must show just cause for taking that property.

The FISA court IS A COURT. They hear information on classified information regarding national security. Are you one of those nut jobs that think every piece of information the government has should be available to the whole world?

Court order?
You mean like the court order the cops get when they use stingray?
Holy shit people are gullible....

 

[SillyWabbit]

I wondered why it is anyone thought this data would not continue to be collected. I also wonder what happens if some schmuck who is up to no good manages to call my number by accident and I return the call: would I then be on someone's watch list? I guess my policy of never returning or answering a call from a number I don't recognize is probably a good policy--although, do I even have to return the call or is simply having gotten the call enough to be on someone's radar?

Note to self: living in a hut in the mountains, far away from society, with no electronics, is probably the best bet.

Yeah. Let's assume you end up on a watch list. So what?

I'm of the opinion that being on any list that may include criminals and terrorists is not a good thing. That's just me.

Then perhaps you shouldn't call any terrorists outside of the country.

Perhaps a duck shouldn't fly backwards.
The fact is, through no fault of my own I could receive a call from some unsavory type and end up on someone's list. Should I relegate myself to being one of the eggs necessary to break in order to make the omelette that is national security?
When one casts a wide enough net, one catches many things other than what one is fishing for.
Meh, it's a moot point, as I have about as much control over this issue as I do over Solar flares. Anyway, it's all for the common good. Right?

 

[PratchettFan]

I wondered why it is anyone thought this data would not continue to be collected. I also wonder what happens if some schmuck who is up to no good manages to call my number by accident and I return the call: would I then be on someone's watch list? I guess my policy of never returning or answering a call from a number I don't recognize is probably a good policy--although, do I even have to return the call or is simply having gotten the call enough to be on someone's radar?

Note to self: living in a hut in the mountains, far away from society, with no electronics, is probably the best bet.

Yeah. Let's assume you end up on a watch list. So what?

I'm of the opinion that being on any list that may include criminals and terrorists is not a good thing. That's just me.

Then perhaps you shouldn't call any terrorists outside of the country.

Perhaps a duck shouldn't fly backwards.
The fact is, through no fault of my own I could receive a call from some unsavory type and end up on someone's list. Should I relegate myself to being one of the eggs necessary to break in order to make the omelette that is national security?
When one casts a wide enough net, one catches many things other than what one is fishing for.
Meh, it's a moot point, as I have about as much control over this issue as I do over Solar flares. Anyway, it's all for the common good. Right?

Yes. I think that is a point so many people miss. It is for the common good.

If you get that wrong number and you get flagged.... so what? So they take a look at you. What do you think happens then? Are they going to tap your phone and find out you are meeting your spouse for dinner? Check your background and discover you're a member of the Kiwanas? What is going on in your life you are so afraid the government might find out? (don't answer that, I don't want to know)

I'll be absolutely frank here. My phone records are dead boring. The NSA is free to look at them all they like. If that prevents a plane, a train, a mall, a school from being bombed, it has my blessings. I use a cell phone, I text and I get on this board and get into political discussions on a regular basis. No one is forcing me to do that and if I wanted absolute privacy I could stop doing it. It's really like a group of people standing on the street screaming at the top of their voices and simultaneously complaining that other people are listening to their conversation.

 

[Disir]

No. It's not for the common good and it's ineffective.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. It's not for the common good and it's ineffective.

You will have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for that.

 

[Disir]

No. It's not for the common good and it's ineffective.

You will have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for that.

That's great. Can you identify a single instance where phone data collection made a difference in identifying a terrorist plot? Of course not.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. It's not for the common good and it's ineffective.

You will have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for that.

That's great. Can you identify a single instance where phone data collection made a difference in identifying a terrorist plot? Of course not.

Nope. That sort of information would certainly be classified. Can you identify a single instance in which any of those records were used to arrest, charge or imprison a single American citizen?

 

[Disir]

No. It's not for the common good and it's ineffective.

You will have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for that.

That's great. Can you identify a single instance where phone data collection made a difference in identifying a terrorist plot? Of course not.

Nope. That sort of information would certainly be classified. Can you identify a single instance in which any of those records were used to arrest, charge or imprison a single American citizen?

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.

 

[SillyWabbit]

No. It's not for the common good and it's ineffective.

You will have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for that.

That's great. Can you identify a single instance where phone data collection made a difference in identifying a terrorist plot? Of course not.

Nope. That sort of information would certainly be classified. Can you identify a single instance in which any of those records were used to arrest, charge or imprison a single American citizen?

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.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. It's not for the common good and it's ineffective.

You will have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for that.

That's great. Can you identify a single instance where phone data collection made a difference in identifying a terrorist plot? Of course not.

Nope. That sort of information would certainly be classified. Can you identify a single instance in which any of those records were used to arrest, charge or imprison a single American citizen?

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.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. It's not for the common good and it's ineffective.

You will have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for that.

That's great. Can you identify a single instance where phone data collection made a difference in identifying a terrorist plot? Of course not.

Nope. That sort of information would certainly be classified. Can you identify a single instance in which any of those records were used to arrest, charge or imprison a single American citizen?

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.

 

[Disir]

No. It's not for the common good and it's ineffective.

You will have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for that.

That's great. Can you identify a single instance where phone data collection made a difference in identifying a terrorist plot? Of course not.

Nope. That sort of information would certainly be classified. Can you identify a single instance in which any of those records were used to arrest, charge or imprison a single American citizen?

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.

 

[PratchettFan]

You will have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for that.

That's great. Can you identify a single instance where phone data collection made a difference in identifying a terrorist plot? Of course not.

Nope. That sort of information would certainly be classified. Can you identify a single instance in which any of those records were used to arrest, charge or imprison a single American citizen?

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.

 

[Disir]

That's great. Can you identify a single instance where phone data collection made a difference in identifying a terrorist plot? Of course not.

Nope. That sort of information would certainly be classified. Can you identify a single instance in which any of those records were used to arrest, charge or imprison a single American citizen?

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

 

[SillyWabbit]

You will have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for that.

That's great. Can you identify a single instance where phone data collection made a difference in identifying a terrorist plot? Of course not.

Nope. That sort of information would certainly be classified. Can you identify a single instance in which any of those records were used to arrest, charge or imprison a single American citizen?

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.

 

[PratchettFan]

Nope. That sort of information would certainly be classified. Can you identify a single instance in which any of those records were used to arrest, charge or imprison a single American citizen?

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.

 

[PratchettFan]

That's great. Can you identify a single instance where phone data collection made a difference in identifying a terrorist plot? Of course not.

Nope. That sort of information would certainly be classified. Can you identify a single instance in which any of those records were used to arrest, charge or imprison a single American citizen?

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.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Nope. That sort of information would certainly be classified. Can you identify a single instance in which any of those records were used to arrest, charge or imprison a single American citizen?

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.