We need security, but until the data collected is kept completely separate from
the person being monitored, there will be abuses.We need a system
where everything I do that is monitored and analyzed occurs under a pseudonym.
Those analyzing the data just know that JohnDoe1234 did X, Y, and Z. They can
determine if anything in that list is suspicious and try and link it to other
suspicious behavior from other data collected, but they still don't know
who I am.Only after convincing a judge that X, Y, and/or Z
constitute a threat to national security, can the intelligence community find
out that JohnDoe1234 is really me. Likewise, the entity that knows that I am
JohnDoe1234, does not know anything about what is being monitored. Keep them
separate, require a court order to put the two pieces together.
Unreconstructed Reb has a point. I just read the 18 page letter from Judge John
Bates to Senator Feinstein directly addressing some of the issues at hand. I found it an interesting trip into the head of the man in charge, and
an enlightening explanation of the courts "work". It also put some
substance into what I previously held as merely personal suspicions.
It's a fine line between keeping Americans safe and infringing on their
rights, and the line is fluid and subjective. We're fortunate we have an
honorable, secure President willing to openly address the chanllenges and risks
assiciated with this issue. At the end of the day we have to sacrifice some
freedoms for security but the questions is how much?
We have the ability to demand change. But before doing so, it's necessary
to understand exactly what is being done by NSA and its underlying legal and
structural justifications. It's very clear from the comments that more
public understanding is necessary on:-The Fourth Amendment and
associated jurisprudence/caselaw (especially issues like what a "reasonable,
articulable suspicion" means, and when a warrant is or isn't needed,
because several commenters are simply flat-out wrong);-What NSA was
authorized to do in post 9/11 executive orders;-What FISA is, what
its scope is, and how it has been amended by the Patriot Act, the Terrorist
Surveillance Act of 2006 and other subsequent amendments;-How FISA
has been interpreted in cases like In re Directives;-How the FISC
courts operate;-The role of Congressional oversight; and-Telecommunications laws that are sorely in need of updates for the 21st
century internetYes, that's a lot of information. But
it's necessary to have at least a cursory understanding of it to understand
exactly what needs to be reformed and how to do it. And it makes one sound far
less ignorant when commenting on this issue.
The speech I heard mentioned some easy work-arounds for the NSA. Secret Court
permission (notice "warrant" with its requirements was not said) can be
bypassed in emergency and via National Security Letter. Put the responsibility
to hold the data in 3rd party hands plus NSL equals plausible deniability to NSA
continued access behavior. Oh but wait! We have a watchdog group of
folks in the secret court who can't really participate, due to security
concerns (or who are part of the system). And they will not take part at
looking at existing things going on, only new stuff. NSA work-around for that is
"can we do it again?" We still have a secret no fly
list. We still have the ability to administratively apply the
"terrorist" label to anyone. We now have yet another secret list
of foreign leaders we won't spy on.Where is reining in?
People are naive to think the government is the only one spying on us. Business
are just as dangerous, think of all the data Google, Facebook, et. al have on
everyone. They sell this data to companies to market to us. Ever heard of big
data? It's all the rave now. I imagine the dnews js also watching what we
each do with every click on their site.
OK Deseret News if you believe that I have some swamp land in........
My hope is that any and all restrictions put on our Federal government also
apply to any and all private entities under American control.
I watched Pres. Obama's entire speech on the NSA, and I found his
explanation of the need for change and the suggested changes themselves to be
compelling and comprehensive. I was greatly rellieved that the proposed changes
were limited and reasonable. His use of executive power was more contained that
at any other time in his presidency. I know it won't last, but for 45
minutes he sounded presidential and moderate.
The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to according to our
Constitution. There is no public oversight. There are no public rules for what
data is collected, how it is stored and how it gets attributed to a person, and
how the aggregate data is analyzed and who is the beneficiary of that
information. We also do not know what the rules are when private information is
discovered and stored that could be used to blackmail someone. Do note this has
already happened. I do not want to live in a world where everything
I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live
under. Even if you're not doing anything wrong, you're being watched
and recorded.Government is not the target, our system of government
is sound. Our corrupt and criminal leadership is what must be removed.Privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be. I do
not want to live in a world where there is no privacy.WE WANT OUR
Obama claims to be a Constitutional Scholar. He taught about the Constitution
on a university level, yet he doesn't seem to have a clue about the
Constitution. The 4th Amendment states: "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."I asked a 12-year-old grandson to explain that to me.
He saw that a warrant had to be issued that described the place to be searched
and that fact that there had to be probable cause. Obama gets and
"F" for his failure to understand the Supreme Law of the Land, the Law
that he has taken an oath to defend: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will
to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
"The trick also is to be nimble enough to respond to changing technology and
practices...Obama deserves credit for laying out a plan that
attempts to walk this tightrope, and for acknowledging that privacy concerns
need to be constantly debated and analyzed going forward."Wouldn't want to be in Obama's shoes. Just think; what would Romney
do? If Romney was president the situation would be the same, just a different
person to take the heat. What would McCain have done to limit NSA abuses?
Interesting to think about; just would have been a different person to blame.
What difference is there whether the gov.stores it or someone else stores it
the info has still been collected? I think the nazis had the same story.
This man has no shame, First he denies the NSA was doing any of this. Then when
the evidence became blaringly obvious he defended it to the teeth. Not until his
crony lap dogs at Google, Facebook, and Amazon among others started griping and
we discovered these companies were in bed with the goverment and passing
information to the NSA did they voice any fuss (Don't believe it ask Google
service and online community sites would never deny or confirm the NSA demands
or authroity to access and view users content). And why? because their customers
started getting angry. Now the media gives him a pass as the Savior coming into
correct the problem as if he had nothing to do with it. Can we finally say the
media has become Pravda?