ACLU sues US government over metadata surveillance program

[dank69]

agree.

The NSA says this themselves. That the data is only mined AFTER they learn of something.

Well if its only used after they learn something, go out and get a warrant for the people you suspect. Don't grab every single piece of data, and just lie to americans telling them you aren't using it.

The data is destroyed after a certain timeframe. This is the reason why the NSA collects it.

 

[DCal430]

The data is destroyed after a certain timeframe. This is the reason why the NSA collects it.

Exactly the Government has to collect this data, because it is destroyed by the companies.

Funny how so many think they know more than all of the legal experts and judges who said this was legal and constitutional. Let us not for get Barack Obama is an expert on constitutional law.

 

[OutHouse]

for days we ahve been hearing, oh its only phone numbers, dates, times.... wer are not captureing any conversations.

But now i am hearing from high level interviews that if they do find anything interesting they can get a warrant to listen to the conversations... WTF WTF WTF!

and there are reports of NSA agents listening in and taping phone calls from soldiers phone calls back home from Iraq.

holy hell this shit is totally out of control.

 

[soundforbjt]

for days we ahve been hearing, oh its only phone numbers, dates, times.... wer are not captureing any conversations.

But now i am hearing from high level interviews that if they do find anything interesting they can get a warrant to listen to the conversations... WTF WTF WTF!

and there are reports of NSA agents listening in and taping phone calls from soldiers phone calls back home from Iraq.

holy hell this shit is totally out of control.

This went on with letters to and from soldiers during WW2 as well. I'm not excusing it, just pointing out that it's been done for a long time.

 

[dank69]

for days we ahve been hearing, oh its only phone numbers, dates, times.... wer are not captureing any conversations.

But now i am hearing from high level interviews that if they do find anything interesting they can get a warrant to listen to the conversations... WTF WTF WTF!

and there are reports of NSA agents listening in and taping phone calls from soldiers phone calls back home from Iraq.

holy hell this shit is totally out of control.

I wouldn't be surprised if the government can monitor soldiers' urine streams in real time, so not sure why you are surprised that their phone calls are monitored when they originate from military bases.

 

[DCal430]

for days we ahve been hearing, oh its only phone numbers, dates, times.... wer are not captureing any conversations.

But now i am hearing from high level interviews that if they do find anything interesting they can get a warrant to listen to the conversations... WTF WTF WTF!

and there are reports of NSA agents listening in and taping phone calls from soldiers phone calls back home from Iraq.

holy hell this shit is totally out of control.

As a soldier they do not have the same rights when they wear the uniform.

 

[Incorruptible]

Exactly the Government has to collect this data, because it is destroyed by the companies.

Funny how so many think they know more than all of the legal experts and judges who said this was legal and constitutional. Let us not for get Barack Obama is an expert on constitutional law.

And he violated the Constitution when he got into power.

 

[Matt1970]

As a soldier they do not have the same rights when they wear the uniform.

The only right a soldier doesn't have that the rest of us do, that I know of anyways, has to do with his speaking out publicly about politics or the President. I would like to see any other info you have.

 

[DCal430]

The only right a soldier doesn't have that the rest of us do, that I know of anyways, has to do with his speaking out publicly about politics or the President. I would like to see any other info you have.

Just seems logical sense for the government to be able to monitor soldiers too look for signs of potential dissent.

 

[OutHouse]

As a soldier they do not have the same rights when they wear the uniform.

the NSA passed around the private recording like the sunday comics. "Hey bob, listen to recording 1,999,0094 that dudes wife is a freak, you wont believe the depraved shit they are into" totally unethical.

dont lecture me on serving pal, I wore the uniform for 10 years.

 

[Matt1970]

Just seems logical sense for the government to be able to monitor soldiers too look for signs of potential dissent.

So once again you are talking out of your ass.

 

[Thebobo]

I am unwilling to give my opinion because of the concern it could be used against me in the future.

 

[monovillage]

I am unwilling to give my opinion because of the concern it could be used against me in the future.

There's a surprising amount of wisdom in that statement.

 

[TheVrolok]

Support the ACLU and the NRA and cover all your bases for civil liberties!

Card carrying member of both.

 

[Darwin333]

No big deal, they'll end up selling out the American people on the 4th Amendment like they sold us out with the 2nd.

Does that mean that in your opinion the Republicans will end up selling out the American people on the 2nd Amendment like the sold us out with the 4th?

 

[etrigan420]

This is one of the most insidious parts of these warrantless surveillance programs, the fact that the government has found a way to make an end-run around the courts. In order to sue you need to prove that you were spied on. The list of people they spy on is classified though, so no one has standing to sue. Therefore no one can ever adjudicate if the spying is legal or not.

For a truly rage inducing example of this read here:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/03/Federal_judge_tosses_wiretap_suit/UPI-99281215102605/

Basically an Islamic charity was warrantlessly wiretapped. When they sued the government over the wiretap the FBI screwed up and mistakenly disclosed to them a document that explicitly showed that the foundation was being wiretapped. After doing so the FBI said the document was in fact classified so they needed it back and it couldn't be used as evidence.

After that, the lawsuit was dismissed because Al-Haramain couldn't prove it was being wiretapped despite having seen the evidence with their own eyes.

We could tell you if we were breaking the law...but then we'd have to kill you.

Warrantless surveillance and no knock warrants, coupled with the inability (or outright refusal) to hold those in position accountable are a recipe for disaster.

...and there have been what, 2 or 3 senators to even show an *inkling* of concern with regards to any of this? Doesn't bode well...

Gov: "There are safeguards in place"

Us: "Such as?"

Gov: "Well, we can't get in to that...classified...national security...terrorists."

Us: "So how do we know you're not abusing it?"

Gov: "Safeguards"

 

[Agent11]

We aren't at war so the WWII example is ridiculous, and just because something was done in the past does not make it right. Betraying our principles of governance and individual liberty shouldn't be something to take lightly.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is one of the most insidious parts of these warrantless surveillance programs, the fact that the government has found a way to make an end-run around the courts. In order to sue you need to prove that you were spied on. The list of people they spy on is classified though, so no one has standing to sue. Therefore no one can ever adjudicate if the spying is legal or not.

For a truly rage inducing example of this read here:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/03/Federal_judge_tosses_wiretap_suit/UPI-99281215102605/

Basically an Islamic charity was warrantlessly wiretapped. When they sued the government over the wiretap the FBI screwed up and mistakenly disclosed to them a document that explicitly showed that the foundation was being wiretapped. After doing so the FBI said the document was in fact classified so they needed it back and it couldn't be used as evidence.

After that, the lawsuit was dismissed because Al-Haramain couldn't prove it was being wiretapped despite having seen the evidence with their own eyes.

That's why this will be going nowhere. The ACLU won't be able to sue based on "we know you have some kind of program" but will need specifics. Those are classified so they will have to have substantial evidence that something illegal happened, but for that they need details which are classified. There is no winning this.

For the legal types, what can the ACLU do in such a situation? How can they even keep their suit from being dismissed out of hand?

 

[Doppel]

As a soldier they do not have the same rights when they wear the uniform.

There you go full retard again, dcal. Armed Forces have full constitutional protections, stop being fucking stupid. At least use google once in a while.

That example above from eskimospy is proof that regular channels will not work to deal with this kind of mass invasion of privacy. Leakers are the only way we learn anything at all about what's going on and if the above is typical legal approaches the courts won't/can't decide this either.

 

[Screech]

Anyone who thinks the government is only collecting metadata is being ridiculous. The current amount of data on the internet per year (literally the size of the internet) is on the order of hundreds of exabytes (10^20 bytes). The facility the NSA is building in utah is on the order of yottabytes (10^24 bytes). You don't build a facility large enough to store years of the internet just to record who made a few phone calls.

 

[monovillage]

Does that mean that in your opinion the Republicans will end up selling out the American people on the 2nd Amendment like the sold us out with the 4th?

In the long run............. yes.

 

[monovillage]

the supreme court has been pretty good about the 2nd amendment as of late. heller vs. DC and mcdonald vs. chicago. 2 big wins for 2A.

one can only hope they champion the rights of the people on this as well.

I meant the ACLU which has been actively working against the 2nd Amendment for decades.

 

[Fenixgoon]

There you go full retard again, dcal. Armed Forces have full constitutional protections, stop being fucking stupid. At least use google once in a while.

That example above from eskimospy is proof that regular channels will not work to deal with this kind of mass invasion of privacy. Leakers are the only way we learn anything at all about what's going on and if the above is typical legal approaches the courts won't/can't decide this either.

actually in DoD jobs that's part of the gig. Any DoD installation should have stickers over the phones saying "calls subject to monitoring". Essentially just an "employer" making sure no "trade secrets" are lost.

Now, monitoring citizens...yes, very illegal and unconstitutional

 

[Dari]

Anyone who thinks the government is only collecting metadata is being ridiculous. The current amount of data on the internet per year (literally the size of the internet) is on the order of hundreds of exabytes (10^20 bytes). The facility the NSA is building in utah is on the order of yottabytes (10^24 bytes). You don't build a facility large enough to store years of the internet just to record who made a few phone calls.

Actually, it's zettabytes (10^21)...

http://www.npr.org/2013/06/10/190160772/amid-data-controversy-nsa-builds-its-biggest-data-farm

 

[zinfamous]

Some people really need to read the Constitution and be able to understand it.

You first.