• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama / NSA listening to phone calls without warrants

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
palehorse said:
You have already made it quite clear, in this very thread, that you're much more worried about Obama's political standing than you are about protecting our civil liberties. You've said exactly that!

And then you have the audacity to call me a political hack?! That's f'n rich!

I think you need to go back and read my very first post in this thread. Then, keep re-reading it over and over until it sinks in...
Click to expand...

How about you re read my posts again and then read them one more time and maybe then your reading comprehension skills might kick in and you will see what my thoughts on Obama are.

My expectations are low though so no pressure.
 
ivwshane said:
How about you re read my posts again and then read them one more time and maybe then your reading comprehension skills might kick in and you will see what my thoughts on Obama are.

My expectations are low though so no pressure.
Click to expand...
You said, in no uncertain terms, that you'd rather see Obama do nothing than see him risk political fallout (read: blame) from a hypothetical attack in the future that might be blamed on his stopping the programs.

You said that. That was you.

I know exactly what you want... we all do.
 
palehorse said:
You said, in no uncertain terms, that you'd rather see Obama do nothing than see him risk political fallout (read: blame) from a hypothetical attack in the future that might be blamed on his stopping the programs.

You said that. That was you.

I know exactly what you want... we all do.
Click to expand...

No that's not what I said you fucking moron!

Your dumbass is claiming this is a non partisan issue and anyone pointing fingers is dumb.

I'm saying it's not a partisan issue but in order to correct it it has to be done through congress. I explain why Obama won't change it and why him trying to fix it wouldn't be smart anyway. I also explain why congress hasn't done anything and what needs to be done to change that.

All you have done in this thread is point fingers at everyone else who pointing fingers, you have offered zero realistic solutions.

Do you fucking get it now? Or was my response too complicated for you to follow?
 
ivwshane said:
No that's not what I said you fucking moron!

Your dumbass is claiming this is a non partisan issue and anyone pointing fingers is dumb.

I'm saying it's not a partisan issue but in order to correct it it has to be done through congress. I explain why Obama won't change it and why him trying to fix it wouldn't be smart anyway. I also explain why congress hasn't done anything and what needs to be done to change that.

All you have done in this thread is point fingers at everyone else who pointing fingers, you have offered zero realistic solutions.

Do you fucking get it now? Or was my response too complicated for you to follow?
Click to expand...

your idea is for your guy to just ignore the problem. Because you blame others for creating it.
 
ivwshane said:
No that's not what I said you fucking moron!

Your dumbass is claiming this is a non partisan issue and anyone pointing fingers is dumb.

I'm saying it's not a partisan issue but in order to correct it it has to be done through congress. I explain why Obama won't change it and why him trying to fix it wouldn't be smart anyway. I also explain why congress hasn't done anything and what needs to be done to change that.

All you have done in this thread is point fingers at everyone else who pointing fingers, you have offered zero realistic solutions.

Do you fucking get it now? Or was my response too complicated for you to follow?
Click to expand...
Riiiight...

Pipedream: Presidential EO now; immediately followed by a very public, and very direct, Presidential demand that Congress drop everything else they're doing to comprehensively amend, or completely overturn, the current FISA and PA legislation.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9998 said:
The ACLU, who has filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of all this, disagrees with you.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-nat...gy-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-section-215

Essentially section 215 is a free-for-all to collect records. The agency must apply to the court for an order permitting it, but probable cause is not required. The only thing required is that the records are not sought "solely" for the reason that a citizen is exercising his First Amendment rights, though apparently it is OK if that is part of the reason.

- wolf
Click to expand...

Wolf,

I reread the ACLU info and I don't see where they're disagreeing with me. To be more specific, I don't see where they're making the claim that this provision (section 215) in the Patriot Act is being used to authorize the alleged large scale spying on US citizens.

Last night I managed to stumble upon a pdf of James Clapper's 'clarification' of his prior testimony to Congress. I can't seem to find it today. My recollection is that he was claiming this was all authorized under FISA (section 70 IIRC).

My real point here is not whether the ACLU disagrees with me or not, but rather before Congress runs off correcting this or that provision we really need to know specifically how the Exec branch (DoJ, President, NSA and FBI) has deemed these spying programs authorized so we can fix the problem. I.e., if Congress amends section 215 of the P.A. but the Exec branch is using another law as authorization we wouldn't have accomplished anything.

We've got to close the right loophole.

Fern
 
woolfe9998 said:
-snip-
That is what the ACLU will argue in its lawsuit, that the statute is unconstitutionally over-broad because it doesn't require probable cause. I agree with them.
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't get it, but since the Constitution itself specifically mentions that probable cause is required I don't see how leaving it out of a statute means probable cause can be ignored.

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.
Click to expand...

Fern
 
I thinks it's interesting to see what the author of the Patriot Act has to say about this. I'm not positive, but I think he's referring to the phone metadata program:

“As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the FBI’s interpretation of this legislation,” Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. said in a statement on Thursday.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Thursday, Sensenbrenner said the tracking “appears to be an overbroad interpretation of the Act” and demanded that the attorney general explain the legality of such a move under the Patriot Act.

"These reports are deeply concerning and raise questions about whether our constitutional rights are secure,” he wrote in the letter. “How could the phone records of so many innocent Americans be relevant to an authorized investigation as required by the Act?”

In 2006 the year Sen. Diane Feinstein says the NSA’s phone tracking began, Sensenbrenner editorialized in favor of the Patriot Act’s renewal, saying that “no rights have been violated,” and “congressional negotiators added more than 30 civil liberty safeguards not included in current law to ensure that the Patriot Act’s authorities would not be abused in the future.”

"I do not believe the broadly drafted FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act,” he said Thursday. “Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.”
Click to expand...

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/07/patriot-act-author-nsas-phone-tracking-is-un-american-abuses-power/

Fern
 
Fern said:
- The judiciary cannot get involved until a case is brought before it. I don't see much chance for that to happen because it's all so highly classified. How does one bring a case against the federal govt for something one cannot even know about, much less prove?

Fern
Click to expand...

Its much worse than that since the admin will claim "States secrets" on basically every piece of evidence that exists which means it can't be used in court.

There is no checks and balances on this. Hell even the wording of the law they are claiming allows this is complete horseshit.
 
werepossum said:
To be fair, I think rather a lot of people would. People tend to credit or blame the President for all sorts of things over which he has limited or no control, and this would be a failure that, right or wrong, would point straight back at Obama or whichever President fails to use the power extended.
Click to expand...

Oh he would catch some blame for the attack, regardless if this is implemented or not, but I just don't see how he would catch any heat from people that aren't already his enemies for not spying on every single American citizen.
 
Darwin333 said:
Its much worse than that since the admin will claim "States secrets" on basically every piece of evidence that exists which means it can't be used in court.

There is no checks and balances on this. Hell even the wording of the law they are claiming allows this is complete horseshit.
Click to expand...

So, uhh, the Obama Admin is, in fact, following the law?

Who passed those bills to become law? Who insists that they remain in force?

Congress, and the Obama Admin is merely doing their bidding, while the conservative SCOTUS is doing their dead level best to avoid the whole thing entirely. Imagine that.

Which is not to say that I agree with what they're doing, at all, but I seriously doubt that any other viable presidential contender would have acted differently if elected. In all likelihood, it'd probably be worse.
 
Fern said:
Wolf,

I reread the ACLU info and I don't see where they're disagreeing with me. To be more specific, I don't see where they're making the claim that this provision (section 215) in the Patriot Act is being used to authorize the alleged large scale spying on US citizens.

Last night I managed to stumble upon a pdf of James Clapper's 'clarification' of his prior testimony to Congress. I can't seem to find it today. My recollection is that he was claiming this was all authorized under FISA (section 70 IIRC).

My real point here is not whether the ACLU disagrees with me or not, but rather before Congress runs off correcting this or that provision we really need to know specifically how the Exec branch (DoJ, President, NSA and FBI) has deemed these spying programs authorized so we can fix the problem. I.e., if Congress amends section 215 of the P.A. but the Exec branch is using another law as authorization we wouldn't have accomplished anything.

We've got to close the right loophole.

Fern
Click to expand...

We definitely want to close the right loophole. I don't think you read the Atlantic article I linked:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...t-here-and-what-we-can-do-to-get-back/276667/

That is where I got the link to the ACLU commentary, because the Atlantic is claiming that section 215 is one of two of the legal grounds cited, presumably by the government, as a legal basis. They are saying that 215 is what they used to authorize the phone records from Verizon, whereas the data they're getting under PRISM was authorized under the 2008 amendment to FISA. I haven't read through that amendment yet. Section 215 is a lot shorter so I tackled that first.

Since the ACLU is specifically suing over Verizon, on the theory that they have legal standing due to them being a Verizon customer, it's safe to assume they are challenging the constitutionality of section 215.
 
Fern said:
I guess I just don't get it, but since the Constitution itself specifically mentions that probable cause is required I don't see how leaving it out of a statute means probable cause can be ignored.



Fern
Click to expand...

Because the SCOTUS has not held that probable cause is necessary for every search. They don't need PC for wholesale searches at airports, for health and safety inspections, for DUI checkpoints, for building inspections, etc etc.

Apparently, they wrote it that way and left it up to judicial review to determine if PC is needed. My best guess is that their affidavit stated that they would seek a warrant and supply PC to examine the records if the need arose in the future. At that time, they were requesting only the wholesale collection of them, the theory being that they wanted them preserved for possible future use. I haven't seen their affidavit, obviously, so I'm just making an educated guess here.
 
Jhhnn said:
So, uhh, the Obama Admin is, in fact, following the law?

Who passed those bills to become law? Who insists that they remain in force?

Congress, and the Obama Admin is merely doing their bidding, while the conservative SCOTUS is doing their dead level best to avoid the whole thing entirely. Imagine that.

Which is not to say that I agree with what they're doing, at all, but I seriously doubt that any other viable presidential contender would have acted differently if elected. In all likelihood, it'd probably be worse.
Click to expand...

FoolAid-41330378261.jpeg
 
I'm sure Jhhnn would agree that Bush was merely implementing what congress wanted, and therefore not to blame for anything.
 
BoberFett said:
I'm sure Jhhnn would agree that Bush was merely implementing what congress wanted, and therefore not to blame for anything.
Click to expand...

Lol! Uh no. It's why the patriot act and it's amendments that protected previous acts was passed in the first place.

Nice try though. Thanks for providing examples why checks and balanced are necessary and simply asking the president to sign an executive order to prevent abuses is just plain stupid.
 
ivwshane said:
Lol! Uh no. It's why the patriot act and it's amendments that protected previous acts was passed in the first place.

Nice try though. Thanks for providing examples why checks and balanced are necessary and simply asking the president to sign an executive order to prevent abuses is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Checks and balances are there are a preventative measure. That doesn't mean the three branches should try to fuck us as much as possible with the idea that it's up to the other two to stop them.

Your Obama worship knows no bounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top