Obama extends patriot act

[John99]

Where do you get yours?

From the tooth fairy.

Laws in the U.S are very different from state to state so best to know what the laws are before you do something. I know of places in the u.s where a person can smoke weed and the cops dont do anything about it and if they do it is a ticket and way under 1K. Like i said though, best to know the laws and not assume plus i am not covering all states. I dont recommend to just go out and smoke weed in the street but then same for alcohol because there are open container laws and you will\can get fined for that too. And yes, that varies from state to state.

Federal Prison? I dont think Varda knows what the word "Federal" means.

 

[Varda]

It was no abuse of the Constitution since they never DEMANDED or FORCED the phone companies to turn over the data.

They asked for the call logs and most companies gave it to them.

Listen to yourself.
The information they obtain was PRIVATE, and there was an expectation of privacy on the part of the consumer/citizen. Obtaining that information is the constitutional violation. There is NO LEGAL RECOURSE to keep that information private, as liability was removed.
And on top of it, all of this was done in secret for 4 years until the media blew it open.

Little arthur's only way to keep his information private is to not use the service. No phone, no e-mail, no post office, no internet. I'd buy some pigeons if I were you, little arthur!

Does that sound like a free society to you?

No it's not.
You clearly LIED about what they were doing.
You clearly stated that they were LISTENING to our conversations, when it was clear right from the beginning of this event that this was only call LOGS that NSA had and not CONVERSATIONS.

No one at NSA was listening to our calls.

And you KNEW that.

Hey, I already admitted the mistake. In any case, the link with the full story was right there in the OP to disprove me. If anything, I'm guilty of a little sensationalism. You can quit acting outraged now little arthur, it won't get you anywhere

And you also knew that the NSA had a very clear need and purpose for these call logs (to root out terrorist cells operating in the US by tracking the incoming calls from known foriegn terrorists and then seeing who that person subsequently called in the US) and no sinister purpose at all.

LOLOLOL
Little arthur, have you been wetting your bed every night since sept 11?
Let me help you ease your mind: THERE IS NO TERRORIST THREAT.

 

[John99]

Varda, why dont you take some law classes? It would help you.

 

[Varda]

Federal Prison? I dont think Varda knows what the word "Federal" means.

Do you know what Federal means? Can you suck good?

From DEA:

Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, and shall be fined a minimum of $1,000, or both, except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500, except, further, that if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000.

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/844.htm

 

[adoucette]

Listen to yourself.
The information they obtain was PRIVATE, and there was an expectation of privacy on the part of the consumer/citizen. Obtaining that information is the constitutional violation. There is NO LEGAL RECOURSE to keep that information private, as liability was removed.
And on top of it, all of this was done in secret for 4 years until the media blew it open.

There was no constitutional violation.
If you can think of one let me know.
Had the Govt forced them to turn over the data, that would have been an issue, but they simply asked for it.


Later the Govt, for THIS ONE SPECIFIC CASE, prevented the companies from getting into legal trouble because they gave the logs to the NSA.
Why?
Because everyone involved acted in good faith.

arthur's only way to keep his information private is to not use the service. No phone, no e-mail, no post office, no internet. I'd buy some pigeons if I were you, little arthur!

Does that sound like a free society to you?

BS again. We are talking about call logs the NSA got years ago and the only use of such logs was to track calls from known foreign terrorists to users in the US and from there to other US numbers. The rest of the data is essentially meaningless.

Hey, I already admitted the mistake. In any case, the link with the full story was right there in the OP to disprove me. If anything, I'm guilty of a little sensationalism. You can quit acting outraged now little arthur, it won't get you anywhere

Again BS.
You linked to the old story and did not point out that your original assertion in that thread was FALSE.

So no, it's not sensationalism, it's just plain LYING.

Because you knew when you posted it, that the NSA never listened to any calls in that case.

have you been wetting your bed every night since sept 11?

Nope.
You?

Let me help you ease your mind: THERE IS NO TERRORIST THREAT.

Yeah, thanks to efforts by the FBI, CIA and NSA.

Arthur

 

[John99]

Varda,

In the U.S there are state laws and federal laws plus some municipality laws. The latter do not override federal laws but often times penalties may vary.

The gets very complicated and that is true for the laws in any country. I dont have time to go back and forth here nor do i claim to be an expert on the law but you imply things that you really...meh, nevermind.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516

 

[Varda]

There was no constitutional violation.
If you can think of one let me know.
Had the Govt forced them to turn over the data, that would have been an issue, but they simply asked for it.

Under the fourth amendment, you have the right to be secure in your person, house, paper, and effect, and that right shall not be violated by asking nicely.

Private companies had obligation under the law to protect customer's privacy, and they didn't. Then the government made it all ok RETROACTIVELY to cover their asses. And the people, as usual, got the dick in the butt.

Later the Govt, for THIS ONE SPECIFIC CASE, prevented the companies from getting into legal trouble because they gave the logs to the NSA.
Why?
Because everyone involved acted in good faith.

Because they acted in good faith? Fucking good faith, little arthur? If I mean good, I can break the law? Seriously, is that your argument?

BS again. We are talking about call logs the NSA got years ago and the only use of such logs was to track calls from known foreign terrorists to users in the US and from there to other US numbers. The rest of the data is essentially meaningless.

Let me tell you about bullshit.
How do you know what this information was used for?
How do you know what meaning this information has to the NSA?
And yet you made these affirmations. Nice steaming pile.

Again BS.
You linked to the old story and did not point out that your original assertion in that thread was FALSE.

So no, it's not sensationalism, it's just plain LYING.

I already admitted the mistake. If you have no better argument that to beat on this, I'm going to go clip my toe nails.

Because you knew when you posted it, that the NSA never listened to any calls in that case.

Aww, arthur, how would I know that? How would anybody know? I don't know shit and neither do you.

Nope.
You?

The kind of fear that justifies infractions on constitutional rights alone can drive a grown adult to soil his underpants. It's ok, little arthur, fear is irrational.

Yeah, thanks to efforts by the FBI, CIA and NSA.

Arthur

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

 

[John99]

Wow this is a quaint discussion...

Here is something to get Varda started:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/good+faith

 

[adoucette]

I don't know shit

FINALLY, something I can agree with you on.

LOL

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

There was no constitutional violation.
If you can think of one let me know.

Search and seizure, without a warrant.

Had the Govt forced them to turn over the data, that would have been an issue, but they simply asked for it.

They did not ask the people whose information it was. They asked the phone company - and they have power over the phone company, in the form of regulation and cooperation and official demands and so forth. The coercion there is clear, and legally relevant.

We are talking about call logs the NSA got years ago and the only use of such logs was to track calls from known foreign terrorists to users in the US and from there to other US numbers

Without warrants, you have no reliable source of information for that assertion. What logs and information the government obtained, and what their intended or actual use was, is not known.

That's one reason warrants are required - so that we can keep track of what the government is doing, why and to whom.

If I mean good, I can break the law? Seriously, is that your argument?

That's the official, W&Co justification for most of the Patriot Act and a good share of TWAT.

They mean well, so all that stuff is OK.

In that sense, the Patriot Act is well named - patriotism as meaning well being that exact refuge of scoundrels.

 

[adoucette]

Under the fourth amendment, you have the right to be secure in your person, house, paper, and effect, and that right shall not be violated by asking nicely.

Actually the police frequently circumvent people's rights by simply asking nicely.

If you allow them to do what they ask, they haven't violated your rights.

Private companies had obligation under the law to protect customer's privacy, and they didn't. Then the government made it all ok RETROACTIVELY to cover their asses. And the people, as usual, got the dick in the butt.

Not at all.
No one in the govt was accused of doing anything illegal.
They didn't coerce anyone, or threaten anyone.
Indeed one of the big phone companies said no and nothing at all happened to them.

They let them off the hook becuase Justice and the Congress looked into it and decided that the companies had acted in good faith thinking they were helping the government fight terrorism and didn't think the info was protected by the 4th since it wasn't the actual calls.
The fact is, it never went to trial because of Congress, but the fear is it could have cost the company huge amounts of money.
In any case, the companies all now know they don't have to turn over this data without a warrent, and making them not legally liable for this initial handing over of the data was just being fair.

Because they acted in good faith? Fucking good faith, little arthur? If I mean good, I can break the law? Seriously, is that your argument?

Yeah, actually you can. It's called SPECIFIC INTENT.

How do you know what this information was used for?

Because they said so and it makes sense.

How do you know what meaning this information has to the NSA?

Because they explained what they were using it for and it makes sense.
And later, it made sense to Congress who also investigated the issue.

I already admitted the mistake.

Not till I pointed it out.
But you knew it wasn't true when you linked to it.

how would I know that? How would anybody know? I don't know shit and neither do you.

You really don't know shit then because the phone company doesn't store your actual conversations so there would be no way for them to hand them over.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Search and seizure, without a warrant.

Nope
They asked for the material and it was provided, but just asking is not the same as seizure.

Indeed, the police will often ask people if they can come in, or search without a warrant. If the people allow it, then there is no breach of search and seizure.

They did not ask the people whose information it was. They asked the phone company - and they have power over the phone company, in the form of regulation and cooperation and official demands and so forth. The coercion there is clear, and legally relevant.

Nope.
The NSA has no regulatory authority over the phone company.
There was no evidence presented that indicated that any form of coercion was used by the government. Indeed one company refused and nothing at all was done to them by the government.

Without warrants, you have no reliable source of information for that assertion. What logs and information the government obtained, and what their intended or actual use was, is not known

Actually it is, because the phone companies kept track of what they gave them. It was the logs of calls, meaning which numbers were called from which phones.

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

You really don't know shit then because the phone company doesn't store your actual conversations so there would be no way for them to hand them over

The phone companies allowed the installation of various recording devices at central call processing locations.

We don't know the details.

Indeed, the police will often ask people if they can come in, or search without a warrant

They have to ask the people being searched. They didn't.

So if they ask your landlord, and he says OK, they can search your apartment without your knowledge and consent?

The NSA has no regulatory authority over the phone company.

The government, whose agent the NSA is, does. In fact, specific legislation directly affecting phone company profits was before Congress at the time, with Executive Branch support a critical factor.

Actually it is, because the phone companies kept track of what they gave them.

You don't know that. The self-serving version of what services the phone company supplied is not necessarily anything but ass-covering - we have no reliable public records.

 

[adoucette]

The phone companies allowed the installation of various recording devices at central call processing locations.

We don't know the details.

We are discussing the NSA logs and they don't involve any taps on anything.

They have to ask the people being searched. They didn't.

Again, they asked the phone company for data they had in their possession and the phone company gave it to them. The govt did NOT break any laws.
ASKING for data is not seizing data.

So if they ask your landlord, and he says OK, they can search your apartment without your knowledge and consent?

Actually yes. you aren't breaking any laws if the landlord, who has permission via your lease to enter your premises, lets someone else in.

The government, whose agent the NSA is, does. In fact, specific legislation directly affecting phone company profits was before Congress at the time, with Executive Branch support a critical factor.

So?
Again, you have to show that the NSA threatened them if they didn't provide the data. I've never seen any claim by the phone companies that there were any implied threats by the NSA.
Indeed, if there WERE threats by the NSA, then they wouldn't need the legislation that Congress passed protecting them from civil suits as they would have a clear "get out of jail free" card to play.

You don't know that. The self-serving version of what services the phone company supplied is not necessarily anything but ass-covering - we have no reliable public records.

The fact is they DON'T have the actual calls, only the logs, so that's all the fuck they could give them.

Finally (from Wiki):

The most relevant U.S. Supreme Court case is Smith v. Maryland. In that case, the Court addressed pen registers, which are mechanical devices that record the numbers dialed on a telephone; a pen register does not record call contents. The Court ruled that pen registers are not covered by the Fourth Amendment: "The installation and use of a pen register, [...] was not a 'search,' and no warrant was required." More generally, "This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he [...] voluntarily turns over to third parties."

So in essence, the logs were simply huge pen register type data, which the SCOTUS says are NOT covered under the 4th amendment.

Arthur

 

[RickyH]

arthur, when you picked your carrier did they ever explicitly tell you they want to reserce thebright to record everything you say? Iceaura wasnt wrong about the landlord scenario. However he could of used a better example. This is only because when you signes the contract you usually authorize them to gain entrance WITH at least a twenty four notice. Your phone company probably never asked you for your intellectual property, access to privacy or control over your information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974

Why hasnt anyone brought this up yet?m

 

[RickyH]

Reserve* the right*

Didnt notice those before hitting submit.


Also, I brought up the privacy act. Because in the fucking 70s we had more privacy then we do almkst fourty years later. Sad, sad, sad world. Also it shows a flaw in arthurs logic. If agencies cant exchange information, then why in the hell can habib from customer service have the right to give it away?

 

[adoucette]

arthur, when you picked your carrier did they ever explicitly tell you they want to reserce thebright to record everything you say? Iceaura wasnt wrong about the landlord scenario. However he could of used a better example. This is only because when you signes the contract you usually authorize them to gain entrance WITH at least a twenty four notice. Your phone company probably never asked you for your intellectual property, access to privacy or control over your information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974

Why hasnt anyone brought this up yet?m

Because that law applies only to data that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies

So it has nothing to do with this as the data was not maintained by any Federal agency.

BUT

The Supreme Court addressed the log data which is equivilent to pen registers (mechanical devices that record the numbers dialed on a telephone).

The Court ruled that pen registers are not covered by the Fourth Amendment: "The installation and use of a pen register, ... was not a 'search,' and no warrant was required."

And more to the point: "This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he [...] voluntarily turns over to third parties."

Which would include the numbers you call from your phone.

OOPs

Arthur

 

[RickyH]

Because that law applies only to data that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies

So it has nothing to do with this as the data was not maintained by any Federal agency.

BUT

The Supreme Court addressed the log data which is equivilent to pen registers (mechanical devices that record the numbers dialed on a telephone).

The Court ruled that pen registers are not covered by the Fourth Amendment: "The installation and use of a pen register, ... was not a 'search,' and no warrant was required."

And more to the point: "This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he [...] voluntarily turns over to third parties."

Which would include the numbers you call from your phone.

OOPs

Arthur

No, thats not why I posted the privacy act. Im just conveying thr degradation of our rights. Thanks for ignoring everything else and then trolling me into a different arguement.

 

[adoucette]

No, thats not why I posted the privacy act. Im just conveying thr degradation of our rights. Thanks for ignoring everything else and then trolling me into a different arguement.

WTF?

The law you posted has NOTHING to do with the issue though.
It has to do with data held by federal agencies and AFAIK that hasn't changed.

Thus no degradation.

As to the others, no you are wrong, if the landlord lets in the police just because they ask, you can't go after the police.
Laws about the police are funny like that, as long as they just ask and people say OK, they aren't breaking any rules.

As to the Phone company, I posted the SCOTUS ruling on "pen register" data, which is what the NSA got from them, and for which there is no expectation of privacy.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

arthur, when you picked your carrier did they ever explicitly tell you they want to reserce thebright to record everything you say?

No
And they don't.
And the logs that the phone companies turned over to the NSA didn't include any actual conversations.

The records include detailed call information (caller, receiver, date/time of call, length of call, etc) for use in traffic analysis and social network analysis, but do not include audio information or transcripts of the content of the phone calls.

That is the same lie that Varda tried to get away with.

Arthur