[Mad Dawg]

Well, that means until terrorism ends, the government can have whatever data it wants and can use it in any manner that it wants?

Isn't that an extreme way of stating the case? Is anyone suggesting that the government can have whatever data it wants and use it however it wants?

I'm not sure where the limits should be, but I AM sure that we need to define "victory" in the "war on terror". I am aware of the open-endedness of the WOT as a plausible if not valid justification for all sorts of stuff.

But there IS currently a war, and wars call for, well, bad stuff.

[dirtboy]

Isn't that an extreme way of stating the case?

Not really. I see people on FR who would have had kittens if the Clinton Admin did something like this downplay the government getting this kind of data now.

Is anyone suggesting that the government can have whatever data it wants and use it however it wants?

I am asking, if the standard for the government is "they need this data to fight the war on terror", when what constraints ARE there on federal power during that time if people assent?

I'm not sure where the limits should be, but I AM sure that we need to define "victory" in the "war on terror". I am aware of the open-endedness of the WOT as a plausible if not valid justification for all sorts of stuff.

Well, we agree there. Otherwise the WOT can be an open-ended process to erode constraints on power. This is not about my privacy - this is about making sure the fedgov knows there are limits on its powers.

But there IS currently a war, and wars call for, well, bad stuff.

I agree entirely. I have said repeatedly that in times of war, the rules can be bent. But they cannot be discarded wholesale.