"Predictive modeling of meta-data."
We thought about it for a long time,
and when we had thought about it long enough,
we declared war on the Union.
ETFOOM? Isn’t this whole thing about the fact that spy agencies are specifically prohibited from domestic spying, from spying on their own citizens?
Not you too, Barone...
Perhaps not illegal, but certainly unconstitutional. Gentility is irrelevant when my rights are under attack.
Only amongst low-information citizens.
Know these little Eichmann’s by their words! Barone is an embarrassment to all thinking Americans.
"Predictive modeling of meta-data."
We thought about it for a long time,
and when we had thought about it long enough,
we declared war on the Union.
Michael Barone may be correct as to the legality of this government data collection effort. But like Obama-care and the current immigration bill, the Patriot Act was a rush-job that was crammed thru Congress and has never received any real Constitutional challenges. So he & the Congressional leadership shouldn’t act all shocked when the public reacts negatively to the ham-handed way the Feds apply these powers.
I could easily see this scandal destroying what is left of the Republican Party. In the long run that might not be a bad thing. They don’t stand for much of anything at this point anyway.
The Dems may elect another president in a walk, but they may face a new political opposition party that could rapidly some of their safer voting blocs who are also concerned about Privacy. A political realignment is overdue in this country.
Mosques are excluded:
The core issue is that congress and several presidents have made egregious activity legal. Sure, it’s all legal, that’s the issue.
The war going on now is domestic between the city consumers and the city-adverse producers. The wiretapping of citizen vs. citizen is intended to give the city dwellers the upper hand. And they need it because the producers can cut them off at any time. Wars are usually won by one side out-producing the other, and this war will be no contest.
If terrorists nuke NYC, LA, and Chicago, a strong argument could be made the USA would bounce back stronger than ever. Why are we destroying America in their name?
The equivalent I see to the NSA spying is as follows:
Imagine the cops coming to your house, completely searching it from top to bottom and catalog everything...all your clothing, furnishings, papers, prescription drug bottles, food, appliances, scan all your hard drives on all your computers, look behind the walls, above the ceilings, go through the attic, and the whole 9 yards.
When you ask to see their search warrant, the lead detective tells you that he doesn’t have one. “But don’t worry, we’re just going to take this inventory and store it at the precinct. We won’t actually look at the inventory unless we have a search warrant.”
“You should be happy because this will save us a whole bunch of time and you a whole lot of inconvenience if we ever suspect you of a crime in the future.”
I can’t imagine anybody feeling comfortable with that.
But yet libtards are perfectly OK if the government does a cyber-version of this and store the data at a yottabyte-sized data warehouse in Utah.
Idiots.
It may not be illegal, but it politically obtuse.
Mr. Barone, what part of the word "unreasonable" don't you understand?
The 1979 Smith v. Maryland decision you cite allows for the connection of a device to a telephone line to record the phone numbers of any calls made on that line without a warrant.
By its very nature (the limits of the technology), that device could only monitor a single telephone line.
The Smith v. Maryland decision has been used to justify the sort of massive all-inclusive monitoring that modern technology allows.
That decision might give you the legality you seek, but it sure doesn't give you the reasonability that the Constitution requires.
To use your post office analogy, of course they have to be able to read the address.
But to do what the NSA requires, they would have to record every address (delivery and return) on every piece of mail (billions per year) that they handle, including mail class, weight, date mailed, postage paid, and insurance information, and then turn that information over to a law enforcement agency.
Is that reasonable according to the 4th Amendment?
No way.
We've got military people shooting up bad guys from miles away using a joystick, f'rinstance.
So a geek who understands some of the flow chartiness of the workings of "programs" has a core set of values and ...
What?
We frickin' PAY you ... !
Snowden's a hero.
Just because congress has not passed any laws specifically prohibiting this kind of privacy intrusion does not make it legal. It was and is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land.
Barone is another beltway idiot who has no concept of limited government.
Yeah, I'll call bullshit on this one. Says who...? The the bureaucrats and politicians who were just cought lying to congress and the american people? The clown who wrote this should change is job title from columnist to government stenographer.
Another Big Government Republican propagandist heard from. Fox News was so ridiculous this morning that we turned off Fox & Friends. Brian Kilmeade was incensed that Snowden told the Chinese that we were spying on them. I’m sure theChiComs never suspected that.
The NSA spooks must have an interesting dossier on Roger Ailes.
michael is showing what he always was... a lying dim operative of the progressive party.
LLS
What the hell has Barone been drinking or smoking lately? I guess he’s gotten so brainwashed that he’s forgotten we still have a Constitution
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/735/case.html
Smith v. Maryland. I disagree with the majority, but the case is described at the above link. We do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy on the phone numbers dialed - according to the Supremes. Therefore, the feds are permitted to collect all of those numbers. The Supremes were wrong on Dred Scott v. Sandford, on Plessy v. Ferguson, on Roe v. Wade, and on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and they were wrong on Smith v. Maryland too. I just hope the are willing to admit their mistakes in time.
I have a small question
What do people want to do?
There are bad guys out there, we don’t know who they are, or what they are up to right now.
Given that this is true, and given that stopping them before they act is (at the risk of going way out on a limb) A Good Thing. Given Signals Intelligence is the best way to stop them...What do people want to do?
Please reality based ideas only.