Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 85 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Klaatu:I’m not sure what problem that solves, and beside data center capacity costs money.

    It solves the problem of having our government violate the Fourth Amendment wholesale.

    Your point about the money is inane, as our money is spent on retaining the data currently whether it’s a tax on our phone bills or a tax on our income.

    • #61
  2. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Tuck:Your point about the money is inane, as our money is spent on retaining the data currently whether it’s a tax on our phone bills or a tax on our income.

    I raise an eyebrow at your language here. Could you explain how you see this–the gov’t forces companies to keep the data, the companies pass on the expense to consumers in higher prices–& people do not change their actions when their phone bills go up?

    There is a related concern–this may not matter a lot, it’s certainly nothing to do with whether the collection program should be in place–but how about security? Would the NSA be more careful & less vulnerable to attack or theft, so far as the collected information is concerned? Or the phone companies?

    • #62
  3. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    The privacy being violated is that of the phone companies, groups of people whose rights have been stripped away entirely. They are forced at gunpoint to turn over these records, and have no recourse.

    They have recourse, it is called the courts.

    • #63
  4. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Titus Techera:

    Tuck:Your point about the money is inane, as our money is spent on retaining the data currently whether it’s a tax on our phone bills or a tax on our income.

    I raise an eyebrow at your language here. Could you explain how you see this–the gov’t forces companies to keep the data, the companies pass on the expense to consumers in higher prices–& people do not change their actions when their phone bills go up?

    Change their actions how?  Stop using phones entirely, and cancel their accounts?  That would do the trick, nothing else would.

    There is a related concern–this may not matter a lot, it’s certainly nothing to do with whether the collection program should be in place–but how about security? Would the NSA be more careful & less vulnerable to attack or theft, so far as the collected information is concerned? Or the phone companies?

    Given recent events, I’d put my money on the phone companies…  They actually care about what their customers think of them, and they generally do their best to follow the laws of the land.

    • #64
  5. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Klaatu:The privacy being violated is that of the phone companies, groups of people whose rights have been stripped away entirely.They are forced at gunpoint to turn over these records, and have no recourse.

    They have recourse, it is called the courts.

    No, they don’t.  The Progressive courts stripped them of those rights a long time ago, and the idiot Conservatives continue it, under the doctrine of stare decisis, which translates from the Latin to follow like a patsy.

    • #65
  6. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Tuck:

    Titus Techera:

    Tuck:Your point about the money is inane, as our money is spent on retaining the data currently whether it’s a tax on our phone bills or a tax on our income.

    I raise an eyebrow at your language here. Could you explain how you see this–the gov’t forces companies to keep the data, the companies pass on the expense to consumers in higher prices–& people do not change their actions when their phone bills go up?

    Change their actions how? Stop using phones entirely, and cancel their accounts? That would do the trick, nothing else would.

    There is a related concern–this may not matter a lot, it’s certainly nothing to do with whether the collection program should be in place–but how about security? Would the NSA be more careful & less vulnerable to attack or theft, so far as the collected information is concerned? Or the phone companies?

    Given recent events, I’d put my money on the phone companies… They actually care about what their customers think of them, and they generally do their best to follow the laws of the land.

    This may be so.

    How about cyberwar? Have you any worries on that account?

    • #66
  7. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    It solves the problem of having our government violate the Fourth Amendment wholesale.

    Your point about the money is inane, as our money is spent on retaining the data currently whether it’s a tax on our phone bills or a tax on our income.

    As the 4th Amendment is not being violated, that cannot be the problem being solved.

    Our money is being used to retain the data, Tom’s suggestion would require the phone companies’ money to do so.

    • #67
  8. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Titus Techera:

    This may be so.

    How about cyberwar? Have you any worries on that account?

    Given that Russian hackers are apparently running rampant through the White House, State Department, and Department of Defense computer systems, I have a great deal of worries on that account.

    It’s also perfectly clear that our Government is utterly incapable of doing anything about it.  So again, I’ll take the phone companies.  (As a point of fact, the security companies that the Government relies upon are owned by the phone companies in some cases.  The networks are certainly owned by the phone companies.  So if they’re not secure, the Feds aren’t secure.)

    • #68
  9. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Klaatu:As the 4th Amendment is not being violated, that cannot be the problem being solved.

    Klaatu, your assertions in complete ignorance of the facts are what make you such a pleasure to debate in these threads.  Don’t ever change.

    Our money is being used to retain the data, Tom’s suggestion would require the phone companies’ money to do so.

    As I pointed out before, it’s our money either way.  We pay the bill, ultimately.  See my comment above.

    • #69
  10. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Tuck:

    It’s also perfectly clear that our Government is utterly incapable of doing anything about it. So again, I’ll take the phone companies. (As a point of fact, the security companies that the Government relies upon are owned by the phone companies in some cases. The networks are certainly owned by the phone companies. So if they’re not secure, the Feds aren’t secure.)

    The entity we should trust to keep things secure is the entity that let Hillary Clinton delete her e-mails, unpunished, and that refuses to go back and review past violations of policy on her part.  Also, I would trust any Republicans who refuse to make any of this a campaign issue in upcoming elections.   Trustworthy people, all of them.

    • #70
  11. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Klaatu, your assertions in complete ignorance of the facts are what make you such a pleasure to debate in these threads. Don’t ever change.

    What facts have I missed? Please enlighten me. You make an unsubstantiated charge and then complain when others do not present ‘facts’ to counter it. Brilliant!

    As I pointed out before, it’s our money either way. We pay the bill, ultimately. See my comment above.

    No, it is not our money either way. The phone companies money is theirs not yours. Do you appreciate the absurdity of laying claim to the phone companies’ money while claiming the government violated their privacy by requiring them to hand over data pursuant to a court order?

    You may also wish to reconsider your baseless accusation the phone companies had no recourse. The portion, Section 215, of the PATRIOT Act specifically allows for recourse to the courts. None of the phone companies objected but Yahoo! did, FWIW they lost.

    • #71
  12. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    The entity we should trust to keep things secure is the entity that let Hillary Clinton delete her e-mails, unpunished, and that refuses to go back and review past violations of policy on her part. Also, I would trust any Republicans who refuse to make any of this a campaign issue in upcoming elections. Trustworthy people, all of them.

    It is also the same entity, if we are going to be so broad as to lump all federal departments together, that we trust with nuclear weapons, as well as little things like tanks, fighter planes, howitzers, attack submarines, etc…

    • #72
  13. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Klaatu:The entity we should trust to keep things secure is the entity that let Hillary Clinton delete her e-mails, unpunished, and that refuses to go back and review past violations of policy on her part.Also, I would trust any Republicans who refuse to make any of this a campaign issue in upcoming elections. Trustworthy people, all of them.

    It is also the same entity, if we are going to be so broad as to lump all federal departments together, that we trust with nuclear weapons, as well as little things like tanks, fighter planes, howitzers, attack submarines, etc..

    The current administration does not treat any semi-independent agency of the government as an independent agency.  All  are expected to obey, breaking the law where it perceives that such action is desired by the administration.  I am not aware of any agency that has tried to protect its own integrity or mission and stand up to him.

    • #73
  14. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    The current administration does not treat any semi-independent agency of the government as an independent agency. All are expected to obey, breaking the law where ordered to do so. I am not aware of any agency that has tried to protect its own integrity or mission and stand up to him.

    Do you have evidence of law breaking by the DoD, the NSA, or this program specifically?. Or, is this just a general rant?

    • #74
  15. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Klaatu:Klaatu, your assertions in complete ignorance of the facts are what make you such a pleasure to debate in these threads.Don’t ever change.

    What facts have I missed?Please enlighten me.You make an unsubstantiated charge and then complain when others do not present ‘facts’ to counter it.Brilliant!

    I expect a person commenting on a thread about a topic to have a familiarity with the topic.  Call me crazy.

    In this case, a key point is the Fourth Amendment, what it means, and what it’s supposed to prevent.  What it is supposed to prevent is exactly what the NSA is doing: executing a general warrant.

    …No, it is not our money either way.The phone companies money is theirs not yours.Do you appreciate the absurdity of laying claim to the phone companies’ money while claiming the government violated their privacy by requiring them to hand over data pursuant to a court order?

    This is Econ. 101, Klaatu.  If the government passes a regulation on a business commanding it to do something, the money to do that comes from the companies customers, through increased fees.  Go look at your phone bill and see all those fees. It’s our money.

    …None of the phone companies objected but Yahoo! did, FWIW they lost.

    This thread is about how they objected, and won.  Yeesh.

    • #75
  16. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    I expect a person commenting on a thread about a topic to have a familiarity with the topic. Call me crazy.

    In this case, a key point is the Fourth Amendment, what it means, and what it’s supposed to prevent. What it is supposed to prevent is exactly what the NSA is doing: executing a general warrant.

    The NSA is not executing a general warrant. A court is issuing an order for a company to turn over specific data, a type of data the Supreme Court has ruled does not require a warrant to be accessed. Maybe these facts you are unfamiliar with.

    This is Econ. 101, Klaatu. If the government passes a regulation on a business commanding it to do something, the money to do that comes from the companies customers, through increased fees. Go look at your phone bill and see all those fees. It’s our money.

    Perhaps you should have studied beyond Econ 101. When a company is presented with a new cost, it can absorb that cost in a number of ways. It can pass those costs onto its customers, it could lower costs elsewhere, or it can lower profits. In none of those scenarios is the money ours unless we are the customer, employee, or stock holder.

    Yahoo! Was not a party to this suit.

    • #76
  17. Tom Meyer Contributor
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Klaatu:The NSA is not executing a general warrant.A court is issuing an order for a company to turn over specific data, a type of data the Supreme Court has ruled does not require a warrant to be accessed.Maybe these facts you are unfamiliar with.

    With respect, it is a general warrant, albeit for a limited type of data.

    Regarding the constitutional question, the court has been wrong before. IMHO, it is on this one.

    • #77
  18. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    With respect, it is a general warrant, albeit for a limited type of data.

    Regarding the constitutional question, the court has been wrong before. IMHO, it is on this one.

    If it has limits, it is not a general warrant. My understanding of a general warrant is it has no specifics. If the NSA were executing a general warrant, it would access all of the company’s records including personnel, financial, etc…

    • #78
  19. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Klaatu:A court is issuing an order for a company to turn over specific data, a type of data the Supreme Court has ruled does not require a warrant to be accessed.Maybe these facts you are unfamiliar with.

    The facts as they stand today, after this decision, is that the NSA had no legal authority to do what it was doing.

    Perhaps you should have studied beyond Econ 101.When a company is presented with a new cost, it can absorb that cost in a number of ways.It can pass those costs onto its customers, it could lower costs elsewhere, or it can lower profits.In none of those scenarios is the money ours unless we are the customer, employee, or stock holder.

    Klaatu, you’re being obtuse here.  Did you go look at your phone bill?

    Yahoo! Was not a party to this suit.

    You brought Yahoo! up.  Yahoo’s not a phone company, so no phone company metadata.

    • #79
  20. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Klaatu:If it has limits, it is not a general warrant.My understanding of a general warrant is it has no specifics.If the NSA were executing a general warrant, it would access all of the company’s records including personnel, financial, etc…

    Again, back to the expectation of having a passing familiarity with the facts at hand:

    “General warrants permitted searches and seizures without requiring individualized suspicion or describing the persons or items to be seized.”

    http://yjolt.research.yale.edu/files/trepel-10-YJOLT-120.pdf

    That’s exactly what the NSA is doing.

    • #80
  21. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Regarding the constitutional question, the court has been wrong before. IMHO, it is on this one.

    As a point of fact, and despite Klaatu’s obfuscations, the Supreme Court has not opined on the NSA’s metadata collection program.

    “The Supreme Court on Monday declined an early look at a constitutional challenge to the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of millions of Americans’ telephone records, instead allowing the dispute to work its way through the usual lower-court process.”

    So the court case at issue here is the highest decision on the matter.

    • #81
  22. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    The facts as they stand today, after this decision, is that the NSA had no legal authority to do what it was doing.

    This ruling applied only to the statutory authority. You are making a constitutional argument. Can I assume when Congress reauthorizes the program, your objection will be satisfied?

    Klaatu, you’re being obtuse here. Did you go look at your phone bill?

    No, I’m being accurate.

    The phone companies are not party to this suit either. Isn’t it their rights you claimed were violated?

    Yahoo! Was ordered to turn over data under the same section.

    “General warrants permitted searches and seizures without requiring individualized suspicion or describing the persons or items to be seized.

    The court order describes the items to be seized.

    • #82
  23. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    As a point of fact, and despite Klaatu’s obfuscations, the Supreme Court has not opined on the NSA’s metadata collection program.

    I never said or implied the Supreme Court has opined on this NSA program.

    • #83
  24. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Klaatu:As a point of fact, and despite Klaatu’s obfuscations, the Supreme Court has not opined on the NSA’s metadata collection program.

    I never said or implied the Supreme Court has opined on this NSA program.

    Here:

    Well 1) I think Smith was a bad decision and 2) Smith — as I recall — targeted a single individual. It’s a real logical stretch to argue that a technique to monitor one person over a specific period of time can be used to justify monitoring everyone’s records in perpetuity.

    1. Good or bad, it’s the current standard.

    Here:

    “A court is issuing an order for a company to turn over specific data, a type of data the Supreme Court has ruled does not require a warrant to be accessed. “

    • #84
  25. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    1. Good or bad, it’s the current standard.

    Here:

    “A court is issuing an order for a company to turn over specific data, a type of data the Supreme Court has ruled does not require a warrant to be accessed. “

    It is the current standard as per Smith, as I stated.
    The Court has ruled that type of data, see Smith.

    • #85
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.