tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499771266402854669.post7027514358999917031..comments2024-02-08T01:44:24.272-05:00Comments on ModeratePoli: Security or freedom from surveillanceModeratePolihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01721945380057992971noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499771266402854669.post-11145506260471734112013-06-24T15:18:09.240-04:002013-06-24T15:18:09.240-04:00Regarding the other objections:
1) Is it intrusiv...Regarding the other objections:<br /><br />1) Is it intrusive? Yes, but only mildly so as you point out. Metadata is collected in many forms by many parties.<br /><br />2) Might the gvt go beyond metadata to content? Yes, and if they did that would be more troubling. I doubt they'd have the manpower or even computer power to do so effectively. 90% of communication is context. Are they talking about a terrorist attack, or discussing the latest thriller movie?<br /><br />3) Is it Constitutional? That's a matter of opinion, no matter what the Supreme Court or other branches might decide. I'd say probably not, without probably cause, but it depends on the level of intrusiveness and "expectation of privacy". Since you're using commercial services to make phone calls and such, you have little expectation of privacy on metadata. You have full expectation of privacy on content and a presumption of innocence as to motive. Are you gathering information on the web about terrorist groups because you are thinking of joining, or to research a novel? It's none of the government's business without probable cause.<br /><br />For all other objections, there is room for argument. But only if it is really effective for the money we spend on it, because it's definitely our money and it's supposed to be about our security, not a contractor job security or an official's need to CYA in case of a real attack. Hence, I think we shine maximum light on our gvt's activities by questioning the cost/benefit.Dangerousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499771266402854669.post-46595839535777488152013-06-24T14:23:41.817-04:002013-06-24T14:23:41.817-04:00@Dangerous,
It's fair to doubt the NSA claims...@Dangerous,<br /><br />It's fair to doubt the NSA claims, but only a few people know more definitely whether their surveillance has preempted a terrorist plan or not. <br /><br />I wish Wyden had leave to say more about his concerns. Maybe he and Feinstein could both issue statements and also questions for each other so we could have a better idea for support or lack of it. Does Wyden think it's ineffective, effective but unconstitutional? Why does Feinstein support it?<br /><br />It's funny that you object primarily because it's a waste of money, which isn't the usual argument.ModeratePolihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01721945380057992971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499771266402854669.post-25629661331755350892013-06-24T11:00:51.452-04:002013-06-24T11:00:51.452-04:00I am highly dubious of the "50 thwarted terro...I am highly dubious of the "50 thwarted terrorist attacks" claim. Where is the supporting evidence? Have there been prosecutions? How were they "thwarted"? What counts toward that "50" number?<br /><br />I notice they did not give a single concrete example. Certainly among those 50 there was one which the media could trace back to the surveillance program as critical and whose details would not endanger national security if made public.<br /><br />My prediction is that the entire program is a crock serving the interests of government officials' CYA, contractors bottom lines, and hard-core anti-terror hawks.Dangerousnoreply@blogger.com