AT&T, Verizon: over 500,000 data requests from NSA, etc. last year!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    AT&T, Verizon: over 500,000 data requests from NSA, etc. last year!

    http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/18/atts-first-ever-transparency-report-reveals-more-than-300000-data-requests-from-law-enforcement/

    Until someone shows me that their rights were infringed or that the gov't used data from spying on foreign agents to prosecute someone for domestic criminal acts, I can't get that bothered by it.

    If a tree falls in the woods with no one around, does it make a sound?

    Now that it is Obama doing the spying instead of Bush, maybe some librul losers will be the usual hypocrites and defend him. Or will they have some backbone and attack the Supreme Leader like they attacked Bush who supposedly stole our civil rights?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: AT&T, Verizon: over 500,000 data requests from NSA, etc. last year!

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/18/atts-first-ever-transparency-report-reveals-more-than-300000-data-requests-from-law-enforcement/

    Until someone shows me that their rights were infringed or that the gov't used data from spying on foreign agents to prosecute someone for domestic criminal acts, I can't get that bothered by it.

    If a tree falls in the woods with no one around, does it make a sound?

    Now that it is Obama doing the spying instead of Bush, maybe some librul losers will be the usual hypocrites and defend him. Or will they have some backbone and attack the Supreme Leader like they attacked Bush who supposedly stole our civil rights?

    [/QUOTE]

    Here's the problem.  These things start off very passive, i.e. the government will only look at the data IF there is a reason to bring your phone history into question.  Then, it will become a preventative, you will be asked about your phone history to determine if you present a legal risk in some way, i.e. are you aware of anything that might cause your employer, the government, etc. to have doubt about your employment/ benefits/ etc.  The purpose of this step is to hold you accountable should somethign crop up, as you didn't disclose it.

    Finally, it will become a standard area of inquiry.  You will go into job interviews, government interactions, with the government reviewing the data as part of the process. 

    The argument will always be, that, if you have nothing to hide, why are you worried?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: AT&T, Verizon: over 500,000 data requests from NSA, etc. last year!

    Another thought is are there 500,000 terrorists in this country using AT&T and Verizon?  that is, after all, the excuse given for this unconstitutional search and collection of data en masse.

    Anyone who thinks this is about terrorism and keeping you safe  is simply being foolish.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: AT&T, Verizon: over 500,000 data requests from NSA, etc. last year!

    The sheer volume of data the N.S.A. collects makes it virtually worthless. There is too much to sift through, too many random associations and false positives in a haystack that is all needles and no hay. It's hard to find the bad guys when every one of us is probably six degrees of separation away from an Al Qaeda terrorist.

    Its time to cut their budget in half.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: AT&T, Verizon: over 500,000 data requests from NSA, etc. last year!

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/18/atts-first-ever-transparency-report-reveals-more-than-300000-data-requests-from-law-enforcement/

    Until someone shows me that their rights were infringed or that the gov't used data from spying on foreign agents to prosecute someone for domestic criminal acts, I can't get that bothered by it.

    If a tree falls in the woods with no one around, does it make a sound?

    Now that it is Obama doing the spying instead of Bush, maybe some librul losers will be the usual hypocrites and defend him. Or will they have some backbone and attack the Supreme Leader like they attacked Bush who supposedly stole our civil rights?

    [/QUOTE]

    its a huge violation of privacy no matter who is president .

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: AT&T, Verizon: over 500,000 data requests from NSA, etc. last year!

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    I've always had a problem with domestic data collection, and especially the idea that they can literally grab your emails/texts if they want them. That sounds like the sort of general search the founders were ardently opposed to. The notion they'd be happy with the government being able to inspect everyone's mail, either in aggregate or individually, without probable cause seems absurd to me.

    There's also the very real slippery slope problem of saying "meh, I don't care, I'm just one out of 300,000,000 and I've got nothing to hide."

    The point isn't whether you have anything to hide. The point is that you're agreeing to incremental increases in the scope of suspcionless searches. And the reason we don't want that is to prevent the possibility of tyranny, not because it cannot be used for good given the right people in government.

    I also note it's a bit odd to hear a person who otherwise never trusts government, trust them here. Because national security, fear, terrorists OH MY!

    Founding principle: Give me liberty or give me death.

    The constitution isn't about safety first.

     

     

     

     

     

    International spying, well, we've always done that. It's just a strategic question of whom it's worth to p-off given the value of whatever was collected.



    I understand your comment about being one that  usually does not trust government. In this case, what is the alternative? If this data-svcking is domestic to domestic communication, I'd be dead against it without a warrant, etc. But if one end is international, I think it is within their duty to do something like this.

    Funny. For one that trusts government with so much that you don't in this case. :)

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: AT&T, Verizon: over 500,000 data requests from NSA, etc. last year!

    It's not your data.  And you aren't using secured lines for your email.  And if you are using email at work (even personal email) then it's accessible to your employer.

    An email is written and is sent exists on at least 2 servers that you have no control over.  And you absolutely no control over what happens to it when you it "send".  It can be forwarded to anyone and everyone or posted on a public website.

    And as far as web surfing, ever notice how ads for products you had been researching suddenly pop up on Boston.Com, facebook, yahoo, etc.?  Right, no one is accessing your web surfing and selling it.

    You want privacy - use a land line, use snail mail, physically go to the store. 

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: AT&T, Verizon: over 500,000 data requests from NSA, etc. last year!

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's not your data.  And you aren't using secured lines for your email.  And if you are using email at work (even personal email) then it's accessible to your employer.

    An email is written and is sent exists on at least 2 servers that you have no control over.  And you absolutely no control over what happens to it when you it "send".  It can be forwarded to anyone and everyone or posted on a public website.

    And as far as web surfing, ever notice how ads for products you had been researching suddenly pop up on Boston.Com, facebook, yahoo, etc.?  Right, no one is accessing your web surfing and selling it.

    You want privacy - use a land line, use snail mail, physically go to the store. 

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not government's data, and that is codified in the 4th ammendment, right?  It is not Verizons data, at least the content is not.  It is your data.

    Don't let the statiss from the left or the right try to bully us into a corner that anything that occurs outside of a mythical lead-lined windowless room is somehow public domain.

    The point remains:  either there are 500,000 terrorists using Verizon and AT&T, or the government is gathering data to which it has no basis for aquiring.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: AT&T, Verizon: over 500,000 data requests from NSA, etc. last year!

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How willing is "willing" if there are no viable alternatives?

    My position is that that should be a central question in discussing what the law should be.

     

     

     

    As for a sentiment like this: "You want privacy - use a land line, use snail mail, physically go to the store. "

    No on all fronts.

    Landline: A third party could be listening in on the other end with the consent of the person you are calling --> no reasonable expectation of privacy. But, some states like MA have a wiretap statute making recording the conversation, at least, illegal without two party consent.

    Snail mail: A third party could open your mail. The mailman could open your mail. The machine processing your mail could accidentally tear it, as happens, and someone could read it. Why should  there be an expectation of privacy.

    Physically going to the store: And you are exposing yourself to public view. When you swipe your card, the store gets your credit card info.

    Basically, the current 'reasonable expectation of privacy test' means that you have no privacy unless you lock yourself in a steel box in your basement and never expose yourself to view. Is that really what we want?

     Should you be able to request my browsing history simply because Comcast might be able to learn it simply by virtue of the signals between my computer, its modem, and its servers? Should the answer be that I deserve no privacy, even if it is virtually impossible to interact with the modern world without the internet? There are no alternatives.

     

     

     

    On top of the notion of what you potentially expose to third parties, there's the troubling problem of technology that lets third parties search you without consent.

    Should we simply jettison the concept of privacy if a company develops technology that sees perfectly clearly through clothes and walls? Why sit passive simply because it is the way things happen to be at the moment?

    I have a problem with that. I think the test should change.

    Maybe servers should be made to wipe email after end-receipt. Maybe the fact that you have to give certain information to a credit card company to obtain a credit card should not mean that you have no expectation of privacy in it, when you need to build a credit history to get anywhere.

     The heart of it: It's not really a choice to expose something to potential public view, but when the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test was born, you still had a real means of choosing to or not to expose certain things to potential view. Today, and much more so in 20 years, you have no choice.

     

     

     

    Besides, if the existence of supposed alternatives is enough to end the discussion, we might as well stop talking about anything because...hey...  if you don't like something in America, go live somewhere else.

    [/QUOTE]

    Very good.

    I have an expectation of privacy on a cell phone.  I am using a service to have a conversation between two people.  It is not like I am standing in a crowded theater shouting back and forth to my firend a few rows away.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share