Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 08:30 PM Nov 2013

Administration Lawyers: We HAVE To SPY On YOU To Protect YOUR PRIVACY


"..Just trust them. It's for your own good.."





The way to protect American's privacy rights, Obama administration officials are now arguing, is through the bulk collection of their phone data into a massive database. Therefore, they argue, Congress must reject bipartisan efforts in new legislation to end the mass collection and storage of data and support Sen. Dianne Feinstein's bulk collection protection bill. Because it's for our own good and for our privacy protection. Yep, they actually argue that.



The NSA has previously argued that it was allowed by section 215 of the Patriot Act to store millions of phone records of Americans in order to find potential terrorists and their connections inside the United States. A court found that NSA could hold onto the data on the grounds that it was relevant to terrorism inquiries. In theory, storing the data with the companies, instead of at the NSA, would allow the telcos to serve as a kind of privacy watchdog. They'd be in a position to examine the government's requests for information about their customers and possibly to object to them in court.

But the intelligence lawyers warned that Americans' would be subject to even greater privacy incursions if their personal information were stripped from NSA's control.

Patrick Kelley, the acting general counsel of the FBI, said the phone company data could be made available to "other levels of law enforcement enforcement from local, state and federal who want it for whatever law enforcement purposes they're authorized to obtain it." He also raised a frightening prospect: "Civil litigation could also seek to obtain it for such things as relatively mundane as divorce actions," he said. "Who's calling who with your spouse ... So if the data is kept only by the companies than I think the privacy considerations certainly warrants scrutiny."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/04/top_obama_lawyers_reforming_the_nsa_could_hurt_americans_privacy_rights?wp_login_redirect=0




Yes, people, the only way to make sure that your metadata doesn't make it into your divorce proceedings is to let the NSA squirrel it away. But there's just a few problems with that argument. For example, other levels of law enforcement are required to get a warrant in order to obtain and use that data. It's only the NSA that gets to troll around in the information about spouses or significant others to find out who they're talking to without a warrant, without getting permission from any legal authority to do it. Of course, Congress could also write into the legislation protections for the data, restricting access to it to national security. So, in a word, bullshit.


There's also this, a point made by Marcy Wheeler in a fantastic profile of her work in Newsweek: "The next terrorist attack will come from a group that stays offline, she said, 'and we’re going to be hit bad by it because we have this hubris about the degree to which all people live online.'" While the NSA is collecting masses of information on all of us just because it can, the real terrorists are organizing off-line, off the phone, beyond the reach of the NSA's collection ability.



cont




http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/05/1253337/-Administration-lawyers-We-have-to-spy-on-you-to-protect-your-nbsp-privacy
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Administration Lawyers: We HAVE To SPY On YOU To Protect YOUR PRIVACY (Original Post) Segami Nov 2013 OP
They're not going to convince me. Brigid Nov 2013 #1
+1984. jsr Nov 2013 #2
Yep. HooptieWagon Nov 2013 #3
I was thinking that was the greatest use of doublespeak, that I've heard at least since Uncle Joe Nov 2013 #7
They're just not even trying anymore. NuclearDem Nov 2013 #4
And their boss was a "constitutional law professor." 1000words Nov 2013 #5
My new Christmas song: The NSA is Comin' To Town Zorra Nov 2013 #6

Brigid

(17,621 posts)
1. They're not going to convince me.
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 08:37 PM
Nov 2013

I just finished re-reading "Animal Farm" and "1984." I know Doublespeak when I hear it.

Uncle Joe

(60,325 posts)
7. I was thinking that was the greatest use of doublespeak, that I've heard at least since
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 08:52 PM
Nov 2013

torture was given the warm of fuzzy name of "enhanced interrogation."

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
6. My new Christmas song: The NSA is Comin' To Town
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 08:50 PM
Nov 2013


You'd better watch out
You'd better not cry
You'd better not pout
I'm telling you why

The NSA is comin' to town

They're making a list
and checking it twice
Doesn't matter if
you're naughty or nice

The NSA is comin' to town

They see you when you're sleeping
They know when you're awake
They know if you are gay or straight
and the way you masturbate

So you better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why

The NSA is comin' to town

All the suits in corporate whoreland
Will have a jubilee
They know that they'll make more and
take away our liberty.

So you better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why

The NSA (is comin' to town)
The NSA (is comin' to town)
The NSA is comni'
The NSA is comin'
The NSA is comin'
To toooooowwwwwn!



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Administration Lawyers: W...