President Obama just gave a speech, wherein he addressed the NSA surveillance revelations. From CNN:
Sweeping up Americans’ telephone records and monitoring Internet activity from overseas are “modest encroachments on privacy” that can help U.S. intelligence analysts disrupt terror activity, President Barack Obama said Friday.
“Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” he reassured Americans…
And from Yahoo!:
“I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs,” Obama said…”My team evaluated them. We scrubbed them thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards.”
Isn’t that reassuring? Obama says he means well!
Dan has posed the question, Is revelation of phone data gathering “scandal” a (kind of) distraction?
With respect, my answer is: Perhaps. Maybe the Obama crew staged the NSA revelations, to divert attention from their main scandals.
But, if true, wouldn’t it mean they’re getting desperate? (Telling the media “Don’t cover that scandal, cover *this* one.”) As a fan of truth coming to light, I’m pleased. And don’t worry, the other scandals are still under investigation and have plenty of revelations to come. There will be plenty of oxygen for them.
So, getting back to the NSA revelations…I’m worried by some of the commentary I’ve seen.
Dan quotes law professor John Yoo as saying that this “data collecting isn’t unconstitutional because the Fourth Amendment only protects the content of phone calls and not information on the dialed numbers, length of the calls, etc.” And Yoo may well be right, as regards the state of the law today.
But that doesn’t necessarily make it right. Here is the text of the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right to be secure in your “papers”. Now, the Framers (of the Constitution) said “papers” in part because they couldn’t conceive of phone calls. In their day, people communicated over distances by paper letters. Can you imagine one of the Framers saying the following?
Having the Post Office collect data for the President on every letter that every person sends isn’t unconstitutional because the Fourth Amendment only protects the content of letters and not information on the sender and recipient, the weight of the letters (or number of pages), etc.
I can’t. In other words, I don’t find it terribly reassuring to be told that they don’t actually open the letters phone calls and read listen to them.
Finally, I would remind people that the NSA is traditionally much closer to the White House than the other security agencies, which is why I put “for the President” in the above mock-up. I do support counter-terrorism, but… Color me skeptical. I have concerns on this.
Given the way Mugabe has abused the IRS, FBI, EPA, DOJ, OSHA, HHS, ATF and other government agencies to persecute his political opponents, how can we trust him not to abuse the NSA?
Also, if there is nothing wrong with the NSA Programs, why were they hidden from the public?
I can’t. In other words, I don’t find it terribly reassuring to be told that they don’t actually open the letters phone calls and read listen to them.
For anyone who does, I have some beachfront property north of Santa Fe that I’d like to interest you in. Just don’t ask me for a plat; that’s a secret.
Eric Hines
I was over at huffington post last night (yes, I am a masochist) and there were several folks who posted comments like “President, just tell us you are doing this to target terrorists and I for one, am okay with it”… another woman I know actually said “I have nothing to hide, so I’m fine with government looking at my stuff in order to protect me”…
I am beginning to think most leftists are (a) only loosely connected to reality (b) have not studied any history whatsoever and (c) really do not understand human nature — and why it is dangerous to concentrate power.
We are no longer living in a nation of laws. The Constitution upon which our country was founded on is completely meaningless to our President. I no longer recognize this country, and I am so scared for our future.
Hello? Of course you are skeptical and concerned. You are an informed citizen. It is your job to be skeptical and run everything the government does through your critical thinking processes.
I am equally skeptical of the government and hyper-skeptical about the merry band of fundamental transformationalists Obama has set loose. Cass Sunstein’s wife, Samatha Power as Ambassador to the United Nations so that Susan Rice can be foreign affairs advisor and avoid being subpoenaed under the executive privilege provision? Should you question this as being a crass political scheme or should you ignore it along with Benghazi and all the other “nothing to see here” things the Progressives are treating with dead silence?
Our skepticism lies not in the alignment of the stars, but in our doubts about the morality and ethics of those in power. (Apologies to Bill Shakespeare.)
The relevant case law is the 1979 Supreme Court ruling in Smith v. Maryland.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=442&page=735
Here’s a classic commercial about wire tapping: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DejmUMHl8H4
I am about to turn 62. I too am afraid for future generations, for a number of reasons. This just being one of many reasons for my concerns.
Obamaspeak: “No one is listening to your phone calls.”
Translation: “Move along, nothing to see here.”
[Apologies to heliotrope; but when I first saw the news headline elsewhere with Dear Leader’s comment, that was my first thought.]
We don’t listen to your calls…we only note the phone number and length of the calls. We must have just fallen out of trees, stood up for the first time and looked out over the savannah.
I called my daughter-in-law a couple weeks ago & we talked about 45 minutes. So this call is pulled, or whatever they do. Some NSA person notes my number, ostensibly links it to hers, they talked for 45 minutes, and says ‘OK next’. Right? What would be the point if you don’t listen to the content? Why bother? We could be talking about anything, or about my grand-daughters and assorted furbabies.
Wake-up and smell the Constitution burning…
Is this America’s Reichstag Fire-moment?
Or maybe too-late and it’s the Nacht der langen Messer already?
Meanwhile…
China Inc. and the Hacker’s Army of the PLA are compromising every defense contractors’ servers for our military and advanced industrial secrets, specifications of our systems, and as-much pirated government and private-sector R&D as they can hoover. Aviation, big pharma, all levels of government—including the Obama and McCain campaign’s’ servers.
Chinese hackers have penetrated every corporate server they can access, and the NSA is too-busy looking at our e-mails and phone-records to notice.
And Corporate America? They’re too-busy trying to exploit a nanosecond’s trading-advantage via microwave versus fiber optic-links between Wall Street and the Chicago Board of Trade for high-speed trading advantage to notice.
It’s important to remember the U.S. Constitution isn’t the supreme law of the United States.
RE: Comment by Jane Austen — June 7, 2013 @ 4:34 pm
How many of these folks were ranting about GWB’s “Warrantless Wiretaps”?
There was a big difference between reality and what the leftoids, Libertarians/Ronulans, and others were claiming and what the deal actually was. What happened there was the feds were monitoring certain numbers overseas. If an American called one of those numbers, they needed to go get a warrant after the fact, and the call was essentially a warrantless tap until the judge gave the warrant. The folks who went bonkers seemed to ignore that the person who’s rights were supposedly violated were calling numbers overseas belonging to suspected or known terrorist organizations and supporters.
Many more of us were not happy with the wording of the Patriot Act although the way it was used seemed fine.
But …
But, now it seems, 0bama et al have used the letter of the law to do exactly what many of those who support him were claiming GWB was doing, i.e. spying on Americans for little or no reason.
Precisely why my reaction over the above was a massive eyeroll when all the foaming-at-the-mouth about the Evil Fascist In The White House, BusHitler and his satanic sidekick, Darth Cheney, who were obviously doing it to turn the nation into a xtian concentration camp all for the glory of God, oil, and Haliburton was happening en masse.
I wondered then (and still do) if they know how insecure telephonic communication is, particularly in the modern age. Odds are someone is listening somewhere, and it probably isn’t the gub’mint. The number of people who seem oblivious to their personal privacy—and the consideration of others—by engaging in public cell phone conversations about the most personal of things tells me they are not, or don’t really care unless and until it’s someone they don’t like who is doing the listening.
Still, the recent revelations are indeed much different. The mining of metadata, as heliotrope has discussed on another thread, can lead to far more conclusions—perhaps and probably often incorrect ones—than the actual content of a call, unless the content mentions keywords such as “bomb” or “jihad”. In the current situation, it can literally be a case of guilt-by-association.
One of my favorite quotes is by then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller: “If you don’t want it known, don’t say it by phone.” That was originally said in the day when a telephone had more in common with a five pound sack of sugar than a personal computer.
Now the quote is even more prescient, since the concern doesn’t even have to involve “saying” anything. Better hope that you are protected against butt-dialing someone who may be under watch.
If the NSA is listening when I butt dial, I can only hope I had beans and cruciferous vegetables for dinner.
The 4th amendment has been ripped to shreds for decades upon decades. Police can search your car if their dog “signals” potential drugs. Police can seize your property and if you are found guilty don’t have to give it back. The standards for a warrant are very very low. The power the police have over you and your property is immense!
For years these intrusions have only effected the lower dregs of society and didn’t really effect the majority. The supreme court has allowed these practices to be legal for years upon years. And “conservatives” said nothing during this time. And because conservatives liked Bush, they defended this very policy when he was doing it.
I am very glad that republicans are now sitting up and taking notice. Too bad its not real outrage and they are only upset because a Dem is in charge.
I hope conservatives remember this when/if we regain the presidency and remember that the 4th amendment is important and deserves to be upheld for everyone. Even potential “Islamists.”
littlelettermike gets huffy about the Fourth Amendment and he uses drugs, a car and a drug dog as his example. Good golly.
Illegal drugs are safe in your home, littlelettermike, if you do not give the guvment probable cause to obtain a search warrant.
Your car is a constant moveable potential crime scene. Once you “attract” govment attention in your driving, the govment has the responsibility to protect the rest of society by attending to warning you about your tail light or determining why you have a crushed tricycle on your grill.
The trained guvment person is observant of your demeanor and curious about why your eyes are glazed over. It is really a bad moment in your life if a frisky trained beagle owned and trained by the guvment goes bonkers around your trunk. Probable cause on a moveable potential crime scene kicks in a lot of guvment back up.
But, you can’t see any of this. You see the Fourth Amendment as a shield that protects your nefarious self as you go about breaking the law.
Stinks to be you.
little letter mike is just happy a progressive president is bringing the boot down on people he regards as terrorists; tea partiers, conservative donors, and the NRA.
Mike, I have to agree with Heliotrope regarding your car example. Besides, a car is small enough that any intrusion would not be that long. Your other point might be valid, that the rich and powerful can evade such intrusions even when there is probable cause. Unfortunately, this includes our government, which has the ability to either evade, or skirt such intrusions most of the time.
One of my favorite quotes is by then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller: “If you don’t want it known, don’t say it by phone.”
RSG, today his quote would be something like, “If you don’t want to leave a trail, don’t write it in an email.”
Got to side with lower-case mike today… the Fourth Amendment has been gutted.
The Boston lockdown comes to mind – the numerous pics of
storm trooperspolice officers ordering people from their homes at gunpoint in order to search the house. I wonder what happened in cases where contraband was seen.There have been plenty of stories over the years about asset forfeitures – people losing property to the state with no criminal charges even being filed.
The WSJ reports that government is collecting credit card transaction info.
mike does appear to forget that there were a fair number of conservatives opposed to Bush-era increases in surveillance. The Patriot Act and all its fallout were passed into law in a panic (just like TARP and any number of gummint fiascos). Just because a Repub. president signed it doesn’t make it smell any better.
Here’s my question: let’s pretend that all this gummint surveillance is designed only to detect and interrupt terrorist plots. How much intrusion is sufficient? How big does the surveillance state need to be?
The difference, KCRob, is that lower-case- mike is OK with the 4th Amendment being gutted, because it means his side is winning.
The TSA and “Homeland Security” still rank as the two dumbest ideas of the Bush-43 administration. The “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave” has become a fearful and fear-filled authoritarian surveillance state through two administrations and 7 Congressional sessions peopled by those who accept “security” at any-cost.