NSA: Now with more warrantless searches!

This is old news....there are not MORE warrantless searches.....but of course they were back when this blew up.

Well, if they are still listening, I hope they haven't deciphered where my mushroom picking spots are.....or what we're planning on getting the twins for their birthday next month.  That would be devastating.

For some reason I read this as or what we plan to get for the twins next month.

You guys are silly, the NSA isn't spying on anybody.  I mean besides these few little things listed here, it's all perfectly harmless

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-03/the-nsa-spying-machine-an-interactive-graphic

For crying out loud......the credit bureaus have WAY more information on you than the NSA ever could. LOL

LB, It's not the information itself, it's the ability to "fish" for things without cause and the power they have once they have the information
The credit bureau cannot seize my property and take away my freedom, but the government can.  The whole reason we have the 4th Amendment is to protect the people from the government.  The 4th Amendment doesn't protect me from the credit bureau because I don't need protection from them.

Tony......when the government tries to take away our freedom, as a society, come on down and fight next to me, it'll be fun. 

But until that time, I have to go by what I have seen in 27 years in Law Enforcement.  I don't know how many search warrants I have written or helped execute.  I don't know how many wiretaps I have sat on, or how many pin registers I've set up or written or helped write justifications for. I have worked next to/with every Federal Law Enforcement agency in this country.  I can tell you, without a single doubt, the people I have worked with are some of the most dedicated, patriotic, and loyal people I have ever had the pleasure to know.  It is a very rare occasion that Rights are intentionally trampled on.....and in those cases I always saw someone stand up and say no, or report the abuse. 

I don't like what the NSA did, but I don't like why the agency had to be invented to begin with.  If they intentionally circumvented our constitution then revamp the agency and spell it out.  I don't care if someone who is plotting a terrorist act on our country is spied on.  In some exigent circumstances I don't even give a rats arse if it is done without proper channels.....until that circumstance is gone and you can back up and get the paper.  I trust the guys trying to find the bad guys because I have worked with them and next to them for over half my life.  We hunt bad guys.....and have no interest in anyone outside of whatever bad guys we're looking for and stopping the activities they are involved in.  It is frequently a violent and nasty job, and catching violent and nasty people requires a willingness to get on the ground with them. 

I understand every point you make, and I agree with you.  I'm not worried about the govt. looking at me because I know damn well they aren't, because there is no good reason to.  Nobody charged with finding terrorists or stopping crime is sifting through my phone records......because it's a waste of time....and that's not what we like to do.  We like to get bad guys.

You keep raising the caution flag, I applaud it......we'll keep pushing forward to get bad people out of society....you tell us when our methods go too far....no problem.  But I have a problem with the paranoia, and the idea that these agencies are just out to screw good people, because it's wrong.

Yeah but... bad guys... terrorism... you aren't doing anything wrong anyway right???

I'm sure what you meant to say is that they are conducting warrantless searches without probable cause.  The overwhelming majority of searches done by law enforcement are warrantless.  We search with consent, we search vehicles with nothing more than probable cause....no warrant needed. We search under exigent circumstances without a warrant as well.  Surveillance doesn't require a warrant either, so I'm sure you didn't mean to use that word as well.

If they are "legally" scooping up the data and the public doesn't like it, then change the law....no problem.  But if it's "legal" then someone somewhere decided it wasn't against the constitution.....maybe their interpretation (whoever decided it was legal, but that would take a judge) was wrong, but legal isn't illegal.

I'll say it again.....we will push as far as we can to get bad guys, using any method deemed legal.....the public, and ultimately a judge, decides when we've gone too far.

I get what you're saying and even agree with a lot of it LB.  You describe very well how the system is supposed to work and I feel that overall law enforcement does a very good job of living within the bounds.  Yes, there are cases where cops go over the line, but the penalties are very stiff for those guys and it's not tolerated when found out.  That is how it's supposed to work and there are checks and balances.  I have a right to refuse a search of my car/house and the police respect that right.  It's not perfect, but it works like it's supposed to.

However, with the Federal government it is getting worse and worse with fewer and fewer checks and balances in place.  Each successive administration is pushing the limits further and further and nobody challenges them on it.

Lets look at the last few years:

• Selective targeting of opposing political establishments with the IRS for audits and intentionally delaying preferred tax status of organizations based on political views. (using power to stifle dissent, check)
• Unprecedented and very aggressive attack by the Justice department on journalists in the name of security.  Using national security as an excuse to stifle Whistleblowers and squelch the freedom of press.  (using power to stifle the press, check)
• Consistent attack on the 2nd Amendment to disarm the people "in the name of safety"  (using power to disarm the people, check)
• NSA has the ability to spy on virtually anyone in America and can access most computer device through illegal back doors. (keep tabs on the people, check)

Sure, we can sit and argue the necessity of each one of these things and we have on many occasions, but the simple fact is there are virtually NO checks and balances in place at the Federal level.  The Justice department is the entity that is in charge of prosecuting any wrongdoing and they're nothing more than a puppet of the current President.  So, nothing gets investigated and nobody is charged.  When congress tries to investigate something everyone just pleads the fifth and nobody gets anywhere.

If we continue to let things go down this road where is it going to stop?  Seriously, where is the checks and balances?  Virtually every aspect of the Constitution is under attack and everyone sits by idly while it happens.  "Oh, you're just paranoid it's all for the safety of the children and to protect us from terror."  blah blah

LB, if you come into my house illegally and even plant some evidence, you can arrest me and I can be charged but without a warrant or probable cause my case will get thrown out.  The checks and balances of the 4th Amendment protect me from a rogue LB.
If the NSA doesn't have to have any type of warrant or probable cause to search my computer and somebody plants a "terrorism target list" on it remotely, do I have the same protection I do with you entering my house?  No, I do not.  Because of the Patriot Act, I have no rights of any kind.  The Feds could arrest and permanently detain me, if they wanted to.  I am simply supposed to trust that because I'm not doing anything wrong I won't be targeted.  Well, what if I'm running for national office and the opposing party doesn't like the success I'm having?  Would they target me then?  More importantly "COULD" they target me?  yes they could.

Obviously the odds of things like this happen are low and it's all speculation, I'm sure you will call it paranoia.  However, throughout every civilization in history the people in power tend to want to get more power and stay in power.  The attempt of the constitution was to prevent that from happening in America.  We are closer today to a Dictatorship than we ever have been in our history.  Sure, we're a long ways away from a dictatorship but if we take two steps closer, is that a good thing or a bad thing? 

Not one of those things constitutes a "check".   Each of them is an anomaly, just has there has been throughout our history.  You think the last few years are bad?  Look at what the FBI did under Hoover if you want to see spying on Americans.  Look at the witch hunts Mccarthy went on....and the lives that were ruined.   Look what Nixon did to try to get an upper hand on opponents.  I could go on and on.   Each of those things constituted about as much of a "check" as the items you have listed above

You are looking at this through the wrong glasses.  The govts. laws  and the constitution don't contain the checks and balances, the people do.  The govt. can't take our guns, the premise is ridiculous. Squelch free speech?  Really?  Our voices won't be quieted when there is injustice......you know that.

Are the items you listed problems?  Of course they are.  Are they indicative of some greater, more sinister plot by the govt. to control the people and create a dictatorship?  C'mon...... spend some time around the redneck boys I hunted and fished with for most of my life.....lemme know how you think they'd react to something like that.  The people of our country make it what it is and, ultimately, we decide what we will tolerate.  From where I sit, it appears we will tolerate damn few infringements by our govt. on our liberties......as it should be.

Yeah but that's one reason the government likes to keep secrets.  A really good example is the TSA.  You're on a no-fly list?  Well, too bad we can't tell you why.  No, we can't even tell you what the law because it's classified.  That's b.s. in my book.  You can't have a government by the people if they can't even read the laws.

And as for what people will tolerate?  Apparently a bunch of shoe removal for every flight, amongst other things.  We may be responsible for our own liberty but we're pretty disinterested lately.

I think it's pretty obvious that we don't care if we have to take our shoes off before we board a flight....why would we?  Let's see if we would tolerate being strip searched.

It's all a matter of reasonableness and intrusion.  Get too unreasonable or too intrusive and the game changes dramatically.  Ultimately, it's still the people who decide.

I understand classified information.......I don't always like it, but I get it.

I agree that the shoes is a minor nuisance that most can deal with.  As you said, it's reasonable.

I think more to Mark's point is the "unreasonable" stuff.  Most people would say it's unreasonable to have our government install back doors on all iPhones that would allow it to monitor voice, video, and data any time they wanted without a warrant or probable cause.  However, if it weren't for a "Whistleblower" Edward Snowden, we wouldn't have a clue about any of it.  Hence, the government wants to keep their intrusions a secret, so the people do not get to decide.

Once discovered, there has been a lot of outrage over what the NSA has been doing, which then gets into your point LB about the people deciding what's permissible.
Take a look at this report by the "Committee to protect Journalists" which discusses the lengths and tactics the Government is taking to stop the flow of information to the people and tell me there's nothing wrong with what they're doing.
http://cpj.org/reports/2013/10/obama-and-the-press-us-leaks-surveillance-post-911.php

Obviously the Government needs to have secrets, but there has to be a level of oversight to ensure that they live within the legal constraints of the constitution. 

I'm being facetious of course, but based on actions it would seem our government would much prefer a North Korean style model when it comes to telling the people what they're doing.

I just skimmed what you linked.  Admittedly, I'm biased toward a distrust of the media, and articles like that one.  It has been my personal experience that they will fabricate, make up anonymous sources, etc. in the name of a story.  In that regard I can't really say I blame this administration (though I despise it) or any other for trying to control what goes out to the media.  That being said, I'm not sure how it gets done without giving everybody the idea that you are hiding something heinous that you are involved in.  In short, I don't have an answer for how to fix the problem and I certainly understand your feelings about it.....I agree with the premise.  I fall off the page when I start hearing things like our govt. is trying to control us, taker away our liberties, etc.  I'm going to have to see some flames before I get there.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

First said by Lord Acton, often quoted by Mao Zedong. And here we are today, in the US, as a case in point.

Huh?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-11/nsa-said-to-have-used-heartbleed-bug-exposing-consumers.html 

That's not surprising at all.  The real question is whether the NSA was responsible for getting that bug introduced on purpose.  They've hated OpenSSL for a long, long time.

What chu talkin bout?  They do all this to protect us.  Think about the children.  ;-)

I don't know how I feel about it.  The world is not the same as it was, say, back in WW2 when we needed to break codes in radio transmissions, etc. in order to figure out what our enemies were doing.  Without a doubt there is still that need.  One of the major premises in that work is never letting your enemies know how or even if you are breaking their codes.  It's not any different now......what IS different is that we all have access to the "radios", and we all use the same "radios" as our enemies.

So the agencies we charge with protecting our national security finds a way to break in to the "codes" of our enemies, but in doing so, it is also apparent that they have discovered that we are all vulnerable to this break-in because of a flaw in the "radio".  So they are obligated to tell us, and thereby also tell our enemies?

I don't know.  Part of the problem is that we don't know what type of information they were getting from our enemies that may have justified not telling us.  Were we actually MORE safe because of threats that could be stopped by getting the information they were mining from our enemies?  I don't know. 

In the end, you have to have a certain amount of trust in the people doing the work of National Security.  There must be oversight, and for all I knoe there was in making the decison NOT to go public with the discovery of the bug.