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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:18 PM Jun 2013

Please think about your "reasonable expectation of privacy"

Please don't expect privacy on the:

Phone
Email
Internet
Your vehicle
Your place of employment
Your Computer files
Any public space

If you want privacy, lock the door when you go to the privy in your house.

If you want to keep something secret, keep it in your head. If you wish to share it, whisper it into someone else's ear.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Please think about your "reasonable expectation of privacy" (Original Post) NightWatcher Jun 2013 OP
As The saying Goes, Sir The Magistrate Jun 2013 #1
the single most incredible thing about the Verizon story markiv Jun 2013 #2
Unless a judge were to issues an order/subpoena - all they have is my phone # and... Tx4obama Jun 2013 #3
'A phone book has more details than that. ' markiv Jun 2013 #4
I was talking about 'name' and 'address' Tx4obama Jun 2013 #7
This edict circumvents subpoenas. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #8
Where have you got "a judge signs an order on each individual case" from? muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #10
This place is a treasure trove of personal info that people post here YeahSureRight Jun 2013 #5
you forgot our pussies elehhhhna Jun 2013 #6
I was raised to be paranoid/careful olddots Jun 2013 #9
 

markiv

(1,489 posts)
2. the single most incredible thing about the Verizon story
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:21 PM
Jun 2013

is that there now is actually a telecom company that now sucks more than Sprint

didnt think that was possible

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
3. Unless a judge were to issues an order/subpoena - all they have is my phone # and...
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:25 PM
Jun 2013

... and number of minutes a call lasted (they do NOT even have the name of the person of the phone).

I do not see anything to be outraged about.

A phone book has more details than that.

 

markiv

(1,489 posts)
4. 'A phone book has more details than that. '
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:29 PM
Jun 2013

wow - your phone book has a log of everyone you've ever called?

your landfill must be busting at the seams

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
7. I was talking about 'name' and 'address'
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:37 PM
Jun 2013

And the NSA doesn't get to see who calls who unless there a judge signs an order on each individual case.

The tele-com folks only keep their records for something like 30-90 days.

That is not long enough if records need to be looked at that are older than that.

In the event of terrorist attacks here in the USA the government needs to be able to 'fully investigate' the criminals - with out being able to subpoena phone records lots of the folks involved wouldn't be able to be exposed.


muriel_volestrangler

(101,355 posts)
10. Where have you got "a judge signs an order on each individual case" from?
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 06:33 AM
Jun 2013

It might be true; but, at this stage, we have to realise that, unless they have explicitly stated something, we shouldn't assume that any kind of interpretation of what they say is correct.

For instance, looking at the AP stories on what Clapper has said this night:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/intelligence-chief-blasts-nsa-document-leaks
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NSA_PHONE_RECORDS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-06-07-03-17-07

The court also prohibits the government from indiscriminately rummaging through the phone data, which he said can only be queried when there are specific facts to back up a reasonable suspicion of an association with a foreign terrorist group. He says officials allowed to access the records must be specially cleared and are trained in the court-approved procedures.

House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said that once the data has been collected, officials still must follow "a court-approved method and a series of checks and balances to even make the query on a particular number."


Now, that doesn't say they have to go to a judge each time. It just says there are 'court-approved procedures'. It doesn't say that a judge has to agree about the 'reasonable suspicion'; it may well mean that an NSA employee can say "I have a reasonable suspicion", write down what it is, and, if necessary, another NSA employee will review it.

There's nothing in either article about a court, or a judge, getting involved in individual cases - just the renewal every 90 days of the blanket "collect all call data, and don't tell anyone you're doing it" order, and that a court approved the process, at some time.

 

YeahSureRight

(205 posts)
5. This place is a treasure trove of personal info that people post here
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:32 PM
Jun 2013

If someone was really wanted to they could use the very public info personal info that is available on DU for nefarious purposes.


One can take many precautions to limit their electronic data exposure and I highly recommend it to all.

 

olddots

(10,237 posts)
9. I was raised to be paranoid/careful
Thu Jun 6, 2013, 07:48 PM
Jun 2013

The conveniences we have are riddled with draw backs , they monitor us because they can with the push of a button and it's our job to figure out how they won't be able to .

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Please think about your "...