Can't they just dismantle the most intrusive aspects of the surveillance program and we can move on?

[Douglas Carpenter]

I certainly didn't buy into the Benghazi scandal. That was so obviously a right-wing diversion. I Thought the IRS thing was bad news - but I didn't blame the Obama Administration for it. Questions about spying on reporters started to concern me - but I basically gave the Obama White House the benefit of the doubt. Even now I don't by any means completely blame this out of control surveillance apparatus on the Obama presidency. Nor was I by any means shocked that it was going on. But it was a bit more extensive and centralized than I had previously imagined. But here we are now. Whether Snowden or Greenwald are traitors or heroes - It doesn't matter. How much this out of control surveillance apparatus is the personal fault of President Obama doesn't matter. What matters is that we now know that a Frankenstein monster has been created within the clandestine services. Let's assume that President Obama was motivated by only the best of intentions. Let's assume that President Obama never - ever abuses the system in any way, shape or form. The fact still remains that we now have a surveillance apparatus in place that some government, sometime in the future will abuse and they are being handed the instruments of authoritarianism if not totalitarianism on a silver platter. Imagine - a WMD version of a new September 11 happening under the watch of a government with ethics of Dick Cheney. This is all too possible and at some point it is almost probable that it might happen. Do we really want them to have this surveillance apparatus that they would not wait a second before they turned out on all of us?

Is it not time to fix this? Can they not dismantle the worst and most intrusive aspects of the surveillance program? - the aspect that are most apt to be subject to abuse. Then we can move on to other things and stop arguing about this matter.

[treestar]

1. I would think they could

but then Cheney and Bush had it and didn't bother with warrants, and still weren't able to become tyrants. If anyone was going to abuse it, it'd be them.

[pnwmom]

2. Good idea. And then we can move onto the next scandal. n/t

[scarletwoman]

3. That's going to be a tough one, now that surveillance is privatized.

There are profits involved, and from profits come campaign donations, and from campaign donations come policy.

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. ++++++

[wandy]

38. Most true. And the people who make the profits hear are far richer and have....

more motivation than the NRA.
One angle that might be of help is that national security, no matter if misguided, should not be privatized.

[RobertEarl]

4. Yep. It costs too much. We can't afford it.

I guess as long as we don't call it the "Snowden Act That Saved Freedoms" we might even get a few of the Snowden haters to think about it, establish some pro-sense, be still one minute, and make a flaming dem decision to enact laws which regulate the out of control spying.

I'm all in. Obama, can you hear us now?

[marions ghost]

5. How do you suggest to dismantle it?

The majority of the govt doesn't see it as a problem (openly anyway).

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. I suggest a committee that is Co-chaired by John McCain and Pat Leahy

a committee with an equal mixture of civil libertarians and security hawks - Put the Republicans in the position that they own it too.

[marions ghost]

8. Ya think?

Those bipartisan efforts are working out so well...

And what incentive to they have to do anything on this?

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. they would complain if the the surveillance was too soft on terrorism or too intrusive of civil

liberties - let them decide how to fix it. Maybe have Rand Paul and John McCain can work out the new rules. Put them in a put up or shut up position

[marions ghost]

11. Rand Paul and John McCain

I wouldn't want those two idiots on it.

Yikes. Not a solution IMO.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. well the only way in can be poltically possible is if Republicans play a major role in setting the

rules - so they will not be in the position of either accusing Democrats of being too soft on terrorism or too soft on civil liberties

[marions ghost]

14. We may be beyond those type of accusations...

So anyway what does "soft on civil liberties" mean? HOW can you be too tough on protecting civil liberties?

I'm sure that RethugliCOns would insist on playing a major role, not in doubt.

I just don't see much hope for a congressional committee to change anything.

[NoOneMan]

10. There is no fix. This is the new normal. Its here to stay and it doesn't look like many give a damn

[railsback]

13. A perfect quote from DK's brooklynbadboy

"If you think all the data about you held by private corporations belongs to you, think again. Its theirs. And they have no problem at all giving it to the government, or selling it to anyone else, with or without your consent. Because they don't need your consent to give or sell something that doesn't belong to you. Think about that."

Yes, think about that. The only thing Snowden did was expose the fact that there's probably other dumbasses like himself packing around thumb drives, ready to download all kinds of private/sensitive information and skip town with it.

[marions ghost]

15. you can call Snowden a lot of things

but "dumbass" he ain't.

[railsback]

16. Well, that's open to interpretation

and our interpretations differ drastically.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

17. What good is it to have massive power if you can't abuse it? It's not fixable, or not fixable for us

[DevonRex]

18. They already did. The fucking ruling that Snowden and Greenwald leaked was

when the Justice Department did their periodic accounting (as the law requires) of whats was being collected, and turned it over to the court. The court didn't like it. NSA then fixed the problem so that data collection was minimized. And now the FISA court is happy.

These safeguards were built into the law and it shows they work.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. so there is no real problem with the current surveillance system? The data mining that is now in

place poses no intrusion into privacy or concerns about civil liberties issues?

[Recursion]

22. I can think of a few changes; I asked for your opinion downthread

The NSA is strongly restricted in what it can do with information it accidentally obtains on US citizens, but even so that could be tightened ("illegal activity" is too broad a rubric, and keeping data simply for being encrypted is something I don't like).

It's not clear to me what you want "dismantled", however.

[DevonRex]

29. I'll tell you

what I know from experience. Right now there are people trying to get into the system. It's the nature of the game. Spies want in. So do hackers - just for fun. So it always has to be improved. Checked, double checked, encrypted. Done all over again.

As far as the changes that were made, they met the approval of the court. That doesn't mean we can't have continuing discussions about privacy and what is needed and what isn't needed. OTOH, if we accept that the govt has to keep some things secret we can't always know everything about classified programs. That's why we have intelligence committees. We either trust them or we don't. If we don't then the govt cannot have any secrets at all. See how this goes?

These are big questions. But the only answers that will ease peoples' minds are to the nuts and bolts questions. Once those are answered in public the programs are useless. Then what?

[JDPriestly]

40. Please read my post at #33 for Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent in Smith v. Maryland.

Smith v. Maryland, decided in 1979 merely held that police obtaining a pen register (metadata on phone service) did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Thurgood Marshall disagreed, and I was delighted to discover that his view then was what mine is today. This massive surveillance, indiscriminate surveillance and collection of metadata not only on the general public but on politicians and news reporters may well violate the First Amendment. I would add that considering the scope of this surveillance it probably also violates the entire concept of separation of powers in that it renders the legislative and judicial branches to have less of their own power than the executive which can obtain in a secretive manner very intrusive information about the other branches of government and intimidate members of the other branches by violating their First Amendment and other constitutional rights.

It will take time, but if we want to continue to have constitutional government, this program must be ended. It is simply incompatible with democracy and our Constitution.

[Recursion]

21. Ironic, no?

I don't know what the hell has happened here in the past few weeks.

[Recursion]

19. What, specifically, do you want changed?

Did you notice the NSA's release on what it can and can't collect about Americans last week? What would you change about that? I have a few tweaks I could suggest (not keeping encrypted information and a tightening of the "illegal activity" rubric). What about you?

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. most people are not comfortable with the idea of the government essentially maintaining records of

every call they make and perhaps (admittedly this is less clear) much of their Internet activity anymore than they would be comfortable with the government keeping records of everywhere they go and everyone they talk to. It is no secret that FISA courts almost never turn down warrants. So, the "They have to get a warrant issue" is really a canard.

[Recursion]

24. And that's not what's happening

Since that isn't what's happening, I'm not sure what that has to do with this situation. (And remember the Verizon thing was a completely separate system, used by the FBI, to look at call patterns without being able to see which number belonged to what people.)

It is no secret that FISA courts almost never turn down warrants.

Actually, that's entirely a secret, and we only have various congresspeople's and pundits' words about that. I have no idea. But I do know that when the NSA finds out it's been surveilling a US citizen, they have to destroy what they surveilled unless some specific criteria are met. I've mentioned ways I would like those criteria tightened up.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. the data mining does essentially create that web essentially centralized phone records on a scale

not previously known and does in fact have access to this information on an absolutely massive level. At some point in the future another Dick Cheney or John Ashcroft will be in positions of power. It is entirely possible that some other major terrorist event of 9/11 scale or worse may happen thus granting a sense of license to those would abuse the clandestine services for their own political ends. There are reasons why people like former Vice President Al Gore or former Ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame and numerous very senior former NSA officials - to say nothing of almost ever civil liberties group in the world are greatly concerned about this. If the recent revelations about the extent of the surveillance system had occurred under a Republican President - even with all the so-called "safe guards" in place - I doubt we would see hardly anyone on this site defending this.

[Recursion]

26. That data does not fall under constitutional protection, but has some statutory protection

I did not like the FISA amendment as it was written, and Obama's vote for it in 2008 is probably my biggest disappointment in him.

If the recent revelations about the extent of the surveillance system had occurred under a Republican President

Actually the 2008 FISA vote (under a Republican President) had pretty much the same cleavage on the site as this reminder of what the vote was actually about does; some people's hair caught on fire and some people said "well, at least there's some management now".

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. constituional protectons and to an extent the constituion itself are whatever the courts say it is

of course the courts change their mind and judges at all levels at times disagree. But that aside - this data mining on this scale does represent such a massive level of information in the hands of a centralized clandestine service. Do I think Obama is likely to use this against his political opponents? NO! Do I think he went down this road with sinister intent? NO! But, is it possible - in fact probable - that a future administration will abuse data mining and overstep the protections? I think that is extremely likely to the point of chilling.

[Recursion]

28. Exactly my arguments against establishing it the way they did in 2008, under a GOP President

However, the fact remains that this was better than the unilateral and unchecked surveillance that was happening before, so I'll take the better with the bitter on this, too.

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. well, now that there is at least some political will to look at this issue - perhaps we should do so

before a different sort of administration is in power and we have no ability to do so and those on the progressive end of the spectrum find themselves on the receiving end of clandestine scrutiny.

We are now dealing with a vast intelligence-industrial complex that is largely unaccountable to its citizens. This alarming, unchecked growth of the intelligence sector and the increasingly heavy reliance on subcontractors to carry out core intelligence tasks – now estimated to account for approximately 60% of the intelligence budget – have intensified since the 9/11 attacks and what was, arguably, our regrettable over-reaction to them.

Today, the intelligence sector is so immense that no one person can manage, or even comprehend, its reach. When an operation in the field goes south, who would we prefer to try and correct the damage: a government employee whose loyalty belongs to his country (despite a modest salary), or the subcontractor who wants to ensure that his much fatter paycheck keeps coming? - Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/23/nsa-intelligence-industrial-complex-abuse

[Recursion]

31. Obama has asked Congress to do something about it

On May 23rd, in fact: he said Congress should end the initial AUMF and create new regulations for military and intelligence activity. Funny, what's happened since then?

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. then this sounds like a good time to make a public appeal for reform -which is the point my original

post

[JDPriestly]

36. Please read Thurgood Marshall's dissent in Smith v. Maryland at my post #33.

[JDPriestly]

35. Please read my post at #33.

I quote Thurgood Marshall's dissent from Smith v. Maryland.

He foresaw precisely the perils that we are facing with this massive surveillance program.

[Recursion]

37. I already commented on your OP about it (nt)

[JDPriestly]

33. Thurgood Marshall's dissent in Smith v. Maryland (1979).

The use of pen registers, I believe, constitutes such an extensive intrusion. To hold otherwise ignores the vital role telephonic communication plays in our personal and professional relationships, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. at 389 U. S. 352, as well as the First and Fourth Amendment interests implicated by unfettered official surveillance. Privacy in placing calls is of value not only to those engaged in criminal activity. The prospect of unregulated governmental monitoring will undoubtedly prove disturbing even to those with nothing illicit to hide. Many individuals, including members of unpopular political organizations or journalists with confidential sources, may legitimately wish to avoid disclosure of their personal contacts. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 357 U. S. 463 (1958); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 408 U. S. 695 (1972); id. at 408 U. S. 728-734 (STEWART, J., dissenting). Permitting governmental access to telephone records on less than probable cause may thus impede certain forms of political affiliation and journalistic endeavor that are the hallmark of a truly free society. Particularly given the Government's previous reliance on warrantless telephonic surveillance to trace reporters' sources and monitor protected political activity, [Footnote 3/2] I am unwilling to insulate use of pen registers from independent judicial review.

Page 442 U. S. 752

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/735/case.html

This horrendous program cannot be cleaned up. It is simply too broad, too all-inclusive. The Supreme Court is going to need to revisit Smith v. Maryland. Thanks to the internet, the ubiquity of e-mails and the frequency of phone calls and the corresponding government computer capacity to make sense of data that was used very differently in 1979, I think that eventually the Smith v. Maryland decision will be overturned. It will not be immediate. I hope our democracy hangs on long enough to see the demise of this surveillance pursuant to that decision. The broad collection of metadata without a warrant will, as Thurgood Marshall foresaw, in my opinion, eventually be found to be a violation of several of our fundamental rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

[Amonester]

34. I've got some bad news, I think...

Well, not exactly 'news' but, what if a cheney II maladministration (and a complicit congress) just won't give a damn about all those 'fixes' and re-creates the program all by itself, and no just re-creates it, but even make it worse?

I say prosecute the contractors who don't care about respecting the 'current' law (FISA warrants before accessing more data).

[Fire Walk With Me]

41. They have definite plans to expand the surveillance state, not reduce it. NDAA 2014:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023057822

It explains why metadata IS dangerous.