What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Handyman said:
I am not so sure he is trying to get you,he is just doing to you what was done to him by the other side when this stuff was discussed under a different regime. even on this board this fight has been going n for a decade with the sides seemingly flipped.
Click to expand...

Correct. I went to DC with the ACLU and met with my two Senators and two US Reps to argue against the Patriot Act. We were dismissed as loons by most of the country. I must admit to a little schadenfreude now that the people who most vociferously supported the Patriot Act because it would protect them from "Ragheads" find it used against them - as we predicted would happen a decade ago. Guess our ideas weren't so loony were they?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Shirtless Guy said:
But you basically said, "it's tracked and documented therefore it's available for the government to see without warrant." Where should that line be drawn if it's allowed to go that far?
Click to expand...

"Slippery slope" is the classic, traditional ACLU argument. And it sometimes has merit. I just think there's a lot of over reaction going on here. When we learn this information is used by Little Dick (or any president) against his political opponents, then we'd have a horse of a different color. As I say, the mere collection and storage strikes me as precisely what the NSA should be doing. Let's take a hypothetical. After the Marathon bombings we check Speed bump #1 & #2's 'phone records. And find in the days immediately before the attack these two were talking for the first time to some dude originally from Dagestan 10 or 15 times a day. And after the attacks, this dude begins calling other dudes from Dagestan 10 or 15 times a day. Isn't it a good thing that we can establish those apparent patterns? And isn't it a good thing that we follow up on them?
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Old Pio said:
"Slippery slope" is the classic, traditional ACLU argument. And it sometimes has merit. I just think there's a lot of over reaction going on here. When we learn this information is used by Little Dick against his political opponents, then we'd have a horse of a different color. As I say, the mere collection and storage strikes me as precisely what the NSA should be doing. Let's take a hypothetical. After the Marathon bombings we check Speed bump #1 & #2's 'phone records. And find in the days immediately before the attack these two were talking for the first time to some Dude originally from Dagestan 10 or 15 times a day. And after the attacks, this dude begins calling other dudes from Dagestan 10 or 15 times a day. Isn't it a good thing that we can establish those apparent patterns? And isn't it a good thing that we follow up on them?
Click to expand...
I have no problem with a law that requires the telecommunications companies to keep records for an established amount of time. I have a problem with them giving it to the NSA without a warrant. You're telling me that getting a judge to issue a warrant for the phone records of the two marathon bombers and then getting a 2nd warrant for the persons they contacted regularly isn't the proper way to handle this versus just giving the government the ability to have this data at their finger tips without warrants? And who's to say some schmuck from the "Cincinnati" office won't abuse the fact he has this information to find out who the local newspaper has been talking to about something he doesn't like? The fact that the NSA has all this information makes it quite funny that they can't figure out who leaked information about top secret information...
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Priceless said:
Correct. I went to DC with the ACLU and met with my two Senators and two US Reps to argue against the Patriot Act. We were dismissed as loons by most of the country. I must admit to a little schadenfreude now that the people who most vociferously supported the Patriot Act because it would protect them from "Ragheads" find it used against them - as we predicted would happen a decade ago. Guess our ideas weren't so loony were they?
Click to expand...

Let me understand: The NSA having the ability to retrieve records showing how many times you ordered from Pizza Hut is "using the Patriot Act" against you? And warrants dramatic hand wringing? Strikes me as a little loony.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Shirtless Guy said:
I have no problem with a law that requires the telecommunications companies to keep records for an established amount of time. I have a problem with them giving it to the NSA without a warrant. You're telling me that getting a judge to issue a warrant for the phone records of the two marathon bombers and then getting a 2nd warrant for the persons they contacted regularly isn't the proper way to handle this versus just giving the government the ability to have this data at their finger tips without warrants? And who's to say some schmuck from the "Cincinnati" office won't abuse the fact he has this information to find out who the local newspaper has been talking to about something he doesn't like? The fact that the NSA has all this information makes it quite funny that they can't figure out who leaked information about top secret information...
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has ruled those records aren't private. Obviously you're not required to agree with the wise 9. But you have no expectation of privacy here. Again, the distinction is between knowing who you called and when and for how long and actually listening in. They need a warrant for that. These billions of records are rarely utilized. The Fed is big, but hardly big enough to check how many times you dialed your bank to verify your checking account balance.

Hypothetical abuse is not the same as actual abuse. We've had actual abuse by the IRS. So far, not here.

Some of us are struggling to be consistent here, even if it appears that we're arguing against our customary political positions. Rover's argument, on the other hand, seems to be "Obama's an a*shole, but he's our a*shole." I think we'll have to delay that Mt. Rushmore discussion for a bit.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Shirtless Guy said:
I have no problem with a law that requires the telecommunications companies to keep records for an established amount of time. I have a problem with them giving it to the NSA without a warrant. You're telling me that getting a judge to issue a warrant for the phone records of the two marathon bombers and then getting a 2nd warrant for the persons they contacted regularly isn't the proper way to handle this versus just giving the government the ability to have this data at their finger tips without warrants? And who's to say some schmuck from the "Cincinnati" office won't abuse the fact he has this information to find out who the local newspaper has been talking to about something he doesn't like? The fact that the NSA has all this information makes it quite funny that they can't figure out who leaked information about top secret information...
Click to expand...

BINGO! Warrants should be required. How many more of the Bill of Rights can we possibly destroy?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Who's the lawyer around here? Can someone explain to me how the Stored Communications Act of 1986 and United States v. Graham could not be applied to banking information provided on the internet if it can be applied to cell phone records?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Handyman said:
BINGO! Warrants should be required. How many more of the Bill of Rights can we possibly destroy?
Click to expand...

The police don't require a warrant to walk past your house on the street. They do require a warrant to come inside.

They even can sit outside in a parked car and jot down the license plate of everyone who pulls into your driveway, without a warrant. They cannot search inside any of those cars without a warrant.




What is creepy to me is not so much how we parse out the rights of various parties here, as why this information is being gathered and to what purpose will it be used?


If it really were to be limited solely to ferreting out terrorists before they strike, I'd be uneasily accepting despite misgivings. Unfortunately, I do not trust the government to limit itself only to that goal. I wish it were different.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Shirtless Guy said:
Who's the lawyer around here? Can someone explain to me how the Stored Communications Act of 1986 and United States v. Graham could not be applied to banking information provided on the internet if it can be applied to cell phone records?
Click to expand...

While I'm not a lawyer, if one reasons based on consistency and precedent, then they could merely verify that you do have an account at that location without a warrant but they cannot examine any of your account activity without a warrant.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

FreshFish said:
While I'm not a lawyer, if one reasons based on consistency and precedent, then they could merely verify that you do have an account at that location without a warrant but they cannot examine any of your account activity without a warrant.
Click to expand...
So they can verify I have a cell phone but who I'm calling or how long? nope thats not how it works with cell phones apparently.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Old Pio said:
Let me understand: The NSA having the ability to retrieve records showing how many times you ordered from Pizza Hut is "using the Patriot Act" against you? And warrants dramatic hand wringing? Strikes me as a little loony.
Click to expand...
Everything the NSA is accused of doing is perfectly legal thanks to the Patriot Act. AT&T has been turning over records for years. The NYPD took infrared photos of a couple having sex on a rooftop (dangerous terrorist activity, I'm sure) and NSA agents snooped on pillow talk between our soldiers overseas and their spouses back home.

nsatt.png


I find it humorous that so many on the right are freaking out over this. We told you about this a decade ago but no one listened. Reap what you sow.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

FreshFish said:
What is creepy to me is not so much how we parse out the rights of various parties here, as why this information is being gathered and to what purpose will it be used?


If it really were to be limited solely to ferreting out terrorists before they strike, I'd be uneasily accepting despite misgivings. Unfortunately, I do not trust the government to limit itself only to that goal. I wish it were different.
Click to expand...
I think many of us can agree with this assessment. The information gathering is an over reach but it doesn't cause a problem if they use it properly, but they shouldn't be able to get their hands on it without a warrant to limit their ability to misuse it for political purposes or anything of the like.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Shirtless Guy said:
So they can verify I have a cell phone but who I'm calling or how long? nope thats not how it works with cell phones apparently.
Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, the story goes that they can verify THAT you have a cell phone, AND who you call, AND for how long, without a warrant, but they cannot listen to the conversation itself without a warrant.

That is not very reassuring, because it seems like they are passively recording the contents of every cell phone conversation and storing those recordings so that they can then retroactively get a warrant and listen to those calls later. I think it is this element that really creeps people out. Who knows how long those recordings will be kept, how securely they will be kept, or who ultimately might hack into them, for what nefarious purpose, in the future?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Priceless said:
Everything the NSA is accused of doing is perfectly legal thanks to the Patriot Act. AT&T has been turning over records for years. The NYPD took infrared photos of a couple having sex on a rooftop (dangerous terrorist activity, I'm sure) and NSA agents snooped on pillow talk between our soldiers overseas and their spouses back home.

nsatt.png


I find it humorous that so many on the right are freaking out over this. We told you about this a decade ago but no one listened. Reap what you sow.
Click to expand...
Just stop with the BS act. I wasn't here posting then so stop telling me I was ok with the Patriot Act. I'm not. What amazes me in all of this is why haven't you been calling for the guy you voted for to bring this to an end? You don't like it yet you act like its ok now. Your guy was suppose to be more transparent than anyone and here he is continuing gitmo, using drones to kill people that the left would be mad about leaving at gitmo and now continuing the patriot act spying on americans.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Priceless said:
Everything the NSA is accused of doing is perfectly legal thanks to the Patriot Act. AT&T has been turning over records for years. The NYPD took infrared photos of a couple having sex on a rooftop (dangerous terrorist activity, I'm sure) and NSA agents snooped on pillow talk between our soldiers overseas and their spouses back home.

nsatt.png


I find it humorous that so many on the right are freaking out over this. We told you about this a decade ago but no one listened. Reap what you sow.
Click to expand...

Don't climb down off the cross to accept our heartfelt thanks just yet. Some of those complaining are doubtless doing it at least in part to add to Little Dick's problems. I understand the impulse. But intellectual honesty is called for. Just as you posted one lefty group that may have been treated badly (thus "proving" there's nothing to see here in the IRS scandal) the occasional "outrageous" examples of over reach you point to don't make the case. Trillions of intercepts. We aren't exactly in the clutches of the Stasi just yet.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Shirtless Guy said:
Just stop with the BS act. I wasn't here posting then so stop telling me I was ok with the Patriot Act. I'm not. What amazes me in all of this is why haven't you been calling for the guy you voted for to bring this to an end? You don't like it yet you act like its ok now. Your guy was suppose to be more transparent than anyone and here he is continuing gitmo, using drones to kill people that the left would be mad about leaving at gitmo and now continuing the patriot act spying on americans.
Click to expand...

Writing stuff here does nothing. Donating money and volunteering time with the ACLU/EFF etc actually does something.

And if you read, I said I found it humorous that so many on the right are freaking out...I did not say you in particular. Your outrage would seem to be genuine.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Priceless said:
Writing stuff here does nothing. Donating money and volunteering time ....actually does something.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. and who has been most vocal in the past several years about the dangers of an obtrusive government? and how have they been treated by said intrusive government?

Assuming you do have a sense of moral consistency, which I believe you do, and you think that it is wrong for people to suffer discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religious belief, isn't it also wrong to be discriminated against based on political belief?

you talk about shadenfreude. groups that say "be careful not to let government grow too large and influential" are disproportionately singled out by said government for extra scrutiny? please tell me you are not okay with that. I surely won't be laughing in 2017 if the Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House and start using the various organs of government disproportionately to make life difficult for the left!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top