Should The US Government Have The Right To Spy On Their Own Citizens?

[saevel25]

This is exactly what I was referring to. Activities in plain view aren't protected. Scanning for cellphone data is a different story though. I'm not sure that would be lawful without some sort of warrant or other legal authority.

It would need a warrant. I think the government got away with it, or was on the line because they were data-mining cell phone numbers. So it was like looking at IP Address on the internet. Who is talking to who. Of course they absolutely crossed the line when they started listening in on phone calls.

[dsc123]

I think it's a gross violation of the 4th amendment. I think it's a bad policy, even if it weren't unconstitutional. I think it's "unamerican" to have done this without the publics knowledge. A democracy cannot function when the people don't even know what the government is doing. I think it's shameful that Obama, clapper and others lie to the public and to Congress, and face no repercussions. I really struggle to have civil discourse on this topic. And I can have dispassionate discussions on just about any thing, but struggle on this tooic. I find the idea of our government spying on us, and the apathy towards it, repulsive.

[dsc123]

I also seriously doubt the efficacy of these programs. Homeland security just let 57 of 60 weapons through security where literally the only thing they have to look at is the persons bag, which the person presents to them. And we are supposed to belive that if the Nsa collects all of the world's communications they can make sense of it all and act upon it?

[Mac62]

I also seriously doubt the efficacy of these programs. Homeland security just let 57 of 60 weapons through security where literally the only thing they have to look at is the persons bag, which the person presents to them. And we are supposed to belive that if the Nsa collects all of the world's communications they can make sense of it all and act upon it?

I'm trying to figure out what TSA not finding weapons has to do with NSA.  They're two completely separate agencies with completely different duties and responsibilities.  NSA doesn't even fall under the umbrella of Homeland Security.  Granted they're both U.S. Federal agencies, but that's where the similarities end.  It's akin to saying that because a mall security guard in Podunk, Nebraska failed to notice an unlocked door after hours, a 30-year homicide investigator with the Los Angeles Police Department is incompetent.

As to the original poll, I voted 'Sometimes'.  There are definitely situations in which surveillance is warranted.  If reliable intel reveals that a criminal (or group/cell of criminals) may be plotting a criminal act of significant nature which threatens the public and/or national security, I believe that any and all surveillance means possible should be brought to bear - no holds barred.  OTOH, I don't believe that mass surveillance of the general populace is warranted.  There have to be checks and balances in place as to methodology, data storage/retention limits, etc.

As to the public's "right to know" about what surveillance is going on and how it's being conducted - surveillance, by it's very nature, is a covert operation.  If you tell everybody who you're surveilling and how/when you're surveilling them, your surveillance isn't going to be very effective or fruitful.  If the government is required to disclose that they're conducting a surveillance of five suspected domestic terrorists at 1234 Elm St. in Podunk, Nebraska, using a white van parked across the street, listening devices and thermal sensors outside the residence and wiretaps on the cell phones and landlines, what's the sense of even conducting the surveillance in the first place?  Sure, the Feds could be more transparent (in very general terms) about what data they routinely gather from who and how long it's stored, but much of anything beyond that is nobody's business and a threat to operational security.

And as far as the original poll goes, it's worth noting that not everybody in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen.  There are plenty of foreign nationals living here with far less than honorable intentions.

[newtogolf]

I'm trying to figure out what TSA not finding weapons has to do with NSA.  They're two completely separate agencies with completely different duties and responsibilities.  NSA doesn't even fall under the umbrella of Homeland Security.  Granted they're both U.S. Federal agencies, but that's where the similarities end.  It's akin to saying that because a mall security guard in Podunk, Nebraska failed to notice an unlocked door after hours, a 30-year homicide investigator with the Los Angeles Police Department is incompetent.

As to the original poll, I voted 'Sometimes'.  There are definitely situations in which surveillance is warranted.  If reliable intel reveals that a criminal (or group/cell of criminals) may be plotting a criminal act of significant nature which threatens the public and/or national security, I believe that any and all surveillance means possible should be brought to bear - no holds barred.  OTOH, I don't believe that mass surveillance of the general populace is warranted.  There have to be checks and balances in place as to methodology, data storage/retention limits, etc.

As to the public's "right to know" about what surveillance is going on and how it's being conducted - surveillance, by it's very nature, is a covert operation.  If you tell everybody who you're surveilling and how/when you're surveilling them, your surveillance isn't going to be very effective or fruitful.  If the government is required to disclose that they're conducting a surveillance of five suspected domestic terrorists at 1234 Elm St. in Podunk, Nebraska, using a white van parked across the street, listening devices and thermal sensors outside the residence and wiretaps on the cell phones and landlines, what's the sense of even conducting the surveillance in the first place?  Sure, the Feds could be more transparent (in very general terms) about what data they routinely gather from who and how long it's stored, but much of anything beyond that is nobody's business and a threat to operational security.

And as far as the original poll goes, it's worth noting that not everybody in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen.  There are plenty of foreign nationals living here with far less than honorable intentions.

The point I believe he's making is that all government agencies are infringing on our rights as citizens of this country under the guise of "greater good" and how inept they are overall at doing their jobs.   TSA is costing the taxpayers billions of dollars that involve the daily violation of our rights and are so incompetent that were unable to identify 57 of 60 weapons through airport security when tested.

NSA was a classified agency who's sole purpose for creation was to spy on other countries.  The technology they developed was only supposed to be used to track international calls and data.  Since their inception NSA has found ways to circumvent their role within the US Government by rerouting domestic calls and data off of international satellites and servers so that they could "listen" to and "view"  domestic data.   Under the  Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, NSA can now handover any information (collected in violation of our privacy rights) they deem suspicious to the FBI or local authorities to act upon.

Snowden, would have been considered an American hero in this country 50 years ago, has been labeled a traitor by our government for revealing the egregious acts our own government has undertaken to violate our rights to privacy.

[saevel25]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The point I believe he's making is that all government agencies are infringing on our rights as citizens of this country under the guise of "greater good" and how inept they are overall at doing their jobs. TSA is costing the taxpayers billions of dollars that involve the daily violation of our rights and are so incompetent that were unable to identify 57 of 60 weapons through airport security when tested.

Also, the supreme court says it isn't a violation of our rights,

Quote:

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 , there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

I would say the search would be allowed as long as the person is not charged with a crime. Basically, the TSA is allowed to search your luggage or person and confiscate what they would classify as a dangerous weapon before boarding an airplane. I don't mind this one.

I do think TSA needs to be better trained, or they need to severely limit what can be taken on a plane if they can't identify weapons. In the end I rather error on the side of safety than comfort and ease when it comes to flying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Snowden, would have been considered an American hero in this country 50 years ago, has been labeled a traitor by our government for revealing the egregious acts our own government has undertaken to violate our rights to privacy.

Snowden would be labelled a communist 50 years ago, and most likely a spy. 1964, cold war, he took sensitive data and fled to the USSR

[newtogolf]

Also, the supreme court says it isn't a violation of our rights,

I would say the search would be allowed as long as the person is not charged with a crime. Basically, the TSA is allowed to search your luggage or person and confiscate what they would classify as a dangerous weapon before boarding an airplane. I don't mind this one.

I do think TSA needs to be better trained, or they need to severely limit what can be taken on a plane if they can't identify weapons. In the end I rather error on the side of safety than comfort and ease when it comes to flying.

Snowden would be labelled a communist 50 years ago, and most likely a spy. 1964, cold war, he took sensitive data and fled to the USSR

The Supreme Court reached that decision under the guise of "greater good".

Snowden fled to Russia because he would have been killed or spent his life jail if he remained in the US.

[saevel25]

The Supreme Court reached that decision under the guise of "greater good".

Snowden fled to Russia because he would have been killed or spent his life jail if he remained in the US.

Still your claim that he would be labeled a hero would be incorrect. The USA would have labeled him a spy and a communist in the 1960's. The anti war activists would label him a hero. There are some people in this country who claim he did the right thing. So, it wouldn't be any different than today.

It sounds like you don't want any searching by the TSA or any other government agency? So basically, people should have free reign to bring on what ever they want onto a plane, correct?

I would say that the US Constitution only applies to US Citizens. In that regard, a government agency could require all non-citizens to be herded off to a TSA check point for searching. This would require terrorist to have to become US Citizens first before being granted access to your wild west flying approach. Still that would fit the written law.

Though an interesting way to circumvent this would be for the US Government to require that airlines, a private business, by regulation to ban certain items or they person can not be granted access to the plan. This would fall out of the 4th Amendment because it is a private company doing the possible search. Every person would be required to have their luggage and person's checked by a non-government agency or be denied access to the plane. The airlines could put that in the terms and service area when you buy a ticket that you authorize the airlines to require a search of your luggage and person. It would fall under the same area as private businesses denying access to people who conceal carry weapons, who want to enter a bar or restaurant. The 4th amendment is primarily used for government agencies not to perform illegal search and seizures. It doesn't protect people from private businesses making a general administrative requirement to deny people access to a plane because they carry a dangerous item.

[k-troop]

[URL]http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/06/why-americans-hate-government-surveillance-but-tolerate-corporate-data-aggregators/[/URL]

[newtogolf]

It sounds like you don't want any searching by the TSA or any other government agency? So basically, people should have free reign to bring on what ever they want onto a plane, correct?

I would say that the US Constitution only applies to US Citizens. In that regard, a government agency could require all non-citizens to be herded off to a TSA check point for searching. This would require terrorist to have to become US Citizens first before being granted access to your wild west flying approach. Still that would fit the written law.

Though an interesting way to circumvent this would be for the US Government to require that airlines, a private business, by regulation to ban certain items or they person can not be granted access to the plan. This would fall out of the 4th Amendment because it is a private company doing the possible search. Every person would be required to have their luggage and person's checked by a non-government agency or be denied access to the plane. The airlines could put that in the terms and service area when you buy a ticket that you authorize the airlines to require a search of your luggage and person. It would fall under the same area as private businesses denying access to people who conceal carry weapons, who want to enter a bar or restaurant. The 4th amendment is primarily used for government agencies not to perform illegal search and seizures. It doesn't protect people from private businesses making a general administrative requirement to deny people access to a plane because they carry a dangerous item.

I am willing to waive my rights to board a plane for the "greater good" if the TSA were competent and some of the checks weren't gratuitous.  If you're willing to spend a bit of money you get to keep your shoes and belts on and walk through the check points with minimal inspection.   How do you justify these checks are critical to safety if you can buy yourself out of some of them?

[saevel25]

I am willing to waive my rights to board a plane for the "greater good" if the TSA were competent and some of the checks weren't gratuitous.  If you're willing to spend a bit of money you get to keep your shoes and belts on and walk through the check points with minimal inspection.   How do you justify these checks are critical to safety if you can buy yourself out of some of them?

Your not going to ever have 100% satisfaction in the TSA. I will say they do need to get better. I've never had an issue with the TSA.

http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheckR-application-program

My dad had this. He traveled a lot, either in the US or overseas.

1) You must be a US Citizen

2) You must submit to a background check and have not been convicted of certain crimes.

3) You get fingerprinted

4) You must provide valid identification and citizenship documentation

Your carry on is still checked like the other TSA section. Basically the section is identical to the other TSA sections except that you can bypass the long lines if you are willing to subject yourself to a background check and pay a fee. You don't just walk past security to the plane.

[newtogolf]

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/06/why-americans-hate-government-surveillance-but-tolerate-corporate-data-aggregators/

A lot of ignorance in that link.  One who takes basic precautions can avoid being tracked by corporations and websites where as we have no way to avoid government spying short of going completely off the grid.

NSA, not corporate America has made it illegal to use cryptography that NSA doesn't have the key to or can't crack.  Government, not corporate America wants the ability to view the contents of cellphones and wants to mandate that access to the device be required and has created loopholes in laws where suspects must unlock their phones using their thumbprints if requested.  It's government that is requiring Google, Apple and internet providers to give up all their customers data to them.

If you can't tell the difference between the two you've drank too much of the Kool-Aid.

[dsc123]

While I mostly agree with K-troop's article, insofar is it posits that "private power" can be just as dangerous, Franklin's words were spoken at the time of the revolution, a cause which he supported, which was a fought to distance the colonies from an oppressive government .  I don't think the lesson is that Ben Franklin didn't think governments were a threat, but rather that corporations were also a threat.

And I think congress should do something to protect our privacy from large corporations, too.  That requires new law though, since the 4th amendment doesn't apply to private conduct, and that won't happen because today government and corporations are essentially one and the same.

There's one little peice that I just can't let go unmentioned.....

Quote:

On the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, I’ve also seen first-hand congressional oversight of NSA’s work and that of our other intelligence services.  This oversight reflects the balance in our democracy, between those who provide our national security, and the people themselves through their elected representatives.

Here's that oversight in action:

So that's congress, in 2013, having no clue what the NSA is up to.  And the Director of National Intelligence, lying to Congress and the American people.  Clapper, was never charged with perjury, and kept his job.  Oversight?  Balance?  Accountability?  Where?

[newtogolf]

Your not going to ever have 100% satisfaction in the TSA. I will say they do need to get better. I've never had an issue with the TSA.

http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheckR-application-program

My dad had this. He traveled a lot, either in the US or overseas.

1) You must be a US Citizen

2) You must submit to a background check and have not been convicted of certain crimes.

3) You get fingerprinted

4) You must provide valid identification and citizenship documentation

Your carry on is still checked like the other TSA section. Basically the section is identical to the other TSA sections except that you can bypass the long lines if you are willing to subject yourself to a background check and pay a fee. You don't just walk past security to the plane.

I had it last year, the point is my shoes and belt were not seen as a threat because I went through a one-time check.   There's also the "lottery winners" who now get to skip past the longer lines and keep their shoes and belt on because they were randomly selected to bypass it.  Are shoes and belts a threat or not?

I have to remove my Yoga 3 and MacBook Air laptop and place them in a separate bin but my iPad 2 which is only slightly thinner than my MacBook can stay in my bag.  The whole TSA initiative is a joke and the latest performance tests conducted by the FBI prove it.

[dsc123]

More to the point of corporations and privacy:

Quote:

Speaking of the wrong targets, we also give a pass to the companies that happily suck up our personal, identifiable data and sell it to the highest bidder . We accept the excuse that it's all "targeted marketing," even when it's actually used against us in healthcare, banking, and credit decisions, and that the data is "anonymous and aggregate" even when it really isn't . We assume that even if we're okay with such targeted data collection, everyone else is, too. We point at huge companies—who definitely have real problems that need to be addressed—and ignore easily defeated companies like KlearGear, who'll subpeona Yelp for your information and sue you if you leave a negative review (even though courts have ruled they can't.) We ignore the fact that LG's new privacy policy says they can collect specific data on everything you watch on their new Smart TVs , even if it's your own media, and if you decline their privacy policy, your expensive Smart TV is stripped of all of its features . All of these are campaigns easily won if we paid attention to them. Plus, they'd turn into legal precedent that would be useful against those big companies we're busy complaining about instead.

http://lifehacker.com/we-need-to-re-think-how-we-fight-for-privacy-1582572323

I also think this is TED talk is worth 20 minutes for those of you who think government surveillence is okay because you're not doing anything wrong:

Along the same lines:

Quote:

1. Some people do have something to hide, but not something that the government ought to gain the power to reveal. People hide many things from even their closest friends and family: the fact that they are gay, the fact that they are sick, the fact that they are pregnant, the fact that they are in love with someone else. Though your private life may be especially straightforward, that should not lead you to support policies that would intrude on the more complicated lives of others. There's a reason we call it private life.
2. You may not have anything to hide, but the government may think you do. One word: errors. If we allow the government to start looking over our shoulders just in case we might be involved in wrongdoing-mistakes will be made. You may not think you have anything to hide, but still might end up in the crosshairs of a government investigation, or entered into some government database, or worse. The experience with terrorist watch lists over the past 10 years has shown that the government is highly prone to errors, and tends to be sloppily overinclusive in those it decides to flag as possibly dangerous.
3. Are you sure you have nothing to hide? As I said in this 2006 piece, there are a lot of laws on the books-a lot of very complicated laws on the books-and prosecutors and the police have a lot of discretion to interpret those laws. And if they decide to declare you public enemy #1, and they have the ability to go through your life with a fine-tooth comb because your privacy has been destroyed, they will find something you'll wish you could hide. Why might the government go after you? The answers can involve muddy combinations of things such as abuse of power, mindless bureaucratic prosecutorial careerism, and political retaliation. On this point a quotation attributed to Cardinal Richelieu is often invoked: "Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, and I'll find something in them to hang him by."
4. Everybody hides many things even though they're not wrong. The ultimate example is the fact that most people don't want to be seen naked in public. Nudity also makes a good metaphor for a whole category of privacy concerns: just because we want to keep things private doesn't mean we've done anything wrong. And, it can be hard to give rational reasons why we feel that way-even those of us who feel most comfortable with our bodies. True, some people may be perfectly happy posting nude pictures of themselves online, but other people do not like to show even a bare ankle-and they should have that right. In the same way, there may not be anything particularly embarrassing about other details of our lives-but they are our details. The list of all the groceries you have purchased in the past year may contain nothing damaging, but you might not want a stranger looking over that either, because of that same difficult-to-articulate feeling that it would just be, somehow, invasive , and none of their damned business . As Bruce Schneier aptly sums it up, "we do nothing wrong when we sing in the shower."
5. You may not care about hiding it, but you may still be discriminated against because of it. As I discussed recently in this post about data mining, people are often denied benefits or given worse deals because some company decides that some behavior-entirely innocent and legal-might suggest you are a poor risk. For example, credit card companies sometimes lower a customer's credit limit based on the repayment history of the other customers of stores where a person shops.
6. Privacy is about much broader values than just "hiding things." Although many people will want more specific answers to the question such as the above, ultimately the fullest retort to the "nothing to hide" impulse is a richer philosophical defense of privacy that articulates its importance to human life-the human need for a refuge from the eye of the community, and from the self-monitoring that living with others entails; the need for space in which to play and to try out new ideas, identities, and behaviors, without lasting consequences; and the importance of maintaining the balance of power between individuals and the state.

and

https://www.aclu.org/blog/qa-daniel-solove-how-bad-security-arguments-are-undermining-our-privacy-rights?redirect=blog/technology-and-liberty/qa-daniel-solove-how-bad-security-arguments-are-undermining-our-privacy

and

http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886

[Golfingdad]

Are shoes and belts a threat or not?

Well, the shoe thing was just a reaction to that shoe bomber guy, but I always thought the belt thing was simply them trying to expedite the whole process.  Same with emptying your pockets.  They know it's very likely that your metal belt buckle will set off the metal detector so just get all of the metal-ish things out of the way before you go through the first time so you don't have to worry about beeping and going through again and slowing everything down.

Incidentally, speaking of the TSA, I remember the very week that the liquids thing (like the shoe thing, another snap reaction) went into effect because we had been on vacation in Hawaii and the very first we heard of it was when we got to the airport to come home.

[dsc123]

I just got a breaking news alter on my phone: N.S.A. Secretly Expands Internet Spying at U.S. Border

Quote:

Without public notice or debate, the Obama administration has expanded the National Security Agency ’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international Internet traffic to search for evidence of malicious computer hacking, according to classified N.S.A. documents.

In mid-2012, Justice Department lawyers wrote two secret memos permitting the spy agency to begin hunting on Internet cables, without a warrant and on American soil, for data linked to computer intrusions originating abroad — including traffic that flows to suspicious Internet addresses or contains malware, the documents show.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/hunting-for-hackers-nsa-secretly-expands-internet-spying-at-us-border.html

[newtogolf]

Well, the shoe thing was just a reaction to that shoe bomber guy, but I always thought the belt thing was simply them trying to expedite the whole process.  Same with emptying your pockets.  They know it's very likely that your metal belt buckle will set off the metal detector so just get all of the metal-ish things out of the way before you go through the first time so you don't have to worry about beeping and going through again and slowing everything down.

Incidentally, speaking of the TSA, I remember the very week that the liquids thing (like the shoe thing, another snap reaction) went into effect because we had been on vacation in Hawaii and the very first we heard of it was when we got to the airport to come home.

Don't get me wrong, I fly fairly often and want air travel to be safe for all of us but I don't believe the measures put in place by TSA and Homeland security do much more than ADT signs on your front lawn provide you in terms of home security.   As you wrote, we didn't check shoes until the shoe bomber, we didn't check liquids until a incident occurred.  Will the measures in place stop a bomber who surgically implants C4 into an artificial limb or their abdomen?

This isn't a shot at Obama either as I know TSA was formed under GW, so it's not political it's about wasting taxpayer money, infringing on our rights, having people of questionable backgrounds rummaging through our luggage and in the end providing us with little benefit or assurance of safer air travel.