Question for libertarians about collection of phone records

[jkjsooner]

First, I'll point out the following for those who thought this began under Obama.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...5-10-nsa_x.htm

That being said, let's assume Verizon and the rest shared their phone records (numbers and times) willingly without coercion. Is that an affront to our rights? What if the government restricted who the carriers can share their data with? Would that not be a violation of their rights to do with their data as they please?

Or let me give you an example. Let's say I go out in front of my house and take down the license number and time of every car that passes by. I do this 24 hours a day. These are my data and shouldn't I be able to do with it as I please whether it offends you or not?

Same with CCTV. It's my camera.


I'm playing devil's advocate a little here but when it gets down to it these issues are never clear-cut. Just like the civil right's debates, what may be seen as an expansion of our rights by one person may be seen as a limitation placed on us by another.

[yermom]

define "without coercion"

[KantoSooner]

I have distinct libertarian leanings, but to me this is a management/common sense issue. We don't live in a Rousseau-ian state of nature as magically independent moral actors. The world is a messy place and it's all a shades-of-gray/compromise type of deal. Am I concerned that people might be taking a bit of interest in who I speak with and what is said? Yeah, a little. But I also recognize that those people who have been deputized, by me (in essence), to look after group security have to have some ability to do their jobs.
And where we're at right now does not strike me as particularly worrisome.

[yermom]

this is only what we know about, and even us knowing about it was not taken very well.

i can't remember the guy who leaked a lot of the above story, but things didn't exactly go that well for him either

[Tulsa_Fireman]

He got a sex change. His name is Vera DeMilo now.

[rock on sooner]

this is only what we know about, and even us knowing about it was not taken very well.

i can't remember the guy who leaked a lot of the above story, but things didn't exactly go that well for him either

Metadata...just the #'s to and from, without the conversation, the idea being
recurring numbers to and from warrant investigation...high reoccurrence then
lets look closer...good idea....oh wait, let's tell everyone that's how we make
connections with potential bad guys and then go ahead and listen closer. Darn,
the bad guys figured out what we were doing and quit calling each other. Instead,
they use burn phones once and toss...no pattern, move to different locations and
repeat. After a burn contact, go to an encrypted sat phone twice, in locations 400
miles apart, can still pass info and set up plans.

Manning (to a lesser extent) and Snowden both did this crap and ought to be hung
out to dry, er wood shed, er solitary confinement, er something more extreme! Ifn
ANYBODY thinks otherwise, IMO, they are to be lumped into the same scenario and
treated accordingly.

Would relish hearing arguments to the contrary....

[olevetonahill]

Its Like some of you Never heard of George Orwell

[TAFBSooner]

Its Like some of you Never heard of George Orwell

Apparently he's down the memory hole.

[KantoSooner]

Just for fun:

How many of you expect conversations that you have in a restaurant to be completely private? Those on a city street? How about if you're standing in your driveway, talking with your neighbor about the pot plants you have in your basement while a cop is parked at the curbe with the windows down?

Where is the distinction between these types of things and having the numbers that call you and the numbers you call recorded and stored for use in case your name starts turning up in other investigations?

You want absolute privacy? Go live in a cave in Idaho and don't talk with anyone. Perfect privacy. You're welcome. All the rest. ALL the rest are shades of grey.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

All the rest. ALL the rest are shades of grey.

How many shades of grey are there?

[jkjsooner]

define "without coercion"

In this case the government definitely coerced the carriers into giving the phone records.

But one of the questions I posed is whose rights were violated by this? The phone companies or you? I think you can make a strong argument that the phone companies are the ones who should feel violated.

Using my example of writing down tag numbers of cars that pass down my street. My neighbors may not like it but it is my right to collect and keep that data. My neighbors may not like the government forcing me to turn over the records but they don't really have a say in it. They are my records to turn over. If I don't want to turn them over I'm the only one (as the owner of the records) having my rights violated.

I would also point out that if you define the phone records as being private data owned by those who made the phone calls you have essentially made an argument of increased regulation of the telecom industry. You can make a strong argument that that goes against conservative ideology. (For obvious reasons the law does state exactly this for the actual conversations themselves.)

Anyway, I'm glad this spurred conversation. Sometimes I like to challenge traditional ways of thinking just for fun. I'm glad so far nobody has jumped all over me for it.

[KantoSooner]

How many shades of grey are there?

At least 50, though those of us with active imaginations could easily come up with many, many more variations. Rest assured.

[SoonerBBall]

I'm far more concerned about the potential for abuse of this massive, continuous data collection many years down the road than its immediate potential for abuse.

[rock on sooner]

I'm far more concerned about the potential for abuse of this massive, continuous data collection many years down the road than its immediate potential for abuse.

You can probably rest easy, though, because our world is fleeting,
from a technological standpoint. It is transient, fluid, ever changing,
except maybe in a case like mine...I've had the same landline number
for the 23 years I've lived in IA so the NSA probably has a lot of info
on me. If they don't just google me, my whereabouts/history is there
for ANYONE to see.

Having worked four military years in the same field as NSA's predecessor
I believe US citizens that are up to no good are the only ones who should
be concerned. I also firmly believe that Manning and Snowden should be
prosecuted to the fullest extent....treason, aiding and abetting the enemy,
improper dissemination of classified material......

[olevetonahill]

You can probably rest easy, though, because our world is fleeting,
from a technological standpoint. It is transient, fluid, ever changing,
except maybe in a case like mine...I've had the same landline number
for the 23 years I've lived in IA so the NSA probably has a lot of info
on me. If they don't just google me, my whereabouts/history is there
for ANYONE to see.

Having worked four military years in the same field as NSA's predecessor

I believe US citizens that are up to no good are the only ones who should
be concerned.

I also firmly believe that Manning and Snowden should be
prosecuted to the fullest extent....treason, aiding and abetting the enemy,
improper dissemination of classified material......

That must mean you have absolute Trust and Faith in the "Government"

[KantoSooner]

Actually, Vet, I don't think you do need absolute trust or faith. It's a human system, run by, in essence, us. Now, looking in the mirror, I know that I have my little selfish tendencies and will, upon occaision, bend a rule in my own favor. That's not the same thing as saying that I'm the next coming of Himmler, however. So, when I say the governemnt is run by 'us', I am not only allowing for some slippage a round the edges, I'm counting on it.
We've got a legal system that works pretty well. If someone in government gets frisky with you, there are law school profs and other assorted do-gooders falling all over themselves to 'question authority' etc.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

In this case the government definitely coerced the carriers into giving the phone records.

But one of the questions I posed is whose rights were violated by this? The phone companies or you? I think you can make a strong argument that the phone companies are the ones who should feel violated.

Using my example of writing down tag numbers of cars that pass down my street. My neighbors may not like it but it is my right to collect and keep that data. My neighbors may not like the government forcing me to turn over the records but they don't really have a say in it. They are my records to turn over. If I don't want to turn them over I'm the only one (as the owner of the records) having my rights violated.

I would also point out that if you define the phone records as being private data owned by those who made the phone calls you have essentially made an argument of increased regulation of the telecom industry. You can make a strong argument that that goes against conservative ideology. (For obvious reasons the law does state exactly this for the actual conversations themselves.)

Anyway, I'm glad this spurred conversation. Sometimes I like to challenge traditional ways of thinking just for fun. I'm glad so far nobody has jumped all over me for it.

There's laws on the books about what those same companies can and cannot do with that same data. Credit card companies have to send you a privacy notice every couple of years which probably helps out the post office but all ends up in the same place.

When you're talking about policing matters, there's this thing called the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It states that the gov't cannot compel you to turn over the data you took on cars passing by your house unless they have probable cause that a crime has been committed. Collecting mass amounts of private records without a probable cause warrant clearly is a violation of the 4th amendment.

[KantoSooner]

Collecting mass amounts of private records without a probable cause warrant clearly is a violation of the 4th amendment.

All right. If this statement is true, then the following must also be true:
1. The FISA Court is either corrupt beyond any functionality or is utterly untrained in the law.
AND
2. The Intelligence Committees of both the Senate and House of Reps must be likewise evil or stupid.
AND
3. The President and Dept of Justice must be the same way.

So, addiing up, the top five people in line of succession to the presidency (with exception of the Chief Justice) must be utterly useless along with another 20 or so of the most senior jurists in the nation and 40 or so senior elected officials. And, lest we forget, the entire staff of the DoJ.

Either all that has to be true, or the issue is, perhaps, a tad more complex than 'clearly a violation' would imply.

[olevetonahill]

All right. If this statement is true, then the following must also be true:
1. The FISA Court is either corrupt beyond any functionality or is utterly untrained in the law.
AND
2. The Intelligence Committees of both the Senate and House of Reps must be likewise evil or stupid.
AND
3. The President and Dept of Justice must be the same way.

So, addiing up, the top five people in line of succession to the presidency (with exception of the Chief Justice) must be utterly useless along with another 20 or so of the most senior jurists in the nation and 40 or so senior elected officials. And, lest we forget, the entire staff of the DoJ.

Either all that has to be true, or the issue is, perhaps, a tad more complex than 'clearly a violation' would imply.

Well Ill agree with ya on #3 being Corrupt and Stupid.

[yermom]

utterly useless is far too kind