The New Yorker: Verizon and the NSA: The problem with metadata

[AUGradinTX 0]

Your argument falls back on a warrant being needed to link a phone number to the data.

1. You don't know if this is the case.

1b. There are legal ways a to learn the owner of a phone number. If you have access to the data and you can find out the name legally without a warrant, what good is the warrant? This makes that argument mute. https://www.google.com/#gs_rn=17&gs_ri=psy-ab&suggest=p&cp=7&gs_id=6l&xhr=t&q=reverse+phone+lookup&es_nrs=true&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=reverse&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48293060,d.eWU&fp=be945dcd5b7bcd58&biw=1440&bih=810

2. The Patriot Act prohibits the collection of this data unless unless it has already been determined to be related to a authorized investigation on terrorism. Only after this has been determined, can the information be collected. If you read the article posted by Japan, The people who wrote the law say it is being abused. That ends all argument about the intent of the law. A warrant was needed BEFORE collecting this information.

Following your accepted understanding of the law makes no sense to me. Basically what is illegal is now legal (collection of data on people without reason) and a warrant is now needed to do something I can do in 5 minutes online (do a reverse number look-up). Does that not make you feel like a fool?

[homersapien 12,172]

Your argument falls back on a warrant being needed to link a phone number to the data.

1. You don't know if this is the case.

1b. There are legal ways a to learn the owner of a phone number. If you have access to the data and you can find out the name legally without a warrant, what good is the warrant? This makes that argument mute. https://www.google.c...iw=1440&bih=810

2. The Patriot Act prohibits the collection of this data unless unless it has already been determined to be related to a authorized investigation on terrorism. Only after this has been determined, can the information be collected. If you read the article posted by Japan, The people who wrote the law say it is being abused. That ends all argument about the intent of the law. A warrant was needed BEFORE collecting this information.

Following your accepted understanding of the law makes no sense to me. Basically what is illegal is now legal (collection of data on people without reason) and a warrant is now needed to do something I can do in 5 minutes online (do a reverse number look-up). Does that not make you feel like a fool?

No, I don't feel like a fool. If the process I am defending is being conducted as I have described, I don't think it represents an unreasonable intrusion of my privacy, for reasons I have explained many times in this thread.

If you insist the process as I described and defend doe represent an unreasonable intrusion of my privacy, that's fine. We can simply agree to disagree.

But don't keep throwing up examples of how it could be abused. I understand how it could be abused. And if it is being abused as you say, I will oppose it.

If you insist on taking my position and extrapolating it to a defense of what is actually - or potentially - being done that is contrary to "my" process, I have run out of ways to explain why that's not the case. So if my inability to explain this makes me a fool, then I guess I am a fool.

Feel better?

I am content to drop this circular discussion and wait for the actual facts to come out.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Your argument falls back on a warrant being needed to link a phone number to the data.

1. You don't know if this is the case.

1b. There are legal ways a to learn the owner of a phone number. If you have access to the data and you can find out the name legally without a warrant, what good is the warrant? This makes that argument mute. https://www.google.c...iw=1440&bih=810

2. The Patriot Act prohibits the collection of this data unless unless it has already been determined to be related to a authorized investigation on terrorism. Only after this has been determined, can the information be collected. If you read the article posted by Japan, The people who wrote the law say it is being abused. That ends all argument about the intent of the law. A warrant was needed BEFORE collecting this information.

Following your accepted understanding of the law makes no sense to me. Basically what is illegal is now legal (collection of data on people without reason) and a warrant is now needed to do something I can do in 5 minutes online (do a reverse number look-up). Does that not make you feel like a fool?

No, I don't feel like a fool. If the process I am defending is being conducted as I have described, I don't think it represents an unreasonable intrusion of my privacy, for reasons I have explained many times in this thread.

If you insist the process as I described and defend doe represent an unreasonable intrusion of my privacy, that's fine. We can simply agree to disagree.

But don't keep throwing up examples of how it could be abused. I understand how it could be abused. And if it is being abused as you say, I will oppose it.

If you insist on taking my position and extrapolating it to a defense of what is actually - or potentially - being done that is contrary to "my" process, I have run out of ways to explain why that's not the case. So if my inability to explain this makes me a fool, then I guess I am a fool.

Feel better?

I am content to drop this circular discussion and wait for the actual facts to come out.

I brought it up to show how ridiculous it is to work the way you stated. You say it doesn't invade your privacy because there is no name attached to the data, and to get the name you need a warrant.

This doesn't make any sense because anyone can find a name attached to a number; without a warrant.

That's just funny to me. It may be the most absurd thing I have heard on this site.

[AU64 10,122]

The nature of governments from ancient times until today is to restrict the freedoms of the individuals by whatever means they can. And as we have seen in numerous cases, the easiest way to limit freedoms is to stretch the interpretation of any given law waaay beyond the intent of the originators. Income tax, social security, and on it goes. The Patriot Act is no different. Does anyone really believe that NSA, FBI or whoever are going to voluntarily restrain themselves from collecting information that MIGHT be useful to them some day if they have the ability to collect such data. AND, the pressure is on these agencies to catch the bad guys and I don't expect many (if any) would take the view that they should be "careful" not to violate the law in gathering this data. More likely it's "push forward" until they meet resistance.

[homersapien 12,172]

Your argument falls back on a warrant being needed to link a phone number to the data.

1. You don't know if this is the case.

1b. There are legal ways a to learn the owner of a phone number. If you have access to the data and you can find out the name legally without a warrant, what good is the warrant? This makes that argument mute. https://www.google.c...iw=1440&bih=810

2. The Patriot Act prohibits the collection of this data unless unless it has already been determined to be related to a authorized investigation on terrorism. Only after this has been determined, can the information be collected. If you read the article posted by Japan, The people who wrote the law say it is being abused. That ends all argument about the intent of the law. A warrant was needed BEFORE collecting this information.

Following your accepted understanding of the law makes no sense to me. Basically what is illegal is now legal (collection of data on people without reason) and a warrant is now needed to do something I can do in 5 minutes online (do a reverse number look-up). Does that not make you feel like a fool?

No, I don't feel like a fool. If the process I am defending is being conducted as I have described, I don't think it represents an unreasonable intrusion of my privacy, for reasons I have explained many times in this thread.

If you insist the process as I described and defend doe represent an unreasonable intrusion of my privacy, that's fine. We can simply agree to disagree.

But don't keep throwing up examples of how it could be abused. I understand how it could be abused. And if it is being abused as you say, I will oppose it.

If you insist on taking my position and extrapolating it to a defense of what is actually - or potentially - being done that is contrary to "my" process, I have run out of ways to explain why that's not the case. So if my inability to explain this makes me a fool, then I guess I am a fool.

Feel better?

I am content to drop this circular discussion and wait for the actual facts to come out.

I brought it up to show how ridiculous it is to work the way you stated. You say it doesn't invade your privacy because there is no name attached to the data, and to get the name you need a warrant.

This doesn't make any sense because anyone can find a name attached to a number; without a warrant.

That's just funny to me. It may be the most absurd thing I hahve heard on this site.

There are no names attached to meta data, just numbers. That's a fact.

The government requires a warrant to analyze specific numbers in the database. That has at least been claimed to be part of the process.

Now I don't know if a simple reverse look-up on a given number constitutes the sort of analysis the government does, but presumably it would include that.

Now please explain to me how any of the above is nonsensical, much less absurd.

Are you arguing that the government is simply doing whatever they want without a warrant? If so, then I am against it.

I don't even understand what you are you trying to do with your arguments.

Assuming you are OK with private companies possessing the same data who are free to do whatever they want with it, in secret, and without any oversight, much less a warrant, then you apparently have a particular problem with the government using the same data, with legal restrictions and oversights, for the specific purpose of counter-terrorism.

Now to me, that sounds absurd.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Your argument falls back on a warrant being needed to link a phone number to the data.

1. You don't know if this is the case.

1b. There are legal ways a to learn the owner of a phone number. If you have access to the data and you can find out the name legally without a warrant, what good is the warrant? This makes that argument mute. https://www.google.c...iw=1440&bih=810

2. The Patriot Act prohibits the collection of this data unless unless it has already been determined to be related to a authorized investigation on terrorism. Only after this has been determined, can the information be collected. If you read the article posted by Japan, The people who wrote the law say it is being abused. That ends all argument about the intent of the law. A warrant was needed BEFORE collecting this information.

Following your accepted understanding of the law makes no sense to me. Basically what is illegal is now legal (collection of data on people without reason) and a warrant is now needed to do something I can do in 5 minutes online (do a reverse number look-up). Does that not make you feel like a fool?

No, I don't feel like a fool. If the process I am defending is being conducted as I have described, I don't think it represents an unreasonable intrusion of my privacy, for reasons I have explained many times in this thread.

If you insist the process as I described and defend doe represent an unreasonable intrusion of my privacy, that's fine. We can simply agree to disagree.

But don't keep throwing up examples of how it could be abused. I understand how it could be abused. And if it is being abused as you say, I will oppose it.

If you insist on taking my position and extrapolating it to a defense of what is actually - or potentially - being done that is contrary to "my" process, I have run out of ways to explain why that's not the case. So if my inability to explain this makes me a fool, then I guess I am a fool.

Feel better?

I am content to drop this circular discussion and wait for the actual facts to come out.

I brought it up to show how ridiculous it is to work the way you stated. You say it doesn't invade your privacy because there is no name attached to the data, and to get the name you need a warrant.

This doesn't make any sense because anyone can find a name attached to a number; without a warrant.

That's just funny to me. It may be the most absurd thing I hahve heard on this site.

There are no names attached to meta data, just numbers. That's a fact.

And to find the name, once again, takes seconds to do online...

The government requires a warrant to analyze specific numbers in the database. That has at least been claimed to be part of the process.

The chairman of the select commitee on intelligence says this is not the case.

Now I don't know if a simple reverse look-up on a given number constitutes the sort of analysis the government does, but presumably it would include that.

Analysis? I don't know if I would consider typing in a number and hitting the search button "analysis."

Now please explain to me how any of the above is nonsensical, much less absurd.

You're claiming that the information has nothing to do with people because there are no names attached, yet finding the names is something my 7 year old nephew could do. It's absurd to think a government official isn't smart enough to do the same.

Are you arguing that the government is simply doing whatever they want without a warrant? If so, then I am against it.

I don't even understand what you are you trying to do with your arguments.

Assuming you are OK with private companies possessing the same data who are free to do whatever they want with it, in secret, and without any oversight, much less a warrant, then you apparently have a particular problem with the government using the same data, with legal restrictions and oversights, for the specific purpose of counter-terrorism.

Now to me, that sounds absurd.

And if you've been paying attention, I have clearly argued how it is not necessary to have data on EVERYONE to do what they say they are doing.