If you know what I mean.

If you're illegally surveilled but the government doesn't do anything with it, is there relief available?

If you don't know about it then there's no suffering or pain, there's no economic loss.

(I am NOT a legal expert)

AFAIK, the only relief claim would have to come in the form of punitive damages for breach of constitutional and ethical responsibilities.

and the problem is that we don't have effective safeguards against government malfeasance- as several Senators have made clear.

malfeasance"

Which safeguards? Overseen by whom? Saying "we have safeguards" isn't the same thing as having meaningful safeguards.

Listen to phone calls without having any evidence or cause or reason to believe that someone's done something illegal.

Terrorism is still a threat to the US, whether it be cyber terrorism, violent terrorism, or even domestic terrorism. Al-Qaeda was hatched right here in the US.

I believe that institutional policies and safeguards can prevent (reduce really... prevent in most cases) government malfeasance.

I also have no reason to think that FISA court's have a history of acting within standard interpretations of the 4th Amendment.

And I do not define responsible oversight circularly... a warrant issued improperly does not make constitutional questions vanish simply because it was issued.

Everyone should be troubled by the idea that all records of any sort could be held to be relevant to a specific investigation.

(Also, since it is against the law to reveal what FISA courts have and have not done, none of us are in a position to be smugly self-assured that x, y or z has not been done.)

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

anything it chooses to intercept anywhere that at all looks and feels like a 'signal'. What has changed over the last 30 years is the capacity the NSA has to do so across the planet in real time.

They're just listening to all of you for the hell of it. It doesn't matter that all evidence gathered unlawfully would be inadmissible in a court of law. They just want to look at your girlfriend's nekkid pictures and listen in on the latest neighborhood gossip, like Mrs. Jones sleeping around.

Magically? Why is that necessary? 'Shocked---shocked'. Why? What does that get you? I tell you what it makes me think. You don't even believe your own posts so you make use of extreme language, hyperbole, affected credulity and a generally rude tone. When content of quality is not possible, be smirky. Seems to be the first rule of the 'moderate centrist'.

complete the circle that you've almost completed.

Similarly, you could claim that he supports the destruction of the 4th amendment, that would work too.

Try to find an OP from one of those complaining about the NSA and NOT find "extreme language, hyperbole, affected credulity and a generally rude tone."

Good luck with that.

I find the OP's language and tone to be rude and tawdry and I asked the OP why he uses that sort of tactic in very specific ways, it's a discussion board. The OP failed to answer, and your blather is nonsensical. If you have posts you find to be rude, complain about them as I do here, don't demand I do that for you.
The rudeness of claiming I use terms like 'totalitarian' at DUers is the mark of a man with nothing better to do than engage in typed flatulence. I do no such thing.
I note again the OP failed to respond and you just off gassed nonsense.

the fact so few of the loudest DU"ers agitating against all things surveillance seem least interested in actual facts. The how/where/why and legalities.

If I am rude, KittyWampus who is also sometimes rude, simply ask me why and I might explain or I might apologize. I asked the OP why he approaches such important issues in an OP with a tone of disrespect and if he thinks that is persuasive. These questions seem to have upset you and Joe very much. Do you think that sort of OP is persuasive? To characterize others by way of 'asking a question'?
Joe came at me claiming I am part of a group and claimed I called DUers 'totalitarians' which I most certainly do not. Nor do I say 'you are out to destroy' the 4th or anything else. But in defense of the rude tone of the OP, Joe claimed I said that stuff, because that's not rude, putting words in people's mouths.
I'm interested in what my Democratic Senators are interested in, not in how Centrist DUers with insulting tones want to insist is actually true...is that OK with you?
OP can not answer, but two volunteer to play end run for rudeness. 'Johnny does it too'. Good for you.

ignoring the fact that the exact same behavior is displayed regularly, by the group to which you belong.

I'm sure we'll see you challenging some of their OPs in a similar manner, right?

And I did not say you used that term, I said all you needed to do was include it and you could complete the circle that you had come oh so close to drawing. That term is one example of the hyperbolic language being used from your side of this discussion. Or maybe you've yet to see it. But I doubt that.

And as for the OP responding, or not responding to you, who cares? Is there a rule that only the OP can respond to other posts? Maybe you could point me to it.

If I'm rude, I'm rude. Ask me why, I'll tell you why. This is what I did here. Your post on the other hand ascribed to me language and terminology I simply do not use. You claimed I was 'completing a circle' by asking why the OP is smriky about important issues, I never said any of the things you falsely tied to me. Totalitarian? I never, ever used that term about a DUer. Ever. Yet you fling it in my face as if I did, then have the gall to claim I am rude?
I'm one person, my words are mine, you don't get to claim I said shit I did not say, nor do you get to claim I am some 'group'. I'm a Democrat. That's it. What 'group' did you mean to accuse me of being a part of Joe?

group ... who you describe this way ...

Ironically, you description is rather ... "smirky".

And again, at no time did I say YOU used the term totalitarian.

As for which group I'm part of ... I'm part of the group who finds that many of the OP's expressing concern about the NSA "make use of extreme language, hyperbole, affected credulity and a generally rude tone."

have that I belong to any group? You want to tie me to some 'group' and that is very McCarthyite and my mentors taught me to instantly demand to know specifically what group you are accusing me of being part of and to demand that you cease and desist from making such insinuations unless you are able to support them with facts in open and in public.
You do not know me, and I am not part of some group. Unless of course you refer to gay people in that charming post. Is that what you meant Joe?

I could not care any less about your sexual orientation.

Do you make that kind of insane accusation out in the real world?

and protecting American citizens' privacy but was intentionally made NOT to be more secure.

The whistleblowers wanting more safeguards built into the system and they were terminated

So the system we have is intentionally less secure regarding our rights and it cost more money.

president I strongly suspect 90% or more of the answers would have been along the lines of - "Of course we don't trust the Bush/Cheney administration to spy and monitor us. Are you nuts??"

That is the big problem, presidential administrations change on a regular basis, and Obama will not be president forever. (despite what some right wing conspiracy theorists may think )

were deliberately less secure and more expensive.

They had the capability to build in more security to protect our rights/privacy but were terminated for trying to do that.

Doesn't that remind you of Black Box Voting?

Electronic voting and tabulating machines COULD be made securely and bug free… but instead governments when with crap that allows hacking.

The discovery of the 'parallel justice system' in which the FISA court decides what domestic data capture can be done, what 'reasonable' means, and so on - all without the knowledge of the people, or Congress (or, if members of Congress are told, they are also told it's illegal to tell their constituents what they know) , indicates that the policies and safeguards have failed. For instance, James Clapper still has a job. That's a failure all in itself. He lies to Congress about national security. He should not be DNI.

Since the history of this nation has demonstrated a record of abuse against progressives and progressive causes, and since this abuse has occurred even when it was not legally permitted, maybe you should recognize that your belief exists outside the realm of actual reality.

Although you don't engage in out and out attacks often, you have repeatedly stated that someone must have blind faith in the apparatus of govt. or that person isn't progressive.

That's merely your attempt to frame the debate. There's no logic behind the statement when the govt. itself was structured because the framers knew people abuse power and are inclined to abuse power.

So, you dislike checks and balances, i.e. the American structure of democracy, because it is premised on the idea that abuse is a constant issue for power?

See, that kind of bullshit reasoning can work on your statement, too.

You need a better argument.

This post was ill considered. But I'll leave it up to remind myself to think about these things more.