Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumNSA - 'Stop Watching Us': a must see PSA condemning the NSA for its Unconstitutional (illegal) acts
"Every American is at risk of getting caught up in the NSA dragnet," Stone said, with Cusack adding, "including ordinary citizens not suspected of a crime."
The PSA also includes social activists, scholars and NSA whistleblowers, many of whom draw parallels with today's monitoring to the way Richard Nixon spied on journalists and political foes during his presidency.
"It was wrong then and it's wrong now," Cusack says in the PSA, which was produced in the lead-up to the Stop Watching Us: Rally Against Mass Surveillance in Washington, D.C. on Saturday...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57609155/oliver-stone-john-cusack-star-in-anti-nsa-psa
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)On Tuesday, a previously top-secret opinion and order signed off by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge Claire Eagan was published. The opinion, dated Aug. 29, shows how the court decided to deem the NSAs mass collection of domestic phone records constitutional and in line with section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the government to secretly grab so-called business records. The NSAs operation of a vast database storing metadata on millions of calls made by Americans daily was first revealed by the Guardian in June, based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The release of the court opinion and order on the phone records program comes after a declassification review of the secret legal files was conducted, primarily due to the huge backlash prompted by Snowdens leaks.
The opinion shows that the court is relying on a Supreme Court case from 1979 to conclude that the bulk collection of phone records is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In Smith v. Maryland, at issue was the warrantless monitoring of a robbery suspects phone calls. The Supreme Court judges in Smith found that the monitoring was permissible because a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties and that they doubted people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. Grounded in the same logic, the newly released FISC opinion states:
In sum, because the application at issue here concerns only the production of call detail records or "telephone metadata" belonging to a telephone company, and not the contents of communications, Smith v. Maryland compels the conclusion that there is no Fourth Amendment impediment to the collection. Furthermore, for the reasons stated in [REDACTED] and discussed above, this Court finds that that the volume of records being acquired does not alter this conclusion.
Aside from the bizarre redaction here, which appears to have censored a crucial detail for inexplicable reasons, the reliance on Smith v. Maryland is contentious. The 1979 case concerned the monitoring of a single individual, already a criminal suspect, for a period of only a few days. The NSAs metadata program involves the daily mass collection of billions of phone records from millions of Americans not suspected of committing any crime. These records can be mined using sophisticated software that draws relationships between people, and they can be used to conduct retrospective surveillance of people dating back several years. This raises constitutional questions that were simply not a consideration in the Maryland case more than three decades ago.
Notably, the opinion also indicates that no company that was ordered to turn over the bulk metadata has challenged its legality in the court, despite having the ability to do so.
The publication of the legal documents will add fuel to the already simmering debate about the phone records program, which several lawmakers have blasted since it was revealed in June. According to the ACLU, there are at least 19 NSA-related bills are pending in Congress, with some of them aimed at reforming and effectively shutting down the phone records database in its current form. Last week, separately released documents about the phone records program showed how the NSA had unlawfully violated court rules governing the use of the database, while providing the court false information about how it was being operated for a period of almost three years.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)was the headline in German news I read. They have some experience.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)How do you feel about *those* decisions?
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)If I were to unlawfully violate court rules, and purger myself before said court -- wouldn't my actions properly be deemed "illegal," and would I not be subject to the commensurate consequences of such actions?
Will someone please explain how the NSA's actions are not patently illegal?
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)The balance of powers are lopsided and the answer regarding NSA as testified to Congress was a LIE.
Is this not a crime?
Is it a crime to invade privacy for no due process?
marble falls
(57,097 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But I don't think that ad is compelling.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)was weak and made it sound like someone else's problem.
They should have said 'my data', 'my texts' and overlaid the words across the screen shot of data.
'EVERTHING I do everyday online' is...
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)(I already know no one's gonna fuck with that beer bottle!)
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...sifting through the undie drawer (figuratively), the NSA's already come after all of us.
It never fails to astound me when invasion of privacy is viewed as a victimless crime.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I'd say if this thread is any indication, the real worry comes in when they're half way up our rectum.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)They're sneaking up on us in broad daylight.