Judge: Give NSA unlimited access to digital data

Yes folks, it's getting closer. Now a judge is speaking against what he is in a position to defend. He should be de-robed for even thinking this IMO.

www.pcworld.com...
The U.S. National Security Agency should have an unlimited ability to collect digital information in the name of protecting the country against terrorism and other threats, an influential federal judge said during a debate on privacy. “I think privacy is actually overvalued,” Judge Richard Posner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, said during a conference about privacy and cybercrime in Washington, D.C., Thursday. Congress should limit the NSA’s use of the data it collects—for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies—but it shouldn’t limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches, Posner said.

“If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that’s fine,” he said. In the name of national security, U.S. lawmakers should give the NSA “carte blanche,” Posner added. “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security,” he said. “The world is in an extremely turbulent state—very dangerous.”

Privacy interests should not matter as our Govt. is creating the terror that we need protection from. hmmmm. We need privacy from the Govt. terrorists.

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

So the only reason we want our privacy is because we are doing something illegal or disreputable as he puts it? Sounds like "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you should have no reason to expect privacy." Old trick with new jargon.

Posner criticized mobile OS companies for enabling end-to-end encryption in their newest software. “I’m shocked at the thought that a company would be permitted to manufacture an electronic product that the government would not be able to search,” he said.

ALLOWED to create privacy? Since when should we need permission for privacy? This is a very dangerous slope my friends.

"“If someone drained my cell phone, they would find a picture of my cat, some phone numbers, some email addresses, some email text,” he said. “What’s the big deal?"

So because he has no life he expects others are in the same boat. Just the fact that he only has a picture of his cat on his phone is scary enough for me...

Peace

Problem, reaction, solution at its finest my friend.

Privacy is overvalued? Just what the f*** is he talking about? It's not about what's on your phone. Let's take a look at what he's been looking at on the Internet, let's listen to his phone calls. Privacy is a human right, end of.

The people can turn this against them. Overload their system.
Start replacing commonly used words, like say "cat", with words like "uranium" or "gerbil porn."
Give them such a workload that they can't possibly handle it.
It is a little difficult typing this with "dirty bomb" on my keyboard.

I'm curious as to how many attacks have been stopped with this tactic.

“I think privacy is actually overvalued,” Judge Richard Posner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, said

Does that mean we get to read all of his mail, e mail, tax records, bank records and anything else we can find?
It should.

a reply to: jude11

A good find, Jude. F&S again. Posner supposedly turned conservative
in the late 60's-- from the kind of decisions he's written lately, I have
a problem swallowing that sandwich without more chewing.
Just because Reagan appointed him doesn't mean a thing anymore..
or any other POTUS. The important bent is toward maintenance of
the status quo. At that he has for a long time been a brick wall with
specs on it.

And the computer industry wonders why many individuals and small businesses are rejecting cloud services and data storage. It is people like this in "high places" that need their laundry aired before the public. Lets see how overvalued his privacy is.

a reply to: jude11

In my opinion this stuff all falls under the jurisdiction of the 4th Amendment. You get to investigate people after they commit a crime. You do not get to shake them down hunting and snooping through their whole lives hoping to find something to use against them.

Of course this opinion is based on the power of The Constitution and the belief that terrorism is largely a manufactured artificial threat made up for the express purpose of warmongering and limiting rights of the citizenry.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How could a judge, of all people, not understand that? He feels that privacy is over rated? This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of constitutionally protected rights.

a reply to: jude11

"“If someone drained my cell phone, they would find a picture of my cat, some phone numbers, some email addresses, some email text,” he said. “What’s the big deal?"

So because he has no life he expects others are in the same boat. Just the fact that he only has a picture of his cat on his phone is scary enough for me...

I happen to be a single man with cats, and I have photos of said cats. But if I posted those photos could it implicate my cats and they could end up in guantanmeow Bay. My cats only crime was to look cute, and even though there are other feral cats roaming about creating havoc, it's my cats that will pay the price.

That might be a poor allegory but I'm sticking by it. Many of us are being punished by the actions of the few, and it's those few who should be punished.

originally posted by: Klassified
And the computer industry wonders why many individuals and small businesses are rejecting cloud services and data storage. It is people like this in "high places" that need their laundry aired before the public. Lets see how overvalued his privacy is.

It's most likely only for us and not them of course.

Peace

originally posted by: N3k9Ni
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How could a judge, of all people, not understand that? He feels that privacy is over rated? This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of constitutionally protected rights.

The judge swore an oath to uphold the laws of the land and to ensure that people have their rights protected.

The right to personal privacy is something that he should stand by since his job is based on protecting people from those that would take away our rights.

I am still amazed at the overvalued quote. How are rights overvalued?

Peace

Judge Richard Posner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Just wanted to highlight for everyone the name of the person who thinks YOUR privacy is overvalued!

Anonymous - you out there? Judge Dick Posner would like firsthand experience of extinguished privacy.

Sounds like someones presented this judge with all his "oopses" from over his lifetime...midget prostitutes who like to get a bit kinky and poop over there clients and the 3 kids you've hidden away etc so if you want to keep it quiet then say what we want you to say at the NSA

If anyone is interested, the video of the conference he spoke these words can be found here ... I don't see it on youtube yet, still need to watch myself.

Despite the appalling comments he made, it is good to know others disagreed with him.

Even if i've got nothing to hide, i don't like the idea of having the thought police snooping through my personal information, especially since the government keeps changing the definition of what's right and what's wrong.
In my opinion privacy is an inherent human right and need.

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,”

BS!

Is singing in the shower disreputable? Is making love disreputable?

We use it to form our individualism.
We use it to strengthen our intimate relations.
We use it to protect us from abuse.
We use it to feel free.
I could go on and on...

What will happen to our collective frame of mind when we all know we are constantly being watched?
Everyone has secrets and i'm sure even Gandhi did things he wasn't proud of, do we not have the right to forget about our past mistakes?
I know these things might not apply right now but giving up some of our privacy could prove to be a slippery slope.
Give them a finger and they'll try to take your hand.

What if some day this information gets hacked? It would give the hackers the power to blackmail pretty much everyone!

How old is this guy?

Does he have no concept of how much digital information is available on every person in the US? 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, we create a digital trail. When an explicit trail is not being created, an inferred trail can be created based on prior behavior.

What's on his cellphone is a miniscule part of his digital profile. The cameras in his courthouse are recording all of the time. Does he not realize that using that data we can determine how many times he pees everyday?

But of course this data will be safely held by the NSA where no one can get to it, unless they have a need to know. It's not like the IS guys can look at any of that stuff and release it to the public. Wait a minute...I seem to remember this guy who is living in Russia..what's his name again? Oh yea, Snowden. But he didn't see anything important did he?

It is the utter ignorance of people like this, who hold high offices, that scares the crap out of me. Anybody remember Alaska senator Ted Stevens and the giant pipes of the Internet? And when he made those utterly inane statements, he was the Chairman of United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

dex

originally posted by: StoutBroux

I'm curious as to how many attacks have been stopped with this tactic.

You really think we're ever going to get an honest answer from anyone about this? Or that if we ever did, we'd even be able to distinguish honesty from lies?

This is something that occurs to me occasionally when people are "debating'' about this sort of thing. The simple fact or the matter is that everybody lies and you really can't objectively trust anyone if the stakes are high.

originally posted by: derfreebie
a reply to: jude11

A good find, Jude. F&S again. Posner supposedly turned conservative
in the late 60's-- from the kind of decisions he's written lately, I have
a problem swallowing that sandwich without more chewing.
Just because Reagan appointed him doesn't mean a thing anymore..
or any other POTUS. The important bent is toward maintenance of
the status quo. At that he has for a long time been a brick wall with
specs on it.

Exactly. It's gotten to the point to where when you hear about someone like this, you can go to their Wikipedia page and just about predict exactly what you're going to see when you get to the section about their early life and upbringing.

Of course that doesn't always tell you everything. But this man's type is very well represented when it comes to important positions in the power structure. There are a lot of these big government people and most of them are well positioned to land devastating blows to things like privacy and freedom. How they got there is worth noting but doesn't really matter in the long term. The simple fact is, they're there and they're not going anywhere. There are more where he came from and there always will be. These people are driven. There will probably always be more of them in high places than people who would disagree with them. They are trying to fundamentally reshape the world. Not maintain things that they deem to just be in their way (like freedom and privacy)

a reply to: jude11

Hmmm I think they already have access to everything, we are just not informed. All this court judge is doing is making it public now.

If you think the NSA or the UK's GCHQ doesn't already have full back-doors into every aspect of our data records I think you are being Naive as a population.