Judge: Give NSA unlimited access to digital data

This agenda started to become much more noticeable after 9/11 and has been rising ever since. Regardless of who is in the WH or who is in Congress. Just about everything that happens seems to sculpt this agenda in some small way. Every news story of any significance.

I never thought I'd say this but I think we are literally headed for totalitarianism. It's pretty much out in the open. Any halfway intelligent person can see it and most people simply don't care. These people are going to get what they want. I have no idea whether they really believe they need to do this to stop major things like terrorism or not but one thing is certain. Regardless of how a totalitarian system gets put in place, it will inevitably be inherited by someone who is willing to use it to it's full potential. I would use the words "abuse it" but let's face it. That kind of system is built for abuse from the ground up. It's impossible that people who know what they're doing could support this kind of thing unless they were either crazy or power hungry or both.

a reply to: jude11

There is something called the Constitution, he should try reading it sometime.

Hey, if you guys aren't doing anything shady, there's nothing to fear. We're here to protect you. To HELP you. (you got to read that in a Texas accent - tuh HAY-ULP yew!) To be your big best buddy. To provide you with security. That's why they call 'em the National Security Agency!

This judge is insane, I would expect someone that knows the law understands the very basis of defense. If someone wants to build a case against you, they are going to cherry pick your information for ANYTHING that proves their case, and they are going to spin it to make their point. It happens all the time, and quite literally daily in courtrooms. Privacy is very important, it has a far greater role than simply protecting the guilty.

originally posted by: skunkape23
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.

That doesn't actually do anything. I could go into more detail on the algorithms if you wish but think about it. They're dealing with multiple languages, some of which don't use the same words for the same things, as well as groups that are already using code words as a basic level of security. It's all about associations of certain groups of words with meta data that establishes topics of conversation.

Judges shouldn't make decisions on digital privacy rights mainly because they do not understand it and also because this is not democratic.

"Posner questioned why smartphone users need legal protections, saying he doesn’t understand what information on smartphones should be shielded from government searches. “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?" "

Yup, does not understand meta data, data mining, encryption and the EU convention on human rights -

Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence"

My mobile is a digitalized extension of my private and family life and my correspondence. It's such a no-brainer and so blatent but what are peopel doing apart from complaining on forums???

The GCHQ are just as bad but less blatant.

There are movements against the NSA/GCHQ that the MSM do not report on and these movements should be bigger than what they are. I just wish that every person who spoke out and said they do not agree with this actually put their words into action and put a stop to it. Everyone - take control. Take action!

a reply to: jude11

originally posted by: projectbane
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.

You are right in what you say however these incidents with judges and other high ranking officals (its happening in UK too) are saying these things as they are part of the system, encouraged to make these statements to try and diffuse the bomb that it waiting to go off. In some cases it may just be that the judges are simply digital dumb which is why tehy shouldn't be makign decisions for us about our privacy.

People may be naive but it is mainly because they are unaware of the extent and implications of the GCHQ/NSA snooping. Having a technical background helps and I'm currently working on a website that makes it easier for people to understand just how his/her rights are beings hugley violated and have been for many years.

a reply to: jude11

She's a moron. 'National Security' is equally important to other nations too! They all value national security.

So when she says the NSA is entitled to 'vacuum' all the 'worldwide networks,' she needs to accept that every other nation would have an equal entitlement to 'vacuum' American networks. The moronic part of this is that she knows damn well that other nations doing this would be regarded as enemies and that's how others see the NSA.

'Privacy is overvalued.' Moronic. If another nation had teh upper hand and carte blanche to ferret through every American business and citizen, she'd be in favour of privacy. If someone was to dox her and post everything on pastebin, she'd call it an invasion of her frigging privacy and a criminal act.

I care about my privacy very much, but I think the judge is absolutely right, this world really is in a very turbulent state so NSA should in have full reigns when dealing with foreign powers such as China, Russia and islamic extremists.

It's just the tendency of government to grab onto anything it can and this slippery slop could erode liberty in the future if the government has no legal boundaries to stop it from beginning to spy on its citizens aggressively and use that for nefarious purposes.

originally posted by: flux137
I care about my privacy very much, but I think the judge is absolutely right, this world really is in a very turbulent state so NSA should in have full reigns when dealing with foreign powers such as China, Russia and islamic extremists.

It's just the tendency of government to grab onto anything it can and this slippery slop could erode liberty in the future if the government has no legal boundaries to stop it from beginning to spy on its citizens aggressively and use that for nefarious purposes.

So you're okay with the NSA or GCHQ snooping on you via your online activity and mobile phone data despite you doing nothing wrong? That includes any images you have taken with your phone, messages sent and received, locations, search history etc etc. Meta data is highly personal.

Liberty is being eroded now.

This is happening.

It has been for many years.

Look out for the documentary film 'Citizen four'. It is being aired in cinemas right now and on TV next year.

originally posted by: StoutBroux

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

Stopping attacks is not the point. It's never been. The real point is to just collect as much data as possible about everyone and anyone, mainly for law enforcement and taxation purposes, and to gain a competitive advantage.

Regardless of which country we happen to live in, we are all more or less slaves, owned by our governments, who do as they please with us.

The DDos attacks just in time so that NSA can flex its new muscles. I might as well put a chip in my brain.

originally posted by: flux137
I care about my privacy very much, but I think the judge is absolutely right, this world really is in a very turbulent state so NSA should in have full reigns when dealing with foreign powers such as China, Russia and islamic extremists.

It's just the tendency of government to grab onto anything it can and this slippery slop could erode liberty in the future if the government has no legal boundaries to stop it from beginning to spy on its citizens aggressively and use that for nefarious purposes.

The thing about boundaries is that......

1. It's pretty much impossible to not think in binary terms on an issue like this, due to the fact that boundaries are pretty much made to be crossed.

2. Trying to set boundaries with something that's supposed to be OK under some conditions and might not be OK under other conditions is really like giving people cars that can go over 100 MPH and setting the speed limit at 25 MPH. If they can get away with it, many people are gonna break the speed limit. The government can always get away with breaking their own rules when you have to trust them to police themselves. It's like a poor man with a credit card he really shouldn't use. What's gonna happen? He wants something he can't afford but he has a way to get it basically for free and won't have to face the consequences until much later. And even when they do come, there's not really much they can do to him.

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.

hey, hey, hey.....we only protest against the threats to the 2nd amendment....not anything else

a reply to: Kandinsky

The judge is a man in his 70s.

He's an accomplished jurist, economist, and author who has written a whole lot of books on both subjects and even relating them.

'Moron' he is not. I do not agree with his conclusions or opinion on this, either.

a reply to: jude11

Any medium that you use to communicate that you do not own, I would place no faith in the privacy of it, including many encrypted methodologies.

With that said, if there are private or what you think are private companies hosting, acting as carriers, they have a certain degree of access by federal agencies, law enforcement etc..,

As long a people continue to misunderstand social media, cloud storage, tracking cookies, online banking, credit cards and some currency with embedded tracking they remain vulnerable to zero privacy and are constantly leaving a trail behind.

We are also subject to the duality and purpose of everyday items, smart phones, gps ,stealth electronic chips or out of band collection methods, people simply do not realize or care how easily it is to become ensnared with the methodologies that were secretly created to spy on them and also build cumulative data that can be warehoused , analyzed and more than likely create a very close profile of you, and more precisely the way you might think.

If you are plugged into today's world there is a digital signature or copy of an individual that can be digitally stored and peeked in on for whatever reason those who have access to it would like to use it for.

I think that people that really think they have any privacy are missing the point and are naive about it, one would have to completely separate themselves completely from society and live in a hole to possibly be assured of complete privacy, regardless of the constitutional verbiage and so called rights that we have as citizens, that has been greatly degraded and loopholes written that circumvent them, but more importantly there are agencies that have access regardless.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
The DDos attacks just in time so that NSA can flex its new muscles. I might as well put a chip in my brain.

We have some very nice ones ready for your Christmas experience. What sort would you like?

a reply to: Bedlam

Lays, salt and vinegar flavored.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Kandinsky

The judge is a man in his 70s.

He's an accomplished jurist, economist, and author who has written a whole lot of books on both subjects and even relating them.

'Moron' he is not. I do not agree with his conclusions or opinion on this, either.

I wouldn't call him a moron either but as you say he is 70 years old and it clearly shows that he has absolutley no idea about digital privacy or what it even entails therefore he should not be making judgements on these topics. Maybe he should stick to economics.

a reply to: Greven

I suppose that his position on the bench indicates he is clearly not a moron. And the additional information you have provided indicates that he is actually an intellectual.

So the questions I have are:
1. Does he comprehend the vast quantity of digital data being generated every minute?
2. Does he comprehend how easily that data can be compromised, even that data which is under government control?
3. Does he have such trust in these government agencies that he believes they will not abuse their power?
4. Why does he have such low regard for the 4th amendment to the Constitution? And does he hold the 2nd Amendment in the same low regard?


dex

a reply to: jude11

Another "judge" that shouldn't be one.