Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants • Hacker News Board

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#211

Post by rand77763 » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 3:32 AM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #85

unityByFreedom wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case You mean, since the NSA collects data on millions of Americans? If that's the type of monitoring you mean, Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me". More like, "Obama continued policy begun by previous administra…

It's extremely disingenuous to characterize his role as "continued policy begun by previous administration" when his Vice President wrote the core legislation of the Patriot Act, he was actively working to expand those policies for 8 years, and one of his very last acts was to issue an EO further entrenching them.

And then he lied to the American people about the FREEDOM Act. Claimed it was some type of reform.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#212

Post by Criticesid » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 3:34 AM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #200

55555 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me first say that I don't particularly care if Obama was born outside of the US. George Washington, perhaps our greatest president, was obviously an immigrant of sorts. Let me also say that I don't believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama wasn't born in America, as there are several other reasons for faking a birth certificate; perhaps the original has been lost and you've decided that it's worth doing in ord…

You watched a video that is over an hour long and you generally seem to have put a lot of thought into the veracity of Obama's birth certificate for someone who claims to "not particularly care" about it. Then you move on to discuss your feeling that Obama wiretapped Trump, based only on the fact that Trump said it and you find the "style" of Obama's denial unconvincing. It doesn't seem to matter one bit that Trump h…

> Saying "we don't know for sure" is dissembling nonsense that can be stated of any claim. It's a transparent device for sowing disinformation without challenge.

This needs to repeated more!

Thank you internet stranger, your words have lifted my spirits today.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#213

Post by grandalf » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 3:34 AM UTC

willstrafach wrote: post #164

grandalf wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an investigation will occur on this matter What seems odd to me is that this "investigation" takes more than a few minutes. How is a system that allows easy auditing and checks and balances also the same system that takes weeks or months to determine who accessed specific records. I think it's unlikely we'll see any raw data. Chances are that if there was any investigation going on into anyone on Trump's team (w…

> What seems odd to me is that this "investigation" takes more than a few minutes. How is a system that allows easy auditing and checks and balances also the same system that takes weeks or months to determine who accessed specific records. I agree with regards to viewing the data. But that would imply it was a matter of asking NSA to check the audit trail. With a topic so politically charged, I would hope that they…

True. The sticky aspect of it is that what might technically constitute wiretapping may not reveal special intent to eavesdrop on Trump or his campaign.

But this is precisely what's problematic about the metadata program, it casts a very wide net which deprives many innocent bystanders of their rights.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#214

Post by grandalf » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 3:36 AM UTC

ak4g wrote: post #196

grandalf wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pragmatism is a principle. Sure, but toward what end? Himself being elected? Surely most politicians are of the opinion that simply by having their butt in the chair in the office, good has been done. This sort of reasoning is considered sociopathic in most other contexts.

Towards any end at all. IRL, there are no points for effort, and certainly no points for purity of intent. The proof is in the pudding. And so, no, I don't see good/effective politicians as having some quality that would otherwise have them be considered sociopaths. I expect a competent elected leader to behave along the lines of what I'd expect from a competent co-worker.

> The proof is in the pudding.

Exactly, and while Obama promised "no surveillance pudding" he actually went into the kitchen and made "massive metadata surveillance pudding".

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#215

Post by unclebucknasty » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 3:40 AM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #209

unclebucknasty wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the pressure operated in reverse. That is, under normal circumstances, the election meddling, the associate connections, the pro-Russia rhetoric, etc. naturally warranted an investigation/response as a matter of national security. No pressure would be required. Likewise, public revelations about some of this stuff (in particular, the attack on our democracy) clearly could not go unchecked, thus warranting the…

> However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically. Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party. The accusations about Russia put Obama in a delicate spot. If there had been evidence, his decision would have been easy, but in the absence of evidence he faced accusations of stoking fears abo…

>Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party

No. In this case, simply carrying out the normal duties of the president could have been seen as political, given the context. Obama himself later mentioned this and indicated it was why he hadn't acted sooner, especially with Trump already making the "rigged election" charges.

>If there had been evidence

There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

>For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty

He was still president and doing his job. Had we been attacked militarily, it's doubtful that anyone would advocate that he await Trump to respond.

The attack on our electoral process was no less destructive in the eyes of those of us who value our democracy.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#216

Post by unityByFreedom » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 3:57 AM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #85

unityByFreedom wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case You mean, since the NSA collects data on millions of Americans? If that's the type of monitoring you mean, Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me". More like, "Obama continued policy begun by previous administra…

It's extremely disingenuous to characterize his role as "continued policy begun by previous administration" when his Vice President wrote the core legislation of the Patriot Act, he was actively working to expand those policies for 8 years, and one of his very last acts was to issue an EO further entrenching them.

Both parties have expanded the powers of the agencies. That's no secret.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#217

Post by grandalf » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 4:04 AM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #215

grandalf wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically. Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party. The accusations about Russia put Obama in a delicate spot. If there had been evidence, his decision would have been easy, but in the absence of evidence he faced accusations of stoking fears abo…

> Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party No. In this case, simply carrying out the normal duties of the president could have been seen as political, given the context. Obama himself later mentioned this and indicated it was why he hadn't acted sooner, especially with Trump already making the "rigged election" charges…

> There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

This is one of the false statements that gets repeated over and over. There was not evidence presented to the public, only an assessment in which the NSA felt it was only marginally probable that meddling had occurred, and it was only from a small number of agencies. The document was also an informal, unusual concoction that is not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances.

I've critiqued that document before on HN, but the bottom line is that it was an extremely amateurish and embarrassing hodge podge of pasted-in boilerplate, wild speculation, and hand waving that intentionally blurred the line between all sorts of disconnected things and attempted to present a narrative of a Russian conspiracy.

But it all rests on trusting the agencies who concocted such an embarrassing document. We're told that the proof was redacted for security reasons, but I think that such grandiose claims ought to be accompanied by at least the tiniest bit of non-circumstantial evidence. Note that HRC supporters (and McCain, as is often the case) were chest-pounding and calling for war. I think a bit of skepticism is in order considering that it wasn't long ago that we were misled into another very costly war.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#218

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 4:09 AM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #208

grandalf wrote: post #43

While this article offers the clearest presentation of the issue I've seen to date, I think the key point (which the article points out halfway in) is that the truth of Trump's claim that he was wiretapped does not depend on the presence or absence of a FISA warrant. The system is designed to be used without warrant, so those harping on the detail of whether or not a warrant existed that had Trump in scope are not fo…

Do you find anything odd about the timing of the release of this information, which so perfectly overlays with Trump's unverifiable charge and provides ammunition for reaching a conclusion such as yours? I mean, now there's just enough "justification" to conclude that the illegal wiretap may have been done outside of any traceable process--just as you have done. So, Trump just may be right. How do we know? There is a…

[deleted]

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#219

Post by grandalf » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 4:09 AM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #208

grandalf wrote: post #43

While this article offers the clearest presentation of the issue I've seen to date, I think the key point (which the article points out halfway in) is that the truth of Trump's claim that he was wiretapped does not depend on the presence or absence of a FISA warrant. The system is designed to be used without warrant, so those harping on the detail of whether or not a warrant existed that had Trump in scope are not fo…

Do you find anything odd about the timing of the release of this information, which so perfectly overlays with Trump's unverifiable charge and provides ammunition for reaching a conclusion such as yours? I mean, now there's just enough "justification" to conclude that the illegal wiretap may have been done outside of any traceable process--just as you have done. So, Trump just may be right. How do we know? There is a…

I think you mistake my intent as being to defend Trump. My intent is only to highlight that a surveillance system that is designed to circumvent accountability is ripe for abuse.

This includes abuse of power, but also abuse such as making a fictitious claim about wiretapping having occurred.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#220

Post by zachsnow » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 4:12 AM UTC

datatan wrote: post #121

emehrkay wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Line gets fuzzy when ISPs, in most part, are government-backed monopolies (I'm "lucky" because both Verion and Comcast covers my area)

He is against them being government backed monopolies. According to him, and I agree, we should be able to switch ISP's at will. If we do not want an ISP selling our data we should have the freedom to move to one that doesn't.

This sounds great for N >> 1 ISPs. But most of us have N > 1 (and N <= 2) from which to choose.