31–38 of 38 posts
Of course it could be just as much fun when employers demand access to this data. Soon we will get a Citizens Privacy Bill of Rights which will protect us from no one and codify the government's rights to continue as is.
I am not worried about lawyers using these logs for evidence, I am more concerned about other government agencies doing so. Its not like the IRS isn't bad enough as it is. Of course it could be just as much fun when employers demand access to this data. Soon we will get a Citizens Privacy Bill of Rights which will protect us from no one and codify the government's rights to continue as is.
From "it's only to catch terrorists, guys" to potentially "it's also used to prove guilt in minor domestic cases." I, for one, hope this succeeds. Maybe then we'll have a way to get the masses to understand just how bad this surveillance state really is, for all of us.
It's only a matter of time until this data is used for political means (see the recent IRS story). All it will take is someone coming into power that threatens the agency or its valued partners in any way. Then out comes the embarrassing tweets or tax evasion evidence pulled from Amazon. This will only become more easy as the young people of today become the Senators and Presidential candidates of tomorrow.
From "it's only to catch terrorists, guys" to potentially "it's also used to prove guilt in minor domestic cases." I, for one, hope this succeeds. Maybe then we'll have a way to get the masses to understand just how bad this surveillance state really is, for all of us.
You know, it could wind up being good. Isn't one of our most basic tenants to do our damndest to avoid convicting the innocent, even at the cost of letting some guilty go free? If it succeeds, we could potentially see even better exoneration numbers for the innocent, and I'm not certain how to weight that against my privacy.
There is no national security shield for that data....
"Lawyers" just need an enterprising startup to build a private version of PRISM to do analysis and reporting on the data they extract from the companies via court orders.
OTOH, my understanding is that the defence has a special right to this data in criminal cases if the NSA has it because that means "the prosecutor" (ie, the government) has the data.
"The NSA is not above the law. It's a government agency, just like every other government agency. Just because it has this Harry Potter-like disappearing cloak, it's still an agency that is subject to the law"
Call me cynical, but I'm yet to be convinced that is the case at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those courts and prosecutors have no access to classified datastores of the NSA. That data is classified and protected by law. What you are quoting is completely something else, and just references the data the prosecutors have on hand that is gathered and developed as part of the investigation.
The data is classified and protected by law, yes, but there are other equally (or more important) laws that say the government is required to hand over all potentially exculpatory evidence to the defendant. Which law trumps? That's for the courts to decide.
From "it's only to catch terrorists, guys" to potentially "it's also used to prove guilt in minor domestic cases." I, for one, hope this succeeds. Maybe then we'll have a way to get the masses to understand just how bad this surveillance state really is, for all of us.
In a fascinating Slate article (http://slate.me/Y6ZQqd) Tanner Colby describes the experience of re-reporting the Belushi story "page by page and source by source".
Colby was surprised to find that, broadly, Woodward's book didn't contain outright falsehoods. Woodward just put the facts through a narrative filter that left out important context. What's left is a distorted picture of a person that, while factually accurate, doesn't reflect reality.
Colby: "I say it’s like someone wrote a biography of Michael Jordan in which all the stats and scores are correct, but you come away with the impression that Michael Jordan wasn’t very good at playing basketball."
In the wake of the NSA story, it is chilling to consider what kind of distortions could be created. The Belushi biography was mainly based on interviews. What narratives might be spun from years of calls, emails, and web analytics?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only a matter of time until this data is used for political means (see the recent IRS story). All it will take is someone coming into power that threatens the agency or its valued partners in any way. Then out comes the embarrassing tweets or tax evasion evidence pulled from Amazon. This will only become more easy as the young people of today become the Senators and Presidential candidates of tomorrow.
"Out comes the blackmail" is an optimistic scenario. More likely, it's quietly made known that they have such information, and magically, their position changes - with the public none the wiser.