NSA Sharing Collected Data With DEA For Convictions

These aren't even realistic ideas. This is something a sophomore in high school would write for what he would do if he was in charge, lol. Probably the worst idea out there, which is why no one even talks about it other then the fringe nut cases.

Who said all the people involved were American citizens?

Terrorists do not need to have their rights read to them and this is probably the most worthless argument ever, lol. You guys care about the stupidest things.

It will never go. They will always have some way to intercept foreign communications. You guys aren't realistic at all. The most that would happen is they would set up a telecom system where the phone comes stored their phone records in an integrated system and had ownership over the data other than deleting it. Similar to bank records.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh geez, more centuries old quotes that mean absolutely nothing in reality. Just philosophical bull chit.

 

If the supreme court rules that the NSA cannot collect bulk metadata, then the NSA will stop collecting bulk metadata. Not much you can do about that.

I never said they did.

You are ridiculous. You have no clue what the case was or how the NSA attained the information to give to the DEA, lol. You do realize foreigners aren't all terrorists and some of them do deal with drugs right?

If you can prove to me that this case involved the illegal collection of domestic communications then I will tell you, I was wrong, and that this action was wrong. But like always it will most likely fit right along with the law and it will be a case of some foreigner that was communicating with a criminal within the United States and they learned of a potential drug bust and shared it with the DEA. They have an organized called the SOD set up for exactly these exchanges of communications between agencies that validate whether they are legal or not. This has been going on since 1994 and they say everything they do is legal.

Once again, you are just detached from reality.

 

1) No, it is not productive. If it was, America would be far superior economically than it has ever been in its history. It is not.

2) I do live paycheck-to-paycheck, and Idon't have a dime to spare... and my anecdote, JUST LIKE YOURS, is irrelevant. Your personal foolishness in the realm of finance is superfluous to the discussion at hand. So let's stay focused on the issues, yeah?

3) It is theft, they do use force, and we do make this [fiat] money by the sweat of our own brows. To prove this, let's look at the following FACTS, which cannot POSSIBLY be controverted:
A) Theft, noun: A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
---A person's property is taken without consent when the government... well, takes their property without that person's consent. Money is property, in case you still don't get it.
B) Force, noun: Strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement. verb: Make a way through or into by physical strength.
---Try not surrendering your tax dollars to the government, and see what happens. Famous examples include Wesley Snipes, who was FORCEFULLY IMPRISONED for not acquiescing to the illegal demands of the IRS.
C) We earn our money by working. If you don't comprehend that, you probably require lots of sunlight, moist soil, and water twice a week.

Your last paragraph is a convoluted conglomeration of inconsistent vagaries, and merits no attention.

Make a point NOT based on logical fallacy. PLEASE. I'm begging you.

 

That's the point.

Oh? Did someone enter your body and take over when you posted this?
"They made the ruling that you do not have reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to who you call or who calls you. They are considered business transactions and the government has every right to them regardless of bulk transfers or not."

Why should I take anything you say seriously when you will say anything at all?

Yeah, now the NSA, tasked with and formed entirely to find and catch terrorists, is doing some side work catching drug dealers? Lol, indeed.

Then explain why the DEA is going to such great lengths to cover where they are getting their information? http://personalliberty.com/2013/08/...ever-happened-fair-trial-no-longer-available/

Talk about moving the goalposts! First you swear the NSA is only collecting meta data to catch terrorists and now you defend and rationalize
things when they send information along to the DEA! That's domestic spying and Big Brother anyway you try to spin it.

Yes, that's what they say so why worry? Again, why is the DEA inventing clever ways to bust people then if their information was come upon legitimately? They certainly don't behave as if everything is on the up and up.

 

What are you talking about? America is the largest and most robust economy in the history of mankind, lol.

It's not superfluous at all when the individual is trying to use this as an example of whether the government should spend or not, lol. And I was staying focused on the issue.

Absolutely hilarious!! Accuse me of using logical fallacies and then just list off webster dictionary definitions of words. Can't write better comedy than this!!

 

You attack legitimate ideas merely because they aren't "new" and "hip"[ster].


Again, you refuse to reference anything other than a recognized logical fallacy; and again, "My Big Brother said so" is not an argument.

So you've shredded every last Post-It note of credibility by your inability to support your position.

Your future is managed, and your freedom's a joke - you don't know the difference as you put on the yoke.


Of course, since philosophy is defined as "The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline," your "philosophical bull 'chit'" statement is quite clearly as absurd as ignorance comes.

 

Yea, that's how the system works. But you can't claim what the NSA is doing now is illegal when it is currently not. In fact a 5th district judge just recently went on to say that not only is who calls you or who you call a business record, but your location data of the phone call is a business record and it's not against the law for the NSA to collect that. Although the NSA has admitted numerous times that it does not get location data in their collections from Verizon.

They are using that reason to justify their collection of this data. And courts have ruled that because they are business records they are allowed to have this information

The NSA is tasked with collecting foreign intelligence. One of their responsibilities is terrorism. You act like it's so unreal that the NSA could intercept drug dealers in their foreign intelligence gathering, lol. Unreal how out of touch with reality you guys are

The NSA, their data gathering methods, their informants, etc are classified. The DEA is not allowed to use this information in the court of law. Not because the information is illegal, but because they don't want to leak any types of information about how our intelligence gathers data and where they are getting information from. Spying on criminals does not work very well when they know you are spying on them. You guys are beyond ridiculous. Like not even close to understanding reality.

You are making things up. The NSA is only collecting meta data when it comes to domestic data which doesn't need a warrant. They are collecting all sorts of foreign intelligence including intercepting phone conversations, emails, documents, etc, etc. So yes, the NSA has the potential to come across drug dealers communicating with individuals that reside in the United States. That's not really that far fetched, lol.

- - - Updated - - -

You literally said nothing of significance here. My position is thoroughly supported. You just don't agree with it which makes philosophers all upset and cry like little babies that people don't think like them.

 

The definitions were clearly in response to your incredibly inaccurate reference to the "ignorance" of those who believe that the government uses force to steal the fruit of the individual's labor.

Those definitions very clearly prove you wrong - no wonder you're not addressing them!

And the accusation still stands. You are clearly basing your argument on the recognized fallacy "argumentum ad auctoritatem. If you think that basing a criminal worldview founded on the subjugation of individuals is funny, you've got some issues to work out.

 

I've accused you of fallacious reasoning, and you've STILL failed to allude to any form of thought other than that fallacious reasoning.
And, for the record, philosophers only get "all upset" when people refuse to think at all.

And yes - I'm mildly upset.

Don't think I didn't notice that you ignored yet another definition that revealed your ignorance and hypocrisy. I'm actually getting kinda tired of gloating. Victory gets less and less sweet all the time - familiarity breeds contempt, I suppose.

 

Lol, you guys are hilarious.

Taxation is not a criminal act. You consent to paying taxes when you use our infrastructure to profit.

They should use force if you are trying to steal money

We earned our money through a lot of factors. Stuff you have to pay for. If you don't want to pay for things they don't use them to profit. You seem like a wannabe criminal.

- - - Updated - - -

Ahhh yes, still talking about nothing at all. The sign of a libertarian, lol.

 

Do you even know what the 'Fair Tax' is even about? Probably not considering your attempt to belittle someone for not even understanding what someone is even talking about.

I don't know, you tell me since you're asking the question.

And the Boston Bomber was an American citizen. End of story.

The only one who isn't being realistic is yourself. You simply want the NSA to tap into everything. Well, then can do whatever they want overseas, but not storing it in a database. If they want the information, the third parties are storing the data, no need to use tax payers money to store it. Pay the third party for the information, and be done with it. This way, there's no looming question on what and if they're using it unnecessarily, since they'll need a true court order, not some secret court order, in order to obtain the information.

No, of course not, it's only I who is being unrealistic. Yeah, sorry that I care about folks rights, apparently you don't.

 

Of course I know what the Fair Tax is, lol. It's one of the worst ideas out there, very few educated economists would even consider that as a realistic plan.

They haven't said anything about the case. They got some document talking about recreating a scene or whatever. But, as always, I'm willing to bet it fits right along with the law. Show me they acquired illegal domestic communications and passed them on to the DEA.

They were terrorists and presented a national security threat. No need for the miranda rights. End of story.

Of course I'm being realistic, I'm always realistic. I don't want the NSA to "tap into everything". These ideas aren't even worthy of reply. Maybe Rand Paul might agree with this, but 99% of the adult thinkers out there do not. The NSA will always store data and they will always spy on the world around us. That's not even a question, the question is how do they do this with out violating our "privacy", lol.

You are a libertarian, I don't expect much rational thinking from you.

 

As usual - avoid substance and reason like the plague, embrace the plague of ignorance like your long-lost brother.

"Our" infrastructure? Define "our," and then define how this "our" owns this infrastructure. Better yet, make reference to natural law that supports your decision (since reference to case law is merely a baser form of "arguementum ad auctoritatem".

So keeping your own money is stealing money? That's a new one on me. Support your assertion.

Yes, things we have to pay for... voluntarily. If someone gives me a Coke that I don't want and then steals my money, it's still theft. Consent and voluntary contract are what define the law, NOT the arbitrary decisions of authorities with a clear conflict of interests.

.
I was wondering when you'd get around to attacking me personally!

Ahhh yes - ad hominems, unsupported assertions, logical fallacies, and abundant "lols." The sign of a sheep.

 

So... if the government says you're a threat, you have no rights.

What the hell kind of country do you want to live in? Russia has more controls on trying its citizens than this.

If you want fascism, go to Saudi Arabia. I bet you'll change your mind awfully quick - sometime between the make-believe trial and your head being lopped off over the town square blood drain.

 

No substance

A group of people live on a plot of land that pay people to perform duties such as military support, building infrastructure, protecting our airspace, upholding our legal system, etc, etc. Pretty simple unless you are a crazy libertarian who likes to dive in to all kinds of philosophical bull chit.

When you utilize our infrastructure to profit, you need to pay for it. Not be a little criminal that just wants everything with out paying for it.

If you drive on our roads or use our cyberspace to profit and don't pay for that, you are stealing. When you profit you consent to paying a certain rate of taxes. Just because you don't want to pay it doesn't mean someone is stealing from you.

Stop being a wimp

Blah blah blah, libertarians think they are so smart, it is absolutely hilarious how long they'll go with all this philosophical nonsense that means absolutely nothing

- - - Updated - - -

If the government says I'm a national security threat then yes, I have no rights. Gotta touch up on the law my friend.

If you want anarchism go to Somalia. I bet you'll change your mind awfully quick.

 

WOW.

Cat's out of the bag. You really don't give a damn about liberty.

And I never said I wanted anarchism (I was wondering when you'd build a straw man!), though it's worth noting that Somalia is NOT an "anarchy." It's actually "fascist," and ruled by a militarist (though fractured in civil war) government... so you've just proved my point again.

Gotta stop expectorating inaccuracies, friend - do a little research once in a while. Does a body good.

 

I don't claim what the NSA is now doing is illegal...just unconstitutional.
It's analogous to slavery before that was outlawed.

But WHY is the NSA taking and holding this information? To see who I talk to and who calls me?
Using that that rationale Big Brother can open my mail and follow me around twenty four hours per day and, without probable cause, the Fourth Amendment forbids this unwarranted intrusion into my private life.
So we must assume that because you tirelessly stand up for meta data collection you are anti civil liberties and anti Fourth Amendment.

It's their only responsibility!

You've ducked the question: Why does the DEA disavow knowledge of the NSA if everything is on the up and up?

So you can spy on anyone in the name of the NSA? That's unconstitutional and goes back to the beginning point: Meta data collection is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Why not just move to China where you don't have to worry about pesky civil liberties and the Bill of Rights? You seem to find the law an impediment.

Considering that Smith v Maryland gave permission only to pen registers (which do not record contents of calls) to record a phone number
I look forward to the matter coming to court.
As to your speculation that the NSA just happens to bust up drug operations while searching through billions of calls for terrorists I'll let that laughable presumption stand on it's own.

The NSA then presumably could come across all types of illegalities (tax fraud, child abuse, etc) all under the rubric of looking for terrorist boogey men and you would stand and applaud the presence of Big Brother with a big dumb grin of satisfaction that only the truly deluded can get.

 

So the government should not be allowed to stop crime?

 

Attack me with your straw man army, eh?

Yes, of course the government should be able to stop crime - as long as it doesn't exercise authority over those who abide the law (and since we are innocent until proven guilty, it is assumed that we are law-abiding until the evidence to the contrary is convincing).

What the government should NOT be able to do is violate the absolute right of a citizen to be secure in his person and privacy, unless by review from a public court that can be held to account for the unjustified authorization of warrants.

We don't need to give up all of our safety and liberty in order to catch criminals. In fact, the most dangerous criminals are the ones who possess your metadata, and can exercise authority over your job and tax information, your identity information, your daily location and political orientation.... In other words, the government.

 

I agree with the rest of your post, but we have to remember that the Constitution IS the law. Anything violating the Constitution is, definitionally, illegal - regardless of the current political climes.

Isn't akipheldt's obtuseness awe-inspiring, though? The vague and laughable "You guys are unbelievable" and "You guys like aren't even close to understanding reality" seems be the order of the evening.

 

I agree in principle but until the Supreme Court codifies the illegalities of
mass data collection it remains in a grey area though you and I (and many others) have every reason to believe that the Fourth Amendment is being peed on by anti civil libertarians.

From the start the problem has been the well known axiom, giving away freedom to obtain security. http://www.nationaljournal.com/nati...from-550-word-section-of-patriot-act-20130607
The Patriot Act seems to give the NSA the ability to spy on Americans with impunity.

Rand Paul and Ron Wyden represent opposite ends of the spectrum but on this matter they agree: Peoples rights are being trampled
by the NSA and dim wits that seem to take delight in enabling Big Brother.

 

So the government should just wait for people to commit crimes so they have enough evidence?

 

Well at least you admit it's not illegal. I'm willing to bet it will never be unconstitutional.

No, not using that rationale at all. Big Brother cannot open your mail. They cannot read your emails or listen to your phone calls with out an appropriate warrant. Telecommunication metadata is ruled to be a business record and not someones personal property. No, I am pro America and anti criminals and terrorists. You never once actually talk about methods to catch real criminals and terrorists... all you do is defend them.

Because how the NSA got the information or who they got it from is classified. They aren't hiding from the law, they are protecting their methods. Intelligence isn't very intelligent when everyone knows what you are doing.

You can't spy on anyone in the name of the NSA. You can spy on anyone you have a warrant for or anyone who is not a US citizen. Not sure where you are coming up with these crazy allegations.

Lol, the NSA does not only deal with terrorists and the fact you can't grasp that the NSA, while dealing with criminals across the world does not get information about possible drug, gun, or even sex slaves being smuggled in to America is absolutely hilarious. Like literally the fact you think it's a laughable assumption that the NSA intercepts drug dealers or other criminals other than terrorists is pretty funny.

Are you saying the NSA should not report child abuse if they come across it? Why do you have such a strong support for criminals and terrorists, lol.

 

They should obtain warrants, you know, following the actual correct legal channels that were created and sacrioned for such actions.

 

If they aren't storing content how and why would the DEA have to cover up how they obtained the information to use it in court?

Especially when they could obtain warrants for call data if it was only call duration and the numbers involved.

Cognitive dissonance.