Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

FISA Courts, Disclosure and Transparency

YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 12:51:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That an agency, organization or government body is operating in secrecy does not indicate that it is acting unethically, unconstitutionally or in bad faith generally -but it damn well does make it easier too.

The New York Times tells us:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com...

-------------------------------------------------------------

[FISA], ...the secret court that authorizes national security surveillance requests, everything is considered confidential " even the existence of communications between companies and the court. But this week, the court drew back the curtain slightly, declassifying the fact that Yahoo was the company that fought the court in a momentous case in 2008.

In an article on June 13, The New York Times identified Yahoo as the petitioner in the secret court case, which paved the way for the government to force Internet companies to hand over information about foreigners to the National Security Agency"s Prism program, authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The court used a heavily redacted version of the decision by the FISA court of review, published in 2008 without Yahoo"s name, to warn other companies that they need not even try to test the legality of FISA requests.

The day after The Times ran the story, Yahoo"s lawyers filed a motion for the secret court to publish records related to the case, including Yahoo"s name.

They argued that the release was "now in the public interest" as a result of the current debate about surveillance and material that the government had recently declassified. This week, the government agreed.

The FISA court also agreed to make public a redacted version of the original decision that prompted Yahoo to appeal at the court of review.

Yahoo fought a part of FISA known as the Protect America Act, elements of which were folded into a 2008 amendment to FISA. Yahoo argued, unsuccessfully, that broad, warrantless Internet surveillance violated the Constitution. Yahoo appealed at the secret court of review, and that court also ruled against Yahoo, writing in its decision that "efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts."

-------------------------------------------------------------

So, if broad, warrantless internet surveillance is authorized by the 2008 FISA are being used to survey -potentially millions- around the world, does the fact that individual persons within the US are not specifically targeted (a detail that the NYT forgot to mention) vindicate the NSA's methods?

Put more clearly:

The reason that the NSA monitors net traffic as it does is because it is broad, sweeping analysis of keywords, phrases, etc. in communication that actually enable the intelligence community to recognize threats. Most of the data assembled is never even seen by human eyes... And, above all, we don't "see" the monitoring taking place. We know it's there, but it's not watching over us like a guard in Bentham's panoptic tower.

How do you feel about this? More broadly, do you think the public should have a say in what, when and under what circumstances national security interests may or may not trump constitutional interests?
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 1:39:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yahoo fought a part of FISA known as the Protect America Act, elements of which were folded into a 2008 amendment to FISA. Yahoo argued, unsuccessfully, that broad, warrantless Internet surveillance violated the Constitution. Yahoo appealed at the secret court of review, and that court also ruled against Yahoo, writing in its decision that "efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts."

Loose translation - we are under martial law. The courts dare not intervene in this matter because they deem themselves incapable of rendering justice.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 1:44:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think I already posted it recently, however, considering the first time the state secrets privilege was ever recognized by the courts, it turned out eventually that it shouldn't have been, because the government was using it as a shield to hide their incompetence, I think it can be said that an organization operating in secrecy can be generally said to be doing wrong. Nigh-every time that secrecy is granted, it's abused.

It should be subject to the strictest of scrutiny and checks and balances. And right now it is not.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 1:50:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 12:51:35 AM, YYW wrote:

So, if broad, warrantless internet surveillance is authorized by the 2008 FISA are being used to survey -potentially millions- around the world, does the fact that individual persons within the US are not specifically targeted (a detail that the NYT forgot to mention) vindicate the NSA's methods?

My understanding is that this is incorrect. If US citizens within the US are communicating with others overseas, they fall under PRISM surveillance. If this is allowable, then surveillance of solely US citizens within the US would be allowable under a different system based upon the same stipulations found in FISA.

Put more clearly:

The reason that the NSA monitors net traffic as it does is because it is broad, sweeping analysis of keywords, phrases, etc. in communication that actually enable the intelligence community to recognize threats. Most of the data assembled is never even seen by human eyes... And, above all, we don't "see" the monitoring taking place. We know it's there, but it's not watching over us like a guard in Bentham's panoptic tower.

A guard in the panopticon does not "see" everything, yet it is a panopticon nonetheless because the guard is "able" to see everything. This describes NSA surveillance succinctly.

How do you feel about this? More broadly, do you think the public should have a say in what, when and under what circumstances national security interests may or may not trump constitutional interests?

There is no easy answer to this question. Broadly speaking, the public approved of officials who passed the Patriot Act, or at least did not vote based upon the predication of removal of the act, so in a way the public did and still does have a say.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 2:24:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 1:50:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 12:51:35 AM, YYW wrote:

So, if broad, warrantless internet surveillance is authorized by the 2008 FISA are being used to survey -potentially millions- around the world, does the fact that individual persons within the US are not specifically targeted (a detail that the NYT forgot to mention) vindicate the NSA's methods?

My understanding is that this is incorrect. If US citizens within the US are communicating with others overseas, they fall under PRISM surveillance. If this is allowable, then surveillance of solely US citizens within the US would be allowable under a different system based upon the same stipulations found in FISA.

Regarding the NSA's legal authorization to monitor people: If US citizens within US borders are communicating with individuals (US citizens or foreign nationals) outside US borders, then only their communication with individuals as described outside US borders can be monitored. If a US citizen is communicating with foreign nationals inside or outside US borders, then only that communication with foreign nationals can be monitored. I don't know if you could call this "targeted" or not, but I am skeptical of the idea that merely talking with someone in either of those cases should mean that a US citizen's right to privacy ought to be considered shed.

But, this is about internet traffic and Boundless Informant, not PRISM. The article doesn't explain how the process works, so I'll do as best I can here. Essentially what the article was referring to (even though it didn't mention it), is that through Boundless Informant, the NSA monitors metadata and possibly net activity of hundreds of millions of people inside and outside the US to identify potential national security threats. Granted, there are many questions about Boundless Informant which remain unanswered (like just how far it can penetrate -though the name alone is daunting), etc. but the NSA maintains that personally identifying information is not collected by the program. The Guardian wrote a story about it when Snowden first leaked, but it's faded from the news by in large.

Put more clearly:

The reason that the NSA monitors net traffic as it does is because it is broad, sweeping analysis of keywords, phrases, etc. in communication that actually enable the intelligence community to recognize threats. Most of the data assembled is never even seen by human eyes... And, above all, we don't "see" the monitoring taking place. We know it's there, but it's not watching over us like a guard in Bentham's panoptic tower.

A guard in the panopticon does not "see" everything, yet it is a panopticon nonetheless because the guard is "able" to see everything. This describes NSA surveillance succinctly.

In the sense that the guard is not constantly monitoring all subjects individually, no the guard does not see everything, but everything is visible to the guard and subjects do not know when the guard is watching.

The difference is that subjects of observation in the panopticon can physically see the watchtower, we do not physically see the NSA monitor our data. I thought that was clear... perhaps not.

How do you feel about this? More broadly, do you think the public should have a say in what, when and under what circumstances national security interests may or may not trump constitutional interests?

There is no easy answer to this question. Broadly speaking, the public approved of officials who passed the Patriot Act, or at least did not vote based upon the predication of removal of the act, so in a way the public did and still does have a say.

Obviously. I asked you how YOU felt about it, not how it came to be law. Based on your response, I'm guessing that we pretty much agree that while there is merit and utility to the intelligence community having this capacity, it does make us a bit uneasy. Would you say that is a fair and accurate way of characterizing where you personally stand?
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 2:33:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
From the original Guardian report:

The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US.

It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants.

In short, where previously the NSA needed individual authorisations, and confirmation that all parties were outside the USA, they now need only reasonable suspicion that one of the parties was outside the country at the time of the records were collected by the NSA.


http://www.guardian.co.uk...

This is well beyond any reasonable mandate to protect national security IMHO. A loophole that large is begging to be exploited.

---

Obviously. I asked you how YOU felt about it, not how it came to be law.

I will maintain my answer that there is no easy answer to such a question.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 2:41:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 2:33:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
From the original Guardian report:

The Intelligence Community has taken significant issue with many of the details in the report we're talking about. The point is that at this point we can't know for sure, but I'm interested in what people think about this, if the report is true -or at least sort of true.
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 2:45:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 2:41:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:33:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
From the original Guardian report:

The Intelligence Community has taken significant issue with many of the details in the report we're talking about. The point is that at this point we can't know for sure, but I'm interested in what people think about this, if the report is true -or at least sort of true.

And I think he's indicated that if it is true or at least sort of true, it's a big and bad deal.

What is youropinion on it, though?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:02:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 2:45:58 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:41:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:33:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
From the original Guardian report:

The Intelligence Community has taken significant issue with many of the details in the report we're talking about. The point is that at this point we can't know for sure, but I'm interested in what people think about this, if the report is true -or at least sort of true.

And I think he's indicated that if it is true or at least sort of true, it's a big and bad deal.

What is youropinion on it, though?

I don't have one yet... but I approach this with great trepidation as more details may be released to the public.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:23:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:02:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:45:58 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:41:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:33:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
From the original Guardian report:

The Intelligence Community has taken significant issue with many of the details in the report we're talking about. The point is that at this point we can't know for sure, but I'm interested in what people think about this, if the report is true -or at least sort of true.

And I think he's indicated that if it is true or at least sort of true, it's a big and bad deal.

What is youropinion on it, though?

I don't have one yet... but I approach this with great trepidation as more details may be released to the public.

I think the entire point from the government standpoint is that more details are NOT going to be released to the public if it can be prevented.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:26:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:23:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:02:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:45:58 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:41:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:33:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
From the original Guardian report:

The Intelligence Community has taken significant issue with many of the details in the report we're talking about. The point is that at this point we can't know for sure, but I'm interested in what people think about this, if the report is true -or at least sort of true.

And I think he's indicated that if it is true or at least sort of true, it's a big and bad deal.

What is youropinion on it, though?

I don't have one yet... but I approach this with great trepidation as more details may be released to the public.

I think the entire point from the government standpoint is that more details are NOT going to be released to the public if it can be prevented.

You could be right, but it will depend on how things develop with Snowden. Time will tell...
Tsar of DDO
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 10:21:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 12:51:35 AM, YYW wrote:
The reason that the NSA monitors net traffic as it does is because it is broad, sweeping analysis of keywords, phrases, etc. in communication that actually enable the intelligence community to recognize threats. Most of the data assembled is never even seen by human eyes... And, above all, we don't "see" the monitoring taking place. We know it's there, but it's not watching over us like a guard in Bentham's panoptic tower.

There are two separate NSA programs at issue. The PRISM program only monitors the content of communications between non-US citizens, looking for terrorists and other threats to national security. They have doing this for decades. During the Cold War they secretly tapped a Soviet undersea cable.

One might wish to amend the constitution to give privacy guarantees to foreign nationals residing outside the US, but that is not the present case.

The US data collection is limited to the times and phone numbers of communications. The content of communications is not recorded. To access the data, a warrant must be obtained from the FISA court. For example, the CIA may identify a terrorist safe house in Yemen. They then go the FISA court and get a warrant to track calls to and from the terrorists.

Previous court decisions have said that monitoring the event of communications (and not the content) is Constitutional. The analogy is "outside the envelope vs. inside the envelope." congress could chose to outlaw the monitoring, but it seems Constitutional.

Personally, I think both programs and reasonable and legitimate.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 11:09:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 10:21:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 6/29/2013 12:51:35 AM, YYW wrote:
The reason that the NSA monitors net traffic as it does is because it is broad, sweeping analysis of keywords, phrases, etc. in communication that actually enable the intelligence community to recognize threats. Most of the data assembled is never even seen by human eyes... And, above all, we don't "see" the monitoring taking place. We know it's there, but it's not watching over us like a guard in Bentham's panoptic tower.

There are two separate NSA programs at issue. The PRISM program only monitors the content of communications between non-US citizens, looking for terrorists and other threats to national security. They have doing this for decades. During the Cold War they secretly tapped a Soviet undersea cable.

One might wish to amend the constitution to give privacy guarantees to foreign nationals residing outside the US, but that is not the present case.

The US data collection is limited to the times and phone numbers of communications. The content of communications is not recorded. To access the data, a warrant must be obtained from the FISA court. For example, the CIA may identify a terrorist safe house in Yemen. They then go the FISA court and get a warrant to track calls to and from the terrorists.

Previous court decisions have said that monitoring the event of communications (and not the content) is Constitutional. The analogy is "outside the envelope vs. inside the envelope." congress could chose to outlaw the monitoring, but it seems Constitutional.

Personally, I think both programs and reasonable and legitimate.

None of this is correct.

FISA allows for monitoring of US citizens, if they are contacting foreign nationals outside the US.

According to the Guardian, PRISM allows for data collection far beyond meta-data:

A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more.

All of this can be done without a warrant. All of this is admissible in court, except the courts themselves become classified due to the classified nature of PRISM.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 1:19:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 11:09:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 10:21:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 6/29/2013 12:51:35 AM, YYW wrote:
The reason that the NSA monitors net traffic as it does is because it is broad, sweeping analysis of keywords, phrases, etc. in communication that actually enable the intelligence community to recognize threats. Most of the data assembled is never even seen by human eyes... And, above all, we don't "see" the monitoring taking place. We know it's there, but it's not watching over us like a guard in Bentham's panoptic tower.

There are two separate NSA programs at issue. The PRISM program only monitors the content of communications between non-US citizens, looking for terrorists and other threats to national security. They have doing this for decades. During the Cold War they secretly tapped a Soviet undersea cable.

One might wish to amend the constitution to give privacy guarantees to foreign nationals residing outside the US, but that is not the present case.

The US data collection is limited to the times and phone numbers of communications. The content of communications is not recorded. To access the data, a warrant must be obtained from the FISA court. For example, the CIA may identify a terrorist safe house in Yemen. They then go the FISA court and get a warrant to track calls to and from the terrorists.

Previous court decisions have said that monitoring the event of communications (and not the content) is Constitutional. The analogy is "outside the envelope vs. inside the envelope." congress could chose to outlaw the monitoring, but it seems Constitutional.

Personally, I think both programs and reasonable and legitimate.

None of this is correct.

Actually, most of it is. There are two separate programs at issue. One is called PRISM, the other is called Boundless Informant. You seem to be only talking about PRISM. This article is about Boundless Informant.

FISA allows for monitoring of US citizens, if they are contacting foreign nationals outside the US.

FISA courts can authorize monitoring of US citizens under some circumstances.

According to the Guardian, PRISM allows for data collection far beyond meta-data:

That report has been criticized by James Clapper and the Intelligence Community more broadly for it's factual inaccuracy.

A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more.

All of this can be done without a warrant.

Not it it is against a US citizen, under most circumstances.

All of this is admissible in court,

Actually, it's not admissible in a court where an American could be charged with a crime in a purely legal sense.

except the courts themselves become classified due to the classified nature of PRISM.

FISA courts have always been classified.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 1:57:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 1:19:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 11:09:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 10:21:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 6/29/2013 12:51:35 AM, YYW wrote:
The reason that the NSA monitors net traffic as it does is because it is broad, sweeping analysis of keywords, phrases, etc. in communication that actually enable the intelligence community to recognize threats. Most of the data assembled is never even seen by human eyes... And, above all, we don't "see" the monitoring taking place. We know it's there, but it's not watching over us like a guard in Bentham's panoptic tower.

There are two separate NSA programs at issue. The PRISM program only monitors the content of communications between non-US citizens, looking for terrorists and other threats to national security. They have doing this for decades. During the Cold War they secretly tapped a Soviet undersea cable.

One might wish to amend the constitution to give privacy guarantees to foreign nationals residing outside the US, but that is not the present case.

The US data collection is limited to the times and phone numbers of communications. The content of communications is not recorded. To access the data, a warrant must be obtained from the FISA court. For example, the CIA may identify a terrorist safe house in Yemen. They then go the FISA court and get a warrant to track calls to and from the terrorists.

Previous court decisions have said that monitoring the event of communications (and not the content) is Constitutional. The analogy is "outside the envelope vs. inside the envelope." congress could chose to outlaw the monitoring, but it seems Constitutional.

Personally, I think both programs and reasonable and legitimate.

None of this is correct.

Actually, most of it is. There are two separate programs at issue. One is called PRISM, the other is called Boundless Informant. You seem to be only talking about PRISM. This article is about Boundless Informant.

Your article is talking about the impact of PRISM on the debate surrounding national security. To separate PRISM from the debate is an artificial and at this time invalid distinction.

FISA allows for monitoring of US citizens, if they are contacting foreign nationals outside the US.

FISA courts can authorize monitoring of US citizens under some circumstances.

It would be easier for you to simply say that you agree with statements I've already made stating this fact.

According to the Guardian, PRISM allows for data collection far beyond meta-data:

That report has been criticized by James Clapper and the Intelligence Community more broadly for it's factual inaccuracy.

Sources, please.

A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more.

All of this can be done without a warrant.

Not it it is against a US citizen, under most circumstances.

Sources please.

All of this is admissible in court,

Actually, it's not admissible in a court where an American could be charged with a crime in a purely legal sense.

Sources please.

except the courts themselves become classified due to the classified nature of PRISM.

FISA courts have always been classified.

And you don't have a problem with this, when it is allowed to target US citizens without a warrant?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 2:06:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 1:19:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 11:09:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 10:21:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 6/29/2013 12:51:35 AM, YYW wrote:
The reason that the NSA monitors net traffic as it does is because it is broad, sweeping analysis of keywords, phrases, etc. in communication that actually enable the intelligence community to recognize threats. Most of the data assembled is never even seen by human eyes... And, above all, we don't "see" the monitoring taking place. We know it's there, but it's not watching over us like a guard in Bentham's panoptic tower.

There are two separate NSA programs at issue. The PRISM program only monitors the content of communications between non-US citizens, looking for terrorists and other threats to national security. They have doing this for decades. During the Cold War they secretly tapped a Soviet undersea cable.

One might wish to amend the constitution to give privacy guarantees to foreign nationals residing outside the US, but that is not the present case.

The US data collection is limited to the times and phone numbers of communications. The content of communications is not recorded. To access the data, a warrant must be obtained from the FISA court. For example, the CIA may identify a terrorist safe house in Yemen. They then go the FISA court and get a warrant to track calls to and from the terrorists.

Previous court decisions have said that monitoring the event of communications (and not the content) is Constitutional. The analogy is "outside the envelope vs. inside the envelope." congress could chose to outlaw the monitoring, but it seems Constitutional.

Personally, I think both programs and reasonable and legitimate.

None of this is correct.

Actually, most of it is. There are two separate programs at issue. One is called PRISM, the other is called Boundless Informant. You seem to be only talking about PRISM. This article is about Boundless Informant.

I will also add that Roy made specific statements about PRISM, and that those statements about PRISM are not correct. Roy never made a distinction as to what other program he was talking about. In fact, according to what has been leaked about PRISM, none of Roy's statements are correct.

Is the leaked information going to be highly disputed by government sources? Of course it is. The government will do its absolute best to seal this leak, and easily the most effective way to do so is to publicly discredit the leaked information.

It then becomes a game of you-said, they-said. IMHO what will probably result is some sort of public discreditation of Snowden. He is making it very easy to do so because of the additional leaks outside of PRISM and his choice of countries in which to seek safe harbor.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 2:06:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 1:57:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:19:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 11:09:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 10:21:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 6/29/2013 12:51:35 AM, YYW wrote:
The reason that the NSA monitors net traffic as it does is because it is broad, sweeping analysis of keywords, phrases, etc. in communication that actually enable the intelligence community to recognize threats. Most of the data assembled is never even seen by human eyes... And, above all, we don't "see" the monitoring taking place. We know it's there, but it's not watching over us like a guard in Bentham's panoptic tower.

There are two separate NSA programs at issue. The PRISM program only monitors the content of communications between non-US citizens, looking for terrorists and other threats to national security. They have doing this for decades. During the Cold War they secretly tapped a Soviet undersea cable.

One might wish to amend the constitution to give privacy guarantees to foreign nationals residing outside the US, but that is not the present case.

The US data collection is limited to the times and phone numbers of communications. The content of communications is not recorded. To access the data, a warrant must be obtained from the FISA court. For example, the CIA may identify a terrorist safe house in Yemen. They then go the FISA court and get a warrant to track calls to and from the terrorists.

Previous court decisions have said that monitoring the event of communications (and not the content) is Constitutional. The analogy is "outside the envelope vs. inside the envelope." congress could chose to outlaw the monitoring, but it seems Constitutional.

Personally, I think both programs and reasonable and legitimate.

None of this is correct.

Actually, most of it is. There are two separate programs at issue. One is called PRISM, the other is called Boundless Informant. You seem to be only talking about PRISM. This article is about Boundless Informant.

Your article is talking about the impact of PRISM on the debate surrounding national security. To separate PRISM from the debate is an artificial and at this time invalid distinction.

LOL whatever. The article doesn't mention the program it's talking about, but based on what it describes it is only reasonable to infer that it's talking about Boundless Informant. I'm not changing anything... you misunderstood from the beginning.

FISA allows for monitoring of US citizens, if they are contacting foreign nationals outside the US.

FISA courts can authorize monitoring of US citizens under some circumstances.

It would be easier for you to simply say that you agree with statements I've already made stating this fact.

And yet, that is what I basically did say.

According to the Guardian, PRISM allows for data collection far beyond meta-data:

That report has been criticized by James Clapper and the Intelligence Community more broadly for it's factual inaccuracy.

Sources, please.

"The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.

Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.

Activities authorized by Section 702 are subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. They involve extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.

Section 702 was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.

Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.

The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans."

http://www.dni.gov...

A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more.

All of this can be done without a warrant.

Not it it is against a US citizen, under most circumstances.

Sources please.

See Clapper's statement.

All of this is admissible in court,

Actually, it's not admissible in a court where an American could be charged with a crime in a purely legal sense.

Sources please.

Do you actually understand the rules of evidence in US courts? You're the one who made a nonsensical claim, and you demand that I prove you wrong?

Here... go hunting:

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

except the courts themselves become classified due to the classified nature of PRISM.

FISA courts have always been classified.

And you don't have a problem with this, when it is allowed to target US citizens without a warrant?

It is not allowed to target US citizens without a warrant.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 2:08:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 2:06:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:19:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 11:09:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 10:21:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 6/29/2013 12:51:35 AM, YYW wrote:
The reason that the NSA monitors net traffic as it does is because it is broad, sweeping analysis of keywords, phrases, etc. in communication that actually enable the intelligence community to recognize threats. Most of the data assembled is never even seen by human eyes... And, above all, we don't "see" the monitoring taking place. We know it's there, but it's not watching over us like a guard in Bentham's panoptic tower.

There are two separate NSA programs at issue. The PRISM program only monitors the content of communications between non-US citizens, looking for terrorists and other threats to national security. They have doing this for decades. During the Cold War they secretly tapped a Soviet undersea cable.

One might wish to amend the constitution to give privacy guarantees to foreign nationals residing outside the US, but that is not the present case.

The US data collection is limited to the times and phone numbers of communications. The content of communications is not recorded. To access the data, a warrant must be obtained from the FISA court. For example, the CIA may identify a terrorist safe house in Yemen. They then go the FISA court and get a warrant to track calls to and from the terrorists.

Previous court decisions have said that monitoring the event of communications (and not the content) is Constitutional. The analogy is "outside the envelope vs. inside the envelope." congress could chose to outlaw the monitoring, but it seems Constitutional.

Personally, I think both programs and reasonable and legitimate.

None of this is correct.

Actually, most of it is. There are two separate programs at issue. One is called PRISM, the other is called Boundless Informant. You seem to be only talking about PRISM. This article is about Boundless Informant.

I will also add that Roy made specific statements about PRISM, and that those statements about PRISM are not correct. Roy never made a distinction as to what other program he was talking about. In fact, according to what has been leaked about PRISM, none of Roy's statements are correct.

So, I'm guessing you didn't actually read what he wrote. I don't typically agree with Roy on most things, but he's not in error here -at least on the factual aspect of this.

Is the leaked information going to be highly disputed by government sources? Of course it is. The government will do its absolute best to seal this leak, and easily the most effective way to do so is to publicly discredit the leaked information.

Yes.

It then becomes a game of you-said, they-said. IMHO what will probably result is some sort of public discreditation of Snowden.

That's what Clapper has been trying to do since the first leak.

He is making it very easy to do so because of the additional leaks outside of PRISM and his choice of countries in which to seek safe harbor.

We'll see.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 5:02:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 2:06:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:57:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:19:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 11:09:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 10:21:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:

There are two separate NSA programs at issue. The PRISM program only monitors the content of communications between non-US citizens, looking for terrorists and other threats to national security. They have doing this for decades. During the Cold War they secretly tapped a Soviet undersea cable.

One might wish to amend the constitution to give privacy guarantees to foreign nationals residing outside the US, but that is not the present case.

The US data collection is limited to the times and phone numbers of communications. The content of communications is not recorded. To access the data, a warrant must be obtained from the FISA court. For example, the CIA may identify a terrorist safe house in Yemen. They then go the FISA court and get a warrant to track calls to and from the terrorists.

Previous court decisions have said that monitoring the event of communications (and not the content) is Constitutional. The analogy is "outside the envelope vs. inside the envelope." congress could chose to outlaw the monitoring, but it seems Constitutional.

Personally, I think both programs and reasonable and legitimate.

None of this is correct.

Actually, most of it is. There are two separate programs at issue. One is called PRISM, the other is called Boundless Informant. You seem to be only talking about PRISM. This article is about Boundless Informant.

Your article is talking about the impact of PRISM on the debate surrounding national security. To separate PRISM from the debate is an artificial and at this time invalid distinction.

LOL whatever. The article doesn't mention the program it's talking about, but based on what it describes it is only reasonable to infer that it's talking about Boundless Informant. I'm not changing anything... you misunderstood from the beginning.

Your ability to argue a point is underwhelming:

They argued that the release was "now in the public interest" as a result of the current debate about surveillance and material that the government had recently declassified. This week, the government agreed.

FISA allows for monitoring of US citizens, if they are contacting foreign nationals outside the US.

FISA courts can authorize monitoring of US citizens under some circumstances.

It would be easier for you to simply say that you agree with statements I've already made stating this fact.

And yet, that is what I basically did say.

Good. Then we agree that your comments beyond agreement were redundant, wholly unnecessary, and added nothing to the discussion.

According to the Guardian, PRISM allows for data collection far beyond meta-data:

That report has been criticized by James Clapper and the Intelligence Community more broadly for it's factual inaccuracy.

Sources, please.

"The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.

Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.

Activities authorized by Section 702 are subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. They involve extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.

Section 702 was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.

Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.

The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans."

http://www.dni.gov...

Thank you for this source. I highlighted a section that essentially amounts to conceding that information is indeed collected on US citizens, "incidentally acquired".

A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more.

All of this can be done without a warrant.

Not it it is against a US citizen, under most circumstances.

Sources please.

See Clapper's statement.

Does not corroborate your statement.

All of this is admissible in court,

Actually, it's not admissible in a court where an American could be charged with a crime in a purely legal sense.

Sources please.

Do you actually understand the rules of evidence in US courts? You're the one who made a nonsensical claim, and you demand that I prove you wrong?

Here... go hunting:

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

As you do not have pertinent evidence for your claim, we agree to disagree.

except the courts themselves become classified due to the classified nature of PRISM.

FISA courts have always been classified.

And you don't have a problem with this, when it is allowed to target US citizens without a warrant?

It is not allowed to target US citizens without a warrant.

According to the Guardian, this need not be the case. As I said, it becomes a "he said, they said" argument.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 5:04:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 2:08:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:06:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:19:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 11:09:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 10:21:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 6/29/2013 12:51:35 AM, YYW wrote:
The reason that the NSA monitors net traffic as it does is because it is broad, sweeping analysis of keywords, phrases, etc. in communication that actually enable the intelligence community to recognize threats. Most of the data assembled is never even seen by human eyes... And, above all, we don't "see" the monitoring taking place. We know it's there, but it's not watching over us like a guard in Bentham's panoptic tower.

There are two separate NSA programs at issue. The PRISM program only monitors the content of communications between non-US citizens, looking for terrorists and other threats to national security. They have doing this for decades. During the Cold War they secretly tapped a Soviet undersea cable.

One might wish to amend the constitution to give privacy guarantees to foreign nationals residing outside the US, but that is not the present case.

The US data collection is limited to the times and phone numbers of communications. The content of communications is not recorded. To access the data, a warrant must be obtained from the FISA court. For example, the CIA may identify a terrorist safe house in Yemen. They then go the FISA court and get a warrant to track calls to and from the terrorists.

Previous court decisions have said that monitoring the event of communications (and not the content) is Constitutional. The analogy is "outside the envelope vs. inside the envelope." congress could chose to outlaw the monitoring, but it seems Constitutional.

Personally, I think both programs and reasonable and legitimate.

None of this is correct.

Actually, most of it is. There are two separate programs at issue. One is called PRISM, the other is called Boundless Informant. You seem to be only talking about PRISM. This article is about Boundless Informant.

I will also add that Roy made specific statements about PRISM, and that those statements about PRISM are not correct. Roy never made a distinction as to what other program he was talking about. In fact, according to what has been leaked about PRISM, none of Roy's statements are correct.

So, I'm guessing you didn't actually read what he wrote. I don't typically agree with Roy on most things, but he's not in error here -at least on the factual aspect of this.

Guess again, and he is in error. As you don't really have a point here, the argument does not move forward.

Is the leaked information going to be highly disputed by government sources? Of course it is. The government will do its absolute best to seal this leak, and easily the most effective way to do so is to publicly discredit the leaked information.

Yes.

It then becomes a game of you-said, they-said. IMHO what will probably result is some sort of public discreditation of Snowden.

That's what Clapper has been trying to do since the first leak.

That does not make Clapper correct in his assertions.

He is making it very easy to do so because of the additional leaks outside of PRISM and his choice of countries in which to seek safe harbor.

We'll see.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 2:29:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 2:06:07 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:57:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:19:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 11:09:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/29/2013 10:21:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 6/29/2013 12:51:35 AM, YYW wrote:
The reason that the NSA monitors net traffic as it does is because it is broad, sweeping analysis of keywords, phrases, etc. in communication that actually enable the intelligence community to recognize threats. Most of the data assembled is never even seen by human eyes... And, above all, we don't "see" the monitoring taking place. We know it's there, but it's not watching over us like a guard in Bentham's panoptic tower.

There are two separate NSA programs at issue. The PRISM program only monitors the content of communications between non-US citizens, looking for terrorists and other threats to national security. They have doing this for decades. During the Cold War they secretly tapped a Soviet undersea cable.

One might wish to amend the constitution to give privacy guarantees to foreign nationals residing outside the US, but that is not the present case.

The US data collection is limited to the times and phone numbers of communications. The content of communications is not recorded. To access the data, a warrant must be obtained from the FISA court. For example, the CIA may identify a terrorist safe house in Yemen. They then go the FISA court and get a warrant to track calls to and from the terrorists.

Previous court decisions have said that monitoring the event of communications (and not the content) is Constitutional. The analogy is "outside the envelope vs. inside the envelope." congress could chose to outlaw the monitoring, but it seems Constitutional.

Personally, I think both programs and reasonable and legitimate.

None of this is correct.

Actually, most of it is. There are two separate programs at issue. One is called PRISM, the other is called Boundless Informant. You seem to be only talking about PRISM. This article is about Boundless Informant.

Your article is talking about the impact of PRISM on the debate surrounding national security. To separate PRISM from the debate is an artificial and at this time invalid distinction.

LOL whatever. The article doesn't mention the program it's talking about, but based on what it describes it is only reasonable to infer that it's talking about Boundless Informant. I'm not changing anything... you misunderstood from the beginning.

FISA allows for monitoring of US citizens, if they are contacting foreign nationals outside the US.

FISA courts can authorize monitoring of US citizens under some circumstances.

It would be easier for you to simply say that you agree with statements I've already made stating this fact.

And yet, that is what I basically did say.

According to the Guardian, PRISM allows for data collection far beyond meta-data:

That report has been criticized by James Clapper and the Intelligence Community more broadly for it's factual inaccuracy.

Sources, please.

"The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.

Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.

Activities authorized by Section 702 are subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. They involve extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.

Section 702 was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.

Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.

The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans."

http://www.dni.gov...

A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more.

All of this can be done without a warrant.

Not it it is against a US citizen, under most circumstances.

Sources please.

See Clapper's statement.

All of this is admissible in court,

Actually, it's not admissible in a court where an American could be charged with a crime in a purely legal sense.

Sources please.

Do you actually understand the rules of evidence in US courts? You're the one who made a nonsensical claim, and you demand that I prove you wrong?

Here... go hunting:

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

except the courts themselves become classified due to the classified nature of PRISM.

FISA courts have always been classified.

And you don't have a problem with this, when it is allowed to target US citizens without a warrant?

It is not allowed to target US citizens without a warrant.

you are looking at the wrong section. Section 215 allows the collection of "tangible items" on any us citizen whether they are related to the terrorism or not. Just wait for the next program to come out in the main st ream, the US bugging the EU parliment. It Is dangerous to trust the US government, but as long as we have security over integrity we can just all be happy.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 10:17:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To me, "monitors" means that e-mail is read and phone conversations are listened to. If you have evidence NSA is systematically monitoring the communications of US citizens, then present it. The AP report presented some evidence that could be interpreted as NSA having the authority to do so, but the AP report itself denies that is happening. The AP, quoted by Yahoo, says,

"... That means Americans' personal emails can live in government computers, but analysts can't access, read or listen to them unless the emails become relevant to a national security investigation."
http://news.yahoo.com...

Further,

When PRISM leaked, The Washington Post reported that the 702 orders given to tech companies "serve as one-time blanket approvals for data acquisition and surveillance on selected foreign targets for periods of as long as a year."

Tech companies say it doesn't play out that way.

Microsoft said in a statement: "We only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers." ... Google chief architect Yonatan Zunger wrote that Google only responds to "lawful, specific orders about individuals." ... And Facebook revealed it received between 9,000 and 10,000 requests for user data in the second half of last year, and said "we respond only as required by law."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

This is consistent with the Guardian article published this week:

According to a top-secret draft report by the NSA's inspector general " published for the first time today by the Guardian " the agency began "collection of bulk internet metadata" involving "communications with at least one communicant outside the United States or for which no communicant was known to be a citizen of the United States".

Metadata is information about the e-mail, such as address and time of it being sent. If a US citizen is involved, a warrant is required to read the e-mail.

As to NSA being poorly supervised, the Congressional Intelligence committees were fully informed, the FISA Court monitors the activities, and NSA reports to the President. All three branches of government were informed and approved. Note that NSA brings requests to the FISA Court, which tells them whether it must be modified to be approved or if it won't be approved. This means that most requests are likely to be in order for approval.
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:08:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 5:02:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Wrich, if you want people to care what you say, then you need to moderate your tone. I can understand that you're interested in topics like this and you might even have an interesting perspective on them when you get your basic factual understanding of things in proper order. But, it seems that whenever you post anything -especially in response to me- you both (1) don't know what you're talking about and (2) are inordinately condescending. If you don't like me, then that's fine. Don't respond to what I write. But, like me or not, if you want to have a productive conversation have enough self respect to both know what you're talking about and don't try to escalate a situation when it's not called for -and that goes for both DDO and in life.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 1:09:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:08:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 5:02:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Wrich, if you want people to care what you say, then you need to moderate your tone. I can understand that you're interested in topics like this and you might even have an interesting perspective on them when you get your basic factual understanding of things in proper order. But, it seems that whenever you post anything -especially in response to me- you both (1) don't know what you're talking about and (2) are inordinately condescending. If you don't like me, then that's fine. Don't respond to what I write. But, like me or not, if you want to have a productive conversation have enough self respect to both know what you're talking about and don't try to escalate a situation when it's not called for -and that goes for both DDO and in life.

The bolded is ad hominem. You don't have arguments to refute my points, and you don't have credible evidence to contest my sources (your source on evidence was akin to sourcing someone the Bible in its entirety to assert that "God is real"), so you resort to personal character attacks. Wholly irresponsible, and unfortunately something you do quite often. It discredits your perspective on a myriad of affairs.

The bottom line is, you've been unable to counter my assertions, and resort to absolutely unfounded ad hominem attacks to assert some semblance of legitimacy in your argument. My "facts" stand as they are, uncontested by you at this point. Your ad hominem demeans the process of argumentation, and destroys the dignity of both the accuser and the accused.

I.e., stop with the ad hominem. You're no better than Royal on a bad day at this point.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 1:18:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 1:09:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:08:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 5:02:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Wrich, if you want people to care what you say, then you need to moderate your tone. I can understand that you're interested in topics like this and you might even have an interesting perspective on them when you get your basic factual understanding of things in proper order. But, it seems that whenever you post anything -especially in response to me- you both (1) don't know what you're talking about and (2) are inordinately condescending. If you don't like me, then that's fine. Don't respond to what I write. But, like me or not, if you want to have a productive conversation have enough self respect to both know what you're talking about and don't try to escalate a situation when it's not called for -and that goes for both DDO and in life.

The bolded is ad hominem. You don't have arguments to refute my points, and you don't have credible evidence to contest my sources (your source on evidence was akin to sourcing someone the Bible in its entirety to assert that "God is real"), so you resort to personal character attacks. Wholly irresponsible, and unfortunately something you do quite often. It discredits your perspective on a myriad of affairs.

The bottom line is, you've been unable to counter my assertions, and resort to absolutely unfounded ad hominem attacks to assert some semblance of legitimacy in your argument. My "facts" stand as they are, uncontested by you at this point. Your ad hominem demeans the process of argumentation, and destroys the dignity of both the accuser and the accused.

I.e., stop with the ad hominem. You're no better than Royal on a bad day at this point.

So in one line you lambast me for ad hom, and then proceed to do the exact same thing in your closing sentence. Wrich, once more, if you don't like me, don't respond to what I write. If you want to have a productive conversation, don't act like a jackass.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 1:20:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 10:17:54 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

Metadata is information about the e-mail, such as address and time of it being sent. If a US citizen is involved, a warrant is required to read the e-mail.

This is incorrect, according to the original Guardian article:

"It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants."

"The participation of the internet companies in Prism will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata."

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

I'm not vouching for the correctness of the leaked data, but only on assertions based on the leaked data.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 1:23:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 1:09:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:08:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 5:02:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Wrich, if you want people to care what you say, then you need to moderate your tone. I can understand that you're interested in topics like this and you might even have an interesting perspective on them when you get your basic factual understanding of things in proper order. But, it seems that whenever you post anything -especially in response to me- you both (1) don't know what you're talking about and (2) are inordinately condescending. If you don't like me, then that's fine. Don't respond to what I write. But, like me or not, if you want to have a productive conversation have enough self respect to both know what you're talking about and don't try to escalate a situation when it's not called for -and that goes for both DDO and in life.

The bolded is ad hominem. You don't have arguments to refute my points, and you don't have credible evidence to contest my sources (your source on evidence was akin to sourcing someone the Bible in its entirety to assert that "God is real"), so you resort to personal character attacks. Wholly irresponsible, and unfortunately something you do quite often. It discredits your perspective on a myriad of affairs.

The bottom line is, you've been unable to counter my assertions, and resort to absolutely unfounded ad hominem attacks to assert some semblance of legitimacy in your argument. My "facts" stand as they are, uncontested by you at this point. Your ad hominem demeans the process of argumentation, and destroys the dignity of both the accuser and the accused.

I.e., stop with the ad hominem. You're no better than Royal on a bad day at this point.

As if you have any right to lecture people about snubbing you for being rude!

I'm still waiting on even a preliminary response to my line-by-line refutation of your little RFD.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 1:24:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 1:23:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/4/2013 1:09:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:08:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 5:02:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Wrich, if you want people to care what you say, then you need to moderate your tone. I can understand that you're interested in topics like this and you might even have an interesting perspective on them when you get your basic factual understanding of things in proper order. But, it seems that whenever you post anything -especially in response to me- you both (1) don't know what you're talking about and (2) are inordinately condescending. If you don't like me, then that's fine. Don't respond to what I write. But, like me or not, if you want to have a productive conversation have enough self respect to both know what you're talking about and don't try to escalate a situation when it's not called for -and that goes for both DDO and in life.

The bolded is ad hominem. You don't have arguments to refute my points, and you don't have credible evidence to contest my sources (your source on evidence was akin to sourcing someone the Bible in its entirety to assert that "God is real"), so you resort to personal character attacks. Wholly irresponsible, and unfortunately something you do quite often. It discredits your perspective on a myriad of affairs.

The bottom line is, you've been unable to counter my assertions, and resort to absolutely unfounded ad hominem attacks to assert some semblance of legitimacy in your argument. My "facts" stand as they are, uncontested by you at this point. Your ad hominem demeans the process of argumentation, and destroys the dignity of both the accuser and the accused.

I.e., stop with the ad hominem. You're no better than Royal on a bad day at this point.

As if you have any right to lecture people about snubbing you for being rude!

My thoughts exactly.

I'm still waiting on even a preliminary response to my line-by-line refutation of your little RFD.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 1:25:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 1:18:50 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/4/2013 1:09:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:08:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 5:02:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Wrich, if you want people to care what you say, then you need to moderate your tone. I can understand that you're interested in topics like this and you might even have an interesting perspective on them when you get your basic factual understanding of things in proper order. But, it seems that whenever you post anything -especially in response to me- you both (1) don't know what you're talking about and (2) are inordinately condescending. If you don't like me, then that's fine. Don't respond to what I write. But, like me or not, if you want to have a productive conversation have enough self respect to both know what you're talking about and don't try to escalate a situation when it's not called for -and that goes for both DDO and in life.

The bolded is ad hominem. You don't have arguments to refute my points, and you don't have credible evidence to contest my sources (your source on evidence was akin to sourcing someone the Bible in its entirety to assert that "God is real"), so you resort to personal character attacks. Wholly irresponsible, and unfortunately something you do quite often. It discredits your perspective on a myriad of affairs.

The bottom line is, you've been unable to counter my assertions, and resort to absolutely unfounded ad hominem attacks to assert some semblance of legitimacy in your argument. My "facts" stand as they are, uncontested by you at this point. Your ad hominem demeans the process of argumentation, and destroys the dignity of both the accuser and the accused.

I.e., stop with the ad hominem. You're no better than Royal on a bad day at this point.

So in one line you lambast me for ad hom, and then proceed to do the exact same thing in your closing sentence. Wrich, once more, if you don't like me, don't respond to what I write. If you want to have a productive conversation, don't act like a jackass.

Again, read the bolded. Let me repeat it for you since you seem to be incapable of processing information on the first go:

"Your ad hominem demeans the process of argumentation, and destroys the dignity of both the accuser and the accused."

The moment someone breaches civility, no one is safe from these accusations. The only thing left to do is to figure out how to prevent it in the first place. I did not start with these ad hominems, but I am now polity telling you to stop.

Whether or not I contest your arguments has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards you. Your arguments stand or fall on the strength of the argument. In this case, your arguments on the OP I found to be lacking. I wanted to see if you could substantiate your point so that I could find some modicum of agreement, but instead I am assaulted via ad hominem. Again, this puts you on the same ground as Royal on a bad day.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 1:26:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 1:25:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2013 1:18:50 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/4/2013 1:09:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:08:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2013 5:02:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Wrich, if you want people to care what you say, then you need to moderate your tone. I can understand that you're interested in topics like this and you might even have an interesting perspective on them when you get your basic factual understanding of things in proper order. But, it seems that whenever you post anything -especially in response to me- you both (1) don't know what you're talking about and (2) are inordinately condescending. If you don't like me, then that's fine. Don't respond to what I write. But, like me or not, if you want to have a productive conversation have enough self respect to both know what you're talking about and don't try to escalate a situation when it's not called for -and that goes for both DDO and in life.

The bolded is ad hominem. You don't have arguments to refute my points, and you don't have credible evidence to contest my sources (your source on evidence was akin to sourcing someone the Bible in its entirety to assert that "God is real"), so you resort to personal character attacks. Wholly irresponsible, and unfortunately something you do quite often. It discredits your perspective on a myriad of affairs.

The bottom line is, you've been unable to counter my assertions, and resort to absolutely unfounded ad hominem attacks to assert some semblance of legitimacy in your argument. My "facts" stand as they are, uncontested by you at this point. Your ad hominem demeans the process of argumentation, and destroys the dignity of both the accuser and the accused.

I.e., stop with the ad hominem. You're no better than Royal on a bad day at this point.

So in one line you lambast me for ad hom, and then proceed to do the exact same thing in your closing sentence. Wrich, once more, if you don't like me, don't respond to what I write. If you want to have a productive conversation, don't act like a jackass.

Again, read the bolded. Let me repeat it for you since you seem to be incapable of processing information on the first go:

"Your ad hominem demeans the process of argumentation, and destroys the dignity of both the accuser and the accused."

The moment someone breaches civility, no one is safe from these accusations. The only thing left to do is to figure out how to prevent it in the first place. I did not start with these ad hominems, but I am now polity telling you to stop.

Whether or not I contest your arguments has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards you. Your arguments stand or fall on the strength of the argument. In this case, your arguments on the OP I found to be lacking. I wanted to see if you could substantiate your point so that I could find some modicum of agreement, but instead I am assaulted via ad hominem. Again, this puts you on the same ground as Royal on a bad day.

So I guess this isn't going to be a productive conversation then... and lay off of Royal. She has nothing to do with this.
Tsar of DDO