Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps

[GreenGoo]

That is terrifying.

These guys are turning your constitution into a punchline.

[Defiant]

Think warrantless metadata collection is ok? Just remember this - according to the former Director of the CIA and NSA - We kill people based on metadata:

As NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker has said, “metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.” When I quoted Baker at a recent debate at Johns Hopkins University, my opponent, General Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the CIA, called Baker’s comment “absolutely correct,” and raised him one, asserting, “We kill people based on metadata.”

Edit - in other words, enough gossip and you don't need actual facts to kill someone.

That's not the message I read at all - It's that metadata is(are?) facts, that it's more powerful than people may think, and that it can provide a lot of information on individuals. And that is precisely why it shouldn't be collected without a warrant.

(Sure, metadata can lead to incorrect conclusion, but that's also true of evidence admissible in a court of law.)

[Kraken]

Say cheese!

The National Security Agency is reportedly capturing millions of images per day to feed facial recognition programs.

Citing top-secret documents obtained by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the New York Times reported the agency 's reliance on such technology has grown in recent years.

New software allows the NSA to "exploit the flood of images included in emails, text messages, social media, videoconferences and other communications," the newspaper said.

"The agency intercepts 'millions of images per day' — including about 55,000 'facial recognition quality images' — which translate into 'tremendous untapped potential,'" the newspaper reported, citing documents from 2011.

Somehow I doubt that setting your facebook albums to "friends only" is going to help. The NSA is everybody's friend.

[Isgrimnur]

You think the e-mail metadata is bad?

Try hoovering up every cell phone in an area.

A routine request in Florida for public records regarding the use of a surveillance tool known as stingray took an extraordinary turn recently when federal authorities seized the documents before police could release them.

The surprise move by the U.S. Marshals Service stunned the American Civil Liberties Union, which earlier this year filed the public records request with the Sarasota, Florida, police department for information detailing its use of the controversial surveillance tool.

The ACLU had an appointment last Tuesday to review documents pertaining to a case investigated by a Sarasota police detective. But marshals swooped in at the last minute to grab the records, claiming they belong to the U.S. Marshals Service and barring the police from releasing them.
...
Stingrays, also known as IMSI catchers, simulate a cellphone tower and trick nearby mobile devices into connecting with them, thereby revealing their location. A stingray can see and record a device’s unique ID number and traffic data, as well as information that points to its location. By moving a stingray around, authorities can triangulate a device’s location with greater precision than is possible using data obtained from a carrier’s fixed tower location.

The records sought by the ACLU are important because the organization has learned that a Florida police detective obtained permission to use a stingray simply by filing an application with the court under Florida’s “trap and trace” statute instead of obtaining a probable-cause warrant. Trap and trace orders generally are used to collect information from phone companies about telephone numbers received and called by a specific account. A stingray, however, can track the location of cell phones, including inside private spaces.

The government has long asserted it doesn’t need a probable-cause warrant to use stingrays because the device doesn’t collect the content of phone calls and text messages, but instead operates like pen-registers and trap-and-traces, collecting the equivalent of header information. The ACLU and others argue that the devices are more invasive than a trap-and-trace.
...
In the Sarasota case, the U.S. Marshals Service claimed it owned the records Sarasota police offered to the ACLU because it had deputized the detective in the case, making all documentation in the case federal property. Before the ACLU could view the documents Sarasota had put aside for them, the agency dispatched a marshal from its office in Tampa to seize the records and move them to an undisclosed location.

[Isgrimnur]

Cell tower data requires a warrant, at least in parts of the South.

A federal appeals court has ruled that the warrantless collection of cellphone tower data, which can be used to track the location of a suspect, is unconstitutional without a probable-cause warrant from a court.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court in Florida ruled that the government’s warrantless collection of a defendant’s cell site data violated his reasonable expectation of privacy.

“In short, we hold that cell site location information is within the subscriber’s reasonable expectation of privacy,” they wrote in their ruling (.pdf). “The obtaining of that data without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation.”

Although the decision covers only three states — Florida, Georgia, and Alabama — it constitutes the first time that a federal appeals court has ruled in favor of a warrant for cell site data and is being touted by civil liberties groups as a victory in the effort to protect phone users from unreasonable searches and seizures.

[Defiant]

More Snowden leaks

[Rip]

More Snowden leaks

I never thought I'd see this day: The founder of Lawfare has finally declared that a national-security-state employee perpetrated a huge civil-liberties violation! Remember this if he ever again claims that NSA critics can't point to a single serious abuse at the agency. Wittes himself now says there's been a serious abuse.

The same logic applies to Keith Alexander, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, Stewart Baker, Edward Lucas, John Schindler, and every other anti-Snowden NSA defender. So long as they insist that Snowden is a narcissistic criminal and possible traitor, they have no choice but to admit that the NSA collected and stored intimate photos, emails, and chats belonging to totally innocent Americans and safeguarded them so poorly that a ne'er-do-well could copy them onto thumb drives.

They have no choice but to admit that the NSA was so bad at judging who could be trusted with this sensitive data that a possible traitor could take it all to China and Russia. Yet these same people continue to insist that the NSA is deserving of our trust, that Americans should keep permitting it to collect and store massive amounts of sensitive data on innocents, and that adequate safeguards are in place to protect that data. To examine the entirety of their position is to see that it is farcical.

Here's the reality.

The NSA collects and stores the full content of extremely sensitive photographs, emails, chat transcripts, and other documents belong to Americans, itself a violation of the Constitution—but even if you disagree that it's illegal, there's no disputing the fact that the NSA has been proven incapable of safeguarding that data. There is not the chance the data could leak at sometime in the future. It has already been taken and given to reporters. The necessary reform is clear. Unable to safeguard this sensitive data, the NSA shouldn't be allowed to collect and store it.

Hear, hear!

[Defiant]

More Snowden leaks

I never thought I'd see this day: The founder of Lawfare has finally declared that a national-security-state employee perpetrated a huge civil-liberties violation! Remember this if he ever again claims that NSA critics can't point to a single serious abuse at the agency. Wittes himself now says there's been a serious abuse.

The same logic applies to Keith Alexander, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, Stewart Baker, Edward Lucas, John Schindler, and every other anti-Snowden NSA defender. So long as they insist that Snowden is a narcissistic criminal and possible traitor, they have no choice but to admit that the NSA collected and stored intimate photos, emails, and chats belonging to totally innocent Americans and safeguarded them so poorly that a ne'er-do-well could copy them onto thumb drives.

They have no choice but to admit that the NSA was so bad at judging who could be trusted with this sensitive data that a possible traitor could take it all to China and Russia. Yet these same people continue to insist that the NSA is deserving of our trust, that Americans should keep permitting it to collect and store massive amounts of sensitive data on innocents, and that adequate safeguards are in place to protect that data. To examine the entirety of their position is to see that it is farcical.

Here's the reality.

The NSA collects and stores the full content of extremely sensitive photographs, emails, chat transcripts, and other documents belong to Americans, itself a violation of the Constitution—but even if you disagree that it's illegal, there's no disputing the fact that the NSA has been proven incapable of safeguarding that data. There is not the chance the data could leak at sometime in the future. It has already been taken and given to reporters. The necessary reform is clear. Unable to safeguard this sensitive data, the NSA shouldn't be allowed to collect and store it.

Hear, hear!

I'm pretty sure the NSA is hearing as well.

[Isgrimnur]

This is getting out of hand.

[Pyperkub]

More evidence that Snowden had zero other avenues:

The CIA got hold of the legally protected email and other unspecified communications between whistleblower officials and lawmakers this spring, people familiar with the matter told McClatchy. It’s unclear how the agency obtained the material.

At the time, the CIA was embroiled in a furious behind-the-scenes battle with the Senate Intelligence Committee over the panel’s investigation of the agency’s interrogation program, including accusations that the CIA illegally monitored computers used in the five-year probe

Read more here:

[Isgrimnur]

Time for another Family Jewels deep dive. Unfortunately, there's not going to be anyone internal to the CIA to do it. They're going to have to crack it wide open and rebuild it from the ground up.

[Isgrimnur]

CIA: We apologize for spying on Senate staffers

CIA Director John Brennan apologized to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday and admitted the agency spied on computers used by its staffers who prepared an investigation of the controversial post 9/11 CIA interrogation and detention program.
...
The CIA had accused the committee staffers of getting access to internal agency documents and of improperly handling classified material.
...
But the CIA's inspector general, a watchdog, found that some agency employees "acted in a manner inconsistent with the common understanding" reached between the intelligence panel and the CIA in 2009 regarding access to information, the CIA said in a statement.

"The director subsequently informed the (committee) chairman and vice chairman of the findings and apologized to them for such actions by CIA officers as described in the (inspector general's) report, the statement said.

"The director is committed to correcting any shortcomings related to this matter" and is commissioning an Accountability Board to be chaired by former Indiana Democratic senator and Intelligence Committee member Evan Bayh, the CIA said.

"This board will review the (inspector general's) report, conduct interviews as needed, and provide the director with recommendations that, depending on its findings, could include potential disciplinary measures and/or steps to address systemic issues." the CIA added.

[GreenGoo]

They apologized for acting in a manner inconsistent with the agreed upon understanding and are committed to correcting any shortcomings.

Seems like they've got it under control then. Keep up the good work CIA.

Good lord.

[Rip]

They apologized for acting in a manner inconsistent with the agreed upon understanding and are committed to correcting any shortcomings.

Seems like they've got it under control then. Keep up the good work CIA.

Good lord.

Shame that decided to drag their feet for this long trying to deny what they had done.

Just goes to show even the CIA can tell when they have been caught red handed and there is no way to lie their way out of it. Because if there had been a way we all know they would have taken it.

[Defiant]

There's apparently a new leaker

[GreenGoo]

I don't think it's too early (I haven't read th article, or anything, for that matter) to call this person out for being a traitor, and dare I say, Terrorist?

[Pyperkub]

I find it difficult to believe that a Circuit Court Judge has so little regard for the 4th Amendment:

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

Congress should limit the NSA’s use of the data it collects—for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies—but it shouldn’t limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches, Posner said. “If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that’s fine,” he said.

In the name of national security, U.S. lawmakers should give the NSA “carte blanche,” Posner added. “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security,” he said. “The world is in an extremely turbulent state—very dangerous.”

So, the world wasn't in a turbulent state when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted? Arrrgh!

I'd be curious as to the odds that Anonymous starts going through his life with a fine-toothed comb... if they haven't already.

[GreenGoo]

Good.

Lord.

[Isgrimnur]

Posner also criticized mobile OS companies for enabling end-to-end encryption in their newest software. “I’m shocked at the thought that a company would be permitted to manufacture an electronic product that the government would not be able to search” he said.

I'm sure that every other country will be sure to follow those guidelines, too.

Reminds me of the Cryptonomicon modern story line.

[Fireball]

Richard Posner is one of the greatest legal minds around today, but he's not a huge fan of the notion of privacy as a social good, so this isn't entirely surprising.

[Rip]

Richard Posner is one of the greatest legal minds around today, but he's not a huge fan of the notion of privacy as a social good, so this isn't entirely surprising.

I could respect that position if the person is willing to give up their privacy first to set an example. Something tells me he wouldn't be apt to do that.

[Pyperkub]

Richard Posner is one of the greatest legal minds around today, but he's not a huge fan of the notion of privacy as a social good, so this isn't entirely surprising.

I could respect that position if the person is willing to give up their privacy first to set an example. Something tells me he wouldn't be apt to do that.

Or his daughters' privacy, if he has any. There's a reason priests have been bound to confidentiality with regards to the confessional since before the Magna Carte.

[Rip]

Also as far as being a great legal mind, that really doesn't excuse much for me. I have heard the same thing said about Joseph Goebbels, doesn't mean I want him involved in my justice system.

[RLMullen]

Richard Posner is one of the greatest legal minds around today, but he's not a huge fan of the notion of privacy as a social good, so this isn't entirely surprising.

I read three quotes from Posner in the linked article that destroys any credibility he may have once had as a "great legal mind". The fact that he has the amount of power that he currently has quite simply scares me.

[malchior]

I wouldn't say he is not a great legal mind - but I'd definitely be comfortable calling him a completely naive fool. Blind trust in the government to do the right thing has not worked out too well for 100s of millions of people over the last century or so. I can't disagree more with his ideas around this.

[geezer]

I find it difficult to believe that a Circuit Court Judge has so little regard for the 4th Amendment:

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

Congress should limit the NSA’s use of the data it collects—for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies—but it shouldn’t limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches, Posner said. “If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that’s fine,” he said.

In the name of national security, U.S. lawmakers should give the NSA “carte blanche,” Posner added. “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security,” he said. “The world is in an extremely turbulent state—very dangerous.”

So, the world wasn't in a turbulent state when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted? Arrrgh!

I'd be curious as to the odds that Anonymous starts going through his life with a fine-toothed comb... if they haven't already.

While I don't agree that the idea of privacy is outmoded in this day and age, I'd be very hard pressed to argue that the state of danger in 1789 was even vaguely equivalent to what we face today.

[RLMullen]

I find it difficult to believe that a Circuit Court Judge has so little regard for the 4th Amendment:

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

Congress should limit the NSA’s use of the data it collects—for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies—but it shouldn’t limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches, Posner said. “If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that’s fine,” he said.

In the name of national security, U.S. lawmakers should give the NSA “carte blanche,” Posner added. “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security,” he said. “The world is in an extremely turbulent state—very dangerous.”

So, the world wasn't in a turbulent state when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted? Arrrgh!

I'd be curious as to the odds that Anonymous starts going through his life with a fine-toothed comb... if they haven't already.

While I don't agree that the idea of privacy is outmoded in this day and age, I'd be very hard pressed to argue that the state of danger in 1789 was even vaguely equivalent to what we face today.

I agree, 1789 was much more dangerous. Wait... that isn't what you were saying is it?

[Rip]

Yea, in 1789 we were a minor nation and depended on help from the likes of the French.

If we were to depend on them today, we would be screwed.

[geezer]

I find it difficult to believe that a Circuit Court Judge has so little regard for the 4th Amendment:

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

Congress should limit the NSA’s use of the data it collects—for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies—but it shouldn’t limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches, Posner said. “If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that’s fine,” he said.

In the name of national security, U.S. lawmakers should give the NSA “carte blanche,” Posner added. “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security,” he said. “The world is in an extremely turbulent state—very dangerous.”

So, the world wasn't in a turbulent state when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted? Arrrgh!

I'd be curious as to the odds that Anonymous starts going through his life with a fine-toothed comb... if they haven't already.

While I don't agree that the idea of privacy is outmoded in this day and age, I'd be very hard pressed to argue that the state of danger in 1789 was even vaguely equivalent to what we face today.

I agree, 1789 was much more dangerous. Wait... that isn't what you were saying is it?

Of course not :/ You're being silly, right?

[Rip]

I find it difficult to believe that a Circuit Court Judge has so little regard for the 4th Amendment:

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

Congress should limit the NSA’s use of the data it collects—for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies—but it shouldn’t limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches, Posner said. “If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that’s fine,” he said.

In the name of national security, U.S. lawmakers should give the NSA “carte blanche,” Posner added. “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security,” he said. “The world is in an extremely turbulent state—very dangerous.”

So, the world wasn't in a turbulent state when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted? Arrrgh!

I'd be curious as to the odds that Anonymous starts going through his life with a fine-toothed comb... if they haven't already.

While I don't agree that the idea of privacy is outmoded in this day and age, I'd be very hard pressed to argue that the state of danger in 1789 was even vaguely equivalent to what we face today.

I agree, 1789 was much more dangerous. Wait... that isn't what you were saying is it?

Of course not :/ You're being silly, right?

How is that? In 1789 the USA existed at the whim of foreign powers any number of whom could have overrun the US military at will. You realize that just a few years after that date those British worshipers up north came down under the British flag and burned down the WH, right? Would you say there is a danger that a foreign power will march in and burn the WH down in the next couple decades?

[Pyperkub]

I find it difficult to believe that a Circuit Court Judge has so little regard for the 4th Amendment:

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

Congress should limit the NSA’s use of the data it collects—for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies—but it shouldn’t limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches, Posner said. “If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that’s fine,” he said.

In the name of national security, U.S. lawmakers should give the NSA “carte blanche,” Posner added. “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security,” he said. “The world is in an extremely turbulent state—very dangerous.”

So, the world wasn't in a turbulent state when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted? Arrrgh!

I'd be curious as to the odds that Anonymous starts going through his life with a fine-toothed comb... if they haven't already.

While I don't agree that the idea of privacy is outmoded in this day and age, I'd be very hard pressed to argue that the state of danger in 1789 was even vaguely equivalent to what we face today.

I agree, 1789 was much more dangerous. Wait... that isn't what you were saying is it?

Let's see - The American Revolution, the French Revolution - and revolutionary wars/Napoleanic Wars afterwards, the eventual British Invasion of the War of 1812. Oh, and Russia was at war with variously - the Ottoman Empire, Sweden and Poland at the time.

Yeah, not turbulent at all. (The turbulent quote is from Posner)

Yeah, we didn't need a Bill of Rights then and we don't need one now.

[geezer]

I find it difficult to believe that a Circuit Court Judge has so little regard for the 4th Amendment:

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

Congress should limit the NSA’s use of the data it collects—for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies—but it shouldn’t limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches, Posner said. “If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that’s fine,” he said.

In the name of national security, U.S. lawmakers should give the NSA “carte blanche,” Posner added. “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security,” he said. “The world is in an extremely turbulent state—very dangerous.”

So, the world wasn't in a turbulent state when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted? Arrrgh!

I'd be curious as to the odds that Anonymous starts going through his life with a fine-toothed comb... if they haven't already.

While I don't agree that the idea of privacy is outmoded in this day and age, I'd be very hard pressed to argue that the state of danger in 1789 was even vaguely equivalent to what we face today.

I agree, 1789 was much more dangerous. Wait... that isn't what you were saying is it?

Of course not :/ You're being silly, right?

How is that? In 1789 the USA existed at the whim of foreign powers any number of whom could have overrun the US military at will. You realize that just a few years after that date those British worshipers up north came down under the British flag and burned down the WH, right? Would you say there is a danger that a foreign power will march in and burn the WH down in the next couple decades?

Yes, I realize that, during the War of 1812, the British did indeed burn Washington DC. I should. I have a degree in the subject. Remember that we're talking about individual liberties here in relation to privacy rights, and note that I am specifically NOT agreeing that security is more important that personal liberty. Im just making the observation that in todays world the damage that one individual can do is magnitudes greater than that same individual could have done in 1789, when he would have been limited to swiping your goat. Or maybe shooting people at the rate of 3 a minute or so, until his fellow farmers came after him with a scythe and put an end to whatever passed for mass shooting in those days.

[Zarathud]

Richard Posner is one of the greatest legal minds around today, but he's not a huge fan of the notion of privacy as a social good, so this isn't entirely surprising.

I read three quotes from Posner in the linked article that destroys any credibility he may have once had as a "great legal mind". The fact that he has the amount of power that he currently has quite simply scares me.

Justice Posner is a leading libertarian conservative thinker well known for applying free-market economic theory and utilitarianism to law. Posner just believes that privacy doesn't have any valid utility as a "liberty." His position as a Circuit Court judge matters, but so does the 40+ books, hundreds of scholarly articles, thousands of published opinions, and a 10-year blog with Nobel prize-winning economist Gary Becker. He mediated the Microsoft antitrust case.

His statement isn't even news. He made the same argument back in 2008: "I'm exaggerating a little, but I think privacy is primarily wanted by people because they want to conceal information to fool others." In a free market, the exchange of information leads to more economically valuable information and transparency. Actions lead to consequences, which is not just morally beneficial but adds to wealth maximization.

Even if you disagree with Justice Posner, he's remarkably consistent in applying his bedrock principles and articulating his case -- both as a judge and as an theorist of law and economics.

[geezer]

I find it difficult to believe that a Circuit Court Judge has so little regard for the 4th Amendment:

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

Congress should limit the NSA’s use of the data it collects—for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies—but it shouldn’t limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches, Posner said. “If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that’s fine,” he said.

In the name of national security, U.S. lawmakers should give the NSA “carte blanche,” Posner added. “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security,” he said. “The world is in an extremely turbulent state—very dangerous.”

So, the world wasn't in a turbulent state when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted? Arrrgh!

I'd be curious as to the odds that Anonymous starts going through his life with a fine-toothed comb... if they haven't already.

While I don't agree that the idea of privacy is outmoded in this day and age, I'd be very hard pressed to argue that the state of danger in 1789 was even vaguely equivalent to what we face today.

I agree, 1789 was much more dangerous. Wait... that isn't what you were saying is it?

Let's see - The American Revolution, the French Revolution - and revolutionary wars/Napoleanic Wars afterwards, the eventual British Invasion of the War of 1812. Oh, and Russia was at war with variously - the Ottoman Empire, Sweden and Poland at the time.

Yeah, not turbulent at all. (The turbulent quote is from Posner)

Yeah, we didn't need a Bill of Rights then and we don't need one now.

Which part of "I don't agree that the idea of privacy is outmoded in this day and age..." is unclear?

That said, the idea that in 1789 the danger a singular individual posed (to society or the nation as a whole) is in any way comparable to what a single individual could do today is absurd.

[Kraken]

Im just making the observation that in todays world the damage that one individual can do is magnitudes greater than that same individual could have done in 1789, when he would have been limited to swiping your goat.

Dangerous to whom? Back then that individual existed at the pleasure of his sovereign with little concept of individual rights. You might have had less to fear from your neighbors but you had little recourse in the state.

[RLMullen]

I agree, 1789 was much more dangerous. Wait... that isn't what you were saying is it?

Of course not :/ You're being silly, right?

How is that? In 1789 the USA existed at the whim of foreign powers any number of whom could have overrun the US military at will. You realize that just a few years after that date those British worshipers up north came down under the British flag and burned down the WH, right? Would you say there is a danger that a foreign power will march in and burn the WH down in the next couple decades?

Yes, I realize that, during the War of 1812, the British did indeed burn Washington DC. I should. I have a degree in the subject. Remember that we're talking about individual liberties here in relation to privacy rights, and note that I am specifically NOT agreeing that security is more important that personal liberty. Im just making the observation that in todays world the damage that one individual can do is magnitudes greater than that same individual could have done in 1789, when he would have been limited to swiping your goat. Or maybe shooting people at the rate of 3 a minute or so, until his fellow farmers came after him with a scythe and put an end to whatever passed for mass shooting in those days.

The danger that an individual poses to society is relative to the size of the society. A single person had much more leverage to make change, positive or negative, to America in 1789 than a single individual does today. In 1789 a single person could have assassinated a key statesman and turned the course of history. In 1789 a handful of folks could have sunk one or more ships in a harbor, or maybe just tossed an entire shipment of cargo overboard. Heck, the group of men who drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence wouldn't even be considered a small street gang by today's standards.

Today a single individual can potentially kill more people, but the country is able to absorb much more damage. The only leverage that a single individual has today is fear, and unfortunately our society has far too many people who are eager to not only feed on fear but spread it as well.

Add to that Rip's post regarding the size of foreign powers relative to America in 1789, and I stand by my assertion that 1789 was much more dangerous than 2014.

[RLMullen]

Justice Posner is a leading libertarian conservative thinker well known for applying free-market economic theory and utilitarianism to law. Posner just believes that privacy doesn't have any valid utility as a "liberty." His position as a Circuit Court judge matters, but so does the 40+ books, hundreds of scholarly articles, thousands of published opinions, and a 10-year blog with Nobel prize-winning economist Gary Becker. He mediated the Microsoft antitrust case.

His statement isn't even news. He made the same argument back in 2008: "I'm exaggerating a little, but I think privacy is primarily wanted by people because they want to conceal information to fool others." In a free market, the exchange of information leads to more economically valuable information and transparency. Actions lead to consequences, which is not just morally beneficial but adds to wealth maximization.

Even if you disagree with Justice Posner, he's remarkably consistent in applying his bedrock principles and articulating his case -- both as a judge and as an theorist of law and economics.

He's all that, and he still comes up with this crap:

Posner questioned why smartphone users need legal protections, saying he doesn’t understand what information on smartphones should be shielded from government searches. “If someone drained my cell phone, they would find a picture of my cat, some phone numbers, some email addresses, some email text,” he said. “What’s the big deal?

“Other people must have really exciting stuff,” Posner added. “Do they narrate their adulteries, or something like that?”

Did he seriously trot out the "If you have nothing to hide argument?" FWIW... Posner was speaking on the fact that iPhones now come with encryption enabled by default, and Apple no longer stores the keys. The FBI has been having fits over this for the past few months because this might be the thing that stymies Jack Bauer.

His inconsistencies are troublesome -- on the one hand he is a classic liberal-libertarian, he is pro-abortion and opposes the war on drugs, but his opposition to the 4th amendment and his support of laws that would prevent the recording of police encounters makes him a dangerous statist.

[GreenGoo]

His position on privacy is appalling. That's irrespective of his other works.

Appalling.

[Pyperkub]

I know that I'll be cutting a nice donation to the EFFthis year. I hope others will too.

Talk to me after I'm employed, and I very well might.

Actually figured no time like the present, and just laid down the credit card. I've been thinking and talking about it for quite awhile, and figured it was time to put my money where my mouth is has been.

Re-upped this year. Getting a nice hoodie for the new year:

[Isgrimnur]

Stingrays can disrupt service for everyone

But a court filing recently uncovered by the ACLU suggests another reason for the secrecy: the fact that stingrays can disrupt cellular service for any phone in their vicinity—not just targeted phones—as well as any other mobile devices that use the same cellular network for connectivity as the targeted phone.
...
But in the newly uncovered document (.pdf)—a warrant application requesting approval to use a stingray—FBI Special Agent Michael A. Scimeca disclosed the disruptive capability to a judge.

“Because of the way, the Mobile Equipment sometimes operates,” Scimeca wrote in his application, “its use has the potential to intermittently disrupt cellular service to a small fraction of Sprint’s wireless customers within its immediate vicinity. Any potential service disruption will be brief and minimized by reasonably limiting the scope and duration of the use of the Mobile Equipment.”

The document was previously sealed and only came to light after the defense attorney for a defendant in the case filed a motion last year to dismiss evidence collected by the stingray. It’s the first time the ACLU has seen the FBI acknowledge the stingray’s disruptive capabilities and raises a number of questions about the nature of the disruption and whether the Federal Communications Commission knew about it when it certified the equipment.