From the transcript:
... I would have the NSA target their activities more and more towards our enemies. I think if you are not spending so much time and money collecting the information of innocent Americans, maybe could have have spent more time knowing one of the Tsarnaev boys, one of the Boston bombers, had gone back to Chechnya. We didn't know that even though we had been tipped off by the Russians, we had communicated, we had interviewed him and still didn't know that. Same with the recent jihadist from Phoenix that traveled to Texas and the shooting in Garland. We knew him. We had investigated him, we had put him in jail. I want to spend more time on people we have suspicion of and we have probable cause and less time on innocent Americans. It distracts us from the job of getting terrorists.
पोस्ट्स
२९ टिप्पण्या:
The NSA should pull him aside, show him what they're doing, what they've gathered and then ask him to find a awy to give them the same results absent bulk collection.
Rand Paul is a litle smoother than his dad, but not by much.
Traffic analysis is rather important in leaving innocent Americans alone.
I don't think Paul understands it.
There's been no misuse of the data as far as I'm aware, so maybe don't fix what's not broken.
It's really a key in leveraging a little good information into a lot without wasting resources on innocent Americans.
I think he is either very naive or a phony. His statements show me a serious lack of balance. For example, he said things about Cheney right out of the DNC play book. Things like we invaded Iraq because Cheney wanted Halliburton to get more money. That's very ignorant, and makes him look a fool.
What we really need to do is spy on any American not properly committed to the Clinton Foundation.
This wouldn't even be an issue pre-Snowden.
"Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe." Edward Kennedy, 8 June 1968
I don't understand his recalcitrance.
Although I generally agree with Rand Paul on these issues, in the quote he is confusing the difficulty of doing actual detective work versus the ease of using computers to vacuum up digital information. Once you have access to the records, the latter is trivial and relatively low cost. Trying to assess the psychology and threat level of a large number of persons of interest, on the other hand, remains as difficult as ever.
It is the ease and low cost of digital surveillance that makes it such a threat to civil liberties.
The problem I have with the sweeping power now in use is that it is such a short step to misuse which the government - any government - is prone to take.
Although there is a lot of noise about the bulk gathering there, apparently, have been few instances where it has been misused. The controls in place must be working reasonably well.
The continuing program makes me nervous, so I appreciate that there are those like Paul who voice their skepticism and keep the issue of misuse in the forefront.
Seems like a good response: Focus resources on cross-referencing data on known targets and suspects rather than blanket collection of data.
His examples are poignant: When we have huge data gaps on known targets who have committed terroristic acts on our soil, then how good are we truly at cross-referencing data among unknown targets with unknown connections collected in bulk?
Alot of homeland security operates in the "insurance" principle - but the more emphasis put on identifying people before they hit regular radar, the more freedom is sacrificed in general.
It would make sense to elect this guy. Therefore he will not be elected.
I completely agree with him.
And all you people who think this is all just dandy scare me a little.
Think of Petraeus and the IRS and then decide how much you think the government handles private information super responsibly.
Richard Epstein on the court order and the data collection; that the court order is wrong but probably good in starting a public debate; and that the data collection is okay because nobody's being injured (i.e., the protections have held).
The dynamics of the situation:
To do serious damage, an organization needs finances, organization and logistics. That means that the organization has to be big.
As it gets big, it gets more easily detectable, and then exposed via the metadata already on hand.
So long as the bigness detection level is smaller than the bigness damage level, the US is protected from serious damage.
Forbidding metadata collection raises the bigness detection level, and exposes the US public to serious damage at that level.
The cost of metadata collection is near zero in terms of privacy, so long as the protections legislated are followed.
So far they seem to have been.
So don't screw up what's workinig.
The cost is extremely high.
"There's been no misuse of the data as far as I'm aware, so maybe don't fix what's not broken."
Given that the NSA (and other US spy agencies) reveal nothing to us of their activities, and given that when asked by Congress, they lie, and given that we only know what we know because of heroic leakers like Snowden...how the fuck can you presume to know whether or not there has been misuse of the data?
You seem to ignore that mass spying on all Americans all the time--which is what they're doing, if you haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with that information--is itself misuse of their capabilities and an abuse our civil liberties.
Our entire democracy, such as it ever was, is broken.
They can't delve into the data with an FSA court go-ahead.
Epstein thinks that the judges ought to be appointed differently, but so far it seems to be working.
The appointment change is to add a level of protection against it not working in the future, say another Obama is President.
Robert Cook: "Our entire democracy, such as it ever was, is broken."
Well, one could argue that "our entire democracy" was "broken" the second that founders decided a republic was the more appropriate route.
"Well, one could argue that 'our entire democracy' was 'broken' the second that founders decided a republic was the more appropriate route."
Well, Drago, such pedantic rhetorical feints are simply lame. Of course everyone knows our "democracy" was instituted as a representational republic...but is it really necessary to write that out every time? "Democracy" is the standard shorthand.
But you know all this, and you ignore the reality that our representational republic, such as it ever was, is broken.
Lame. (But I repeat myself.)
Given that the NSA (and other US spy agencies) reveal nothing to us of their activities, and given that when asked by Congress, they lie, and given that we only know what we know because of heroic leakers like Snowden...how the fuck can you presume to know whether or not there has been misuse of the data?
You and I, Robert Cook, are on the same page.
...The cost is extremely high.
Not really. Less people were killed on 9/11 then the 7000 soldiers killed in the war.
I think 40,000 are rubbed-out on the highways each year.
I'm more in favor of using less troops to fight Terrorism. The ratio should be 40,000:1 or a shit-load of virgins required in Mecca.
I'm tired of our government monitoring them. Let's Roll!
I like the idea that, to justify intrusions on our privacy, government (at least) has to make a plausible case that the intrusions make us safer. Instead, we get TSA, which has annoyed millions, assaulted or arrested quite a few, and has not, so far as I know, stopped a single terrorist attack.
What Paul proposes is, of course, much harder to do. It will undoubtedly fail from time to time. Then it will be criticized, as the pre-911 protocols were criticized post-911. Who in government has the guts to abandon security theatre?
"I want to spend more time on people we have suspicion of"
Traffic analysis develops and traces suspicion.
@rhhardin: "Traffic analysis is rather important in leaving innocent Americans alone. I don't think Paul understands it. There's been no misuse of the data as far as I'm aware, so maybe don't fix what's not broken."
Indeed. The opposition is mostly symbolic politics. Dozens of agencies affect "innocent Americans" more, and more negatively, than this.
If Paul legislates tools that would make it easier to identify and detain the Muslim men we should "have suspicion of," that would help. Otherwise, this is just Paul-family pseudo-libertarian posturing.
Bulk collection of communication records. Bulk collection of health records. Progress.
".. and we have probable cause and less time on innocent Americans."
Paul ignores the advantage of metadata (the advantage will be explained to us after the next terrorist attack). I don't regard it as intrusive up until the time the contents of phone calls are monitored and by that time probable cause can (and must) be established. Those of us who come from tiny communities are amused by the "privacy" supposedly granted by our Constitution. Hell, many of the people who wrote the constition lived in tiny communities.
To say that the NSA "can't" go further than metadata without a court order is completely false. It's like saying that Iran "can't" build nuclear weapons because they signed an agreement not to.
The non-secret parts of our government are already difficult to hold accountable. If the NSA chooses to violate the law, how hard is it going to be to detect it and punish it?
And do you trust Hillary Clinton to keep them honest?
Did we learn nothing from the IRS and the John Doe investigations we've been talking about here?
@Kieth: Those of us who come from tiny communities are amused by the "privacy" supposedly granted by our Constitution.
Really Kieth? Your neighbors know your business, so it's okay if the government does, that's the same thing? Really?
@rhhardin:The cost of metadata collection is near zero in terms of privacy, so long as the protections legislated are followed.
So far they seem to have been.
So don't screw up what's workinig.
Really? We know that nobody's privacy has never ever been violated, and we can therefore safely assume that it never will be?
The cost is extremely high.
There is no cost whatever in things as they are now? Is there any violation of our civil liberties that would "cost" more than another 9/11 in your view?
You are sure that the Top Men at NSA are incorruptible and not venal, and will continue to be so no matter who gets elected or who they put in charge or who they hire?
I drafted a little statement for the NSA supporters here:
"I am completely comfortable with the NSA answering to Hillary Clinton, to her having the capable to hire and fire key people and set their priorities. I am comfortable with not being allowed to know what the NSA is looking at and who, and with them developing further capabilities, under her direction and oversight."
I challenge all those who expressed comment in support of the NSA program to answer with "yes" or "no"--do you support the statement I have drafted?
Because if you can't say "yes", without rejecting the statement, then you have no business saying that you're sure they're just interested in keeping us safe and we can trust there to be no abuses.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा