What Prism Knows: 8 Metadata Facts – Security – Government and

What Prism Knows: 8 Metadata Facts:

This paragraph in particular caught my attention, and I don’t think it even includes the IRS-written additions to the tax code as passed by Congress:

With persistent surveillance, Marlinspike said one fear is that by capturing so much information on U.S. citizens, a determined investigator could likely find some type of charges to file against a suspect, given that legal experts estimate that on the books. “If the federal government had access to every email you’ve ever written and every phone call you’ve ever made, it’s almost certain that they could find something you’ve done which violates a provision in the 27,000 pages of federal statutes or 10,000 administrative regulations,” said Marlinspike. “You probably do have something to hide, you just don’t know it yet.”

And get this juicy bit, notice how this Mr. Lewis makes a real sneaky case, like an illusionist trick I’ll explain:

How much metadata should the government be allowed to capture or use? “The drafters of the Constitution did not propose some absolute right to privacy; they … saw privacy as a means to achieve a larger goal, to protect political liberties,” said James A. Lewis, a senior fellow and director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a blog post.

His argument: if it safeguards people’s political liberties, then capturing metadata is a useful technique. “The essential political rights are freedom of expression and assembly, freedom from arbitrary detention, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” Lewis said. “If these four rights are protected, surveillance is immaterial in its effect on civil liberties.”

He points to four essential “political liberties” as if they are the ones that count, as if they are the only ones that count. Note that he left out another very important one, the one that is DIRECTLY violated by the NSA practices (and no doubt by every

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Massive metadata collection is absolutely UNREASONABLE. We all know that. Blabbing on about these other four “rights” reminds me of the rich young ruler that obeyed four commandments, but he failed on the biggest one, because he loved his riches more than God.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “What Prism Knows: 8 Metadata Facts – Security – Government and”

  1. SFF Madman Says:

    “You probably do have something to hide, you just don’t know it yet.” Scary. That’s exactly the kind of attitude that’s destroying our liberties. Not protecting them. A good post, Trutherator.

    Thank you for commenting on my blog! I am unsure what to make of some of it, but I appreciate it. I believe in God, and I hope that was clear. It’s just that I’m taking an inclusive stance; God, as a loving God, will not abandon any of his Children. I’m also denying the infallibility of the Bible, and for good reasons (although I firmly believe truth can be found in the words of Jesus). I say the Word of God is in our hearts and it is everything, but it cannot be solely contained within a book. I am not denying the divinity of Christ; I say the belief in the resurrection isn’t necessary, but I do believe it happened (I just don’t need proof, because my belief is based on faith).

    I don’t know what that means to you. The statement “God is real and he will not be mocked” seems out of context. Did you think I was mocking God? Or do you think the atheists I mention are the mockers?

  2. trutherator Says:

    I do believe that you believe in God, SFF. As to the infallibility of the Bible, I’m sure you have gathered what you obviously thought were “good reasons”, but I have seen the “best” arguments from all sides and they’ve been answered. The reaction to the answers all are paraphrased repetitions of the same thing that was answered.

    God is “not willing that any should perish”, that’s pretty inclusive already. But if somebody rejects the gift, that’s not his fault and it’s not an “abandonment”. Especially if they refuse to be his children. It’s the wrong question to ask why God would send anybody to hell, the right question to ask is why would anybody want to go there?

    God promised in his word to preserve it, not one jot or tittle shall pass away till all be fulfilled.
    Not one prophecy shall “want her mate”.
    It is internally consistent. Its self-referential logic has no bugs.
    Archaeology has made fools out of 100s of historians.
    The oldest copies of Greek and Hebrew are closer to their date of origins than any of the other documents like the other Roman and Greek writings.
    The four gospels were authenticated by the “signatures” in blood by their authors -meaning their martyrdoms are strong evidence of their own personal knowledge of the risen Christ, including the “doubting Thomas” in India.

    And that’s just for starters. History, archaeology, the forensics science of paleontology, the anthropological principle, the recent discovery by astrophysicists and astronomers that the universe has a physical orientation that appears to center in the neighborhood of the earth, these are also evidences from science.

    In fact, my faith in the complete reliability of the words in the Bible, especially at this point, has nothing to do with a “blind” faith. It has proven itself, by the strongest objective evidence independent of myself, and world events today just seem to show that the ungodly even in trying to disprove it, like Paul said of himself, they “can do nothing against the gospel but for the gospel”.

    • SFF Madman Says:

      Hi, Trutherator. I appreciate having this discussion with you and the opportunity re-evaluate my beliefs. What I would suggest, though, is that perhaps I can keep these thoughts over on my blog, unless you want them here. I don’t want to intrude on your space or hijack your posts. So, until you tell me otherwise, I’ll post my reply where we started the discussion. Thanks again!

  3. trutherator Says:

    No problem SFF. We can cross-reference each other’s posts and you can say whatever you want on yours, and me mine. Better for both of us. Post, re-post, whatever.

    When I have a somewhat longer comment than average I’ll usually make it a blog post on mine. I may copy my comments here even with link to yours, whatever works!

    Glad to make your electronic acquaintance!

  4. SFF Madman Says:

    Same here! That’s a great idea, too. I’ll go back to mine and leave links to yours.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: