Does anyone realistically think this program will be rolled back?<p>Presuming for a moment that all the information collected by NSA is, in fact, public information, it seems to me that the primary problem isn't collection but asymmetric access and hence power differential between the state and those governed. Why should the government have exclusive access to this information while the general public doesn't? If this treasure trove of personal connection graphs, cell phone discussions, location information, is all truly public and not subject to a judge issued targeted warrant, then, why shouldn't this public information be available to any member of the public?<p>This new information could be a boon for Democracy and completely change how we understand and interact with Government. Why shouldn't technology impact how we organize our society? Politicians and civil servants, who have the consent of the governed, take an oath to uphold the constitution and put the interest of the people above their own. If the general public should be tracked to such precision, at the very least, why shouldn't interactions in the public affairs of our elected and appointed and contracted officials, done on our behalf, be subject to the same level of scrutiny?
The NSA stated, in 1975, that it's not bound or beholden the US Constitution or law. I don't expect that their opinion has changed much. I can't recall any lawless institution that all of the sudden became lawful of its own accord:<p>> "NSA does not have a statutory charter; its operational responsibilities are set forth exclusively in executive directives first issued in the 1950s. One of the questions which the Senate asked the Committee to consider was the "need for specific legislative authority to govern the operations of...the National Security Agency."<p>> According to NSA's General Counsel, no existing statutes control, limit, or define the signals intelligence activities of NSA. Further, the General Counsel asserts that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to NSA's interception of Americans' international communications for foreign intelligence purposes."<p>> <a href="http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book3/pdf/ChurchB3_10_NSA.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book3/pdf/C...</a>
> private communications companies with which citizens do business under contractual "terms of service." These contracts do not authorize data-sharing with the government.<p>How come Aaron Swartz gets prosecuted for violating a TOS and the government doesn't?
OF COURSE its unconstitutional. However, I don't see the point of even debating it. It's like when people got super excited that citizens were suing the NSA to obtain this data as if there were anything other than a 100% chance they would be denied.<p>There are a few possible outcomes to this debate:<p>-The NSA says, sure, its unconstitutional, but that wont stop us from doing it.<p>-The NSA continues to deny/lie about what they are doing with the program.<p>-The NSA appoints an oversight committee with no actual powers to make sure they "don't continue to do the same thing"<p>-No comment, forever.<p>Any of those options mean that the NSA keeps doing the same thing, tells us to STFU and we realize we have no recourse. I hate to say it, but it seems like this debate will have to end in violence or it won't end at all. :\
The part about the CFPB is the next unknown hammer to drop. Consumers assume the CFPB is on their side. The truth is far murkier. For instance, the CFPB has requested and was granted detailed financial transaction information on at least 10 million Americans. Of course, they are claiming that "personally identifiable" is "extremely limited", but like the phone meta-data issue, it is clear detailed spending habits could be associated with certain individuals. At least they promise to destroy the data after holding it for 10 years...
Source: <a href="http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2013/07/09/cfpb-criticized-during-data-collection-hearing/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2013/07/09/cfpb-c...</a>
Some framing, usual comment section, etc. by him at the <i>Volokh Conspiracy</i>: <a href="http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/11/unprecedented-my-wsj-op-ed-on-the-nsa-cfpb-blanket-data-seizures/" rel="nofollow">http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/11/unprecedented-my-wsj-op-ed-...</a>
This article is trash, the discussions on this issue are trash, and everyone is running around like a headless chicken.<p>A Law Professor, writing an argument about law, without discussing the relevant cases? No discussion of Smith v Maryland? No discussion of FISA 702 or Patriot Act 215? Did he even bother to look up any relevant information with regards to this controversy?<p>Call it unconstitutional if you want, but I want to see an _argument_. Call yourself a law professor or a lawyer, but if you write under the guide of a legal expert, I demand to see a high level discussion on the issue.<p>Instead, I get a rant about libertarian ideals, applying the 5th Amendment to property you clearly do not own. I see vague descriptions of the 4th Amendment, with no regard to context that is going on in the debate in Washington.<p>Any "Law Professor" that writes about this subject... but FAILS to mention Smith v. Maryland is horribly horribly ignorant on the subject. And does not deserve to be writing under the guise of a legal expert. And he has failed to do his due diligence as both a legal expert and reporter.