PDA

View Full Version : CATO VP defends NSA and the surveillance grid. "It's trivial" and gov is keeping us safe.




Anti Federalist
06-16-2013, 11:40 PM
So pipe down, all of you.

File this one with Stossel and the rest of the "efficiency" libertarian crowd.




NSA surveillance in perspective

June 12, 2013|By Roger Pilon and Richard A. Epstein

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-12/opinion/ct-perspec-0612-nsa-20130612_1_nsa-national-security-agency-privacy

President Barack Obama is under harsh attack for stating the obvious: No amount of government ingenuity will guarantee the American people 100 percent security, 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. He was answering a burst of more heated responses from left and right alike to the "news" that for years the National Security Agency has been collecting metadata about Americans' phone calls and certain foreign Internet communications.

Legally, the president is on secure footing under the Patriot Act, which Congress passed shortly after 9/11 and has since reauthorized by large bipartisan majorities. As he stressed, the program has enjoyed the continued support of all three branches of the federal government. It has been free of political abuse since its inception. And as he rightly added, this nation has real problems if its people, at least here, can't trust the combined actions of the executive branch and the Congress, backstopped by federal judges sworn to protect our individual liberties secured by the Bill of Rights.

In asking for our trust, Obama would be on stronger ground, of course, if the NSA controversy had not followed hard on the heels of the ongoing Benghazi, IRS and AP/Fox News scandals — to say nothing of Attorney General Eric Holder's problems. But give Obama due credit: We can recall no other instance in which he announced publicly that the responsibilities of his office have changed his mind. And for the better — here's why.

In domestic and foreign affairs, the basic function of government is to protect our liberty, without unnecessarily violating that liberty in the process. The text of the Fourth Amendment grasps that essential trade-off by allowing searches, but not "unreasonable" ones. That instructive, albeit vague, accommodation has led courts to craft legal rules that, first, define what a search is and, second, indicate the circumstances under which one is justified. In the realm of foreign intelligence gathering, recognizing the need for secrecy and their own limitations, judges have shown an acute awareness of the strength of the public interest in national security. They have rightly deferred to Congress and the executive branch, allowing executive agencies to engage in the limited surveillance that lies at the opposite pole from ransacking a single person's sensitive papers for political purposes.

That deference is especially appropriate now that Congress, through the Patriot Act, has set a delicate balance that enables the executive branch to carry out its basic duty to protect us from another 9/11 while respecting our privacy as much as possible. Obviously, reasonable people can have reasonable differences over how that balance is struck. But on this question, political deliberation has done its job, because everyone on both sides of the aisle is seeking the right constitutional balance.

In 1979, in Smith v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed that balance when it held that using a pen register to track telephone numbers did not count as an invasion of privacy, even in ordinary criminal cases. That's just what the government is doing here on a grand scale. The metadata it examines in its effort to uncover suspicious patterns enables it to learn the numbers called, the locations of the parties, and the lengths of the calls. The government does not know — as some have charged — whether you've called your psychiatrist, lawyer or lover. The names linked to the phone numbers are not available to the government before a court grants a warrant on proof of probable cause, just as the Fourth Amendment requires. Indeed, once that warrant is granted to examine content, the content can be used only for national security issues, not even ordinary police work.

As the president said, the process involves some necessary loss of privacy. But it's trivial, certainly in comparison to the losses that would have arisen if the government had failed to discern the pattern that let it thwart the 2009 New York subway bombing plot by Colorado airport shuttle driver Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-American, who was prosecuted and ultimately pleaded guilty.

The critics miss the forest for the trees. Yes, government officials might conceivably misuse some of the trillions of bits of metadata they examine using sophisticated algorithms. But one abuse is no pattern of abuses. And even one abuse is not likely to happen given the safeguards in place. The cumulative weight of the evidence attests to the soundness of the program. The critics would be more credible if they could identify a pattern of government abuses. But after 12 years of continuous practice, they can't cite even a single case. We should be thankful that here, at least, government has done its job and done it well.

(Sweet weeping Jesus, FUCKING ALL OF THEM YOU FLACCID HAIRLESS ASSHOLES!! Every person that had their personal data scoured over was abused. The whole thing is a giant "government abuse". Fucking STATO is right. - AF)

Roger Pilon is vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies. Richard A. Epstein is a law professor at New York University Law School, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago.

Origanalist
06-16-2013, 11:45 PM
It really is past time to break this country down into territories, enough of these pricks telling me what's good for me.

ifthenwouldi
06-16-2013, 11:47 PM
It really is past time to break this country down into territories, enough of these pricks telling me what's good for me.

Amen to that.

Anti Federalist
06-16-2013, 11:49 PM
It really is past time to break this country down into territories, enough of these pricks telling me what's good for me.

For the love of God, please.

Secession, now.

There is no more compromise.

There is no reasoning with people who think like this.

Sola_Fide
06-16-2013, 11:55 PM
Wheat from the chaff. These are the redcoats of our day.

Origanalist
06-17-2013, 12:02 AM
For the love of God, please.

Secession, now.

There is no more compromise.

There is no reasoning with people who think like this.

No there isn't, and I'm more than willing to uproot and move to put myself outside of their influence. Actually, I don't care if they go or if I go, as long as we separate.

Anti Federalist
06-17-2013, 12:03 AM
Wheat from the chaff. These are the redcoats of our day.

Yup...I'm off to bump that Stossel thread once more.

These folks don't care about freedom, other than the freedom to grub money.

Anti Federalist
06-17-2013, 12:04 AM
Indeed, once that warrant is granted to examine content, the content can be used only for national security issues, not even ordinary police work.


http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/10/Screen-Shot-2011-10-25-at-3.05.52-PM.png

UWDude
06-17-2013, 12:09 AM
Why should I give a fuck about a country that records and has computers watching everything I say, everything I do, and everywhere I go?

What does a country that does that, offer me? It takes my money, gives it to bankers, it drags me into disgusting wars of greed and lies, and makes the world hate me.

And I am told this is the sweet air of freedom. Should I be grateful for this travesty and these violations? Should I be thanking my rapist for not letting other rapists rape me, while he is? Oh thank you rapist, what a big knife you have there, I am so glad you are protecting me from the other rapists with big knifes you tell me I should be afraid of!

These people are literally professional liars, most political slogans are crafted by P.R. firms. The core of the CIA is deception. These people are completely untrustworthy, and rush fool-hardily into any war because it gives them a boner or makes them rich.

Our leaders are a bunch of incompetent, fork tongued fools. Who care way more about their suits and yachts and luxury cars and mistresses and winning elections and traveling and living the good life off the backs of taxpayers, the sp-OIL-s of war, and contributions from corporations so they can spew their meaningless platitudes and be the big winner every few years or so.

It's so fucking disgusting the selfishness of these people, the gluttonous American people. Their leaders just pump them their cud, and they follow along, not even bothering to notice the sluice floor under their hooves.

But they'll just be the proles. The human spirit will be crushed. Boot on face... .....forever.

Tyranny wins, folks, tyranny wins.

Oh and CATO... ...this was treachery. You are dumb enough to HAND this power over to these people, and try to convince other people it's good for us!

Anybody who shits on the fourth amendment like this, and tells me they are just frosting the constitution a bit with some chocolate, you know, making it better and safer for us, is a fucking traitor to freedom.

Root
06-17-2013, 12:13 AM
Stato gonna state...

mad cow
06-17-2013, 12:17 AM
The head of the NSA said that they listened into thousands of USA phone calls of American citizens without warrants.This is not 'metadata',this is not pen-registers,although that should also be illegal without a warrant.The FBI had to get signed and sworn search warrants to listen in on the phone conversations of known Mafia hit men.

I believe that this is admitting to thousands of felonies.

Anti Federalist
06-17-2013, 12:20 AM
The head of the NSA said that they listened into thousands of USA phone calls of American citizens without warrants.This is not 'metadata',this is not pen-registers,although that should also be illegal without a warrant.The FBI had to get signed and sworn search warrants to listen in on the phone conversations of known Mafia hit men.

I believe that this is admitting to thousands of felonies.

....


A police state is a small price to pay for living in the freest country on earth.

'Murika!

UWDude
06-17-2013, 12:28 AM
A police state is a small price to pay for living in the freest country on earth.

Lol!!

Occam's Banana
06-17-2013, 12:40 AM
The critics miss the forest for the trees. Yes, government officials might conceivably misuse some of the trillions of bits of metadata they examine using sophisticated algorithms. But one abuse is no pattern of abuses. And even one abuse is not likely to happen given the safeguards in place. The cumulative weight of the evidence attests to the soundness of the program. The critics would be more credible if they could identify a pattern of government abuses. But after 12 years of continuous practice, they can't cite even a single case. We should be thankful that here, at least, government has done its job and done it well.

Translation: "You have no evidence that a super-secret government surveillance program has produced a 'pattern of abuses'. And if any such 'pattern of abuses' did in fact exist, you still wouldn't have any evidence - because such details are as super-secret as the program's existence used to be. Ha-ha! So go fuck yourselves. Sincerely, R. Pilon & R. Epstein."


In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!

Anti Federalist
06-17-2013, 01:06 AM
But they'll just be the proles. The human spirit will be crushed. Boot on face... .....forever.

Tyranny wins, folks, tyranny wins.

There is still a window, incredibly small, but still there.

There is no reform.

There is no campaign.

There must be a separation.

That is the only thing that could work.

When a real or government manufactured "terror" event happens in the next few years that kills many many times more than 9/11, it's lights out, game over, endgame...and millions will die in the aftermath, dissidents and refuseniks and scapegoats of all stripes.

With the global surveillance grid in place, this place will be locked down tighter than a SuperMax penitentiary.

There will be no where to run to, no where to hide.

The only hope, the only option, is to separate, now, and form a new country populated as much as possible with the people that reject that nightmare notion.

DamianTV
06-17-2013, 02:19 AM
Then who is gonna protect us from the people that are supposed to protect us? Think for a second that isnt a serious question? The most heinous violations of human rights have been committed by Governments. More people have died at the hands of Governments than (I forget the rest of the statistic) some large killer of people. Thinking still in the millions? Replace the M with a B and you are getting closer. Governments in the last century have directly caused the deaths of more than a Billion people.

Still feel safe?

Anti Federalist
06-17-2013, 03:59 PM
////

TheTexan
06-17-2013, 04:09 PM
Legally, the President is on secure footing because of the Patriot act
--

Ugh. Apparently the "constitutionality" of a practice depends on two things, 1) you like it, and 2) you can point to a law that says its ok

muh_roads
06-17-2013, 04:39 PM
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/10/Screen-Shot-2011-10-25-at-3.05.52-PM.png

Disgusting. ugh.

NIU Students for Liberty
06-17-2013, 04:45 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Mises Institute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cato

Cato contributes nothing worthwhile to society, be it political or educational. At least Mises has remained true to its educational integrity.

heavenlyboy34
06-17-2013, 05:24 PM
I thought it was common knowledge that Stato long ago abandoned what principles it had back when Murray was involved.

jmdrake
06-17-2013, 05:38 PM
Wheat from the chaff. These are the redcoats of our day.

Naw. More like tories or Benedict Arnold's. The redcoats are the ones you expected to be against you.

jmdrake
06-17-2013, 05:39 PM
That's what happens when you try to be "libertarian" and insist on believing all of the government's fairy tales about terrorism.


So pipe down, all of you.

File this one with Stossel and the rest of the "efficiency" libertarian crowd.




NSA surveillance in perspective

June 12, 2013|By Roger Pilon and Richard A. Epstein

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-12/opinion/ct-perspec-0612-nsa-20130612_1_nsa-national-security-agency-privacy

President Barack Obama is under harsh attack for stating the obvious: No amount of government ingenuity will guarantee the American people 100 percent security, 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. He was answering a burst of more heated responses from left and right alike to the "news" that for years the National Security Agency has been collecting metadata about Americans' phone calls and certain foreign Internet communications.

Legally, the president is on secure footing under the Patriot Act, which Congress passed shortly after 9/11 and has since reauthorized by large bipartisan majorities. As he stressed, the program has enjoyed the continued support of all three branches of the federal government. It has been free of political abuse since its inception. And as he rightly added, this nation has real problems if its people, at least here, can't trust the combined actions of the executive branch and the Congress, backstopped by federal judges sworn to protect our individual liberties secured by the Bill of Rights.

In asking for our trust, Obama would be on stronger ground, of course, if the NSA controversy had not followed hard on the heels of the ongoing Benghazi, IRS and AP/Fox News scandals — to say nothing of Attorney General Eric Holder's problems. But give Obama due credit: We can recall no other instance in which he announced publicly that the responsibilities of his office have changed his mind. And for the better — here's why.

In domestic and foreign affairs, the basic function of government is to protect our liberty, without unnecessarily violating that liberty in the process. The text of the Fourth Amendment grasps that essential trade-off by allowing searches, but not "unreasonable" ones. That instructive, albeit vague, accommodation has led courts to craft legal rules that, first, define what a search is and, second, indicate the circumstances under which one is justified. In the realm of foreign intelligence gathering, recognizing the need for secrecy and their own limitations, judges have shown an acute awareness of the strength of the public interest in national security. They have rightly deferred to Congress and the executive branch, allowing executive agencies to engage in the limited surveillance that lies at the opposite pole from ransacking a single person's sensitive papers for political purposes.

That deference is especially appropriate now that Congress, through the Patriot Act, has set a delicate balance that enables the executive branch to carry out its basic duty to protect us from another 9/11 while respecting our privacy as much as possible. Obviously, reasonable people can have reasonable differences over how that balance is struck. But on this question, political deliberation has done its job, because everyone on both sides of the aisle is seeking the right constitutional balance.

In 1979, in Smith v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed that balance when it held that using a pen register to track telephone numbers did not count as an invasion of privacy, even in ordinary criminal cases. That's just what the government is doing here on a grand scale. The metadata it examines in its effort to uncover suspicious patterns enables it to learn the numbers called, the locations of the parties, and the lengths of the calls. The government does not know — as some have charged — whether you've called your psychiatrist, lawyer or lover. The names linked to the phone numbers are not available to the government before a court grants a warrant on proof of probable cause, just as the Fourth Amendment requires. Indeed, once that warrant is granted to examine content, the content can be used only for national security issues, not even ordinary police work.

As the president said, the process involves some necessary loss of privacy. But it's trivial, certainly in comparison to the losses that would have arisen if the government had failed to discern the pattern that let it thwart the 2009 New York subway bombing plot by Colorado airport shuttle driver Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-American, who was prosecuted and ultimately pleaded guilty.

The critics miss the forest for the trees. Yes, government officials might conceivably misuse some of the trillions of bits of metadata they examine using sophisticated algorithms. But one abuse is no pattern of abuses. And even one abuse is not likely to happen given the safeguards in place. The cumulative weight of the evidence attests to the soundness of the program. The critics would be more credible if they could identify a pattern of government abuses. But after 12 years of continuous practice, they can't cite even a single case. We should be thankful that here, at least, government has done its job and done it well.

(Sweet weeping Jesus, FUCKING ALL OF THEM YOU FLACCID HAIRLESS ASSHOLES!! Every person that had their personal data scoured over was abused. The whole thing is a giant "government abuse". Fucking STATO is right. - AF)

Roger Pilon is vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies. Richard A. Epstein is a law professor at New York University Law School, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago.

thoughtomator
06-17-2013, 05:44 PM
In case anyone is wondering why I never became a Cato fan, there it is.

muh_roads
06-17-2013, 08:14 PM
In case anyone is wondering why I never became a Cato fan, there it is.

They would mock Ron Paul often. Faux libertarians just like the Koch's

Anti Federalist
06-19-2013, 12:21 PM
////