WSJ: The NSA's Surveillance Is Unconstitutional

[Luminous Animal]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578593591276402574.html

Due largely to unauthorized leaks, we now know that the National Security Agency has seized from private companies voluminous data on the phone and Internet usage of all U.S. citizens. We've also learned that the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has approved the constitutionality of these seizures in secret proceedings in which only the government appears, and in opinions kept secret even from the private companies from whom the data are seized.

If this weren't disturbing enough, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform, is compiling a massive database of citizens' personal information—including monthly credit-card, mortgage, car and other payments—ostensibly to protect consumers from abuses by financial institutions.


All of this dangerously violates the most fundamental principles of our republican form of government. The Fourth Amendment has two parts: First, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Second, that "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."

By banning unreasonable "seizures" of a person's "papers," the Fourth Amendment clearly protects what we today call "informational privacy." Rather than seizing the private papers of individual citizens, the NSA and CFPB programs instead seize the records of the private communications companies with which citizens do business under contractual "terms of service." These contracts do not authorize data-sharing with the government. Indeed, these private companies have insisted that they be compelled by statute and warrant to produce their records so as not to be accused of breaching their contracts and willingly betraying their customers' trust.

[arely staircase]

1. funny, I don't remember them offering such an opinion about it in 2006

when it was made public. I wonder why.

[Melinda]

2. I recall the exact opposite. The WSJ was one of few media pubs that rallied against this.

I have a bunch of WSJ stuff bookmarked - this is from 2008 and when I first became aware of this... I'll look for more.

March 10, 2008

NSA's Domestic Spying Grows As Agency Sweeps Up Data
Terror Fight Blurs Line Over Domain; Tracking Email

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Five years ago, Congress killed an experimental Pentagon antiterrorism program meant to vacuum up electronic data about people in the U.S. to search for suspicious patterns. Opponents called it too broad an intrusion on Americans' privacy, even after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But the data-sifting effort didn't disappear. The National Security Agency, once confined to foreign surveillance, has been building essentially the same system.

The central role the NSA has come to occupy in domestic intelligence gathering has never been publicly disclosed. But an inquiry reveals that its efforts have evolved to reach more broadly into data about people's communications, travel and finances in the U.S. than the domestic surveillance programs brought to light since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Congress now is hotly debating domestic spying powers under the main law governing U.S. surveillance aimed at foreign threats. An expansion of those powers expired last month and awaits renewal, which could be voted on in the House of Representatives this week. The biggest point of contention over the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is whether telecommunications and other companies should be made immune from liability for assisting government surveillance.

[arely staircase]

5. Actually, upon closer look

neither of these pieces, the old one or the new one, are editorial opinions of the wsj, but rather op/eds by columnists.

[rhett o rick]

7. What's your point here? That this cant be true because some lowly columnist wrote it?

The list of people that want these illegal activities stopped is getting longer.

[Melinda]

10. Siobhan Gorman is an investigative reporter for WSJ - not a columnist. arely is wrong on this.

It's likely an honest mistake. Everyone has an opinion these days, lol.

[arely staircase]

11. That the WSJ has not, to my knowledge, weighed in on this.

If they were to do so now while giving Bush a free pass on the same thing would be hypocritical, though not out of character for them whatsoever.

[99th_Monkey]

40. In fairness, Snowden's whistle hadn't been blown yet under Bush

Snowden's huge data dump, exposing the omnipresent scope of NSA's
snooping, etc. had not happened.

Now that we are ALL "Terrorist suspects" under 24/7 surveillance -- if you
can fog a mirror you're being subjected to it <-- this kind of changes things.

[Coyotl]

53. Nonetheless, it was known & revealed that everything was scooped up under the surveillance regimine.

Here on DU and elsewhere.

[99th_Monkey]

60. So Snowden's data revealed NOTHING?

please.

[Coyotl]

65. Is that what you are saying?

[99th_Monkey]

70. You said --> "it was known & revealed that everything was scooped up"

I say no, it was NOT reported that way at all.

As noted in another post in this string(#64), it was reported as "10s of millions"
... the population of the US is about 313 million.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3243751

nice try but no cigar today.

[arely staircase]

59. It was reported back in 2006 nt

[99th_Monkey]

62. I don't see a link anywhere in your post

proving that everything Snowden exposed was all "reported back in 2006"

[arely staircase]

64. here you go

http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

[99th_Monkey]

66. This report says "tens of millions of Americans", not "100%-Saturation"

as in EVERY LAST ONE OF US, i.e. everyone who can fog a mirror.

[arely staircase]

74. Snowden only released evidence of Verizon customers' phone records being collected. nt

[99th_Monkey]

75. Snowden hasn't released everything he has, don't you know?

only about 1/2, so far.

Plus, what Snowden revealed that is so damning, is NOT the actual data (unless you are
a Verizon user, of course), it's that Verizon is just ONE of the companies being used as
fronts for the NSA 100%-saturation snooping. <--THIS is what is new, and clearly very
embarrassing for the NSA., otherwise, why does the US Gov't even give a rats ass about
what Snowden is doing?

[arely staircase]

76. I don't know what he HASN'T released

what he did release was a FISA court warrant for Verizon customers. I can infer that, yes, this data is being collected on all customers from all carriers. But I inferred that in '06 when I first heard about this.

[sabrina 1]

88. There was outrage back in 2006 when it was revealed that the telecoms were spying on

on their customers for the Government. I don't know where you were back then, but until Congress shamefully stepped in and rescued him, for a short time we were hopeful that maybe, finally at last, the Bush gang might be held accountable.

Civil suits had been filed, based on the law that CONGRESS CHANGED, all of which went away when Congress passed that vile Amendment you all use today to claim that what they are doing is 'legal' which was made RETROACTIVE, and which weakened the FISA Bill making it possible for the government to collect data without getting a warrant Until AFTER the fact.

Why did Congress step in? Because if they hadn't, Bush would have been in major hot water.

Instead once that Amendment passed, it was over, Bush was saved and Obama, who had expressed serious opposition to the Amendment, ended up voting for it.

[xtraxritical]

49. So now it's hypocritical to change ones mind? How would you expect to correct

the problem if that is so?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

51. Not weighed in on this? The WSJ decides what to publish under its banner.

It is unnecessary for a WSJ editor to otherwise take the time to write a similar editorial to compete with what they decided to publish.

[arely staircase]

61. Newspapers print op/eds that are contrary to their editorial board's position all the time.

nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

67. It is presumed that people intend the natural consequences of their voluntary acts.

[Melinda]

8. The 1st article is clearly marked opinion, but the one I posted is not marked as an opinion...

what is it about the one I posted that leads you to call it an opinion piece by a columnist? What am I missing? TIA.

[arely staircase]

12. It has a byline. It is not the opinion of the WSJ, but rather the author whose name it carries. nt

[rhett o rick]

14. Does that make it any less value? If not, what's your point? nm

[arely staircase]

15. No, and I have answered your question once. nt

[Melinda]

16. You're wrong about this. Siobhan Gorman is an investigative reporter for the WSJ, period.

And that article, along with hundreds of others she reports on and writes about, is why the WSJ pays her. But, whatever floats your boat is all good with me. Seriously - stay happy!

[arely staircase]

17. The opinion of the WSJ would be expressed in an editorial by the editorial board and without

a byline.

[Melinda]

23. It's not an editorial - it's a piece by an investigative journalist. Seriously, this is a bit anal.

I'll agree to disagree with you, and leave it at that. Life calls here in beautiful sunny California and I have a full day of enjoyment ahead. I hope you have a lovely day as well. TTFN.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

68. Wrong.

[frylock]

34. *squawk*

polly want a cracker?

[arely staircase]

35. I have no idea what you are trying to say. nt

[frylock]

37. not in the least bit surprising

[arely staircase]

39. lol nt

[Life Long Dem]

80. 2006

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

more... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

[winter is coming]

3. I guess the financial sector realized they're being spied on, too. n/t

[leftstreet]

20. +1

[winter is coming]

21. And they have a hell of a lot more to hide than we do. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

4. Glenn Greenwald Q&A with Falguni Sheth

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 12:41 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/13/qa_with_glenn_greenwald_americans_reaction_surprising_and_gratifying/

Are these actions technically legal? What’s the implication that we should be walking away with? That there was “just” hand-in-hand cooperation, or that there was something illegal that’s being done?

Well, first of all, hovering over everything is always the Fourth Amendment, regardless of what Congress says is legal. The Fourth Amendment constrains what Congress and the government are permitted to do. One of the arguments from privacy activists and the ACLU and other groups has always been that the new FISA law, which was passed in 2008 with the support of all parties in Congress including President Obama, which was designed essentially to legalize the illegal Bush-Cheney wordless eavesdropping program, is unconstitutional. And there have been all sorts of lawsuits brought to argue that this law that Congress passed is unconstitutional, and yet no court has been able to rule on the merits of it, because the Obama administration has gone into court repeatedly and said two things: Number 1: All this is too secret to allow courts to rule on, and Number 2: Because we keep everything so secret, nobody can prove that they’ve been subjected to this spying, and therefore nobody has standing to contest the constitutionality of it. So there’s this huge argument out there, which is that all of this is illegal because it’s a violation of the Constitution, that the Obama DOJ has succeeded in preventing a judicial answer to.

Secondly, under the law, the U.S. government is free to intercept the communications of anybody they believe with 51 percent probability is not a U.S. citizen and is not on U.S. soil. So they’re free to go to any of these Internet companies or just simply take off the cables and fiber-optic wires that they have access to, whatever communications they want of anybody outside the United States who’s not a U.S. person, and oftentimes those people are speaking to American citizens. The NSA is free to invade those communications without having to go into a FISA court and get a specific warrant, which is why when President Obama said nobody’s listening to your calls without a warrant, he was simply not telling the truth. That was completely false and deceitful, what he said, because even under the law, the NSA is allowed to intercept communications with American citizens without getting a warrant. The only time they need a warrant is when they’re specifically targeting a U.S. person, an American citizen or somebody on U.S. soil. So it’s a scandal in that – not just that they’re violating the Constitution, but also what the law allows, because of the level of abuse that it entails.

[Triana]

6. So is the state denying women basic reproductive healthcare

-some of which is constitutionally guaranteed.

But no one is stopping them either.

I guess that's my question: Who is going to stop all this?

When?

How?

Of course the answer must be 'we the people'.

When?

How?

Particularly when most don't have the attention span of a gnat these days. Overturning all this will take YEARS.

[cali]

24. Are your referring to abortion?

If so, the federal (and in some case, state courts) have done a fairly good job at stopping some of the more egregious laws.

Who has brought these cases? You can thank the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and The Center For Reproductive Rights. They all happily take donations.

It's unfair to say that no is stopping them when people are working their butts off doing just that.

[Triana]

72. Not enough.

I'm aware of what you're saying.

I've talked to SO many women who haven't a CLUE about any of this. I edited this because I just talked to one, 35 or so, who had NO IDEA about any of this going on in TX or anywhere else. Women are SO accustomed to not even having to think about it because it's always been available to them - that now, many of them are essentially asleep at the wheel when it comes to their repro rights & health care.

So yea, PP, NARAL et al are fighting tooth & nail over it. But they always have. What about the rest of the women - millions of them - I talk to them all the time just like today - who are oblivious. Not involved. Not even aware -- and won't be -- until it's too late for them and the rest of us.

In order to turn back this tide of Taliban rule, is going to take a hell of a lot more than just PP and those orgs. A LOT more.

It seems to me that the majorty of women affected by all this are not even interested, so privileged are they to have never had to think of it and don't remember a time when things were not so easy. When I say "nobody" is doing anything, it's THOSE bodies I'm referring to.

PP and other orgs have always fought this fight. But it's not enough by itself anymore.

ALL WOMEN had better wake up and get off their butts, busy as they no doubt already are. Women in TX did it and I'm happy to see that - but it has to happen on a national level and be a sustained, relentless campaign against it - for YEARS. And not just being waged by usual orgs while most other women sleep through the legislative rape they're being subjected to.

Because it appears to me that far, far too many of them are slumbering unaware and careless about it. FAR too many of them.

THOSE BODIES are the ones needed in this fight.

[railsback]

9. Like how Murdoch, et al, have Lefties jumping through hoops

[Melinda]

18. Not really... make 3 hard right turns and suddenly you're left.

And the same is true conversely. It's just the way politics work. Everyone meets in the middle, at some point, and at extreme ends too.

Have a groovy day.

[railsback]

26. The Right doesn't think in long terms

They probably have one more chance, due to changing demographics, to pillage the land through government - which could take decades to fix - and they're going for it.

[think]

28. Do you agree with Cheney on Snowden? And disagree with Gore?

Not that any of those things matter as to the facts at hand.


As to the issue at hand either the NSA is in violation of the constitution or they are not.

The FISA court ruled in Oct of 2011 that they did violate the constitution. That ruling is CLASSIFIED though and Senator Wyden had to get permission to tell us about it and that the NSA broke the law.

How messed up is that? A US Senator needs to get permission to speak off lawlessness!

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

[railsback]

29. The end game of the Right is to win seats

They don't care what they have to do. They're throwing red meat to the crowd and standing back. History shows that a demoralized electorate stays home, which benefits the GOP, who usually turn out in strong numbers. And then you have Greenwald, who's going to milk this all the way through the election cycle.

This is all a play for 2014. It won't be pretty.

[Luminous Animal]

13. The Economist: Secret Government: America Against Democracy

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/07/secret-government

The Times reports:

In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said.

Of course, there are important differences. None of the judges of the FISA court were vetted by Congress. They were appointed by a single unelected official: John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court. And then there's the fact that "the FISA court hears from only one side in the case—the government—and its findings are almost never made public." A court that is supreme, in the sense of having the final say, but where arguments are only ever submitted on behalf of the government, and whose judges are not subject to the approval of a democratic body, sounds a lot like the sort of thing authoritarian governments set up when they make a half-hearted attempt to create the appearance of the rule of law.

.........

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal adds some meat to the story by reporting that "The National Security Agency’s ability to gather phone data on millions of Americans hinges on the secret redefinition of the word 'relevant'".

In classified orders starting in the mid-2000s, the court accepted that "relevant" could be broadened to permit an entire database of records on millions of people, in contrast to a more conservative interpretation widely applied in criminal cases, in which only some of those records would likely be allowed, according to people familiar with the ruling.

"Relevant" has long been a broad standard, but the way the court is interpreting it, to mean, in effect, "everything," is new, says Mark Eckenwiler, a senior counsel at Perkins Coie LLP who, until December, was the Justice Department's primary authority on federal criminal surveillance law.

[JoePhilly]

19. The Economist sounds very surprised to learn about a secret court

that was created in 1978.

And oddly, they don't mention that fact anywhere in the article.

Odd.

[randome]

25. What other 'side' would a judge want to hear from when granting a search warrant?

Bring the suspect in and ask him or her if it's okay?

I don't get it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Life Long Dem]

82. Same with grand jury indictments

It's all one sided, with the proceedings done in secret.

[arely staircase]

42. all sorts of innacuaracies in this article

first of all the judges were vetted by congress when the senate approved their appointments to the federal bench. and the chief justice's power to assign them to this specific court was approved by congress when it created the FISA court.

[ProSense]

22. Cool,

If this weren't disturbing enough, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform, is compiling a massive database of citizens' personal information—including monthly credit-card, mortgage, car and other payments—ostensibly to protect consumers from abuses by financial institutions.

...an opportunistic hit piece on the CFPB.

[Bonhomme Richard]

27. +1. That, I believe, is the point of the article.

What they are doing is providing cover for repugs to shut the CFPB down. The NSA stuff will go down the rabbit hole.

[ProSense]

46. Advocating repeal of Obamacare and Dodd Frank

Randy Barnett: The Mistake That Is the Libertarian Party
Voting the LP line could swing the election to the Democrats. That's not an outcome libertarians should hope for.

<...>

It was a Democratic Congress and president who gave us the federal takeover of the health-care industry that will bring us closer to a Western European-style social democracy. All four Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices voted to uphold ObamaCare as constitutional, with four Republican-appointed dissenters.

<...>

Neither party wants to question the futile and destructive "war on drugs." But Republicans have been much better on free speech in recent years. With respect to economic liberty, the Environmental Protection Agency has restricted land use throughout the nation and would do more if not stopped. Dodd-Frank has amped up restrictions on financial services.

<...>

Libertarians need to adjust their tactics to the current context. This year, their highest priority should be saving the country from fiscal ruin, arresting and reversing the enormous growth in federal power—beginning with repealing ObamaCare—and pursuing a judiciary who will actually enforce the Constitution. Which party is most likely to do these things in 2013?

Citing the Republican Congress under George W. Bush, some libertarians contend that divided government is best for liberty. Yes, divided government is good for stopping things (until some grand deal is made). But divided government won't repeal ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank or give us better judges.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203922804578080684214526670.html

What a guy!

[treestar]

30. When did the WSJ supplant the Judiciary Branch of our Constitution?

did I miss the Amendment?

[99th_Monkey]

73. When did the WSJ abdicate its right to freedom of speech & press?

answer that, and I'll answer your question.

Hint: A three-letter-word that starts with an "m" and is made of straw.

who ever claimed the WSJ trumped the US Judiciary?

[Laelth]

31. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[99th_Monkey]

32. No body listens to WSJ <-- Leftist Propaganda rag

[quinnox]

33. K&R

The article is by a constitutional law professor, and that is important to note. First article from the WSJ I have ever recommended.

[Mojorabbit]

48. +100 nt

[ocpagu]

36. Good afternon, Luminous Animal.

Good afternoon, DUers.

Good afternoon, NSA spy.

Yep, it's unconstitutional.

[SoapBox]

38. Thanks for the opinion Murdoch.

blah, blah, blah.

Where were you during the BushCo reign of terror?

...idiots.

[frylock]

54. where were you?

[Catherina]

41. The Economist and the WSJ? Rec'd n/t

[byeya]

43. The WSJ and the Economist are fearful the NSA spying is uncovering money laundering and

other illegal activities on the part of the wizards of finance.
Your rights - not as much - but if my privacy is protected as an ancillary result of fearful Big Money, I'll take it.

[Hulk]

44. Is it just me, or is the WSJ just another gop propaganda rag?

I view and comment on Yahoo web page often. I notice that more and more stories that raise my ire are from the WSJ; but in order to comment on them, I have to subscribe to that rag.

I take the WSJ right along with fox-nonsense. It's one and the same, as far as I'm concerned. Ever since that withered, frustrated and corrupt Aussie bought the paper, it's turned into nothing but another voice piece for the reich wing in this country.

I could be wrong? (often am.)

[carolinayellowdog]

58. editorial side of WSJ much more biased than the news coverage

Like the difference between Fox News and the Simpsons

[The Magistrate]

45. Eyewash, Sir, For Their Fear And Hate Of Financial Regulation

This is all they care about:

"... the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform, is compiling a massive database of citizens' personal information—including monthly credit-card, mortgage, car and other payments—ostensibly to protect consumers from abuses by financial institutions. "

[marions ghost]

81. I don't see how a massive database of personal info is

supposed to protect consumers.

I don't doubt the motive of the opponents of financial regulation.

[forestpath]

47. Not that I'm not all for as much exposure as possible no matter what

quarter it comes from, but if there's one segment of the population that will never have to worry about the Obama administration going after them for anything no matter what their spying turns up, it's the financial sector.

[ThoughtCriminal]

50. This is the WSJ whining about financial reform

"the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform, is compiling a massive database of citizens' personal information..."

Really, what are they talking about here? The CFPB tracking of consumer complaints against banks,"Payday lenders" and credit card companies?. Horrors! They want to equate that with what the NSA has been doing?

[wildbilln864]

52. Agreed! nt

[Jack Rabbit]

55. Very interesting

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

First of all, I concur with those with no memory of the WSJ sounding the alarm when Bush instituted his policies.

Second, other than a self-serving, out-of-context dig at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, there's nothing wrong with this editorial. If I were to write it, I'd fill it with the dangers widespread surveillance presents to average people and not just to those in corporate suites, but the latter is the WSJ's principle readership.

Third, I will reiterate that there are no safeguards stringent enough to prevent abuse of the kind of power the Fourth Amendment is supposed to make unconstitutional, especially not a safeguard that involves a periodic review by a FISA court in secret proceedings. If I may be so bold to pose this question: what is a secret court doing in the American justice system? OK, I know it was put in place to prevent the kind of abuses we had under the Nixon administration, but recent history suggests that FISA has been an ineffective remedy and is now part of the problem.

I suppose that the sophists at DU supporting the national security state, at least as long as a Democrat is president, will now claim that those of us opposing any national security state under any and all circumstances have aligned ourselves with the likes of Rupert Murdoch, and cite that as proof of our disloyalty to the Democratic Party. Go ahead. It won't stick any better than trying to make birthers or Klansmen out of us.

To the WSJ I say, "you're a bit late, but welcome to the party."

[woo me with science]

56. K&R

[Spitfire of ATJ]

57. LOL!!!!

Figures the Wall Street Journal is all upset that the big bad gubmunt "seized from private companies".

[WinkyDink]

63. No kidding.

[gulliver]

69. Um, I think you missed the payload of the piece.

They are trying to undermine the CFPB by tying its data collection to the NSA data collection. How does that hook, line, and sinker taste?

[Waiting For Everyman]

71. K&R Yep, this is a nothingburger story, alright.

Because, you know, the WSJ and other major media admit such things so lightly all the time.

Can't wait till it's full-on Watergate 2.0 (a matter of "when", not "if&quot . It'll be fun to watch the Snowden bashers try to pretend they were always for him.

[MisterP]

78. again--I always say "wait 'til '17"

it's not like LoZoccolo or "AntiPerception" or "UrukBrother" or "1WiltingWhiteWoman" or "hehe4" or "karl_liebknecht" or "Oregon_Pub" or "blazingGOPer" have ever had a reputation for consistency--or a strong relationship with reality--or self-awareness--or have ever calmly and reasonably figured out what a story's *really* about, in the face of an unlistening far-left majority baying for blood (or whatever opium-pipe-fueled hallucination they're battling)

[Doctor_J]

77. Don't you have a less right-wing source?

I don't think wsj opinion peices should be allowed at DU. Nothing but far right ravings.

[marions ghost]

79. This one doesn't seem like a far right raving

--I think it's interesting they would come out on the side of limiting the NSA's powers of surveillance.

[Doctor_J]

84. everything from wsj is hyper-partisan repuke propaganda

it may sound sane but the source makes it useless.

[marions ghost]

85. Sure I know that, but IMO we need to understand how they think on this

and what their motive is. I didn't find much to disagree with in the article is all I'm saying. "Informational privacy" we do have a right to.

OK, so since I don't trust the 1%, what is their motive? It likely has to do with hiding something they don't want the govt to have access to. I do see the Dodd-Frank slam, but after what Snowden has revealed, I don't know what I think of that--esp since we now know all THAT goes into Yottabyte land...

I like to know how the "other side" thinks. So I appreciate the article's being posted. Not useless at all. Food for thought.

[struggle4progress]

83. A libertarian attacks the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau!

Snowden! Spying! All government is bad! Be afraid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau! Be very afraid!

[marions ghost]

86. Consumer financial protection

sounds good, except all the info that goes into that goes into the data mine, to be linked with your other data....hmmmmm. If so, that would need to change. If we didn't know about the NSA transgressions we'd think it was fine, but now I'm not so sure...

[struggle4progress]

87. Here's the law establishing it: it looks like a standard regulatory agency to me

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ203/html/PLAW-111publ203.htm

[Enthusiast]

89. Of course the WSJ would never have said this while Dummya Bush was a presidentin'.

But it is unconstitutional. After 911 they could get away with anything - and they did. That is why they allowed 911 to begin with. History will not ignore this fact. They allowed 911. At the very least. There is a reason such sentiments are verboten. House of cards.