General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: WaPo Misread Powerpoint- Story on Feds tapping directly into internet companies was wrong & rushed [View all]kpete
(71,963 posts)Simons followup in which he says the debate in the comments on his previous post changed his mind on a few things.
For my part, I remain convinced that the Verizon call data should be used as a viable data base for counter-terror investigations and that its misuse should be greeted with the hyperbole that currently adorns the present moment. On the other hand, the arguments of others convinced me that while I still believe the differences between call data and a wiretap are profound, and that the standard for obtaining call data has been and should remain far more modest for law enforcement, the same basic privacy protections dont yet exist for internet communication. There, the very nature of the communication means that once it is harvested, the content itself is obtained. And the law has few of the protections accorded telephonic communication, and so privacy and civil liberties are, at this moment in time, more vulnerable to legal governmental overreach. Thats a legislative matter, but it needs to be addressed. In this day and age, E-communication between individuals, if not public posts on public sites, should have the same measure of legal protection as telephonic communication. So that has shifted for me. This is not to say, of course, that I believe there arent legitimate and plausible reasons for law enforcement to sift the internet, or that a PRISM-like monitoring of the internet doesnt have relevant counter-terror value, but that the acquistion of actual content at least in the manner of interpersonal communications should be subject to legal prerequisites comparable to telephonic surveillance. Thanks to those who made clear that PRISM and the telephone call data harvesting are proceeding under different standards.
MORE:
http://davidsimon.com/nsa-and-fisa-commentary-calling-it/