Yonni - I would only favor not allowing our government to do that if private companies weren't allowed to either. Otherwise, why make private corporations more powerful than the government?

Well, I wouldn't want private companies to be able to do it either. But, unless I'm mistaken (which is entirely in the realm of possibility), the reaches of the NSA far exceeded anything private companies can do legally.

But it is really a non-issue with the phone records. It is aggregate information and even with datamining a specific number or groups of numbers, it tells them nothing about the actual conversation. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy and an unreasonable one. It is unreasonable to expect that information needed to make the connection will be private. The courts have rules such. Same with emails and web transmissions. The header records of the packets that give routing information are not considered to be private. the contents within are *if* the email service is a paid one. But if you send something to gmail or to some corporate email address, you rexpectation of privacy is diminished. Likewise, if you send something to a message board like this, you have no expectation of privacy.

Now, if my wife sends something to me using our draugnar.com email addresses, I own the domain and the mail server so I *do* have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that is why I use SSL for all communication between the clients and the servers for email. Only the headers are visible and if GoDaddy ever granted access to the contents of my mail server without a very specific warrant, they wpould be in violation of the 4th Amendment (of course, I have thought about setting up one in house and giving the government the greeting of my WebDip Tribe name if they ever said "we want to see your server").

Really, 'more powerful' is the dimension you use?

I allow my supermarket to know my CC number. Why shouldnt I let the government know? They should be more powerful than the supermarket. I have my house rented out. I agreed with the realtor that he should get a copy of the keys. Better give one to the government, or otherwise they would be less powerful. I have told my wife I like doggy style. Best let the government know asap.

Things you agree with a company != things you agree with government.

Yonni is right. Private companies can't pass their own secret laws and spy on citizen's. The Gov't can, and as we now see, does. Snowden didn't travel to these other countries because they are of bastions of freedom, but likely because the US doesn't hold enough sway there to get him extradited right away. He's just trying to stay free himself and out of the hands of the US gov't. And chances are he'll end up in Ecuador over Venezuela which really is a rather free country following a vastly progressive trend at the moment.

The NSA is *totally* violating the 4th amendment. The ACLU is suing about it:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/48195/aclu-nsa-lawsuit-prism-violates-the-first-and-fourth-amendments-of-the-constitution

And we've known for almost a year that the NSA has already violated the Constitution:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/surveillance-spirit-law/

People talking about this hurting America's reputation, I don't even get it. The torture scandals hurt America's reputation, too. It reminds me of some of my Catholic friends complaining about how media attention made the Church look bad; the easy solution is for priests to stop molesting people. Similarly, if the fedgov thinks its illegal spying makes it look bad, it can stop its illegal spying program at any time.

There is no first amendment vilation. Anyone who thinks there is simply is confusing monitoring with restricting. You can say whatever you want. Even if the feds were listening in on phone calls (they aren't) they wouldn't be restricting you from saying something. Nothing gets blocked. Free speech abounds. there is no first amendment violation there.

Only the fourth is questionable and even that is iffy. the ACLU sues at the drop of a hat cause they like making themselves visible, but they don't always win and they likely won't win this time.

What do you mean iffy? They already admitted previously violating privacy. The question is if they have kept doing it (and yes they have). The NSA has already claimed it doesn't need a court order to listen to American phone calls or read American emails.

I can see monitoring as overlapping with restricting. Similarly with political donations -- somebody making a list of people giving money to, say, an abortion clinic creates a very real threat that such information will be used in a harmful way. If there is, let's say, an anti-abortion rally in a very pro-abortion community, or a pro-gay rally in a very anti-gay community (or vice versa, to fit your politics), the cops showing up and taking pictures of people could be seen as an intimidation effort.

Here we go on that privacy in the Constitution debate again... I'm with Yonni. It's bad, we all know it's bad, if it's not illegal, let's make it illegal.

If you make it illegal, then the postal service can't get you rmail to you because your postman isn't allowed to read the mail on you renvelope. And phone calls won't get to where they are intended because that would require the telco reading the desired phone number. And the internet? Well, it would be shutdown in the US. Do you all actually think these things through before you spout off?

And ckroberts, pleas provide a link where the NSA admits to listening in on phone calls without warrants...

Hey Draug.. there's this crazy thing called technicalities, or, in a more politically correct sense, exceptions. Laws can be longer than a sentence long.

So here you go:

• Don't spy on people. But hey, postman, you can read a mailing address. Phone people, you go ahead and let people do their thing. Internet, don't stop working, we need you for porn. NSA, shut the fuck up, you don't get your own clause.

There's your law. Write it.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/

"""The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant in the briefing said.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."""

Also, as this pair of useful links point out, you can get a whole lot of information out of just metadata:
http://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-data-collection-faq
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/

@minister - the government already knows your CC number. Credit card companies pass along their information to the government too. Honestly, all of this was revealed back in 2005 with Russell Tice. Why people are only paying attention to it now, I don't know. Also, every property purchase is public record, so they know all about your rental house as well.

Has nobody thought about the potential benefits of this? Of how we can intercept terrorist communications and stop attacks before they happen?

The government isn't violating the 4th Amendment and I'm pretty sure the courts will agree as such. Its not your information the government is taking. It's Verizon's and Google's and Apple's. Once those companies have it, it's not yours anymore. Deal with it.

@ckroberts - First off, political donations are on public record. I could right now find out every political donation made by anyone I wished. And there are very real benefits that come from it - mainly accountability of public servants. If you see that a certain business donated $10 million to a campaign and then see that business get preferential treatment, then you know something is wrong with said candidate.

And what about new technologies not yet thought of? New means of communicating?

And more to the point, it wouldn't be, and in fact *couldn't* be a law. It would have to be a constitutional amendment

So write it with a feather quill.

I know all about what you can derive from metadata, CKROberts. Look what I do for a living (software developer, not some simply web designer, but actual syste,ms development like search engines and data analysis and pattern recognition algorithms).

As far as what they can do and what they actually do, well you showed evidence they admit to capability, not culpability. Try again. I asked for evidence they actually *do* the monitoring without a court order, not that they *can*. Hell, the local PD can listen to everyone of my phone calls anytime they like, but they don't They get a court order and then wiretap (which no longer requires climbing a pole and adding equipment anymore) the suspect. Capability =/= culpability.

@Bo - do you even know what the fuck your are talking about? I suspect now you are just trolling and not taking this discussion seriously.

@Goldfinger: "Has nobody thought about the potential benefits of this? Of how we can intercept terrorist communications and stop attacks before they happen?"

Nobody is disputing effectiveness (though I could if I cared for it). Putting Japanese people in camps likely prevented many Japanese spies from doing their work. McCarthyism arguably made Soviet work more difficult in the US. But effectiveness didnt make them right.

The end does not justify the means.

Very good. Now go to bed.

Draug you seem to have a very high standard (they claim to be legally able to listen to phone calls at the analyst level but just never have? come on). As to the legality of the program, here from yesterday, a NYTimes editorial by two law professors: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
Key quote: "The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law. "

How does a wiretapping equivalent program violate the law? As long as they have warrants, the 4th amendment is in tact and being observed. Having a technology is not the same as using.it without oversight. And no one has yet shown evidence that anyone *has* eavesdropped without a warrant. Again, the police have the capability and the Telco has it. Having the ability is not a crime. Using it without proper oversight and authority is.