This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That is certainly what Snowden showed. The usual sternlightian argument is to point out that they only collected it wholesale, they didn't actually look at it except through their keyword system. I do not find that particularly reassuring.
Nope. Still wrong. Please just educate yourself on this. I've been over this with you before. There's a nice PCLOB report and everything that detailed how it actually worked. You just need to read it. As a quick check to see if you have read enough to have any idea how any of it works, what is the meaning of "specific selection term" and what role does it play in this supposed "wholesale collection"?
Nothing, because "specific selection term" was about call data record collection, which they were doing wholesale (the "Pre-2015 Bulk Collection Program"). The PCLOB report claims that they've stopped doing that wholesale as of June 2, 2015, instead requiring only CDRs up to two hops of a "specific selection term".
Charitably, your comment is acknowledging that there is a difference between the CDR program and the program that collected the contents of internet communications. Moreover, your comment acknowledges that this conversation is about the program that collected the contents of internet communications. To all of this, I agree.
Now, you're telling me that you've read the PCLOB report on the program that collected the contents of internet communications, the program that is the subject of this conversation, and you can't find anything about specific selection terms in it?
Yes, those are obviously two different programs. The CDR program was actually revealed slightly before the big Snowden reveal, though I believe it turned out Snowden was the source of the earlier leak as well.
The NSA was tapping the communications between datacenters of Internet providers, and by doing so they obtained access to all such communications. Any filtering they did according to selectors was done AFTER they had the data.
Now, you're telling me that you've read the PCLOB report on the program that collected the contents of internet communications, the program that is the subject of this conversation, and you can't find anything about specific selection terms in it?
EDIT: Remember, you had said that the role was, "Nothing".
The report on internet communications does not appear to use the specific term "specific selection terms". The report on CDR data does.
ROFL. You got me. Oh boy, did you get me. It uses the term "specific selectors" and often just the unqualified "selector" to refer to them. I see just how much you weigh being intentionally obtuse versus actually understanding how things work.
So now that we've all had a little laugh, perhaps you could now describe what you think specific selectors are and what their role is in the program? And perhaps try to be serious this time, moving the conversation toward a shared understanding of how the world works.
If "specific selection term" is a term of art, the specific wording matters. This is the government we're talking about here.
My understanding is that the NSA would use the selectors to determine which accounts they would retain information for. But to do that they needed to first obtain everything to do the selection.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This depends on a very narrow reading of "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ... but upon probable cause" that, to my knowledge, hasn't seen any precedent at the Supreme Court level. In fact, the secrecy of the entire apparatus seems largely to exist to circumvent judicial and democratic review.
The Ninth and Second Circuits were both okay with it. Would it be nice to get it up to SCOTUS? Sure. I don't recall if any of those plaintiffs petitioned for cert.
One note is that your analysis actually needs to start a step earlier. They are collecting the contents of communications of foreigners on foreign soil. We have black letter Supreme Court precedent that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to them. So, your challenge (which has so far failed in the circuit courts) is to demonstrate that one even needs to parse that text in the first place.
Room 641A is distinctly in San Francisco. The Ninth Circuit case involving it largely resolved because Congress granted retroactive immunity in 2008.
The foreigners are the ones on foreign soil. The Fourth Amendment attaches to people.
Congress gave retroactive immunity to telecoms for potential violations of statutes. Congress can provide such immunity with a further statute. Congress cannot, with a further statute, simply provide an exception to the Fourth Amendment. So, the 4A question remains separately.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link