Which one, please?

Jan

the patriot act went "out there" and BHO exploited it
further. . we do need to renegotiate it, and Dr. Paul's
efforts are valuable for this. . but the metadata is not
listening in to our calls. . it's close, though, and scary. -- j
.

isn't it like a combination of the 4th and 10th amendments?
unreasonable search and seizure plus States' rights?
what is not given to the feds is reserved for US?! -- j
.

yes, and at least one provider of phone service has
decided not to collect this metadata. . they are not
compelled to do so, as I understand it. -- j
.

"u.s. state dept hung those folks out to dry"
Why would they do that?

CG, the u.s. state dept hung those folks out to dry,
in Benghazi, and she was its head. . there could be
fault there. -- j
.

"I don't believe she has accomplished a single thing on her own and it appears that things she has had her fingers in never turn out good. Benghazi "
I did not follow the Benghazi attack closely, but it the reaction seemed political. I didn't see how any US politicians stood to benefit from lying about the motivations of the attack. The claims of a coverup seemed to be politicians doing their thing to take advantage of a horrible crime.

"Is not lobbying the same as mooching...off the politicians?? "
It's mooching if you get gov't money out of it. Lobbying for good policies, though, is very important.

In total agreement.

Call me cynical, but this is a dog and pony show. The expiration of parts of the Patriot Act will not have a major affect on the gathering and sharing of the personal information of US Citizens. It will have a major marketing effect on the majority of people who believe (or want to believe) that what they happen to hear on TV, or read in the news, is the whole and honest picture.

Pandora's box has been opened. There is no putting what has escaped back into the box.

We can't expect those who are part of the problem to fix the problem. I have difficulty with trusting the motives of a representative who has been known to publicly denounce a program (the ACA) while supporting the absurd certification that Congress is a small business and therefore eligible for tax-payer supported subsidies. It's odd that a libertarian would support the redistribution of income.

Cognitive dissonance is now a constant state of being.

“This is a debate over your right to be left alone.” – Rand Paul

From an Objectivist perspective, what is a “right to be left alone” and how far does it extend? Is privacy actually a right? Ayn Rand said little about the subject, and I haven’t yet found a comprehensive treatment of the issue by any other writer in the Objectivist movement.

It’s easy to demonstrate that mass surveillance of its citizens by a government is not acceptable in a free society, since such widespread snooping is not a proper function of government and can easily lead to massive violations of individual rights.

In the area of private actions, however, the issue becomes murkier, especially if one accepts the premise that rights can be violated only by the initiation of force (or fraud). What are the rights of an individual in regard to true information that he or she does not wish to be publicly disclosed? Does truthful gossip constitute an initiation of force and a violation of rights? What about blackmail? I would consider the latter activity to be clearly unethical, but I can’t find anything in the Objectivist ethics that addresses this issue.

Do we need to expand the definition of rights to include characteristics other than freedom from the initiation of force or fraud?

"If you think that your questions may alter how she approaches an aspect of economic or personal freedom, then it is well worth your putting up with her event to try to do so. While no one on this list (that I know of) favors her as a future president, there is a good chance that she will be the one elected. "
It seems like almost everyone I know but me favors her.

To anyone who believes that the NSA or any Gov't branch has actually stopped collecting this data simply because the bill expired should seek counselling immediately to preserve what is left of your mentality. Had it not been for Snowden we would not have known about any of this. Somehow I don't believe the Gov't has shut down all of the computers and satellites!

I agree.

Jan

If you think that your questions may alter how she approaches an aspect of economic or personal freedom, then it is well worth your putting up with her event to try to do so. While no one on this list (that I know of) favors her as a future president, there is a good chance that she will be the one elected.

Even making an incremental change to her policies will be of benefit in such a case. Hillary as pres would still, in my opinion, be a total disaster but 'damage control' may be all that we can do.

If you do not think you can change anything, then stay home and read a good book instead.

Jan

Hillary gets things done?? Have you really checked her record? I don't believe she has accomplished a single thing on her own and it appears that things she has had her fingers in never turn out good. Benghazi

Is not lobbying the same as mooching...off the politicians??

One more time I am confused by your statements CG.

The sad thing is, had the camera zoomed out you would have seen an empty Senate Chamber. That should be stopped. If the Senate is in session, they should all be present or lose their right to vote.

Hello Mr. DeSapio,
Patriot act author, Jim Sensenbrenner, claims the NSA has violated the law and exceeded its mandate. http://www.businessinsider.com/patriot-a... They have clearly violated our fourth amendment. It is one thing for a private phone company which lacks the power of force, like government has, to keep records of metadata. It is entirely something else for the government to do it. The Constitution is not a limit on your voluntary contracts with a private entity. It is a limit on the abilities and authority of government. The phone company cannot put you in jail or raid your house in the middle of the night with a swat team while violating due process. If the government can do proper investigating and show probable cause then they can subpoena those records from the phone company. That is legal. A blanket collection is unconstitutional. Even if the data does not have "content" it still violates your rights and yields much information about your life that is none of their business and off limits without probable cause. There is no reason why the NSA can't get a judge to authorize collection from a phone company for specific records of connections made by a known terrorist to other numbers during a legitimate investigation. That is constitutional and will yield a volume of manageable intelligence and I dare say better results. Wading through a mountain of hay/data looking for a needle is a waste of time. The constitution was not written to make law enforcement's job easy. It was written to protect the rights of the innocent. If the NSA must work smarter and harder so be it. Frankly, with this government's record I do not trust them when they say they are not storing or examining content either. To that I say bollocks!
Respectfully,
O.A.

This acerbic, sometimes rude, Senator makes powerful enemies. But, it is easy to tell that he speaks his truth regardless of the consequences. That alone is amazing in the current Washington climate. I think he would make his namesake proud. How many will recognize what he is doing as an unbelievably good thing? Unfortunately, not too many, I'm afraid. I can't always agree with him, but damn it, I can't help but admire him.

Service providers have a legitimate reason to collect these data, the government does not. For the most part government agencies are driven by a political agenda which is almost never in the interest of The American people.

If you can show that basic police work, investigating crime, is so inept at catching terrorists, that we have to assume that EVERYONE'S records need to be collected, and that that will improve security, I'd certainly like to see it. We know that the Tsarnaev brothers were on the radar long before they blew up the marathon, and NOTHING was done. The same with most of the local terrorists, from the Ft. Hood shooter to the schmucks who attempted to shoot up the Garland, TX art show. Collecting MY information would have yielded less than nothing, because the return is negative; I'm not engaged in any activity threatening this country, so spending money on me, and letting the Tsarnaevs slip through, is stupid.

About 240 years ago some very wise men gave us a set of guidelines to protect us from this. Our failure to follow the guidelines they set is what is causing all the problems. Every time I see a Constitutional Law Professor making changes or failing to follow the set of rules I have to wonder when will we bring the gallows back!

If only he were Senate Majority Leader...

The latest thing: the government will pass a law to turn the telcos into snitches. And they're going to call it the USA-FREEDOM Act. "Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection, and Online Monitoring." Really? I smell a Cuffy Meigs-style rat.

All that aside, let's just think about this for a minute. Galt's Gulch did not have a state of any kind. The best it had was the Triumvirs, whom I would call a Committee of Safety. And that Committee was able, in a trice, to assemble an Air and Land Militia to pull off a rescue operation.

I think it's time somebody tested that idea. We have had some small-scale tests. The attackers of the Curtis Culwell Center (Garland, Texas) fell to an off-duty police officer with nothing but his service weapon--one shot each. Who knows what a fully armed and drilled militia can do?

When it comes to metadata collection by the NSA some perspective is in order. Virtually all companies that provide public service collect information on the quality of that service. This is done for the purpose of locating weak spots and strengths and is a legitimate function of such an organization. The post office collects metadata on mail and package delivery as do private delivery companies, telephone companies and internet service providers. This is done primarily to monitor the quality of service and to assure that distribution resources are optimized to serve the customer and to maximize efficiency and ultimately profits. Users of these services should be aware of this information collection policy and why it is in place. The problem arises because this information has significant potential for misuse. I did some consulting some years ago for a major telephone company and part of the task was the collection of data that would improve service by guiding the design of both inside and outside plant facilities. Much of the design of telephone central office switching systems is guided by this information so it is essential that it be collected and analyzed. These organizations maintain large data bases that go back years so that trends can be identified and system performance optimized accordingly. So the question is not whether these service providers should collect and maintain these data because they already do so. The issue is whether or not the government has a legitimate claim to it. We live in a time where government intrusion into private lives is of great concern but it is important that we know who is actually doing what before we start pointing fingers.