
Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us - jedwhite
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324634304578537720921466776.html?mod=WSJ_LatestHeadlines
======
DanielBMarkham
"No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to
seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always
done this.

What is objectionable is a system in which government has unlimited and
privileged access to the details of our private affairs, and citizens are
simply supposed to trust that there won't be any abuse of power. This is an
absurd expectation."

I think one of the reasons we libertarians have had such a hard time over the
years talking about the security state we're building is that Paul is right:
this is absurd. People simply do not believe that such a thing is actually
happening. Sure, they think, some bad guys are being monitored, and the usual
crackpots are complaining, but overall the government is doing a good job.
After all, there hasn't been another 9-11, right?

I appreciate Paul's efforts, but we're going to need _massive_ reform in the
surveillance policies of the U.S. As a start we need something like another
Church Committee.

One thought is this: how about making it a felony _not_ to disclose
information that an agency is clearly violating the constitution.

~~~
rayiner
> "No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to
> seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've
> always done this.

What we've always done is get warrants for searches. No warrants were required
to monitor someone (say, to have a cop follow them around). That is still the
case. The FISA warrants allow monitoring. An Article III warrant is still
necessary for a real search. What's changes now is that people openly
broadcast, in clear text, the kind of information that previously would've
required a search pursuant to a warrant to find out.

I understand why Rand Paul, as a libertarian, has to pretend that we're
deviating from historical practice, though. It's much easier to redefine the
status quo them claim you just want to go back to it than to admit that we
face an unprecedented situation (protecting the privacy of a populace that
seems happy to broadcast their private information all over the internet)
which might require novel solutions.

~~~
jeffdavis
People don't "broadcast" their information. They send it using point-to-point
protocols to companies or people. The government is using special, secret
authority to compel intermediaries or stewards of the information to turn it
over en masse.

If the government was just browsing Facebook or doing Google searches, nobody
would complain. But they are using government powers to get the information,
which means that it is a search.

~~~
jevinskie
Precisely. Can rayiner obtain my call metadata? They cannot. I did not
broadcast this information, the NSA obtained it by using state powers to
secure a secret, unrestricted (in the most literal sense) warrant.

~~~
wwweston
> Can rayiner obtain my call metadata? They cannot.

That's what we suppose, anyway.

Of course, we don't know whether or not rayiner has acquaintances who work for
your carrier who have access to it, or perhaps law enforcement who have access
to a portal that the carrier voluntarily provides.

And we don't know if the carrier has freely entered into any private
agreements to sell call data to others... which they might be free to do even
in the face of aggressive bans on law enforcement or national security
organizations ever even breathing at carriers.

------
u2328
Congratulations Obama, Feinstein. You've got me throwing in with Rand Paul.
Though I could trust you with our civil liberties and privacy, but now I have
to get behind the Ayn Rand loving libertarian on this. So be it; policy over
party.

~~~
mindcrime
Hey, ya never know, once you take the plunge, you might find that you like it
here on the dark-side. :-)

Libertarians are mostly pretty nice once you get to know them. Some of us are
downright friendly at times.

~~~
zecho
I have no problems with Libertarian individuals (or Republican or Democrats).
I have serious issues with a national party that, when I watched their 2004
convention, a man in a Thomas Jefferson costume gave a speech about pot and
guns. I thought it was a joke, but it wasn't. It was CSPAN.

Unless I myself run for office, I don't think I'll ever find a political party
that closely aligns with my beliefs and also takes them seriously.

~~~
DamnYuppie
I am not joking when I say you could always start you own. Outline what it is
you really believe and verify how your policies, derived from your core
beliefs, improve society.

All parties start with one voice, regardless the exercise will bring clarity
to the beliefs and values you hold most dear.

------
salimmadjd
As a progressive, I have conflicts with some of Rand Paul (and his father Ron)
policies and positions. However, you have to admit they're beginning to sound
like profits.

Like it or not, they adhere to a fairly strict view of the constitution and
that's admirable in the current poll-based world of politics.

That said, Paul (and father) were never good communicators. Both vocally and
even prosaically. I'm surprised he is not using the IRS scandal and tie it to
the NSA's potential abuse of power.

As we know the metadata can be used to see if a person had an abortion, may
have sought mental health (calling suicide hotlines, etc.) may have feared
STDs (calling aids hotline) may have had cosmetic surgery or slew of other
things.

Any of these information, can for example, be misused against a political
contender running against the current administration. Comparisons to IRS'
supposed targeting of certain political entity would have been tangible and
palpable example of the unchecked power of NSA and would have been farm more
visceral than the heady, "Big Brother" argument.

~~~
dnautics
Actually I liked this: "We fought a revolution over issues like generalized
warrants, where soldiers would go from house to house, searching anything they
liked."

The traditional narrative that youngsters in the US are taught is that the
revolution was fought over taxes, but if you closely read the declaration of
independence, that's not really the bulk of the argument. Historically
speaking, it was violations of personal freedoms and the "home is a man's
castle" principles that rankled the colonists the most.

~~~
wavesounds
this is one of the reason why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are making us
less safe. We barge into peoples houses and search through their stuff all the
time. People seem to forget how important Respect is to people, people will
fight revolutions for it. We did, the arab spring is doing it, a persons
personal space and thoughts and communications are their most sacred human
rights.

------
michaelwww
It's unfortunate that he believes the government should control a woman's
uterus, which is an even more serious invasion of privacy and more likely to
cause harm than this data collection.

~~~
zecho
I'm unsure why exactly you're being down voted, but unless someone who down
voted you comes forward, I'm guessing the answer is in part misogynistic and
also in part myopia on the importance of data collection vs. women's
reproductive rights.

Regardless, it's an important point to make that politicians are complex
creatures, just like the rest of us. It's best not to hold them in high regard
as people and to instead focus on their policies.

~~~
a-priori
I don't blame people for downvoting michaelwww because their comment is an ad
hominem attack on Rand Paul. Paul's attitude on abortion has no bearing on the
PRISM lawsuit.

~~~
zecho
Yes it does. It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil
liberties. He could build a much stronger coalition among civil libertarians
if he were more consistent in his beliefs about the extent to which the
government can monitor and control the people who give it power.

~~~
nathan_long
>> It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil liberties.

Only if you accept _a priori_ an answer to the core issue which is debated in
the abortion issue: whether an unborn baby should be protected as a human
life.

Nobody argues that government is invasive if it forbids stabbing a toddler to
death behind closed doors. People do argue that one may stab a fetus to death
behind closed doors.

The point of contention is not privacy, but the definition of human life.
Pretending that the issue is already settled even as you argue for a
particular policy is either naive or disingenuous.

------
Quequau
Getting excited about Rand Paul speaking out about this is exactly like
getting excited by candidate Obama talking about how he was going end the
wars, close Gitmo, and stop torture.

~~~
nathan_long
It is a good point that we should focus on track record, not speech. But:

1) don't we have more track record on Paul regarding this issue than we did on
Obama? 2) isn't it possible that having a senator express this opinion
publicly could influence other elected officials?

~~~
Quequau
I at least, have read/seen much more about Rand Paul and the polices he
promotes than I had about Obama as he took office for the first time.

Reading his statements regarding his commitment to the Republican party & its
goals as well as the right-wing "Libertarian" principles he habitually talks
about and then comparing that to the analysis of the actual text of his
proposals; it's obvious that he is simply using these "Libertarian" talking
points as blunt weapons against the Democrats.

Many of Rand Paul's proposals don't actually do or change anything at all,
instead they are designed only to make the news cycle and then to disappear.
Many lack many of the details actual legislation is required to have or
because they are designed such that a voting majority is impossible to
develop. It's clear that they were never intended to go further than a news
cycle... and they don't.

Besides often being couched in language Democrats are unlikely to ever accept,
they're also consistent with the proposals from other Hard-Right Republican's
who don't associate themselves with the right-libertarian political movement
at all. So it's not like he's making non-partisan basic pro-freedom proposals,
which the Democrats (being the anti-freedom party) reject. He's only making
proposals about issues which can be expressed in the hyper-partisan language
and which support the hyper-partisan strategy that is currently dominating
D.C. politics. Moreover, he's studiously avoided good-faith, non-partisan,
basic policy reform proposals which could get through the legislation process.

Assuming that Rand Paul continues to be successful with this gambit, the
obvious influence it will have on other elected officials is that this sort of
deceptive and manipulative strategy is politically effective and that they
should be doing it too.

------
tptacek
_"... If someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the
violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should
be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."_

[http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-
pau...](http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-
criminalize-speech/?mobile=nc)

~~~
mcnees287
Do you support the violent overthrow of the government? Many people would die.

~~~
zecho
Since when is listening to one's positions, however awful they may be,
indicative of support?

~~~
ericd
Also, we're pretty protective of our right to espouse even very unpopular and
radical beliefs...

------
mtgx
Why is the focus only on the phone records? Getting all the online data seems
a lot bigger to me.

