Source: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1133.msg75569
Timestamp: 2017-11-20 21:19:50
Document Index: 50958397

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 85', '§ 10034', '§ 88', '§ 6353', '§ 10037', '§ 10526', '§ 10528']

November 20, 2017, 03:19:49 PM
Author Topic: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments (Read 317740 times)
Maybe via the emanations and penumbras of the Third?
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 08, 2013, 07:36:50 PM
NRS 199.120 Definition; penalties. A person, having taken a lawful oath or made affirmation in a judicial proceeding or in any other matter where, by law, an oath or affirmation is required and no other penalty is prescribed, who:
1. Willfully makes an unqualified statement of that which the person does not know to be true;
2. Swears or affirms willfully and falsely in a matter material to the issue or point in question;
3. Suborns any other person to make such an unqualified statement or to swear or affirm in such a manner;
4. Executes an affidavit pursuant to NRS 15.010 which contains a false statement, or suborns any other person to do so; or
5. Executes an affidavit or other instrument which contains a false statement before a person authorized to administer oaths or suborns any other person to do so,
Ê is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury, as the case may be, which is a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
[1911 C&P § 85; A 1949, 111; 1943 NCL § 10034]—(NRS A 1967, 464; 1977, 640; 1979, 1420; 1985, 129, 788; 1987, 654; 1995, 1174)
NRS 199.125 “Oath” and “swear” defined.
1. The term “oath” shall include an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting the truth of that which is stated.
2. A person who shall state any matter under oath shall be deemed to “swear” thereto.
[1911 C&P § 88; RL § 6353; NCL § 10037]—(Substituted in revision for NRS 199.170)
NRS 199.130 False affidavit or complaint to effect arrest or search.
1. A person who makes, executes or signs or causes to be made, executed or signed, any false or fictitious affidavit, complaint, deposition, or other instrument in writing before any officer or person authorized to administer oaths, for the purpose or with the intent of securing a warrant for the arrest of any other person, or for the purpose of securing a warrant for the searching of the premises, goods, chattels or effects, or of seizing the goods, chattels or effects, or of seizing anything in the possession of any other person, is guilty of perjury which is a category D felony.
2. A person who commits any of the acts or offenses defined or set out in subsection 1 shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
[1:10:1925; NCL § 10526] + [3:10:1925; NCL § 10528]—(NRS A 1967, 464; 1979, 1420; 1995, 1174)
Congress or the courts should put a stop to these unreasonable data seizures.
Due largely to unauthorized leaks, we now know that the National Security Agency has seized from private companies voluminous data on the phone and Internet usage of all U.S. citizens. We've also learned that the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has approved the constitutionality of these seizures in secret proceedings in which only the government appears, and in opinions kept secret even from the private companies from whom the data are seized.
If this weren't disturbing enough, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform, is compiling a massive database of citizens' personal information—including monthly credit-card, mortgage, car and other payments—ostensibly to protect consumers from abuses by financial institutions.
The new National Security Agency (NSA) Utah Data Center facility is seen under construction in Bluffdale, Utah.
All of this dangerously violates the most fundamental principles of our republican form of government. The Fourth Amendment has two parts: First, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Second, that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Still worse, the way these programs have been approved violates the Fifth Amendment, which stipulates that no one may be deprived of property "without due process of law." Secret judicial proceedings adjudicating the rights of private parties, without any ability to participate or even read the legal opinions of the judges, is the antithesis of the due process of law.
The secrecy of these programs makes it impossible to hold elected officials and appointed bureaucrats accountable. Relying solely on internal governmental checks violates the fundamental constitutional principle that the sovereign people must be the ultimate external judge of their servants' conduct in office. Yet such judgment and control is impossible without the information that such secret programs conceal. Had it not been for recent leaks, the American public would have no idea of the existence of these programs, and we still cannot be certain of their scope.
Like gun registries, these NSA and CFPB databanks make it feasible for government workers to peruse the private contents of our electronic communication and financial transactions without our knowledge or consent. All it takes is the will, combined with the right political climate.
Congress or the courts must put a stop to these unreasonable blanket seizures of data and end the jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to secretly adjudicate the constitutionality of surveillance programs. Both practices constitute a present danger to popular sovereignty and the rights retained by the people.
Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University and the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton University, 2005).
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 04, 2013, 08:53:34 PM
It is both discouraging and indicative of certain mindset that there are a number of departments that have been arresting and prosecuting citizens for this.
http://chiefweems.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/recording-police-activity-and-identification-issues/
Posted: July 8, 2013 in General Information, Police-Citizen Contacts
Published: July 18, 2013 77 Comments
--US Justice Dept. Says NSA Snooping Does Not Violate Constitutional Rights (July 19, 2013)
The US government has responded to a series of lawsuits challenging the NSA's authority to snoop on phone records, saying that the intelligence agency's activity cannot be challenged in court.
The Obama administration maintains that the actions do not violate citizens' constitutional rights and are conducted in the "public interest."
US DOJ Filing:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/07/nsaacluresponse.pdf
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 03:28:31 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
If you think the black box is scary, look at this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers-reveal-nasty-new-car-attacks-with-me-behind-the-wheel-video/
And Christie’s argument wasn’t even…
Published: August 8, 2013 126 Comments
President Plans Changes to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
By SIOBHAN GORMAN, CAROL E. LEE and JANET HOOK
WASHINGTON—In a striking policy shift, President Barack Obama on Friday announced plans to overhaul a secret national security court and pledged to take other measures to disclose more information about secret National Security Agency programs.
The new proposals, which Mr. Obama announced at a news conference, will likely ratchet up a national debate over the balance between the controversial spy programs and Americans' privacy.
He acknowledged that the documents revealed by NSA leaker Edward Snowden had initiated debate on surveillance and privacy issues.
The moves, a concession to civil libertarians and critics of government secrecy, come as Mr. Obama was facing intensifying political pressure from his own party and the unauthorized disclosure of another round of classified information about the NSA programs.
The proposals broadly sought to build public confidence in NSA spy efforts, administration officials said, following weeks of criticism of the administration for its use of the extensive surveillance measures revealed by NSA leaker Edward Snowden.
The two main programs Mr. Snowden revealed that have sparked outrage among lawmakers and civil libertarians are the vast collection on Americans' phone records and a set of court-ordered partnerships with Silicon Valley companies to provide account information for foreign-intelligence investigations.
"Given the history of abuse by governments, it's right to ask questions about surveillance," Mr. Obama said. "It's not enough for me to have confidence in these programs, the American people must have confidence as well."
Given the scale of the phone-data program, he said, he understood concerns about the potential for abuse.
Mr. Obama also sought to tamp town concerns overseas about the government's extensive spying apparatus. "America is not interested in spying on ordinary people," he said.
Mr. Obama's announcement marks a significant about-face on the issue. Just this past June the president defended the program. "I think on balance, we have established a process and a procedure that the American people should feel comfortable about," Mr. Obama said at the time.
The biggest change seeks to restructure the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to provide a privacy advocate. The current court relies on the government making an application to the court and the court deciding whether to approve it.
The court has come under criticism for not only being secret but lacking any formal adversarial process to challenge government-surveillance programs. Critics note that the court received 1,789 applications to conduct electronic surveillance in 2012. The government withdrew one of those applications, and the court didn't reject any of the requests in whole or in part.
Defenders of the process say it includes exchanges between the government and the judges, saying the judges do push back and require changes to programs before they sign off on them.
While the Obama administration had defended the current court structure, administration officials said Friday that new measures were needed to restore public confidence in the court.
Mr. Obama is also seeking unspecified overhauls to the Patriot Act to increase oversight and place more constraints on the provision that permits government seizure of business records. This provision is the basis for the controversial program that collects the phone records of the vast majority of Americans.
In a move to make public more information about how some NSA surveillance programs work, both the Justice Department and NSA are slated to issue new documents to explain the legal underpinnings of surveillance efforts and provide an "operating manual" to put NSA programs in context, senior administration officials said.
Mr. Obama also ordered the Director of National Intelligence to lead an outside review of U.S. surveillance efforts with an interim report due in two months and a final report due at the end of the year. Mr. Obama said the group would focus on how to ensure programs aren't abused and how such programs impact foreign policy.
An early indication of the difficulty ahead came when the spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner criticized Mr. Obama for inadequately defending the programs before the president had finished speaking.
"Transparency is important, but we expect the White House to insist that no reform will compromise the operational integrity of the program. That must be the president's red line, and he must enforce it," said his spokesman Brendan Buck. "Our priority should continue to be saving American lives, not saving face."
Mr. Obama's two biggest proposals will require legislation in a Congress that has struggled to complete less controversial bills. In the most potent show of force, the House only narrowly defeated an amendment that called for cutting off funds for the NSA surveillance of phone records. The amendment, by Rep. Justin Amash (R., Mich.) was rejected by a vote of 217-205, with 111 Democrats joining 94 Republicans in support of the measure.
That coalition ranged from libertarian-leaning conservatives like Mr. Amash to old-line liberals such as Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.). But the amendment faced stiff opposition from the intelligence establishment, evidenced by strong lobbying from the leader of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and NSA director Keith Alexander for members to vote against it.
Other lawmakers, including some of the White House's most reliable allies, have called for major changes in its intelligence programs. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) has introduced legislation calling for creating a "special advocate'' to argue in the FISA courts on behalf of the right to keep information private.
The bill was also supported by Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D., Ill.), who said in a recent ABC News interview, "Let's have an advocate for someone standing up for civil liberties to speak up about the privacy of Americans when they make each of these decisions.''
Mr. Obama emerged on the national political scene as a critic of secret government-surveillance programs. He has changed his position on these issues several times since his campaign for U.S. Senate in 2004.
During a 2005 Senate debate over reauthorization of the Patriot Act, Mr. Obama was one of nine senators who signed a letter expressing concern about leaders potentially abusing provisions in the act. He in particular focused on Section 215, which he and the other senators said would allow "fishing expeditions targeting innocent Americans."
White House officials said the president came to Friday's conclusion after a series of discussions with lawmakers and other officials. But the president was facing stiff resistance to his position from members of his own party in Congress.
" The inevitable end of surveillance is self-censorship."
It already is this way with political "incorrect" speech.
"Privacy is connected to personhood. It has to do with intimate things—the innards of your head and heart, the workings of your mind—and the boundary between those things and the world outside."
"We talk about this now because of Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency revelations, and new fears that we are operating, all of us, within what has become or is becoming a massive surveillance state."
Where is the beginning and end of privacy when a person uses electronic devices. All devices are now wireless and can be intruded upon. They are all made with ways to get into them. By the companies that make the devices, the software, or intercepting wireless transmissions. What about big data the private tech companies are hoarding about us?
One can't even "opt out". Why no outrage over this? Why is it Google's, or Microsoft's, or Apple's, or Amazon's business what I say, where I go, what I buy, or what I write?
Are people saying we must trust them yet not trust the government. The invasion of privacy and our thoughts is coming from the private as well as the government sector.
Snowden called those who would not agree naïve. I agree. I am living it so I understand. Most people do not and appear cannot understand. As I have said they will some day. Maybe now people are waking up to it?
Some on the right (and left) are using the surveillance issues for political purposes.. I agree with this from either political point of view. I also submit that we should all be very concerned about what private legal and illegal entities are also doing with the power they wield with all the information they are gathering with and without our consent.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 06:34:49 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
"The 17 pages of this thread are dedicated to those of us who do get it and provoking awareness of just how serious this is. That we have 50,000+ reads for this thread says some of us do get it."
Who are the 50,000 plus readers and how come so few post? Are you sure it isn't the NSA, Google, organized crime, Chinese, Russians, Nigerians or Iranians just sparking hits while they troll the net?
I understand that some do get it yet we don't see general public outrage. Is it because there is outrage or concern that is just not being heard? Or because it still is so few of us who get it?
I listen to Savage and Levin who both view Snowden more positively than other Republicans such as McCain or the Bush crowd. I agree with them too and view him more as a whistleblower than a traitor. While they both express outrage over government surveillance of its own citizens neither to my knowledge says a peep about big corporations, doing the same thing.
I don't get a sense at all that our law enforcement is interested in this either. Unless one is a famous celebrity whose ipad is hacked. All we here about is crime is down. Well violent crime maybe. But white collar is skyrocketing. And it is bed with our politicians.
"Are you sure it isn't the NSA, Google, organized crime, Chinese, Russians, Nigerians or Iranians just sparking hits while they troll the net?"
Some hits perhaps are computer driven, Google, etc, but I there are different hit rates on different topics based on interest level. The Dog Brothers organization attracts the interest of people who never join and the forum has readers who never post - including 'famous people caught reading the forum.
I disagree with you on Snowden. He did not make any effort to become a legitimate whistle blower and his leaks jeopardize our security.
Spilling secrets to the Chinese and Russians were not the acts of a patriot.
Snowden could have been called to testify by Rand Paul and disclosed potential criminal acts without compromising nat'l security.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/22/why_nobody_cares_about_the_surveillance_state_nsa
It is true that the revelations have caused at least some on the mainstream right, both in Congress and in conservative publications like National Review, to describe the NSA's activities as a fundamental attack on the rights of American citizens. The trend so worries more hawkish Republicans that one of their leaders, Rep. Peter King of New York, recently warned that "too many Republicans and conservatives have become Michael Moores." For their part, mainstream Democrats find themselves in the uncomfortable position of either defending what many of them view as indefensible or causing trouble for a beleaguered president who seems increasingly out of his depth on most questions of national security and foreign policy.
a) This issue can be subtle and complicated;
b) The government lies a lot about all this;
c) The pravdas lie a lot about this.
Therefore many people are keeping an eye on this, waiting for more information to come in and be tested before forming an opinion.
Published: August 29, 2013 1 Comment
Ginger McCall, a lawyer and privacy advocate, is the founder of Advocates for Accountable Democracy.
Obama is completely wrong and a fool.
The tides of war are not receding. They are accelerating. The good and the bad of the human race is on full display on the internet. Nothing has changed. Just becoming more plain and transparant to see. The endless battle between good and evil. The need for encryption. The need to break encryption. The need to prevent breaking encryption. It never ends. It is becoming as mind boggling as the the universe.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 10:42:00 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on September 07, 2013, 08:30:43 PM
I edited my Subject line to include a question mark
A long, but worthy read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/
WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency's searches of a database containing phone records of millions of Americans violated privacy protections for three years by failing to meet a court-ordered standard, intelligence officials acknowledged Tuesday.
They said the violations continued until a judge ordered an overhaul of the program in 2009.
Since the breadth of the phone-records collection came to light through leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, lawmakers and top U.S. officials have defended the program. They have said that for all queries of the database, the NSA must show a "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the phone number being targeted is associated with a terrorist organization.
Between 2006 and 2009, however, of the 17,835 phone numbers checked against incoming phone records, only about 1,800 were based on that reasonable suspicion standard, officials said.
In a March 2009 order that was declassified Tuesday, Judge Reggie Walton of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said the government "frequently and systematically violated" the procedures it had said it was following. The judge criticized what he described as "repeated inaccurate statements made in the government's submissions."
The revelations called into question the NSA's ability to run the sweeping domestic surveillance programs it introduced more than 10 years ago in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Officials said the violations were inadvertent, because NSA officials didn't understand their own phone-records collection program. Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of the NSA, told the judge in a 2009 legal declaration that "from a technical standpoint, there was no single person who had a complete technical understanding of the [business record] system architecture."
Until Tuesday, officials hadn't described the period in which the program repeatedly violated court orders. They made public the violations as part of a court-ordered release of documents in lawsuits by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The release included roughly 1,800 pages of documents, including orders from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and government correspondence with the court.
The program was developed under a provision of the Patriot Act that allows the NSA, through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to collect business records "relevant to an authorized investigation." The NSA determined that nearly all U.S. phone-call records were "relevant" to its terrorism investigations, because it needed all the calls in order to determine with whom suspects were communicating.
The records, called "metadata," included phone numbers people dialed and where they were calling from, as part of a continuing investigation into international terrorism. The content of the calls isn't obtained under this program.
The NSA used an "alert list" of nearly 18,000 numbers of "counterterrorism interest" to screen phone records on a daily basis and determine which ones it should look at most closely, an intelligence official said. New phone records that had a relationship to those on the alert list were given a higher priority for subsequent possible searches that would be done if NSA could meet the "reasonable articulable suspicion" standard.
When the NSA acknowledged problems in the phone records surveillance program in March 2009, Judge Walton was upset enough to order Justice Department lawyers to intervene and help fix the program, officials said.
It wasn't until September 2009 that the problems were resolved to the judge's satisfaction, officials said. The program was overhauled so that all searches met the court-ordered standard, and the NSA established a new compliance office, which now oversees the phone data and other NSA spy programs.
In the interim, they said, the NSA had to get approval from the court on a case-by-case basis to search its database, though there was an exception allowing immediate searches in emergency cases. Officials said the NSA obtained court approval in specific cases multiple times.
That was a key time period in U.S. counterterrorism efforts, because in August and September of 2009 authorities were chasing a suspected terrorist bomb plotter, Najibullah Zazi, in a plan to detonate bombs aboard the New York City subway system.
Since revelations about the NSA's surveillance programs first emerged in June through Mr. Snowden's leaks to news media, the Obama administration has pointed to the Zazi case as a prime example of how such programs help stop terrorist attacks.
On Tuesday, intelligence officials said they didn't know how the problems in the phone-records program may have affected the Zazi case. They also said they couldn't remember if anyone at the NSA was reassigned or left the agency as a result of the errors. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said the NSA's discovery of the problems with the phone-records program and its reporting to the court show that oversight of the NSA surveillance programs works as designed.
The documents released Tuesday "are a testament to the government's strong commitment to detecting, correcting and reporting mistakes," Mr. Clapper said in a statement. He blamed the errors on the "complexity of the technology."
« Reply #841 on: September 12, 2013, 08:17:51 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on September 13, 2013, 11:08:30 AM
Understood. Wittes is a smart guy who surrounds himself with other smart people. I thnk you would appreciate the discussion, if/when you get time. Luckily, it is exactly my work to listen to this.
The Scope of Surveillance
« Reply #846 on: September 29, 2013, 12:53:39 PM »
BBG, thanks for posting this. I saw the article while I was on the road and wanted to post it here and so am particularly glad that you have done so.
Nice seeing you in WV!