tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post2099749736661979458..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Two thoughts on the Verizon call spyingEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-60916460007575409892013-06-09T17:14:07.859-04:002013-06-09T17:14:07.859-04:00It seems odd to describe a secret court granting s...It seems odd to describe a secret court granting sweeping orders of a generic kind as constitutional.<br /><br />Originally the US Constitution was based on common Law. All common Law courts were public, the procedure adversarial, and the citizen and the Crown on a footing of equality. I do not see how the recent developments going back to the state secrets decision in was it 1954? can be considered consistent with the common Law. Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769952853595228563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-79015794687913910002013-06-07T15:09:59.216-04:002013-06-07T15:09:59.216-04:00Sam,
The comment looks like a very strange versio...Sam,<br /><br />The comment looks like a very strange version of poisoning the well. The Libertarian Standard Bearerhttp://www.thestandardisthestandard.isthestandard.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-46113710965587036012013-06-07T12:25:39.178-04:002013-06-07T12:25:39.178-04:00I don't mean a legal or even moral right, that...I don't mean a legal or even moral right, that was clumsily worded on my part. I mean he is *justified* in my view in many of the complaints that you seem to dismiss on the grounds that they are "within the rule of law." I don't feel he does it to "make a buck." I think he sees real moral problems worth identifying. Sam J. Smeatonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15566580337825807746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-48583586584425318642013-06-07T11:24:30.649-04:002013-06-07T11:24:30.649-04:00Just so that you know, these orders last for a dur...Just so that you know, these orders last for a duration of 3 months and are renewed every quarter. They have been issuing these orders since about 2006-2007 or thereabouts. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-84349947891768660512013-06-07T10:26:32.706-04:002013-06-07T10:26:32.706-04:00Nobody's saying he doesn't have a right - ...Nobody's saying he doesn't have a right - don't make that grade-school mistake on your debut in the comment section, Sam.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-82432443382791718662013-06-07T10:25:25.812-04:002013-06-07T10:25:25.812-04:00"Most of what Glenn Greenwald publishes is ra..."Most of what Glenn Greenwald publishes is ranting about stuff that's well within the rule of law but which he can make a buck whining about."<br /><br />Or, just maybe, there are a plethora of things "within the rule of law" in post 9-11 America that are still bloody wrong, and Greenwald has every right to rant on them. Sam J. Smeatonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15566580337825807746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-512111990857916312013-06-06T23:25:31.133-04:002013-06-06T23:25:31.133-04:00Does this mean that you agree with the arguments f...Does this mean that you agree with the arguments found in Daniel Ellsberg's 2002 book, <i>Secrets</i>?<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Memoir-Vietnam-Pentagon-Papers/dp/0142003425<br /><br />In addition to being a Harvard-trained economist specializing in decision theory, he also worked for the RAND Corporation and was a military risk analyst with close connections to the executive branch.Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-10358007946537561342013-06-06T19:00:07.114-04:002013-06-06T19:00:07.114-04:00And... I was right. This has been going on for 7 y...And... I was right. This has been going on for 7 years and Congress knows about it. Also, screw Feinstein can be added to the list:<br /><br />http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-on-nsa-its-called-protecting-america-92340.htmlPrometheeFeuhttp://prometheefeu.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-38494201276711592512013-06-06T18:43:22.015-04:002013-06-06T18:43:22.015-04:00http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/nsa-numbe...http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/nsa-numbers/?cid=8624954<br /><br />~Thanks to the Guardian’s scoop, we now know definitively just how misleading these numbers are. You see, while the feds are required to disclose the number of orders they apply for and receive (almost always the same number, by the way), they aren’t required to say how many people are targeted in each order. So a single order issued to Verizon Business Solutions in April covered metadata for every phone call made by every customer. That’s from one order out of what will probably be about 200 reported in next year’s numbers.~<br /><br />The Guardian undermined the claims made by the administration in other words.<br /><br />Why do politicos lie like this? http://www.amazon.com/Why-Leaders-Lie-International-Politics/dp/0199758735The Libertarian Standard Bearerhttp://www.thestandardisthestandard.isthestandard.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-52411907051089159902013-06-06T16:22:42.454-04:002013-06-06T16:22:42.454-04:00The danger here is really the temptation to do mor...The danger here is really the temptation to do more with the data. Maybe the search warrant limits what can be done with the data. <br /><br />Assuming the data for each call or text message is the two telephone numbers, the date, time and length of the call, and which cell towers (if any) were involved for each of the telephones you could use the database to identify the composition of criminal organizations, identify some drug users, identify prostitutes and people who use the services of prostitutes, and gain insight into whether two people are having an affair. If you were hunting a fugitive, you might look at the telephone records of all of his known friends and relatives for insight into where he might be. The real danger is that the data might be used for inappropriate domestic purposes. (If the data were being used, in contravention of the terms of the search warrant, to target the private lives of political opponents - now that might be an impeachable offense.)Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-44480429579614475042013-06-06T15:53:49.499-04:002013-06-06T15:53:49.499-04:00First Obama lost Chris Matthews, now Daniel Kuehn?...First Obama lost Chris Matthews, now Daniel Kuehn? It's over, Mr. President.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-37425805561187605162013-06-06T15:13:02.121-04:002013-06-06T15:13:02.121-04:00Dan, there is no search of you, when the Gov't...Dan, there is no search of you, when the Gov't asks Verizon for its business records. Sans a privilege, like attorney client, doctor patient, what you say to anyone is not privileged. The gov't is free to ask Verizon for the info and Verizon could give the info, sans your agreement.<br /><br />The entire purpose of the law is to prevent competition by carriers over privacy. Because of the law, ATT can not sell you service on the promise it will not release your data but the evil Verizon will.<br /><br />Verizon could object but the "letter," better word would be a forward looking subpoena, but the letter is based on some minimal showing and Verizon has same problem, as who called who is not private for the callers know, in addition to Verizon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904132869021579763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-67837591949149385372013-06-06T14:47:13.913-04:002013-06-06T14:47:13.913-04:00OK please stop trolling. If you want to write comm...OK please stop trolling. If you want to write comment after comment about how awful I am, go start your own blog and write all about it and I promise I'll studiously ignore it.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-11657360299490167302013-06-06T14:45:46.775-04:002013-06-06T14:45:46.775-04:00"If you are saying I adopt contrary views to ..."If you are saying I adopt contrary views to be contrary and not out of a reasonable evaluation of the facts and arguments (what you seem to be getting at in the second paragraph), you're wrong."<br />I disagree, and have given examples of this in the past.<br /><br /><br />"I've written at length about what I do and don't like about Greenwald's actual arguments."<br />Actually, what I've noticed is that unlike some of your very informative and useful and insightful econ posts, your posts on Greenwald are typically remarkably lacking in content and high in dismissiveness.<br /><br />"There's noting wrong with me summarizing my take on him in a post, is there?"<br />Nope. it is though when you don't actually substantiate that opinion elsewhere though, which I think is the case here.<br /><br />"Does everything I say about Greenwald have to be point-by-point?"<br />No. Where did you get that idea? (hey, does Greenwald too get to use the defense of Í don't have to give extensive factual evidence in every single post when I have given that evidence in many previous posts' defense in response to your point here http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.ca/2013/05/glenn-greenwald-is-ideologue-that-often.html )<br /><br />"Am I not free to form opinions of people?"<br />That's exactly right, Daniel. That's exactly what I meant: you are not free to form opinions of people. Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-74870297423591635022013-06-06T14:34:37.640-04:002013-06-06T14:34:37.640-04:00While I disagree with the holding of the SCOTUS...While I disagree with the holding of the SCOTUS' 1976 ruling (see _U.S. v. Miller_), PrometheeFeu is right here. Third party records are subject to much lower Fourth Amendment protection re: searches than other types of records.<br /><br />The larger problem is that our electronic communications are subject to a plethora of varying standards depending on the sorts of platform in use, etc. That won't change until the Congress decides to do something about it.<br /><br />Julian Sanchez discusses this issue at some length here before a Senate committee: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xl1b3e_julian-sanchez-discusses-electronic-privacy_news#.UbDVqJywUdgThe Libertarian Standard Bearerhttp://www.thestandardisthestandard.isthestandard.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-228690728346182802013-06-06T14:27:36.198-04:002013-06-06T14:27:36.198-04:00If you just mean I'll hold a contrary opinion ...If you just mean I'll hold a contrary opinion regardless of popularity if I think it's right, then you're right.<br /><br />If you are saying I adopt contrary views to be contrary and not out of a reasonable evaluation of the facts and arguments (what you seem to be getting at in the second paragraph), you're wrong.<br /><br />I've written at length about what I do and don't like about Greenwald's actual arguments. There's noting wrong with me summarizing my take on him in a post, is there? Does everything I say about Greenwald have to be point-by-point? Am I not free to form opinions of people?Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-15869473424765100542013-06-06T14:27:08.537-04:002013-06-06T14:27:08.537-04:00I agree Koen. His views of Glenn are kind of biza...I agree Koen. His views of Glenn are kind of bizarre.<br /><br />The Libertarian Standard Bearerhttp://www.thestandardisthestandard.isthestandard.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-69665246636626130442013-06-06T14:18:50.810-04:002013-06-06T14:18:50.810-04:00"But I don't have an instinct to be "..."But I don't have an instinct to be "mainstream at all costs". What are you talking about? I desire to call things as I see them. Against your charge of contrarianism, I point out that in a lot of cases I'm pretty mainstream."<br />Again, that was exactly my point, your contrarianism is of the mainstream kind (the way that becomes contrarian is because you operate in an environment with quite a lot of (civil and other) libertarians (and Austrians)). <br /><br />The way you often (though not always) interpret what krugman says in the most charitable way while doing the opposite for what somebody like Bob Murphy or Don Boudreaux or Rand Paul or Ron Paul writes I would also count as a form of contrarianism in this respect. Admittedly, I think you are sincere in many of these cases and the contrarianism is more instinctual or habitual, but at other times it seems to be done with the intent to provoke / troll (I've pointed out such examples in the past) )<br /><br />"As far as foreign policy - do you really think my view on drones or Guantanamo, for example, is a mainstream one?"<br />Yes re your position on drones (and on e.g. the respective moralities of terrorism and the US government's and the US public's response to it). I don't know enough about your position on Guantanamo. I know your position on enemy combatants and think that's a fairly mainstream one (and one highly problematic for civil libertarians since the whole world is declared a battlefield and the war seems to be perpetual (yes, I know, Obama made a nice speech about its not being perpetual). I do remember a post of yours wherein you criticize Greenwald's position re Guantanamo without realizing that Greenwald had exactly written extensively about that what you claimed he didn't seem to consider:<br /><br />You wrote "Does he [Greenwald] even consider, in writing this, that maybe the mere presence of a military prison in Cuba isn't what bothered us about Guantanamo! Maybe what actually bothered us was the denial of habeas corpus, the torture, essentially the denial of constitutional and human rights! Funny idea, isn't it? That someone might actually care about what happens at Guantanamo a little more than whether it's located overseas or within U.S. borders." http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.ca/2012/02/brief-word-on-glenn-greenwald.html<br /><br />I mean, to even think that Greenwald didn't consider this and would not wholeheartedly agrees with it is bizarre. <br /><br />"It's not like I pick out oddball views to be contrary about."<br />See above, re your contrarianism being of the mainstream kind and re some of your defenses of Krugman an attacks on people like the Pauls.<br /><br />"but I guess you can't change the low-content swipes at people, huh?"<br />This is coming from somebody who wrote about Glenn Greenwald "Most of what Glenn Greenwald publishes is ranting about stuff that's well within the rule of law but which he can make a buck whining about." <br /><br />So you characterize his arguments as 'rants' and his motives as 'wanting to make a buck'. How's that for a low-content swipe? and you write that most of what he writes about is stuff that's well within the rule of law' which is a) doubtful, b) if true, not necessarily relevant as Greenwald's point is exactly that the law and especially the interpretation and application thereof have become perverted)<br /><br />Anyway, this discussion reminds me why our previous discussions were mostly unproductive and why both you and I seemed to prefer I stop commenting.Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-47013737269462159282013-06-06T14:10:08.002-04:002013-06-06T14:10:08.002-04:00re: "I think it kind of trivializes the impea...re: "I think it kind of trivializes the impeachment process to suggest that we should impeach people for policies we oppose when those policies are consistent with congressional law and a judge's decision."<br /><br />I'd agree - but then I never suggested that did I? My reasons for impeachment were that it was unconstitutional, not that it was a bad policy choice. Then I said that even if you were right on the constitutional question (doesn't really matter what the other branches say - that doesn't make something constitutional), it's still a bad policy decision.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-25615272050131162082013-06-06T13:54:36.364-04:002013-06-06T13:54:36.364-04:00Well, "a policy decision we can vehemently op...Well, "a policy decision we can vehemently oppose" is quite a bit different that "a genuinely impeachable offense," is it not? I think it kind of trivializes the impeachment process to suggest that we should impeach people for policies we oppose when those policies are consistent with congressional law and a judge's decision. But that's just me.Aidannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-25927134216467748792013-06-06T13:41:55.234-04:002013-06-06T13:41:55.234-04:00But I don't have an instinct to be "mains...But I don't have an instinct to be "mainstream at all costs". What are you talking about? I desire to call things as I see them. Against your charge of contrarianism, I point out that in a lot of cases I'm pretty mainstream. It's not like I pick out oddball views to be contrary about. As far as foreign policy - do you really think my view on drones or Guantanamo, for example, is a mainstream one? Clearly I'm willing to break with the mainstream when I think it's wrong. There's no special virtue in mainstream thinking, after all.<br /><br />You can change your pseudonym, but I guess you can't change the low-content swipes at people, huh?Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-49071385048041561882013-06-06T13:40:46.963-04:002013-06-06T13:40:46.963-04:00I mean, to write this "Most of what Glenn Gre...I mean, to write this "Most of what Glenn Greenwald publishes is ranting about stuff that's well within the rule of law but which he can make a buck whining about." about Greenwald, how you can characterize Greenwald's work in this way just boggles the mind.Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-37625677395563144972013-06-06T13:36:47.597-04:002013-06-06T13:36:47.597-04:00I know, that's what makes your contrarianism s...I know, that's what makes your contrarianism so interesting and at times like these, so bizarre: especially in the case of politics (and especially in the case of foreign policy and civil liberties) your desire or instinct to be mainstream at all costs and despite all reason culminates in your disdain for Glenn Greenwald.Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-23818298879869558312013-06-06T13:28:32.014-04:002013-06-06T13:28:32.014-04:00Now you're just stringing phrases together.
I...Now you're just stringing phrases together.<br /><br />I don't think I'm that contrarian. I'm fairly mainstream/center of the road in most of what I think and say I think. I might sound like a contrarian if I'm talking to one though. But I don't go around making evaluations of what I think based on being shocking or contrary to someone.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-90685544261462129752013-06-06T13:26:38.470-04:002013-06-06T13:26:38.470-04:00Take this as my response to RAB and others above t...Take this as my response to RAB and others above too, obviously.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com