"as long as there was an older counterterrorism investigation still open, the court could keep issuing Section 215 orders to phone companies indefinitely for that investigation."
...and since the previous Section 215 had a counterterrorism investigation open that just happened to cover everyone on the planet, well, long live the investigation. The reasoning supporting the investigation might be perverse but, hey, a bootstrap is a bootstrap--and any bootstrap in a storm.
Foreign terrorists are not NSA's primary concern. Oh, maybe they watch them, too; just for giggles.
But all of their legal efforts, all of the laws they've sought, all their reinterpretations of the law that exists, all of the arguments they've made, their strategies for concealing their data sources, and now their outsourcing of data collection to other countries; these all demonstrate the same thing: the NSA's primary concern is U. S. citizens. Ordinary, everyday, U. S. citizens.
I think NSA doesn't care about foreign nationals, because U. S. citizens are the most dangerous enemy, in their view.
I swear, our human-rights oriented western governments are like a bunch of binge drunks let run loose in a liquor store. They take an oath to get off the hooch, but turn them loose in the store and watch what happens...
Imagine "Abu" has raised the suspicions of an intelligence service (IS). Paranoia flares, there is no innocence: once suspicious, always.
Finding no confirmation for its suspicions, the IS can, of course, hold closer surveillance on Abu in the future.
But one cannot go back and add surveillance in the past. Since the IS cannot, by its own lights, be wrong in its suspicions of Abu, paranoia concludes that past intelligence opportunities must have been missed. If only there had been total surveillance on Abu in the past.
But they didn't know Abu needed to be watched until suspicion flared: they never know anyone needs watched until suspicion flares. This in turn leads to the reasoning that everyone must be under total surveillance, for it is only by this means that the IS can ensure they will have all necessary surveillance on all future suspects.
Perhaps this sounds paranoid or stupid. But an IS is paranoid by definition, made stupid by its paranoia...and this is your answer: No argument whatsoever, will satisfy an IS of a need for less than total surveillance.
Well, you've got to understand our surveillance priorities in order to have a clear view of this.
Priority for terrorists: Meh. The group that leaked doesn't exist anymore, it was disbanded for protocol violations. Plus, no foreign terrorist is ever going to sue NSA in court for surveillance; foreigners have no standing. So it's no big deal if we prove the worth of our surveillance by once in a while dropping names.
On the other hand, revelations about surveillance of U.S. citizens is a priority concern. First off the bat, we have all these radical elements in the citizen population; especially the (eek) commies...oops, I mean liberals. They must be watched. The problem is that citizens have standing to sue: if they find out they're being watched, OMG! Well, they just can't find out, that's it.
Terrorists, who cares about leaks, leaks are good for our image; U. S. citizens, talk about us watching them and we'll hang you from the yardarm...TRAITOR!
The Balkanization of the web continues with corporations asserting their entitlement to control their user base and its proceeds. That appears to me to be the real reason for blocking Tsu and Google+, because by directing people to those sites, users are "stealing" from Facebook.
Law enforcement is all disappointed now. It's hard for them to understand why anything would constitute a search; much less their proctoscope.
Oh, wait, I forgot: law enforcement is pretty sure having someone looking through their lockers or desk drawers is a search. I guess it just depends on whose space is being invaded: them or all us dastardly criminals.
No, no Raphael will be punished; the best she can hope for is loss of home, job, career, and income--assuming they drop the case--but she should probably brace for worse. See, she doesn't matter; not as a matter of rank.
Unlike Petraeus and Clinton: they're too important to be punished because they do matter.
At least, in our current broken legal system: where lower caste means higher penalties.
"I have no problem with using the law to go after people who use drones for illegal purposes in some way, but a registration-first system seems to assume that many uses will be illegal, and if they aren't now, it makes it much easier to criminalize lots of different uses."
We know all the information on the USTR site is going to be propaganda, and that they're not going to be answering "any questions" in substance, because they're utterly determined that no one know what is really in the devil of the TPP details, until the ink is dry on those doomsday signatures.
Further, we know that any professor who comes up with a serious analysis arguing against TPP is going to be round-filed so fast his paper will catch fire from the friction, saving them the trouble of tossing in a match. Why it's right there in the letter: "If you are interested to [develop materials] that highlight the benefits of [TPP]."
So I guess they're asking the professors to do propaganda-in-propaganda-out.
No discussion of benefits to the professor, though: it's so gauche to put such details in writing.
If AT&T gave a suggestion to anyone else, it would expect major$ in return. Therefore, it expects that if a customer provides a suggestion, the customer will be demanding major$ in return (so forget it, we'll come up with our own ideas).
That's what happens when you expect others to mirror your own endlessly greedy behavior.