What you just did takes a real man or a real woman to do.

The Fourth Amendment obliges the government to demonstrate probable cause before conducting invasive surveillance. The government has made a mockery of that protection by relying on select Supreme Court cases, decided before the era of the public Internet and cellphones, to argue that citizens have no expectation of privacy in either phone metadata or in e-mails or other private electronic messages that it stores with third parties. This hairsplitting is inimical to privacy and contrary to what at least five justices ruled just last year in a case called United States v. Jones. One of the most conservative justices on the Court, Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote that where even public information about individuals is monitored over the long term, at some point, government crosses a line and must comply with the protections of the Fourth Amendment. That principle is, if anything, even more true for Americansâ(TM) sensitive nonpublic information like phone metadata and social networking activity.

He's deaf to everything you're saying. The person you are arguing with is a perfect example of why we have this situation: because there are people making a LOT of money as (secret) private contractors for this (secret) agency which is using (secret) laws, and (secret) warrants from (secret) courts to target (secret) people whom they have decided (using secret criteria) are "terrorists". And best of all, the taxpayer money that's being spent on this apparatus is hidden in (secret) budgets which Congress does not get to discuss openly. They can't even say whether or not these budget items exist at all.

What a sweet set-up. Maybe if I were getting a check every month from this American Stazi I might strenuously try to defend them in blog comments too. Hell, his paycheck is probably classified, and I bet they managed to get a nice benefits package too.

I feel bad though that this "Windbourne" decided to play the "Don't you love America?" card with you, Wolf. I may not agree with you on much, but I agree that I'd rather take my chances with Al Qaeda and the Taliban than with a police state.

Um, you still haven't responded to Wolf's refutation of your statement that the secret courts have NOT approved every single warrant.]

You made that statement a centerpiece of your argument, and when given proof that you're wrong, you just ignored it and moved on to the next talking point.

You do not think that AQ or taliban is a threat to America? You do not think that 9/11 occurred?

Listen to yourself. I think there's a very good argument to be made that "AQ" and the taliban are less of a threat to a free society than a persistent and ubiquitous police state that answers only to some secret court that approves every single thing it asks for.

All you have is a bunch of accusations, with no proof.

He gave you proof, in a citation right at the start of his comment.

I asked how YOU would safeguard this

I can't speak for Wolf, but I can answer simply: You safeguard the Constitution by maintaining the integrity of the constitution. You don't just drop key constitutional protections to protect from occurrences as rare as terrorist attacks. Especially when YOU can provide ZERO PROOF that the NSA's activities have made us one bit safer.

At the bottom, I'm pretty sure that the surveillance regime we're creating at extraordinary expense is just a way of funneling money to well-connected contractors. There are entire luxurious suburbs in Virginia that are filled with nothing but private intelligence contractors. If you're going to have a government claim such extraordinary powers, do you really want them to then turn around and hand the entire program off to a bunch of private corporations that answer to nobody but their (secret) shareholders.

He kept talking about our listening in on other nation's calls. He has described a great deal of things that help China, Iran, North Korea, and AQ.

So wiretapping German diplomats keeps us safe from Al Qaeda?

Yes, clearly you have worked for the surveillance state apparatus.

(with cause)

See, the problem with the whole thing is that the "cause" is secret. The warrants are secret. The courts are secret, the agency is secret and the apparatus itself is secret. The funding is secret. The laws themselves are secret.

The level of secrecy in the US government's structure and behavior has increased to such an extent that there is a very important discussion that should take place: How much of our government's behavior and structure can be secret before you can't call a society "free" any more? And at that level of secrecy, can you really say that the government is still acting with the consent of the governed? Can you say you are giving your government consent to do something if you don't know what it's doing?

traitor vs. whistleblower

I would direct you (or more precisely, anyone reading this who does not have a financial interest in maintaining the surveillance state) to read about something called "Operation Insider Threat". There is a very good article in McClatchy about this new anti-whistleblower program of the U.S. government. Read about this and then decide whether or not the government has declared whistleblowers enemies of the state (even those in the Department of Education, Agriculture, and other agencies not directly related to national security). I think you'll be surprised at what our government's up to.

Why is this statement modded down?

Morons get mod points, too. Right now it stands at 50% offtopic, 50% insightful. Somebody goofed, that's all.

I'm surprised it took so long.

I think he said the opposite of what he thought he said. I think what he thought he said was "Neither Google nor Facebook have any phone support whatsoever".

He may not be a native speaker.

You're a kid, kid. You're my kids' age, and I was five years older than you when I had kids. I'm twice as old as you; compared to you I've lived two whole lifetimes so far. Having served 4 years in the USAF before school I was just getting my Bachelor's at your age.

My daughter's your age, and in college.

You're just getting started.

I do understand your thinking, however -- I was your age once. When I got out of the service, having gone to Thailand, I thought I'd lived more than most 70 year olds.

I was wrong. So are you.

When writing that, did you ever stop and think it was odd that I never used the term "Northern Aggression?" I'm certianly capable of typing it out had I intended to use it.

This is like people referring to the republic of the USA as a "democracy" when it was specifically designed not to be a democracy. It's inaccurate. It's wrong. It perpetuates ignorance to continue calling it that.

Your emotional reaction about which side you think I'm on has nothing to do with it and indicates you need to relax and perhaps grow up.

Most Americans simply aren't informed about any of this. They'd be horrified to know what has been committed in the name of the USA.

The real puzzle is why football and American Idol is so much more important to them.

First off, the Government is NOT watching you. They are watching for attacks. In fact, the reason why Boston got through is because they have a cleaner separation on what is allowed to be listened to. In a nut shell, it appears to be that if you have a connection with a known terrorists, only then will you be picked up. However, if you talk terrorism, then it will not be picked up.

Which is a good reason that the system is an unnecessary failure. It's like having the a strong password and then writing it on a post-it note that you stick to your monitor.

I'm pretty sure that "support for Snowden" and "acceptance of the police state" are two very separate things. One can think Snowden is a twerp while still thinking the government has exceeded its authority to a dangerous extent.

I realize that this does not fit the narrative that this press release and all the other breathless celebrity press releases about Snowden being a jerk to his ex-girlfriend are trying to advance, but it does appear that some Americans can walk and chew gum at the same time.

IOW, he is not seen as a whistleblower, but a traitor.

You took a big jump there, bucko. Remember, most of the coverage of Snowden has been about his personal life, his having dropped out of community college, etc. I'm not sure that a growing number of people see him as a traitor.

People may be ambiguous about Snowden, but make no mistake, people are not so ambiguous about having Fourth Amendment rights. They are not so ambiguous about privacy and definitely not ambiguous about a government that seriously needs to be whacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for crapping on the carpet.

What does that 3-5GB cost you per month? I don't think I've ever used more than 2GB.

I'm about done with AT&T for a host of reasons, and prepaid plans sound right for me and the missus.