WWL>Topics>>Think Tank- Ilya Shapiro

Think Tank- Ilya Shapiro

Dec 18, 2013|

A federal judge has ruled that America’s security collection of private citizen’s data is “Orwellian”, violates the constitution’s fourth amendment and that James Madison would be aghast at the degree of privacy invasion.  Do you ever wonder why all the other judges on the secret court said this was all legal?

Related Audio:

  1. Think Tank 1210pm drug addiction in the city


    Tue, 28 Mar 2017

    Should drug addiction in the city be treated as a health issue or drug issue? More deaths due to overdose in New Orleans than homicide. This hours guest: Dr. Jeffery Rouse - Orleans Parish Coronor

  2. Think Tank 1110am healthcare plan


    Tue, 28 Mar 2017

    Bernie Sanders said he’s going to push his plan for a single-payer healthcare plan like Europe.  He says Obamacare is costing us too much and the GOP can’t get their bill together to correct the problems. This hours guest: Michael Cannon - Director of Health Policy @ Cato Institute

  3. Think Tank 1010am recreational marijuana


    Tue, 28 Mar 2017

    OH CANADA!  Could Canada be the next country to legalize recreational marijuana? Canada is proposing legislation that would legalize recreational marijuana by 2018.  This hours guest: Chief Larry Kirk - Retired Chief ( Old Monroe Police Department, Missouri & member of LEAP (Law Enforcement Action Partnership)

  4. Think Tank 1210pm select committee


    Mon, 27 Mar 2017

    Is an independent “select committee” necessary in the investigation of Russian hacking & possible collusion with Trump associates? This hours guest: Max Bergmann - Senior Fellow at Center for American Progress Steve Bucci - Director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation


Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

-- -- -- -- -- -- their bloom. We'll talk about California -- we're also going to be talking about the world. And the governor of California. One of the big backers in the fight against global warming. But he stage carbon emissions and increased my for. Quite a bit more. And then a full member while. Well the clubs and more of their nuclear power plants just one. So consequently. They're putting a whole lot more carbon into the atmosphere because of that. So all look at the debate bridging is whether -- which should continued active. Dips towards alternative energy. Mix that in with the nuclear or goal only nuclear. McLaughlin and yet it could get a pretty big -- of the projected eighteen billion dollars in BP Lopes bill money. We'll talk to -- -- -- seen your Wall Street institute. Who says should be very careful with the money. That and we should fun and we've for transparency. Should and ways. For guaranteed project from this community go too well remember the year cigarette money went that was supposed to go to teachers. Ended up blowing everywhere but -- would take a look at that 11 o'clock. Talk media reported on it but a whole lot. To me this is for the door and significant I think it's for the first time. That a federal district judge ruled that the old beat Tennessee program and when incidences. Chemically. Systematically. Cup record of all American and uncles. He says -- most likely violates the constitution. Crime that it. Almost orwellian. And suggests that -- weapons from being gaps. Learned that the government was in crouching over liberty in the form. Those throughout think about this and give us more and so it is you're Shapiro senior fellow constitutional studies -- it wouldn't. Don't you welcome the sharper -- Is this a violation of the constitution. Well it's -- it's probably not actually. It's a much closer case in terms of where the statutory. Justifications. You know what -- look at it doing it you just part by the Patriot Act as far as the Fourth Amendment goes. There is -- case that that the judge talked about that a -- you know moment that need to be Maryland from 1970009. It says that. When you expose certain information to third parties like your telephone operator. Then it's it's it's no longer are constitutionally protected that doctrine may need to be tweaked. For the modern age but it supreme court's. -- to do that not a district judge. And gently on the very well respected judges across a host of our areas. You know. Went out of its way to try to say that -- me Maryland is simply no longer good law or not applicable but. Regardless of whether it should be. Changed. I think that the call for the Supreme Court. What what are your thoughts or should be changed. I think. The wave that are important admitted considered. Should be good to hold a reasonable expectation of privacy test. Need to be retired that backing out of the sixty that even before that it be her on case it did this call for a much larger discussion about. Fourth amendment rights in general but I think the owners should be on the government -- -- -- -- actions are reasonable not on whether the expectations of privacy of their citizenry is it is reasonable. And it's a judgment call. And in this particular case. You know what is the civil liberties violation is that the collection of information -- -- -- looks at a without a court order. Is that the looking at the information. You know -- I'm not sure it's simply collecting and storing information. -- whether that a constitutional. Violation and it that is. Whether it's -- why the intelligence gains that we gather and we just don't know enough. About it and it's important to be having the sort of public discussion that there will be better that they actually. Resolve this in the court of public opinion and in the political world. Without having these sort of -- -- rulings from judges one way or another that lead people outside -- -- and a group -- you'll cope or more of your minutes let's think Harper's break welcome. We're thinking about the indices. Vacuuming. Information. From the Americans have -- quote by terrorism. What do you think you have comments you have questions Gibbs called Simpson's role when somebody. Told fruity anywhere in the country six that stated balance here or somebody or -- integrity and so. Welcome back row we're thinking about one judge's ruling. Liberal bit in. A federal drug she ruled that surveillance. That we've seen from the and I from the security agency be government. You likely to be unconstitutional. Succeeded page opinion -- scathing. Peppered with a lot of explanations. Of incredible. And he newspaper of record drugs District of Columbia. And was ruling on the wounding collection system. -- couple playing Houston almost certainly violates the Fourth Amendment for -- action against. On reasonable searches. Only of your Shapiro with the senior political institutions to -- it withstood. Oh yeah plunged into -- usually not this early so. Yeah. It's. First call not his call to make because it's that the established precedent that it. From the Supreme Court it's still good law. It's hard to distinguish you in a manner that it's you know it's it's really you. In -- -- -- new territory to DC circuit oldest will be. A deal with it is that the next step in this in this. Is going the appellate court. In in it GPS surveillance needs a couple of years ago that that you might be familiar posters might be familiar with the Supreme Court ruling on -- In the DC circuit. Our day that theory why the government can't catcher or -- -- not award -- fault somebody around. That was different than what the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that still is the law the circuit -- that. Mosaic theory that is one particular action by the government might not violate some -- amendment right there. Collecting that information or have people you add up. Everything that's going on. Kind of a mosaic and that doesn't violate the rights act could be out of DC circuit and the like. And the Supreme Court have to grapple without again. But like that that's well -- India are completely -- -- Of people the American people are troubled by what the answer is doing it's it's not all it's clear whether that. A matter of policy and that they're saying that the violation of privacy section that is. Is it -- whatever award getting on the intelligence side are not clear whether they just think that it's. It's it's long. To begin. I'm not necessarily troubled by computers. You know having metadata not attached to individual means and so forth especially -- not going -- -- -- purely for. Intelligent. Appropriate. Like -- -- have to be safeguards then it's if people are searching. Individual private information -- that the couple different things so a lot of that we just don't know about a lot of -- classified I think it. Not that simple. Either what the judge ruled or what you know extreme supporters of the net -- today -- -- Absolutely an easy call that it. Well have been if it's not against the constitution. All we're just gonna have through his report is the public world be in Thursday's CIA DEA whoever votes. Says trust me. A much -- on him we do we're just gonna have to rely on that. No -- I met the libertarian Cato Institute we never say trust me at the government about about any. You know -- the American people feel strongly about that that they seem to -- than. Congress should act and it's starting to and again I think the the case against the -- -- -- surveillance. Is much stronger at its statutory level or there's some ambiguity in the language. Section 215 at the Patriot Act about what sort of quote relevant information can be dot. In a terrorism investigation. I and that I think is where that meets the road I think congress will be passing new legislation eventually -- you know that's the way that that popular pressures is supposed to work it. It's not a part of an issue that is one where. Issues that cut across Democrat and and and Republican. Policy positions so we're kind of libertarian strain and civil liberties strains and in both parties but ultimately I think that is the check that we pass federal law and yes they're that he not supposed to. Violate they do that that's where the prosecution's. When you when you talk about congress changing -- if it needs to be changed or are you talking about when these coach -- as Leon said. Talking about the 1979. Supreme Court -- issue mentioned -- batted in in that decision. The record could never imagine -- -- into 2013. Went in Iraq with the opponents 35 years ago. Text messages were basically written letters and tents food stamps. All the words as technology changes so does an average person's expectation of privacy is that the -- talk about. Well that's more for the Supreme Court to consider in what ways that people used telephony are the kind of data there the and it they're collecting how is that different. Public and registry that is in in the seventies police would. The would be able to see what what numbers you're piling on your thought. You know followed are different but in many ways -- -- a judge Leon points out early realm to the question one. Colorful example he gives his -- and a larger -- rock concert app on your own and make it look like -- like. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- called regardless of -- party make more than individual career or what -- -- about something that the Supreme Court to grapple with. All people's expectations of privacy -- changed. What you -- citizenry even expect you know even if we don't expect as much privacy because reporting. All of this information on FaceBook. How does not look like are probably too big government should be doing it it's one thing we wanna put things in in the in the public space. It's another thing it's you know there's communications a wireless provider but we don't necessarily want that information. To go to the government to their chances of abuses by the government a much greater than a corporate users are. Or or what have you don't think for the Supreme Court look at in terms report -- -- the doctrine more broadly. Congress -- the one that authorizes the NSA and CIA and all the agencies to do what they're doing so it if they are going overboard and a couple of congress. Terrain and then regardless. Of the constitutional protection that the Supreme Court devised. A couple fortunes and you made not -- to respond please it and cures. -- it Cato Institute or yourself and have any opinion or have you seen read or heard. It reports that after the -- snowed in weeks. US agents being tortured tool imprisoned captured. The judge says that the government's spill site a single instance. And which analysis of the NCAAs and squeeze in as says. Ball mega data collection actually stopped an imminent attack. Do you guys on the evidence that. This is working the way -- -- it's working. Getting a little outside my area under the influence and all the Melamine that it it it is dependent -- yet on how you know it's hard to prove a negative. You know what what attack distorted you know someone actually arrested like you know New York Times bomber or. Or the lucrative state ball girl what have you. Our -- -- -- shortly. That you have to think again you're just speculation that. Even if there's no attacks threatened probably the communication networks are threatened and forced use -- rather than. Email or -- or you know who knows what. But again we just don't know and and that is part of the public discussion in the congress should be having adequate classified information but it. You know caught -- should be looking at that. In in closed session. But it's it's not something it's certainly not something that should. Just today you know trot stepped. And indeed it is all of this program is is not worth the candle doesn't do anything whatsoever that absolutely should be -- Have scheduled taken any stands on average student -- -- bothers. Did the right doing did the wrong thing. I think. You know I don't know if you're -- tickets to usual positions general I think there's probably mixed feelings among my colleagues. You know altogether that that kind of a broader. -- proper global point beyond even the niceties of the law. I mean I think there are laws against exposing classified information for very good reason and he violated those laws if he was. Ultimately justified and that I think it's a matter for executive -- rather than. I'll letting him off you know it through a technicality in the law. -- -- learn more than I knew before we call Joseph appreciate the time they're through to you very much of great. My pleasure always enjoyed underdogs take care. All right coming up next you'll talk to or Robert Ellis Smith publisher added through the privacy journal. And look good you call if you'll hold on. What do you think this this -- -- from the kid who include libertarian organization are pretty much pro government. They played for small government. -- -- to screw with the judge here it really is. All protected by a deport the men and the drugs drug was wrong what do you think. Governor -- 260170. Or gives tax its needs.