WWL>Topics>>Think Tank- Robert Ellis Smith

Think Tank- Robert Ellis Smith

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)

Good about holding your kid from a federal drug in the District of Columbia. He had Ronald concerning. A couple of fueled by. Couple plaintiffs. Saying that Pia national security agencies. And -- vacuuming up information was and -- room with George ruled at least in the eighties to plain scary. In each -- quote. He said quote I cannot imagine a more indiscriminate and orbit for a hearing and vision that is. Systematic and high tech collection retention of personal thing. On virtually every single citizen. -- the purposes of squirting and analyzing -- without prior judicial approval. His name George Leo and is listening. These are surely such a program infringes on that degree of privacy that the islanders controller and in support of them which prohibits unreasonable search and seizures. There's always with a gun to matters of vote privacy we turned Robert Ellis Smith. Publisher editor the privacy journal Robert -- Jim welcome to show appreciated that time. Think Hugo. -- glad to be was doing the good news for our side. -- wind I just -- talking to constant -- expert at it ruins the libertarian. Exactly yeah. Pro government organization. And he's and a lot of news constituents -- Cato Institute that is a category expertise. Disagree with the -- saying that. Basically -- conservative and Supreme Court case ruling. Said that as long as you're aware that there's a third in -- team monitoring. Listening or having the ability do -- -- to either of those it's not a violation -- or what your. Well a couple of things to judge in stereo. Force I think in realizing that back then in 1970 and the telephone numbers that you dialed the number style -- was it's crucial. The content of the conversation was much more crucial. But in 2013. It's much more crucial to get the phone numbers. The content as we know many cases in the all important and so awful. But to Ford in Tennessee could be it would gather up those phone numbers called. To and from you can let them establish patterns and draw conclusions from them. And the judge made that point first all of that the vote for all the locations that you can get from cellphone numbers and secondly the patterns of who your -- -- Much more crucial in the content conversations. So. -- -- That decision back in 1979. Was -- involved installation of new device that allows law enforcement to. Get a copy of the note numbers dialed phone. It's pretty archaic system though we're talking of and a -- system that kept. -- the number's called to and from virtually every cellphone in the nation. And he rightfully businesses. To fit -- expansion of of that the authority of that law enforcement tool. And peace he should do -- never would have contemplated. That the government could have collected. -- bit of information about their recent citizen. And also -- -- huge private sector companies namely the telephone companies. There is a compulsory program to cooperate with -- so I think the judges. Right on schedule -- will -- with the Court of Appeals that it does to that there isn't as in every area of fertile. Appeals court it will listen to this case and second guess the judge. Again get bigger from Mercury to institute says that there is problems recorded Gannett and the questions about the Fourth Amendment but if we want it is I think Cuba saying that the public. Reversal I don't know about changing in this city's actions is gonna have to come through congress. Do you see either of those things happening consideration. On the Fourth Amendment to issue Monday's Supreme Court. Or congress and okay the public seems pretty exercise about that we're gonna change are capable. -- is it was a little Rogers and some real concern that the Supreme Court folder election returns and they'll read newspapers so. Public opinion will play a role is. Do suspect it will go in the Supreme Court. Maybe not this case that there are several parallel cases that may offer better effects situations for the people wanna look. It is -- the trouble is of course with the matter privacy of memories are short and a people's attitude change if there would -- you know the terrorist act. Special oh home win the next six months obviously. -- the didn't from the change tactics and. I've said that -- the very beginning and it's not talked about but all it can take is one. Fairly significant terrorist attack in all of this debate grows because they'll say we trojans so and we this -- -- If you wanna have this time and time again. The other Coppola almost doesn't go away I hope to people this time around a little more rational -- and not personal passing a law. Attractive to the attorney -- and don't reviewed before you -- that would be unpatriotic. And secondly he'll along the I don't know has been used to justify virtually all of it is a limited surveillance and that we reported. I'm not sure this is crucial case that he pointed out that. An -- could not point to a single instance where this. Dragnet had been effective and so I -- this massacre did and in terms of the terrorist attack. Will be more mature we will look for things that go. Are going to be effective and not just window dressing and we will continue to respect individual rights in the constitution. And we should remember that the founders of this nation faced terrorist attacks including -- anthrax. And bill coming down people's homes in the and the likes so. But he we're probably more vulnerable in their homes and we -- and yet -- Built a document that. Respects. The privacy you of division. Aren't loops are -- for -- you've just joined us were good debating once again the NFC vacuuming them all -- in permission. Federal judge -- to filter Columbia took standards it's a bright -- support them. What do you think it was -- 601723866889. And 07. Well Robert have with whom we called that during. Think it about a federal Trojan. District of Columbia. Monday. Ruled that the national security agency's program that we've all heard about when to assist them and keeping records. All of -- phone calls most likely blow leads the constitution. At one point he described that technology they're using is almost orwellian. And he suggested that -- -- and be -- To live and an hour ago and was encroaching on liberty. In such a way. And experts -- duke does their bill and apparently it being. Judges. That have ruled this legal and they are all part of the -- on third publications all part of via secret surveillance court. Demand -- return to most or more than and he. Robert Ellis Smith the talk about privacy poacher publisher editor the privacy. Robert forum get out of people -- children. You have to exit privacy journal monthly newsletter available -- -- or by email. People agree just from privacy journal dot net. Privacy journal dot net will get to listen and view for the little place -- email us and -- sample -- you wouldn't -- You probably followed disclosure than on. But it all the shows have gone and the reading of -- and heard inbred in keynotes are leakage and representatives in this -- Rivers and that is. The legal industry representatives of congress. Saying -- you know -- without this we can't stop terrorism we we can't. Find out what's gonna happen before it happens. And more importantly because of Edward slogans. Information -- People who lose their lives are there going to be threatened or there's going to be put in -- lower than going to be captured. Have you seen in the instances of any of that because this judge ordered out. The government has spilled its site -- single instant. Who would soon analysis of the ball meta data collection actually stopped in the imminent attack and otherwise you that the government. In achieving in the objective. That style and so it's. You know afraid that screw I will concede that even as the government at this point couldn't shortly cases when they actually stopped and attacked. That wouldn't be the end of the debate perhaps they could could select articles that would persuade the rest of the that they haven't even done that. I think the reason is the concept is not talked about for years now information pollution. And six two collectors too much stuff. That they do have lots of technology that they don't have enough to sort all this stuff. They can read messages by keywords at all but now. As we've talked about they're not and so much focusing on the content of the message. But on the northern -- on the digits of -- -- to and from a moment and the in the actual phone number of -- -- on the telephone. So they've got no experience and use all of this information to established. Connection so we do know from. The attacks. Eleven and that Lou -- many -- that would not connected and that that's that's been a problem that they can the government just gathers too much information and can't make use of what it has I think that was true. Prior to the attacks it was -- in -- the government and could have used. And that is who we know from the commission report actually that. It didn't news and information that was available to other government agencies. The government agencies -- not talk to each other comparing. Notes and we know that that's still true. Competition among the agencies. Seemed to be more important than actually. Intercepting terrorist actions and so that until the government control that'll ticket as a reasonable claim. -- such an extreme intrusion on the and the constitution. -- consumer doesn't mean very incidental intrusions and the showing the government estimate that it has actually solve cases in this way would be a lot less because such -- to unprecedented. Massive collection of data that I think the government must at least show a few anecdotes. Of how this would help. Government questioned -- -- I've talked about -- -- in the way yesterday the large number of the largest technology company used in the world met with President Obama. President Obama thought the main June -- -- obamacare and -- -- applies some of the problems that are. They thought the main agenda was to talk to him about in the as a and and what. They're stealing from their companies. And they come to find out the only thing they share that was correct. Isn't agreement that public trust is eating very quickly. Is is certainly turning back there dude dude this is this keeps going to people just skip. More more paranoid analysts and less trusting of any kind of power. Well we've seen that play a few victories. Does turn -- public opinion yes indeed and some testimony on. Scrutiny. A Capitol -- showing that. Bureaucrats in charge have a sensitivity troll this and that are aware of the dangers here and have had successes and using some of the information. If we see people we can really respect and trust and I think public opinion would turn around but so far -- those who have defended this program I think you've given us. The same old stuff was for three years and years and still not responding to those nuances of new ways. Pursuing the attacks and and crime as well. So that can turn things around as we discussed separately an attack total cost of the ways all of this would term -- Ginsburg made this speech yesterday in which he said somebody told that. The symbol the United States really not -- eagle but the pendulum and indeed an appointment to places. Getting into deep -- we we do have -- pendulum in the public culture that. That goes back and forth to avoid the extreme. Very quickly a teller -- central -- time advocate your formations that do. Yeah I'm Robert Ellis Smith book publisher monthly newsletter called privacy journal. It's available -- privacy journal dot net community. And happy everything holiday Christmas on the -- After all if you could talk to talk to -- come right back doubled up deal brigades seventy in a more revived the Ria.