Posted on 04/11/2014 4:12:16 PM PDT by lbryce
During a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing concerning oversight, Rep. Zoe Lofgren decided to quiz Attorney General Eric Holder about the federal government's surveillance efforts, starting off with a rather simple question. She notes that the bulk phone record collection program is considered to be legal by its supporters, based on Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows for the collection of "business records." So, she wonders, is there any legal distinction between phone records and, say, internet searches or emails? In other words, does the DOJ believe that it would be perfectly legal for the US government to scoop up all your search records and emails without a warrant? Holder clearly does not want to answer the question, and first tries to answer a different question, concerning the bulk phone records program, and how the administration is supposedly committed to ending it. But eventually he's forced to admit that there's no legal distinction:
Rep Zoe Lofgren asks AG Eric Holder if Internet Searches Are Treated Like Telephone Records
YouTube:Rep Zoe Lofgren asks AG Erc Holder if Internet Searches Are Treated Like Telephone Records
This is important. As you may recall, some of the attempts to deal with the phone record collection, including President Obama's, focus only on ending the specific phone record collection program, not the underlying law (or the interpretation of that law). This isn't to say that there are ongoing programs to do bulk warrantless collection of those other types of information, but it is worth recognizing that the government believes there would be no Constitutional issue if it decided to set up such a program.
(Excerpt) Read more at techdirt.com ...
Eric Holder Admits That,
If It Wanted,
NSA Could Collect Internet Searches & Emails
Just Like Phone Metadata
is.
What Holder meant to say is this, “They already are.”
Is already doing it, is right.
Since we’re paying for it. Can we have email and phone records for Reid, Holder, 0, and Jarrett?
again, would not shed one tear if nsa got nuked. not one. any putz who wants to defend these losers can go pound it.
funsa
Can’t believe our local gal, Zoe, would ask that?
LOL
Sumpin ain’t right with Holder...
He’s right. In a fascist police state, the ruling class can do whatever they want to do to the “little people”.
Zoe Lofgren [D-Ca]... notes that the bulk phone record collection program is considered to be legal by its supporters, based on Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows for the collection of "business records." So, she wonders, is there any legal distinction between phone records and, say, internet searches or emails? In other words, does the DOJ believe that it would be perfectly legal for the US government to scoop up all your search records and emails without a warrant? Holder clearly does not want to answer the question, and first tries to answer a different question...
What that clearly means is that they have already tested to ensure it can be done, and will periodically test to make sure it will work when needed.
Our nation is morally bankrupt.
Not quite yet. Thanks to Rand Paul, Section 215 sunsets next year. It must be renewed at that time or allowed to fade away. National climate as it is, very few congressmen/senators would be brave enough to go on the record for renewal.
Funny that nobody thanks that man.
When they do this stuff, do they not realize that someday the wheel will turn, and they will no longer be in power?
And the government will be pointed at them?
NSA-BLM etc ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.