NSA phone database controversy - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

loganmule · 05-11-2006, 09:23 PM

USA Today came out with an article revealing that the NSA had created a database consisting of call histories for millions of "ordinary Americans" not specifically targeted for suspected criminal activity. Here's an excerpt:

"The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews."

The link to the full article is here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-nsa_x.htm?453

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel violated. If this doesn't propel Bush to record low numbers and take a number of his Republican colleagues down with him this fall, nothing will.

Willravel · 05-11-2006, 09:32 PM

Maybe if they open my mail and break into my home...THEN we'll all be safe from 'terrorism'. :rolls eyes:

How about that's never been a good excuse, and it's worn so thin that it's breaking? This is 1000 times worse than Watergate, and no one is being heald responsible. It makes me sick.

ObieX · 05-11-2006, 09:33 PM

I like how all the Republicans are now acting shocked and shout out about demanding "answers".. Hopefully people will see that it's too little and too late. They should have done these things months.. even years ago when it wasn't election time. Many of the ones who are schocked about the whole thing most likely were told about the activity and agreed with it a long long time ago. OMG, election time tho! gotta make it look like we're actually doing something! To the the podiums!

ObieX · 05-11-2006, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Maybe if they open my mail and break into my home...THEN we'll all be safe from 'terrorism'. :rolls eyes:

How about that's never been a good excuse, and it's worn so thin that it's breaking? This is 1000 times worse than Watergate, and no one is being heald responsible. It makes me sick.

And whats worse is there's more and more crap thats dug up every day... and of course the lives that continue to be lost every single day for this administration. It really makes me sick too.

Sty · 05-11-2006, 11:09 PM

There's more insight and some good connections made on a post on arstechnica:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060511-6813.html

I find it quite unbelievable that when your congress sacks a program in its first step, the loosing side just renames the program, plays a little box game with powerpoint and it's like nothing happened at all.

Humanitarismus · 05-12-2006, 02:43 AM

I think it is also critical (in that constellation) that AT&T controls the biggest Backbone of the US. Here's a citation from a letter:

"AT&T owns and operates the largest Internet backbone in the United States and one of the largest worldwide. According to AT&T itself, “AT&T carries more combined data, voice, and Internet traffic than any other carrier in the U.S.: 675 trillion bytes (terabytes) and 300 million voice calls (average day).”1 SBC is the second largest wireline provider of local, long distance, voice, and data services in the United States. SBC also has controlling interest in the nation’s second largest wireless carrier. AT&T’s backbone is the largest Multi-Protocol Label Switching (“MPLS”) network. MPLS enables the network operator to prioritize packets, providing superior performance over the ordinary method of routing Internet traffic, which requires routing table look-ups for all packets routed.2 MPLS has a lower latency rate (the amount of time it takes a data packet to travel roundtrip between two points in the network) and packet loss rate than ordinary Internet routing. Thus, MPLS networks have a big advantage over “ordinary” Internet backbones."
http://www.comptelascent.org/public-...aug10_2005.pdf

If it is true that AT&T give the NSA access to this data which they deliver, they could do much more with data mining tools and enough computing power than they had ever been able to do before. This read is interesting:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70621-0.html

dksuddeth · 05-12-2006, 03:15 AM

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

host · 05-12-2006, 03:37 AM

The title of this forum does not lend itself to expressing a reaction as to what needs to happen next. We need to call this what it is....and express ourselves....rhetorically....if that means alone....in a rising chorus that swiftly achieves the numbers necessary to intimidate these *uckers into backing down and handing our country back to us...will have any appreciable effect. If not.... plan what to do next, only on payphones....

I posted my reaction, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...39#post2060939

I'm hoping that they are still "testing the waters", and if the 29 percent polling can be matched by a loud and determined, unrelenting resolve, maybe they'll blink.....I hope....

highthief · 05-12-2006, 04:00 AM

I'm suprised there has not, as yet, been violent rebellion in the US. Not to say the government needs to fall over this particular issue, but, IMO, if the same sequence of abuses or seeming abuses by the government were to occur in virtually any European nation, for example, there would be a degree of rioting and insurrection, as has been seen there many times before.

In the US (despite the whole 2nd amendment, freedoms, history of protest, etc) people are content to whine on the internet and hope that cursing Bush et al on a messageboard will somehow change things (not apoke at anyone here, just a general observation).

I find this interesting ...

The_Jazz · 05-12-2006, 04:45 AM

Wow, I stay away for a couple of days and come back to find dksuddeth advocating the overthrow of the government. It's almost an answer to the tree falling in the woods question.

And highthief, the chances of any violent rebellion happening in my lifetime in the US are diminishingly small. There's currently no rallying point for any of the dissenters or any mass organization towards deposing anyone. The vast majority of Americans would never support the destruction of the Constitution (although they'd probably change their minds quickly at the end of a gun), and the armed forces are simply too strong for anyone to make a direct attack. Trying to overthrow the US government would not only be pointless suicide, it would leave a negative legacy for the cause.

I actually thought about posting on this topic on my way to work on this morning. After reading the USA Today article, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the Bush administration is making a direct attack on the 4th Amendment with this and warrantless wiretaps that the New York Times first reported on. Senator Lehey thinks that there are other programs that have yet to come to light with similar affronts to the 4th. There's also the issue that the Justice Department shut down their investigation into the wiretaps because they couldn't get security clearance to access the information - for the record, that's one part of the Executive Branch denying access to another. The White House certainly has some difficult duties in keeping us free from foreign terrorism, but to me it almost feels like there are police/NSA spies around every lamppost and listening to every phone call. I keep waiting for the court cases to start flying, but I haven't seen anything major yet, although the latest report is certainly too new for anyone to have done anything about.

Redlemon · 05-12-2006, 05:19 AM

(no message)

The_Jazz · 05-12-2006, 05:22 AM

But this is a suit against AT&T, not the federal government. It's possible that the decision could impact the NSA, but not necessarily.

Redlemon · 05-12-2006, 05:34 AM

Yeah, I misread it. That's why I deleted my post, but not quite fast enough.

stevo · 05-12-2006, 05:44 AM

I don't see the big deal (suprised?). Its not like they recorded the messages, or even the names of the callers. They have dates, times, and number to number. How is that invading anyones privacy? I don't feel as if my privacy has been violated. So the feds know this number called that number, big deal. They take the data, run some algorithms and see if there's a suspect pattern. If there is they investigate it a bit further and make sure its not related to terrorism. I'm glad their doing something.

Jimellow · 05-12-2006, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USA Today Article (all quotes apply)

Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide," he said. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."

Somehow, that isn't reassuring at all.

Quote:

She [Dana Perino] added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."

Personally, it's bothersome to me that despite this practice being "lawful and necessary" we (American citizens), are only finding out about it as a result of some journalistic probing. That makes me think very strongly that those practicing this spying are suspect that it might not be kosher; and thus have to defend it, instead of explaining it in more depth.

Quote:

The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million.

In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree.

The president's representatives have been in court quite a bit lately, facing various legal charges. The fact that these people are able to ovverride laws and rights in the name of fighting terrorism is disheartening. It also doesn't seem very democratic to have a president using executive force to limit individual rights.

Quote:

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

Kudos to Qwest. In essence, I guess Qwest could be considered a terrorist threat now that they are refusing to blindly follow their governments demands, instead opting to protect those they serve financially.

That being said, it's a very well written, and informative article. Instead of just providing the hot issue, it also provides back story, as well as information regarding the laws and rights that the president's actions may be compromising.

highthief · 05-12-2006, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

And highthief, the chances of any violent rebellion happening in my lifetime in the US are diminishingly small. There's currently no rallying point for any of the dissenters or any mass organization towards deposing anyone. The vast majority of Americans would never support the destruction of the Constitution (although they'd probably change their minds quickly at the end of a gun), and the armed forces are simply too strong for anyone to make a direct attack. Trying to overthrow the US government would not only be pointless suicide, it would leave a negative legacy for the cause.

Not really suggesting the overthrow of the government, but in Britain, France, Italy, Germany, etc there'd be a few days or weeks of work stoppages, marches, a little random looting, pillaging and burning, etc, that tends to force governments to action.

dksuddeth · 05-12-2006, 06:17 AM

Along the same lines as jimellows thoughts, with all the 'signing statements' that have gone along with all this legislation, What the executive branch considers 'lawful' and necessary, might technically not be.

The_Jazz · 05-12-2006, 06:19 AM

Here in the US, we only riot, loot, pillage and burn after our sports teams win a big game. Otherwise we can't be bothered.

aceventura3 · 05-12-2006, 08:12 AM

We don't have a guaranteed right to privacy in the Constitution only a right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Also, be clear on who owns those phone records - the phone company. The phone company never contracted with you that the data they collect would be destroyed or kept private.

Wake up. If you want privacy don't do stuff in the public relm. Don't enter into agreements with companies that collect and store data. Don't use public roads and facilities, etc.

cyrnel · 05-12-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

...Wake up. If you want privacy don't do stuff in the public relm. Don't enter into agreements with companies that collect and store data. Don't use public roads and facilities, etc.

That goes without saying, no?

That gathering, storing, and analysis methods are improving does not mean we want to let it run unchecked. The erosion of "implied" anonymity is more due to improvements in technology than any policy. Current policy is coincidental. (Though I believe they feed each other.) Mankind hasn't had to contend with systematic privacy intrusions on these scales before, and it's not likely to slow. Business and government benefit while people get creeped out and abuses climb. Who'll win? I'm putting a cautious $5 on big legislation in the next 10yrs. (assuming we see a significant congressional cleanup first)

Jimellow · 05-12-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

We don't have a guaranteed right to privacy in the Constitution only a right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Also, be clear on who owns those phone records - the phone company. The phone company never contracted with you that the data they collect would be destroyed or kept private.

The article states otherwise.

From the article, with highlights:

Quote:

The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.

Ma Bell's bedrock principle — protection of the customer — guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. "No court order, no customer information — period. That's how it was for decades," he said.

The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million.

In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree.

Warrants are required as per the ruling highlighted above. In this case, Bush used his executive power to bypasss such requirements; and I question how he is able to justify such a decision to be "lawful and necessary."

stevo · 05-12-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimellow

The article states otherwise.

From the article, with highlights:

Warrants are required as per the ruling highlighted above. In this case, Bush used his executive power to bypasss such requirements; and I question how he is able to justify such a decision to be "lawful and necessary."

The article is misleading. Yes, you need a warrant to obtain phone records of an individual. But that is not exactly what is going on. There are no names/individuals attached to these numbers. It is nothing but a list of numbers. Its the same data you get in the mail every month. Do they need a court order to "obtain" the data and send you a bill? No.

Once there is a suspected terrorist calling pattern observed, whatever that may be, NSA goes to a judge, follows the law, and gets a court order for the names connected to that call.

This is more of nothing. I wonder what they'll come up with next week.

The_Jazz · 05-12-2006, 08:58 AM

I think that constitutional requirements for warrants are discussed quite nicely in this thread.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...urth+amendment

Phone companies have to gather these records for billing purposes. They don't listen to calls, but they have to know who called who to be able to bill the responsible party. Those records are the private property of the phone companies, although the courts have always seen an invididual stake in that property and as such a warrant is typically required to access anyone's phone records, regardless of the level. This is well covered territory and established law.

Aceventura3, regardless of how you interpret the Constitution, the Supreme Court has actually ruled that there is a 4th Amendment right to privacy for decades.

stevo · 05-12-2006, 09:04 AM

You do know Clinton was doing this through out the 90's? The exact same thing. Without court orders, and without the prompt of 9/11.

Now before you chastise me for bringing clinton into this, its not a "well, he did it and it was ok then, its ok now" thing. Its a "he did it and no one cared then, but they care when bush does it" thing. 60 minutes even did an episode on this in 2000. No one cared then. Why now? Why's the media take off and go nuts when bush does it. 60 minutes puts out this story in 2000 and no one else cared and it was never mentioned again. but now, a republican...hmmm

red0blivia · 05-12-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DemocracyNow!

One source told the paper that the NSA is attempting to create the world's largest database -- big enough to include every call ever made within the nation's borders.

...On Thursday, President Bush discussed the NSA”s spy operations but did not directly address the report in USA Today that the NSA was creating a database of phone call records.

* President Bush: "Today there are new claims about other ways we are tracking down al Qaeda to prevent attacks on America. I want to make some important points about what the government is doing, and what the government is not doing. First, our intelligence activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans. Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval. Third, the intelligence activities I authorized arelawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of congress, both Republican and Democrat. Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans."

are people still falling for this ssort of verbal defecation??

i am continuously perplexed by how he is able to repeatedly make statements that are a direct contradiction of the facts, without being scoffed at and ran out of office.
this has been going on for years!
i am at a loss as to how his supporters can reconcile his fabrications with reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DemocracyNow!

On Capitol Hill, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter - Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee - announced he would call officials from AT&T, Verizon and Bell South to appear before the panel for questioning. Meanwhile there have been a number of other developments about the NSA's spy program.

On Wednesday the Justice Department announced it had to close an investigation into the NSA”s domestic spy program because the NSA had refused to grant investigators security clearances.

On Monday, President Bush nominated General Michael Hayden to become the next director of the CIA. Hayden was the head of the NSA in 2001 when President Bush ordered the agency to begin warrant-less spying of Americans.

General Hayden spoke with reporters yesterday about the NSA spying program.

* Michael Hayden: "Everything that NSA done is lawful and carefully done and the appropriate members of congress, the house and senate are briefed on all NSA activities and I will just leave it at that."

But the NSA spy program is even being criticized by former top NSA officials. On Monday the agency's former Director Bobby Ray Inman said “this activity is not authorized.”

a discussion of this issue will be on democracy now!, today.

stevo · 05-12-2006, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red0blivia

are people still falling for this ssort of verbal defecation??

i am continuously perplexed by how he is able to repeatedly make statements that are a direct contradiction of the facts, without being scoffed at and ran out of office.
this has been going on for years!
i am at a loss as to how his supporters can reconcile his fabrications with reality.

I don't understand why people werent outraged in 1994, when a democratic president, backed by a democratic house and democratic president passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Everyone please read it before you listen to what the numbskulls in the media are telling you. http://www.askcalea.net/calea.html
an excerpt:

Quote:

SEC. 103. ASSISTANCE CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.

(a) CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS- Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section and sections 108(a) and 109(b) and (d), a telecommunications carrier shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications are capable of--

(1) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept, to the exclusion of any other communications, all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier within a service area to or from equipment, facilities, or services of a subscriber of such carrier concurrently with their transmission to or from the subscriber's equipment, facility, or service, or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government;

(2) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier--

(A) before, during, or immediately after the transmission of a wire or electronic communication (or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government); and
(B) in a manner that allows it to be associated with the communication to which it pertains, except that, with regard to information acquired solely pursuant to the authority for pen registers and trap and trace devices (as defined in section 3127 of title 18, United States Code), such call-identifying information shall not include any information that may disclose the physical location of the subscriber (except to the extent that the location may be determined from the telephone number);

(3) delivering intercepted communications and call-identifying information to the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, in a format such that they may be transmitted by means of equipment, facilities, or services procured by the government to a location other than the premises of the carrier; and

(4) facilitating authorized communications interceptions and access to call-identifying information unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with any subscriber's telecommunications service and in a manner that protects--

(A) the privacy and security of communications and call-identifying information not authorized to be intercepted; and
(B) information regarding the government's interception of communications and access to call-identifying information.

ScottKuma · 05-12-2006, 09:27 AM

I was a Republican (now moving ever more towards Libertarianism). I'm just shocked at how much personal liberty we've given away in the last 25 years.

Everyone I heard on the news saying they had "No Problem" with this - no matter WHO did/is doing it - has said, "I have nothing to hide!" It's unfortunate, but I honestly think we're moving more and more towards the sentiment in the following poem:

Quote:

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller

Replace "Communists" with "Terrorists" and you might see what I mean.

Maybe not now...but I don't like how wide the net has been cast. If they're monitoring everyone's calls, then everyone is a suspect. Make no mistake about it, although 99.9% of the time this will be used properly, there WILL be abuses of this. Ask the Clintons about the tax records that they obtained - no matter how legally. (Although I bring up the Clintons specifically, don't focus on that.... Politicians being the seedy sort that they are, abuses will not be partisan.)

We're just that much closer to living under a police state.

host · 05-12-2006, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red0blivia

are people still falling for this ssort of verbal defecation??

i am continuously perplexed by how he is able to repeatedly make statements that are a direct contradiction of the facts, without being scoffed at and ran out of office.
this has been going on for years!
i am at a loss as to how his supporters can reconcile his fabrications with reality.

a discussion of this issue will be on democracy now!, today.

The CIA...Destroyed ! FEMA...Destroyed ! Constitutional Checks and Balances....Destroyed ! 4th Amendment Rigths....Destroyed ! They may look like morons...Mr. Bush and Gen. Hayden....but note who is loosing authority, and who is gaining it!

Quote:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11021093/
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Jan. 24th
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
Updated: 10:57 a.m. ET Jan. 25, 2006

....OLBERMANN: Also on the subject of the NSA spying, and a lot more serious, as a cartoon to a James Thurber cartoon once read, paraphrasing here, Sometimes I get the feeling that your mother and your Uncle Ed are running the government.

In the wake of the unprecedented news conference by the creator of the domestic eavesdropping program, General Michael Hayden, a slight mistake the general made has been revealed. And it‘s hard to tell which is more frightening for those of you in favor of continuing the democracy, the mistake itself, or the general‘s insistence that it was not a mistake.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Cou...nsa-Hayden.wmv or...
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-nsa-Ha.mov from:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/06.html#a8184

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My understanding is that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American‘s right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use...

GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Well, actually, the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That‘s what it says.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But does it not say probable...

HAYDEN: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... the court standard...

HAYDEN: The amendment says...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... the legal standard...

HAYDEN: ... unreasonable search and seizure.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... the legal standard is probable cause.

HAYDEN: Just o be very clear—and believe me, if there‘s any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it‘s the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: To quote the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in its entirety, the one the general and the NSA folks are so familiar with and know is about reasonableness and not about probable cause, quote, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Well, maybe they have a different Constitution over there at the NSA.

cyrnel · 05-12-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I don't understand why people werent outraged in 1994, when a democratic president, backed by a democratic house and democratic president passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994

They were. At least as much as today. Don't you recall the numskull media then too? (same arguments both sides, though war wasn't as significant) I don't see the ruling party as significant. Capabilities increase and people use them. The minority party whores against it. Nothing new there.

Capabilities will increase and will be used. At some point, when an administration suggests we all have nano-locators implanted in our heads to fight the venusian menace, resistance might get downright noisy. Might.

Increased monitoring will always help big business and government, and in many cases it can help individuals. Where's the balance? Will the population gradually grow accustomed to and accept monitoring at all levels in exchange for the benefits? Restrictions are inevitable. It's a matter of how much and when and if generations more accustomed to technology care.

red0blivia · 05-12-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I don't understand why people werent outraged in 1994, when a democratic president, backed by a democratic house and democratic president passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Everyone please read it before you listen to what the numbskulls in the media are telling you. http://www.askcalea.net/calea.html
an excerpt:

stevo, this not a partisan issue.
i have been, and am, outraged by many things the democrats have done.
and i am completely disgusted by their complicity and lack of spine in regard to all of the, ever escalating, disenfranchisements and injustices commited by the current administartion.

i am not a democrat - i am an independent.
i think our two party system is greatly flawed and a disgrace to the deMOCKracy our country is supposed to represent.

but even if you subscribe to any given political party, why would you disservice yourself by defending them, even as they are taking your rights away?

stevo · 05-12-2006, 09:54 AM

But its not monitoring. not in the sense of the previous story. They aren't listening in on everyones phone calls. The have a list of numbers thats it. A list of numbers that are private property of the telecom companies. A list of numbers they are legally required to turn over if the government asks. If you don't want them to know who you call, use a payphone or disposable cell. Thats probably what alqaeda does anyway, so I don't know how much info theyd really glean from this anyway.

samcol · 05-12-2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But does it not say probable...

HAYDEN: No.

...

Well, in the crazy world we live in today, not knowing the 4th amendment makes a person totally qualified to run the CIA.

red0blivia · 05-12-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

But its not monitoring.

yes it is. it is monitoring/keeping record of every personal and businees contact you make.

Quote:

They aren't listening in on everyones phone calls.

not everyones... not yet.
these things always progress in steps.
that is why this is so dangerous.

Quote:

The have a list of numbers thats it. A list of numbers that are private property of the telecom companies. A list of numbers they are legally required to turn over if the government asks.

which is standard in a criminal investigation... not on a broad scale that encompasses every single american.
it is an extreme invasion of privacy.

Quote:

If you don't want them to know who you call, use a payphone or disposable cell. Thats probably what alqaeda does anyway, so I don't know how much info theyd really glean from this anyway.

a perfect arguement for why this is, in no way, justifiable.

Jimellow · 05-12-2006, 10:13 AM

My concern/opposition to this is not that it won't lead to catching terrorists, but instead that it will give the government further freedom to broaden the defition of "terrorists," thus allowing them to legally pursue those that fit some government profile, regardless of whether such profiling is valid or not.

aceventura3 · 05-12-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

That goes without saying, no?

That gathering, storing, and analysis methods are improving does not mean we want to let it run unchecked. The erosion of "implied" anonymity is more due to improvements in technology than any policy. Current policy is coincidental. (Though I believe they feed each other.) Mankind hasn't had to contend with systematic privacy intrusions on these scales before, and it's not likely to slow. Business and government benefit while people get creeped out and abuses climb. Who'll win? I'm putting a cautious $5 on big legislation in the next 10yrs. (assuming we see a significant congressional cleanup first)

I disagree because there is no "implied" anonymity in this case I would argue the opposite is true. Let use an example:

Lets say Joe talks to Bill at Ma Bells house. Joe knows it happened, Bill knows and Ma knows about the conversation.

Who has the privacy right? In my view, nobody. Joe can tell the world what happened. Bill can tell the world and Ma can tell the world. If Joe and Bill wanted absolute privacy they shouldn't have gone to Ma's house.

If the government goes to Ma and says give me the names, dates and times of the people who came to your house to talk, Ma can do it if she wants. If she says no, the government is obligated to get a court order.

In the NSA controversy the phone companies voluntarily gave the information. Perhaps the beef should be with the phone company.

The_Jazz · 05-12-2006, 11:58 AM

Ok, let's review:

Why are the records being kept? The phone companies have to have them for billing purposes. There's no other way to run a phone company that I know of unless you're charging a flat fee, which isn't available to my knowlege.

Does the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 require a warrant or other type of court order? Yes. In all cases.

Is the NSA circumventing the CALEA? Yes since they are not obtaining court orders or warrants to access the information gathered by the government on a day-to-day basis.

When the government focuses on financial dealings, they have to get court orders for the banks. When the government focuses on shipments of potential illegal drug shipments, they have to get court orders to open shipping containers.

The thing here is that the phone companies (with the exception of Qwest) have rolled over and given up their records without a warrant or court order. Theoretically, that is their right to do so, but since it's the record of all of the general public's calls, there are privacy issues involved. I don't know if the phone company is under any obligation to tell you if the government serves a warrant for your phone records - they certainly aren't under any obligation to tell you that your phone is tapped.

Seaver · 05-12-2006, 12:05 PM

It's illegal and needs to be stopped. No IFs, ANDs or BUTs.

I supported Bush during the incident of recording international calls because they can be justified as intercepting foreign communications (or spying).

The internal US citizen-to-citizen tapping requires a warrant according to law. The NSA has no right to record such conversations according to Illegal Search and Seizure.

The_Jazz · 05-12-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

It's illegal and needs to be stopped. No IFs, ANDs or BUTs.

I supported Bush during the incident of recording international calls because they can be justified as intercepting foreign communications (or spying).

The internal US citizen-to-citizen tapping requires a warrant according to law. The NSA has no right to record such conversations according to Illegal Search and Seizure.

Although I agree with you here, I'm going to play devil's advocate. These are the private business records belonging to the phone companies. What's to stop them from handing over everything if the companies feel its their "patriotic duty" to do so?

roachboy · 05-12-2006, 12:27 PM

qwest determined the request to be illegal, the jazz.
but it is nice to see that some among us have their thumb on the pulse of unfolding, insofar as this newest in the seemingly endless chain of bushscandals is concerned.

Quote:

Qwest's Refusal of N.S.A. Query Is Explained
By JOHN O'NEIL and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, May 12 ? The telecommunications company Qwest turned down requests by the National Security Agency for private telephone records because it concluded that doing so would violate federal privacy laws, a lawyer for the telephone company's former chief executive said today.

In a statement released this morning, the lawyer said that the former chief executive, Joseph N. Nacchio, made the decision after asking whether "a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request."

Mr. Nacchio learned that no warrant had been granted and that there was a "disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process," said the lawyer, Herbert J. Stern. As a result, the statement said, Mr. Nacchio concluded that "the requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act."

A Qwest spokesman, Robert Toevs, declined to discuss anything to do with security issues or the statement by Mr. Nacchio's lawyer.

Qwest was the only phone company to turn down requests from the security agency for phone records as part of a program to compile a vast database of numbers and other information on virtually all domestic calls. The program's scope was first described in an article published on Thursday by USA Today that led to an outpouring of demands for information from Congressional Republicans and Democrats. The article said that AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon had agreed to provide the information to the security agency.

The lawyer's statement came as Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was the head of the National Security Agency at the time the program began, continued to seek support today for his nomination as C.I.A. director in meetings with senators on Capitol Hill.

Speaking to reporters with Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, General Hayden declined to comment on the article about the National Security Agency program.

"Everything that the agency has done has been lawful," he said. "It's been briefed to the appropriate members of Congress."

Mr. Hagel, a member of the Intelligence Committee, which will conduct General Hayden's confirmation hearings, said that General Hayden was "the right choice" for the C.I.A.'s top post.

But he also said he supported plans announced Thursday by Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to hold separate hearings into the collection of phone records.

Mr. Hagel called that "appropriate."

"I think this issue needs to be clearly aired," he said. "I think people need to have confidence in their government."

Mr. Hagel said the confirmation hearings would certainly involve "tough questions" for General Hayden. Members of Congress have said they want information both about the collection of phone records and about a program of warrantless wiretaps on calls between people in the United States and people overseas suspected of having ties to terrorism.

The White House continued to express its support of General Hayden today and to sidestep questions about the program to collect telephone records.

Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, told reporters that "we're 100 percent behind Michael Hayden."

Mr. Snow also said that the White House was "confident that he is going to comport himself well and answer all the questions and concerns that members of the United States Senate may have in the process of confirmation."

On Tuesday, President Bush responded to an outcry over the article by assuring the country that "we're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans."

One senior government official, who was granted anonymity to speak publicly about the classified program, confirmed that the N.S.A. had access to records of most telephone calls in the United States. But the official said the call records were used for the limited purpose of tracing regular contacts of "known bad guys."

"To perform such traces," the official said, "you'd have to have all the calls or most of them. But you wouldn't be interested in the vast majority of them."

The New York Times first reported in December that the president had authorized the N.S.A. to conduct eavesdropping without warrants.

The Times also reported in December that the agency had gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to get access to records of vast amounts of domestic and international phone calls and e-mail messages.

The agency analyzes communications patterns, the report said, and looks for evidence of terrorist activity at home and abroad.

The USA Today article on Thursday went further, saying that the N.S.A. had created an enormous database of all calls made by customers of the three phone companies in an effort to compile a log of "every call ever made" within this country.

Mr. Nacchio's statement today made a point of saying that the N.S.A. requests occurred "at a time when there was no investigation of Qwest or Mr. Nacchio." Mr. Nacchio, who left Qwest in 2002 amid allegations of fraud at the company, was indicted in December on 42 charges of insider selling.

Prosecutors say Mr. Nacchio did not make investors aware of warnings from his managers that the company's revenue and profit forecasts were too optimistic. They say Mr. Nacchio kept this information to himself yet also sold 2.5 million shares of Qwest stock over five months in 2001 that netted $100 million. The case could go to trial later this year.

On Thursday, some Republicans, including Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, defended the N.S.A.'s activities and denounced the disclosure. Mr. Hoekstra said the report "threatens to undermine our nation's safety."

"Rather than allow our intelligence professionals to maintain a laser focus on the terrorists, we are once again mired in a debate about what our intelligence community may or may not be doing," he said.

But many Democrats and civil liberties advocates said they were disturbed by the report, invoking images of Big Brother and announcing legislation aimed at reining in the N.S.A.'s domestic operations. Fifty-two members of Congress asked the president to name a special counsel to investigate the N.S.A.'s domestic surveillance programs.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who heads the Judiciary Committee, said the reported data-mining activities raised serious constitutional questions. He said he planned to seek the testimony of telephone company executives.

The House majority leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said he wanted more information on the program because "I am not sure why it would be necessary to keep and have that kind of information."

Mr. Bush did not directly confirm or deny the existence of the N.S.A. operation but said that "as a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy."

Seeking to distinguish call-tracing operations from eavesdropping, the president said that "the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval."

The phone records include numbers called; time, date and direction of calls; and other details, but not the words spoken, telecommunications experts said. Customers' names and addresses are not included in the companies' call records, though they could be cross-referenced to obtain personal data.

The law on data-mining activities is murky, and legal analysts were divided Thursday on the question of whether the N.S.A.'s tracing and analysis of huge streams of American communications data would require the agency to use subpoenas or court warrants.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said, "If they don't get a court order, it's a crime." Ms. Martin said that while the F.B.I. might be able to get access to phone collection databases by using an administrative subpoena, her reading of federal law was that the N.S.A. would be banned from doing so without court approval.

But another expert on the law of electronic surveillance, Kenneth C. Bass III, said that if access to the call database was granted in response to a national security letter issued by the government, "it would probably not be illegal, but it would be very troubling."

"The concept of the N.S.A. having near-real-time access to information about every call made in the country is chilling," said Mr. Bass, former counsel for intelligence policy at the Justice Department. He said the phone records program resembled Total Information Awareness, a Pentagon data-mining program shut down by Congress in 2003 after a public outcry.

The N.S.A. refused to discuss the report, but said in a statement that it "takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."

AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth all issued statements saying they had followed the law in protecting customers' privacy but would not discuss details of the report.

"AT&T has a long history of vigorously protecting customer privacy," said Selim Bingol, a company spokesman. "We also have an obligation to assist law enforcement and other government agencies responsible for protecting the public welfare."

Mr. Specter said in an interview that he would press for information on the operations of the N.S.A. program to determine its legality.

"I don't think we can really make a judgment on whether warrants would be necessary until we know a lot more about the program," he said.

One central question is whether the N.S.A. uses its analysis of phone call patterns to select people in the United States whose phone calls and e-mail messages are monitored without warrants. The Times has reported that the agency is believed to have eavesdropped on the international communications of about 400 to 500 people at a time within the United States and of thousands of people since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Democrats said they would use the new disclosures to push for more answers from General Hayden at his confirmation hearing, set for May 18.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, predicted "a major Constitutional confrontation on Fourth Amendment guarantees of unreasonable search and seizure" and said the new disclosures presented "a growing impediment to the confirmation of General Hayden."

Scott Shane contributed reporting from Washington for this articlE.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/wa...rtner=homepage

cyrnel · 05-12-2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I disagree because there is no "implied" anonymity in this case I would argue the opposite is true.

I was struggling with that and stopped early. I wasn't implying any solid legal foundation for general privacy. It's a muddy topic. Because capabilities are advancing, and because they can be used for mucho good or ill.

What I was getting at is the historical ability to get lost in a crowd. It's close to gone now unless you're happy living under bridges. That process will continue until our bathroom habits are indicated by the changing color of our front door. Yellow means wait a minute, brown means come back later.

There's no end to what can be with long-range RFID and other omniscience technologies as they mature over the next decade or two. What's our limit? Is there one?

I'm not suggesting the general problem lies with this administration, but they're certainly advocating its use. Just as Clinton's administration did with slightly less capable tech a few years ago. It goes back as far as we want to dig. The difference now is one of scale in what can be gathered cheaply, and how quickly it can be mined. As things progress we have to decide where the limits lie or if we want any at all. It seems many people aren't entirely comfortable with letting it all hang out. I'm not, though I lust after some of the technology.

If I sound non-commital, I am. I don't trust our elected finest and I've had enough indigestion this year.

05-11-2006, 09:23 PM	#1 (permalink)
loganmule Junkie Location: midwest	NSA phone database controversy USA Today came out with an article revealing that the NSA had created a database consisting of call histories for millions of "ordinary Americans" not specifically targeted for suspected criminal activity. Here's an excerpt: "The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY. The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews." The link to the full article is here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-nsa_x.htm?453 I don't know about anyone else, but I feel violated. If this doesn't propel Bush to record low numbers and take a number of his Republican colleagues down with him this fall, nothing will.

05-11-2006, 09:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I like how all the Republicans are now acting shocked and shout out about demanding "answers".. Hopefully people will see that it's too little and too late. They should have done these things months.. even years ago when it wasn't election time. Many of the ones who are schocked about the whole thing most likely were told about the activity and agreed with it a long long time ago. OMG, election time tho! gotta make it look like we're actually doing something! To the the podiums! __________________ We Must Dissent.

05-11-2006, 11:09 PM	#5 (permalink)
Sty Patron Administrator Location: Tôkyô, Japan	There's more insight and some good connections made on a post on arstechnica: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060511-6813.html I find it quite unbelievable that when your congress sacks a program in its first step, the loosing side just renames the program, plays a little box game with powerpoint and it's like nothing happened at all. __________________ br, Sty I route, therefore you exist

05-12-2006, 02:43 AM	#6 (permalink)
Humanitarismus Upright Location: Germany	I think it is also critical (in that constellation) that AT&T controls the biggest Backbone of the US. Here's a citation from a letter: "AT&T owns and operates the largest Internet backbone in the United States and one of the largest worldwide. According to AT&T itself, “AT&T carries more combined data, voice, and Internet traffic than any other carrier in the U.S.: 675 trillion bytes (terabytes) and 300 million voice calls (average day).”1 SBC is the second largest wireline provider of local, long distance, voice, and data services in the United States. SBC also has controlling interest in the nation’s second largest wireless carrier. AT&T’s backbone is the largest Multi-Protocol Label Switching (“MPLS”) network. MPLS enables the network operator to prioritize packets, providing superior performance over the ordinary method of routing Internet traffic, which requires routing table look-ups for all packets routed.2 MPLS has a lower latency rate (the amount of time it takes a data packet to travel roundtrip between two points in the network) and packet loss rate than ordinary Internet routing. Thus, MPLS networks have a big advantage over “ordinary” Internet backbones." http://www.comptelascent.org/public-...aug10_2005.pdf If it is true that AT&T give the NSA access to this data which they deliver, they could do much more with data mining tools and enough computing power than they had ever been able to do before. This read is interesting: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70621-0.html Last edited by Humanitarismus; 05-12-2006 at 02:53 AM..

05-12-2006, 03:15 AM	#7 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government." __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-11-2006, 09:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Maybe if they open my mail and break into my home...THEN we'll all be safe from 'terrorism'. :rolls eyes: How about that's never been a good excuse, and it's worn so thin that it's breaking? This is 1000 times worse than Watergate, and no one is being heald responsible. It makes me sick.

05-12-2006, 03:37 AM	#8 (permalink)
host Banned	The title of this forum does not lend itself to expressing a reaction as to what needs to happen next. We need to call this what it is....and express ourselves....rhetorically....if that means alone....in a rising chorus that swiftly achieves the numbers necessary to intimidate these *uckers into backing down and handing our country back to us...will have any appreciable effect. If not.... plan what to do next, only on payphones.... I posted my reaction, here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...39#post2060939 I'm hoping that they are still "testing the waters", and if the 29 percent polling can be matched by a loud and determined, unrelenting resolve, maybe they'll blink.....I hope....

05-12-2006, 04:00 AM	#9 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	I'm suprised there has not, as yet, been violent rebellion in the US. Not to say the government needs to fall over this particular issue, but, IMO, if the same sequence of abuses or seeming abuses by the government were to occur in virtually any European nation, for example, there would be a degree of rioting and insurrection, as has been seen there many times before. In the US (despite the whole 2nd amendment, freedoms, history of protest, etc) people are content to whine on the internet and hope that cursing Bush et al on a messageboard will somehow change things (not apoke at anyone here, just a general observation). I find this interesting ... __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

05-12-2006, 04:45 AM	#10 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Wow, I stay away for a couple of days and come back to find dksuddeth advocating the overthrow of the government. It's almost an answer to the tree falling in the woods question. And highthief, the chances of any violent rebellion happening in my lifetime in the US are diminishingly small. There's currently no rallying point for any of the dissenters or any mass organization towards deposing anyone. The vast majority of Americans would never support the destruction of the Constitution (although they'd probably change their minds quickly at the end of a gun), and the armed forces are simply too strong for anyone to make a direct attack. Trying to overthrow the US government would not only be pointless suicide, it would leave a negative legacy for the cause. I actually thought about posting on this topic on my way to work on this morning. After reading the USA Today article, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the Bush administration is making a direct attack on the 4th Amendment with this and warrantless wiretaps that the New York Times first reported on. Senator Lehey thinks that there are other programs that have yet to come to light with similar affronts to the 4th. There's also the issue that the Justice Department shut down their investigation into the wiretaps because they couldn't get security clearance to access the information - for the record, that's one part of the Executive Branch denying access to another. The White House certainly has some difficult duties in keeping us free from foreign terrorism, but to me it almost feels like there are police/NSA spies around every lamppost and listening to every phone call. I keep waiting for the court cases to start flying, but I haven't seen anything major yet, although the latest report is certainly too new for anyone to have done anything about. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-12-2006, 05:19 AM	#11 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	(no message) __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.

05-12-2006, 05:22 AM	#12 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	But this is a suit against AT&T, not the federal government. It's possible that the decision could impact the NSA, but not necessarily. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-12-2006, 05:34 AM	#13 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	Yeah, I misread it. That's why I deleted my post, but not quite fast enough. __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.

05-12-2006, 05:44 AM	#14 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I don't see the big deal (suprised?). Its not like they recorded the messages, or even the names of the callers. They have dates, times, and number to number. How is that invading anyones privacy? I don't feel as if my privacy has been violated. So the feds know this number called that number, big deal. They take the data, run some algorithms and see if there's a suspect pattern. If there is they investigate it a bit further and make sure its not related to terrorism. I'm glad their doing something. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

05-12-2006, 06:17 AM	#17 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Along the same lines as jimellows thoughts, with all the 'signing statements' that have gone along with all this legislation, What the executive branch considers 'lawful' and necessary, might technically not be. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-12-2006, 06:19 AM	#18 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Here in the US, we only riot, loot, pillage and burn after our sports teams win a big game. Otherwise we can't be bothered. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-12-2006, 08:12 AM	#19 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	We don't have a guaranteed right to privacy in the Constitution only a right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Also, be clear on who owns those phone records - the phone company. The phone company never contracted with you that the data they collect would be destroyed or kept private. Wake up. If you want privacy don't do stuff in the public relm. Don't enter into agreements with companies that collect and store data. Don't use public roads and facilities, etc. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-12-2006, 08:58 AM	#23 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I think that constitutional requirements for warrants are discussed quite nicely in this thread. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...urth+amendment Phone companies have to gather these records for billing purposes. They don't listen to calls, but they have to know who called who to be able to bill the responsible party. Those records are the private property of the phone companies, although the courts have always seen an invididual stake in that property and as such a warrant is typically required to access anyone's phone records, regardless of the level. This is well covered territory and established law. Aceventura3, regardless of how you interpret the Constitution, the Supreme Court has actually ruled that there is a 4th Amendment right to privacy for decades. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-12-2006, 09:04 AM	#24 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	You do know Clinton was doing this through out the 90's? The exact same thing. Without court orders, and without the prompt of 9/11. Now before you chastise me for bringing clinton into this, its not a "well, he did it and it was ok then, its ok now" thing. Its a "he did it and no one cared then, but they care when bush does it" thing. 60 minutes even did an episode on this in 2000. No one cared then. Why now? Why's the media take off and go nuts when bush does it. 60 minutes puts out this story in 2000 and no one else cared and it was never mentioned again. but now, a republican...hmmm __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

05-12-2006, 09:54 AM	#31 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	But its not monitoring. not in the sense of the previous story. They aren't listening in on everyones phone calls. The have a list of numbers thats it. A list of numbers that are private property of the telecom companies. A list of numbers they are legally required to turn over if the government asks. If you don't want them to know who you call, use a payphone or disposable cell. Thats probably what alqaeda does anyway, so I don't know how much info theyd really glean from this anyway. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

05-12-2006, 10:13 AM	#34 (permalink)
Jimellow Junkie	My concern/opposition to this is not that it won't lead to catching terrorists, but instead that it will give the government further freedom to broaden the defition of "terrorists," thus allowing them to legally pursue those that fit some government profile, regardless of whether such profiling is valid or not. __________________ Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

05-12-2006, 11:58 AM	#36 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Ok, let's review: Why are the records being kept? The phone companies have to have them for billing purposes. There's no other way to run a phone company that I know of unless you're charging a flat fee, which isn't available to my knowlege. Does the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 require a warrant or other type of court order? Yes. In all cases. Is the NSA circumventing the CALEA? Yes since they are not obtaining court orders or warrants to access the information gathered by the government on a day-to-day basis. When the government focuses on financial dealings, they have to get court orders for the banks. When the government focuses on shipments of potential illegal drug shipments, they have to get court orders to open shipping containers. The thing here is that the phone companies (with the exception of Qwest) have rolled over and given up their records without a warrant or court order. Theoretically, that is their right to do so, but since it's the record of all of the general public's calls, there are privacy issues involved. I don't know if the phone company is under any obligation to tell you if the government serves a warrant for your phone records - they certainly aren't under any obligation to tell you that your phone is tapped. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-12-2006, 12:05 PM	#37 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	It's illegal and needs to be stopped. No IFs, ANDs or BUTs. I supported Bush during the incident of recording international calls because they can be justified as intercepting foreign communications (or spying). The internal US citizen-to-citizen tapping requires a warrant according to law. The NSA has no right to record such conversations according to Illegal Search and Seizure.