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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

"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."

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....

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 ...

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.

(no message)

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.

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

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.

Somehow, that isn't reassuring at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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:

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

...

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

They are not recording the conversations. They are not listening to the conversations. All they did was obtain the records of calls made. The phone companies voluntarily gave those records. Where is the illegal part? I must be an idiot, because I simply don't understand how the NSA violated the law, or anyone's "right to privacy".

roachboy, I read that article this morning, and I happen to agree with Qwest's lawyers. However, they're in the minority here, but I'm not sure what laws govern the privacy of phone records. They may be sacrosact until the appearance of a warrant, but I don't really know.

For those of you claiming that the government only has annonymous numbers grab your home phone number and type it into google and see what you get back. This doesn't work for all numbers but any numbers that appear in phonebooks it does (ie no cell phones).

I would feel better about this if the phone companies didn't give them the phone numbers and instead only gave them unique ID's for who was calling who and the government had to get warrents in order to determine which ID belonged to which phone number but even that is iffy.

The funniest thing about this is listening to them try to defend it. Lott actually asked the question "Do we want security ... or do we want to get in a twit about our civil libertarian rights?" Wow. I won't even bother quoting Ben Franklin on this one. It's just too easy.

You know, I acutally didn't think it was a big deal when I first heard about it, but now I'm convinced they're doing something wrong. The more desperate their attempts to defend themselves become, the more guilty they must be.

I think there is a newer version of the law. In 1934 they were using switch board operators. If the phone companies violated the law, it should be a simple matter for a lawsuit to be filed and a cease and desist order issued. If this happens I stand corrected. However...

Today when I place a call I assume my call is being identified by the reciever of the call, anyone with access to the receiving phone knows my number, its in the public relm. Phone companies presumed everyones willingness to have their phone numbers published in directories with identifying information like name and adrress. Do those things violate privacy? If you use a wireless phone do you assume privacy, when people can make or purchase equipment to pick up thos calls? When you call 911, there is no court order but government traces nd records the call, is that a violation of privacy?

If we have a problem - it should be with the phone company not the NSA.

Goooodnesss!!!! The Republican Party [edited for abrasive content. It is one thing to posit that the Republicans are behaving in a facist manner, it is quite another to say they are facist.] is working O.T . to spin this new crisis away from themselves and onto democratric party members:
From the other side:
How much imagination does it take to understand and be very dismayed about the potential for abuse and repression that this obsessively partisan and secretive administration might be capable of, using the phone bill data it has perusaded the telcos to hand over to it.

If war breaks out with Iran, or is seriously contemplated, how about a list of phone numbers of Americans who make or receive frequent calls to or from those Americans of Iranian descent who live in the U.S., singled out by the calls that they make to and receive from Iran?

How about a search that reults in lists of names and addresses of all those who call the NRA, or gun or ammo dealers? How about a list of all the folks who make and receive calls from the first group who are known to call the NRA or gun and ammo dealers? It's an easy way to make lists of homes to search first when and if 2nd amendment rights are suspended....

How about searches to find out who makes and receives frequent calls to M&A houses, like Goldman Sachs....who is suddenly talking frequently to Sachs M&A department...without warrants for these searches issued by a judge, even members of a trustworty and ethical executive branch, in a restored climate of 2 party, 3 branch "checks and balances" could be tempted to use the database to illegal or unfair financial advantage....

How about Sen. Russ Feingold? He called for a censure resolution of president Bush. Who is he calling frequently? Can we blackmail him into capitulation with knowledge of his calling and receipt of calls, patterns?

Who were John Kerry's most influential advisors and potential cabinet picks....say....one month before the 2004 presidential election? Who was Kerry talking to less or mor frequently than in September, 2004, Who did he stop talking to...have briefer or longer conversations with? Was he talking to anyone new?
Did he make any calls to numbers that might be spun as embarassing or difficult to explain, if the press was informed discretely.

C'mon...even die hard...."nothing to see here", reflexively supportive, terror fightin' folks who give Bush & co. every benefit of a doubt, must be able to sift through the potential for abuse when judicial oversight of phone number search requests are removed! Do you really believe that this secretive group at NSA and in the executive branch have had the entire depth and breadth of their unlawful activities totally exposed by the press?

If you still advocate for this? When would you object to it? It may already be too late to turn this back and hold these abusers accountable, now. Will it be easier on some future date, when you decide to object to it?

i found this blog thing posted to the washington post to be interesting....

source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/early...the.html#20161

I know that people are frightened of the loss of privacy that they think this represents but I have to wonder if people realize what is at stake here. Terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda are trying to acquire nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and they want to detonate these weapons inside America where the casualties could be MILLIONS of DEATHS.

I don’t care if the NSA discovers that I only call my mother twice a month, if they can track and discover a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in LA, New York, or Atlanta. How many TFP’rs do we know that live in or near these prime targets?

Unfortunately now the press has show the terrorists the phone company to change to if they don't want to have their calling patterns analyzed.

What you are saying is quite circular.

You imply that the ends justify the means when you say that allowing the government to compromise our freedoms for the sake of security is O.K.

But, what is a terrorist?
If the government was in fact too oppressive, wouldn't I then be justified in using means that could be defined as "terrorist" to achieve my ends: liberty?

You must understand that both terrorist groups who truly despise democratic organizations, and government administrations who truly despise democratic organizations- they are effectively throwning us into this vicious circle to prevent us from ever acquiring liberty.

But this would require you to put aside your preconceptions for a moment here and, just for a split second, accept such a premise. If nothing, it's definately at least the most interesting dillema I've ever come across, wouldn't you agree?

Are the NY Times & USA Today reporters and editors who publicly reported the warrantless NSA domestic wire tapping and the telephone company secret handover of our private phone call billing records to the NSA, the U.S.government employees who leaked the details to the newspapers, and VP Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, who leaked the name of a classified CIA operative to news reporters, <b>all helping the "bad people"?</b>

They must all really hate America.

Now that the terrorists have been tipped off not to make phone calls, can we go back to having the government follow the law, and honor the 4th amendment requirement that judges review the evidence and issue search warrants where they deem government requests to be appropriate?

Since this crisis demands that we all trade our freedom for security if we have any hope of thwarting the terrorists, wouldn't a live feed video camera installed by and monitored by local police in every private home....just to make sure that none of us are sheltering a terrorist...or two....and brief, thrice weekly polygraph tests, administered to each of us, for convenience sake....by our mailman or at a table at the entrance to our Wal-mart, and on Sunday at our church......just to make sure that none of us are lying about not having any terrorist connections....be just the ticket to help president Bush seperate us loyal citizens from the bad people?

Stevo Stevo, you are either naive or believe the rest of us are. I have read in today's papers that there are numerous public directories sorted by phone number or address. In fact, give me your phone number and I will find your name and address in my 2006 Cole Information Services Directory. If a reverse directory like this is available to the general public, why would you believe that this or something far more sophisticated isn't available to NSA?

If you doubt me... www.coleinformation.com

'kay....fun time's over !

Does it strike anyone else as odd, that suddenly, just in the last couple of years, an advanced society like the U.S., which has a string of historic successes, setbacks, and remarkable comebacks, just can't seem to do anything right, especially in the areas of government management, military planning, software and electronic systems, except when partisan politics are involved?

Just for May 12, there are three dozen, MSM reports about flawed and insecure software or otherwise inoperable Diebold and Sequoia electronic voting systems, all over the country:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...16#post2061616

But...the NSA seems to have no problem with it's monitoring of our formerly anonymous activities and communications with it's new super secret and super capable date management and mining software and electronics!

FEMA management was packed with Bush's unqualified political cronies when Katrina struck New Orleans, and the disaster response and relief was incredibly slow, and inadequate....

Four years earlier...within 48 hours of a call for the republican party "faithful" to descend upon Florida to counter 2000 presidential election vote recount efforts, 700 congressional staffers, and other hopeful republican politcal patronage job seekers arrived to stage well organized, fake protests designed to intimidate local Florida polling officials and make it appear, in front of TV news cameras, that the atmosphere was chaotic in order to discredit efforts to re-count disputed ballots.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...mi#post2048366

The invasion of Iraq went flawlessly, but securing order in it's aftermath, and managing the occupation and reconstruction of the country was a disaster.

The CIA recruited Saddam's foreign minister and it's analysts were skeptical of administration claims of vast WMD stockpiles and reconstituted WMD manufacturing programs. Ten visits to Langley by VP Cheney and disinterest in the "no WMD" claims of the "turned" Iraqi foreign minister, supported by the lies of the drunken and discredited single source, "curveball", turned things around. The CIA "got it". They were on board with views that complimented what the administration needed to invade Iraq.

Then came reform....Porter Goss as new CIA director and his handpicked #3,
Dusty Foggo. Now...the CIA is in shambles, Goss resigned after purging all the experienced covert section hands out of the agency, leaving it stocked up with loyal partisan hacks. Foggo resigned, too, and today his house and CIA office were raided by a joint DOJ, DIA, and CIA Inspector General taskforce, looking for evidence that Foggo took bribes in exchange for contracts awarded to his best friend and "Briber #1" in the Randy Cunningham indictments, Brent Wilkes.

K Street was transformed by republicans into a super efficient revenue in exchange for federal legislation, thanks to the teams of Delay, Santorum, and Abramoff. The lobbyists, like the ones for the oil and pharma industries, wrote the energy and medicare prescription legislation, every republican legislator who voted with Delay, received campaign funds and perks from Abramoff. This was a tremendously well managed, one party lobbying system that generated jobs for outgoing legislators and their former staffers.

No spending controls could be proposed in congress and passed. Only tax cuts favoring the rich and mushrooming federal deficits were achieved on the budget management side.

"Brownie", at FEMA, the fired Arabian horse judge who mismanaged N.O. relief, the man who Bush praised just a week before he dismissed him, proved to be no lesson learned or impediment to the one thing that Bush does right.

Rewarding incompetent political hacks with important jobs continued as usual:
Alice Fisher has no experience as a federal prosecutor. Julie Myers is Gen. Richard Myer's niece:
When there is a direct politcal, PR, or patronage quid pro quo, these folks never miss a beat. With everything else they (mis)manage, Haliburton, KBR, or some other connected corp, on their no-bid list of cleaner uppers and fixers is called in to make big profits from our money, often with poor performance and shoddy, or contaminated, or criminally marked up supplies and materials.

Things work when they want them to....and they don't want the e-voting machines to work. They intend for the november election to be enveloped in a chaotic climate similar to post invasion Iraq, and post Katrina Gulf coast. They can steal much more in that kind of climate.

No, but I don't care if the government asks a phone company for a list of numbers that I have called.

Arguments don't have to rely on extremes. A rain drop does not mean that it will flood tonight. Giving up a list of numbers does not mean I am willing to put cameras in my home.

So...it isn't extreme for the government to ask the telcos to break the law, and then use the telephone numbers that it shouldn't have gotten from them in the first place, and "data mine" the database of telephone numbers, to find out whatever it secretly chooses to know. You don't care about the potential for the government to blackmail or harass political opponents or constitutionally protected dissidents, when the government learns who they are calling, when the contacts begin, how frequently they happen, how long they last....etc. You are unconcerned about the political party in power knowing who the opposition candidates are talking to....how often, and who the opposition's contacts are talking to, etc.

This is why warrants are required by law. When warrants are not obtained, there is no examination by an impartial judge as to how appropriate the request for the warrant is, how large the scope of the investigation is, when the warrant is obtained, the duration of the warrant authorization, the confines of who and what the warrant is authorized by the judge to search for, and no "chain of evidence" that can later be used in court, in a prosecution based on the evidence obtained via the warrant, can happen.

The current, warrantless method is unlawful, exempts folks who are Qwest telco customers, offers no safeguards that the data mining info won't be abused for political purposes, or in an illegal "set up".... calls can be made from or to a targeted opposition politician or dissident, from or to a phone number that, when disclosed, or leaked, will embarass the target, hurt his marriage, or his reputation with his employer. Examples are phony calls to or from a porno store, a brothel, even an old girlfriend, ex-wife, rival company, employment recruiter....are you starting to consider how warrantless searches can be abused???

The "camera in your home", installed and observed via local police, is no more extreme an idea, than the reality that USA Today disclosed. It's illegal. Why isn't the DOJ prosecuting the phone companies that the NSA persuaded to break the law?
Jack1.0, your argument relies totally on an extreme. It is extreme to advocate for the government convincing the telcos to break the law meant to protect our privacy. It is extreme for the government not to prosecute the telcos when they break the law by disclosing our telephone billing records without a warrant.

Maybe you support the party in power, and the elected officials from that party. Maybe you won't support the ones from the opposition party who someday unseat them. Maybe you have nothing to hide...so...you don't care if this government knows who you call. Why does it follow that you are so willing to give your rights and my rights, protected by law....away?

The law was passed 20 years ago to protect all of us from the potenital of government abuse by a warrantless assault on our privacy, or by the telcos selling our billing records to a private party. You are indifferent if that law is broken, but you think letting the police put a surveillance camera in your house is extreme. I want the law upheld, I want the government to prosecute companies who break it. I want search warrants obtained when the law requires it. You don't mind if the government decides to ignore the law, sometimes, selectively, if it's a mild enough instance, for you. Who has the more extreme position, you...or me?

At what point, between the telcos illegally handing over your billing record to the NSA, and local police installing a surveillance camera in your home, would you draw, the line....object....as I'm objecting now....if not when the law is first reported to be broken, or ignored, by the government?

interesting account of the backstory of this nsa farce. note the roles of cheney and addington armed with their essentially fascist legal doctrine concerning the unlimited power of the executive in the context of a "state of exception"---fascist because of its origin in carl schmitt...

the interesting thing in it is the centrality of the (self-evidently empty) category of "terrorist" in the cheney arguments. i would assume that in the actual debates, the term was given a series of putative contents. but not here.

hayden's role should in itself be enough to tank hs nomination, one would hope.

well that and the fact that the nsa lawyers themselves thought the move illegal.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/wa...rtner=homepage

I need to begin with a new premise when the latest scandal du jour arises. "This can only be a part of it; what else could they be doing?" Phone records and emails appear to be just the tip of the iceburg.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306A.shtml

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

One difference of note is that the current administration appears to be trying to look for terrorists, but when Clinton got 1,000 FBI files on Congressional representatives (of course, blackmail for voting a certain way was the furthest thing from his mind), nothing happened, and you barely read about it.

Of course, anything Clinton did is no longer relevant. It will be fun to use that "thinking" once Bush is out of office.

I'm mainly queasy about this because it sets a precedent for some future politician to misuse it for political gain.

Those directories have been around for thirty years, at least. I used to use the "reverse directory" in the library; now you don't have to drive there.
If the information is already public knowledge, it's a little late to gripe about the government having it.

And yes, I know that's not the same as the phone company records of calls.

If you're really concerned, buy one of those phones that you buy minutes for at a grocery store, register it online at an internet cafe, and you're home free. It's cheaper, anyway--cheating spouses just love them.

Great. Thanks for helping fund the companies that are responsible for all the junk mail and junk faxes I get.

SteelyLoins....the official historical record indicates that everything you posted about <b>"when Clinton got 1,000 FBI files on Congressional representatives "</b>is false, and/or misleading. The Starr report, displayed below, indicates that no criminal activity took place, that the matter was investigated by the office of special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr (investigated at the request of Attorney General, Janet Reno) and that the matter was investigated by congressional committee, "House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight". I personally recall watching Mr. Anthony Maresca testify before that committee, live....on TV.

Aside from the Plame CIA leak, there is no Special Prosecutor to investigate what the Bush administration has done, and there are no congressional committees investigating the Bush administration, aside from Sen. Pat Roberts penchant for delaying his two year old, "Phase II" pre-invasion Iraq intelligence handling.....by dividing and postponing his committees report, once again.

The contrast is glaring, today, SteelyLoins...no investigations by congress, no special prosecutor....vs. eight years of the Starr investigations against the Clinton administration, and $110 million expended. I guess that Clinton was just too smart for them, back then, huh? But it wasn't Clinton who was given a free ride....a pass. It is the current administration !

So when did you give up your anonimity? Perhaps when you signed up for phone service, got a number, and had you information published. Or when the NSA got a list of the calls you made from your phone provider. Like Ace said, take it up with your phone company.

In addition - I probably have your phone number, I probably have 90-95% of TFPers' numbers, if their in america. Well, not I, but my business. So yes, I know you can link numbers to names and so forth.