OT - NSA Building Giant Database of U.S. Phone Calls

[NoMyths]

Link: NSA Building Giant Database of U.S. Phone Calls (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/nsa.phonerecords.ap/index.html)

Full Text:
NSA Building Giant Database of U.S. Phone Calls

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government is secretly collecting records of ordinary Americans' phone calls in an effort to build a database of every call made within the country, it was reported Thursday.

AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers' phone calls to the National Security Agency program shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said USA Today, citing anonymous sources it said had direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The program does not involve listening to or taping the calls. Instead it documents who talks to whom in personal and business calls, whether local or long distance, by tracking which numbers are called, the newspaper said.

The NSA and the Office of National Intelligence Director did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

NSA is the same spy agency that conducts the controversial domestic eavesdropping program that has been acknowledged by President Bush. The president said last year that he authorized the NSA to listen, without warrants, to international phone calls involving Americans suspected of terrorist links.

The report came as the former NSA director, Gen. Michael Hayden -- Bush's choice to take over leadership of the CIA -- had been scheduled to visit lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday. However, the meetings with Republican Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were postponed at the request of the White House, said congressional aides in the two Senate offices.

The White House offered no reason for the postponement to the lawmakers.

Hayden already faced criticism because of the NSA's secret domestic eavesdropping program. As head of the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005, Hayden also would have overseen the call-tracking program.

The NSA wants the database of domestic call records to look for any patterns that might suggest terrorist activity, USA Today said.

Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, told the paper that the agency operates within the law, but would not comment further on its operations.

One big telecommunications company, Qwest, has refused to turn over records to the program, the newspaper said, because of privacy and legal concerns.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the NSA refused to grant its lawyers the necessary security clearance.

Inquiry into domestic spying killed
The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers' role in the program. (Full story)

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the terrorist surveillance program "has been subject to extensive oversight both in the executive branch and in Congress from the time of its inception."

Roehrkasse noted the OPR's mission is not to investigate possible wrongdoing in other agencies, but to determine if Justice Department lawyers violated any ethical rules. He declined to comment when asked if the end of the inquiry meant the agency believed its lawyers had handled the wiretapping matter ethically.

[stevew]

It seems like Bush read 1984 while he was growing up, and is now using it as a step by step guide.

Nevermind, other thread got deleted.

[Flasch186]

and even more shockingly the inquiry into the Domestic spying program is killed too. Im flabbergasted. I shouldnt be but I am.

[SirFozzie]

Missed this, sorry.

Goddamn. For a party that for decades swore to get government out of your life, the Bush Administration seems to blow that to fucking smithereens.

They've discovered the magic words to ram through any thing they want. It's either "For the children" or "To fight terrorists".

First it was the ability to listen to overseas calls if the otherhalf is suspected of being linked with the GWOT (global war on terror). That's close to the line, but at least it has solid backing.

Why the fuck should they claim the right to have an instant database of every call ever made.. Oh yes.. because it "might lead to patterns that will help us fight terror".

Bullshit.

And now they want to put the guy who created this civil liberty-nightmare in charge of the CIA? Fuck that!

[SirFozzie]

It seems like Bush read 1984 while he was growing up, and is now using it as a step by step guide.

Nevermind, other thread got deleted.

yup, took me so long to type up my first rant at work, someone else beat me to the punch.

And as for the domestic warrantless spying thing..

"You don't need to know, you trust the government, right? After all, only terrorists would have a problem with the program designed to catch terrorists."

Welcome to the world of the RPG, PARANOIA, folls

[cartman]

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the NSA refused to grant its lawyers the necessary security clearance.

Inquiry into domestic spying killed
The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers' role in the program. (Full story)


This got lost at the bottom of the article. They can't investigate an agency, because that agency won't give them clearance to check to see if the activities were within the scope of the law.

Based on this, evidently there is nothing that can be done to rein-in or put any checks on what the NSA can do. Anytime the Justice Department gets too close, all they have to do is not issue or withdraw clearance.

[BrianD]

Why the fuck should they claim the right to have an instant database of every call ever made.. Oh yes.. because it "might lead to patterns that will help us fight terror".

Bullshit.


Not that I am disagreeing, but do you think there are other specific motives in mind?

[Flasch186]

Not that I am disagreeing, but do you think there are other specific motives in mind?

better for targeted advertising campaigns?

[Subby]

It would be interesting to see someone try and defend this...

[QuikSand]

And the American People will greet this news with a collective shrug, at most.

[SirFozzie]

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the terrorist surveillance program "has been subject to extensive oversight both in the executive branch and in Congress from the time of its inception."

This is why in a two party system one party should never control both sides of the scale (Executive and Congress)

And don't forget the president saying it doesn't matter what congress passes, he can choose to ignore them if he feels he has to, to defeat terrorism.

[SirFozzie]

Not that I am disagreeing, but do you think there are other specific motives in mind?

If this thing is led to stand for even a decade, it will become the greatest supply of political dirty tricks ever for a party in power.

"It says here your office has received calls from a Black panther hate group.."

Or, "your office has a call from a professional dominatrix.. care to elaborate?"

[cartman]

And the American People will greet this news with a collective shrug, at most.

It's the story of the dog on a chain. Take one link out a day, and the dog doesn't notice the gradual shrinking of his area of movement. Once it gets down to the last link, it's too late.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It would be interesting to see someone try and defend this...

Defend it?

Hell, I'm amused as all get out that there are people so naive about the world we live in that they try to attack it.

I'm in favor of it, should have been done a long time ago.

[Coffee Warlord]

This is why in a two party system one party should never control both sides of the scale (Executive and Congress)

Since when does the No Such Agency, CIA, or any other TLA really report to ANYONE?

[John Galt]

It would be interesting to see someone try and defend this...

I'm sure we'll see something along the lines of:

It's just data mining, not taping of calls so there is no Constitutional issue (this is actually a decent argument under existing case law if the mining is all automated - of course, there is good reason for this area of case law to change).

The Commander-in-Chief has the power to fight enemies foreign and domestic. This is less of violation of liberty than actions by past presidents during other wars (which isn't true).

The Unitary Executive theory allows the President to do all this without congressional approval.

If you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to fear.

9/11 changed everything. We can't go back to a pre 9/11 world.

[SirFozzie]

Defend it?

Hell, I'm amused as all get out that there are people so naive about the world we live in that they try to attack it.

I'm in favor of it, should have been done a long time ago.

Yay for Big Brother!

[BrianD]

better for targeted advertising campaigns?

This wouldn't scare me too much. There is already so much marketing information out there, I don't think we'd even notice if targeted advertising got better...in fact, we might even consider that a good thing.

[SirFozzie]

Since when does the No Such Agency, CIA, or any other TLA really report to ANYONE?

Yeah, but when shit like this comes out, maybe we'd have a chance to impeach the son-of-a-bitch.

[BrianD]

If this thing is led to stand for even a decade, it will become the greatest supply of political dirty tricks ever for a party in power.

"It says here your office has received calls from a Black panther hate group.."

Or, "your office has a call from a professional dominatrix.. care to elaborate?"

Too bad this wasn't around in McCarthy's days. He would have enjoyed this.

[SirFozzie]

BTW, good to see that Qwest told em No Fucking way when the NSA asked for this information.

Between this and the DoJ asking Google et al to do their donk work in attempting to restrict the internet, it's just mindboggling

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yay for Big Brother!

{shrug}

You're worrying about what might happen too much, while failing to worry adquately about what has, does, and is happening.

[Coffee Warlord]

Yeah, but when shit like this comes out, maybe we'd have a chance to impeach the son-of-a-bitch.

Problem is, as has been stated above and in countless other threads, the Unwashed Masses Don't Care. They've been slowly taking away our privacy, freedom, rights, free yaks, etc piece by piece, all in the name of terrorism/children/convicts/whatever.

My guess is we're probably 50 or so years away from a good old fashioned blood-spilling revolution. It's coming, just a matter of when.

[SirFozzie]

"They that can give up essential libery to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Benjamin Franklin

[John Galt]

And the defense has already begun from predictable sources: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005177.htm

I forgot the other critical part of defending the program: attacking the leakers and blaming them for hurting national security.

[Coffee Warlord]

{shrug}

You're worrying about what might happen too much, while failing to worry adquately about what has, does, and is happening.

Please explain to me how monitoring my phone calls will stop terrorism.

Please explain to me how shredding the very principles this country was founded upon (do we have ANY section of the Bill of Rights that has not been usurped at this point) makes me better.

Please explain why I'm no longer supposed to question or hold accountable an elected official.

Please point me to a freedom/privacy restriction passed in the name of anti-whatever that has NOT been abused.

None of this is new. Communism, the War On Drugs, it never ends, they just pick a new thing to make us fear.

[Flasch186]

regardless of the explanation(s) they truly only play well to the base(s) anyways. The fence-riders, when the wave gets going about this, will not react well towards the admin and right. It touches on some sensititivities about privacy that cross over from Poltical junkies (like me) to the mainstream. I guess I disagree with CW about the reaction of the masses.

[sovereignstar]

fear is your only god

[JonInMiddleGA]

Please explain to me ...

CW, I'm going to work from the premise that you're a reasonably bright guy. That, at the very worst, would be my impression of you from your posting history here.

Nobody should have to explain the purpose of this program to you, nor how it works. And you damn well know that.

So either you're feigning ignorance because it suits your purpose or you're not nearly as smart as I would have given you credit for.

[TroyF]

I'm sure we'll see something along the lines of:

It's just data mining, not taping of calls so there is no Constitutional issue (this is actually a decent argument under existing case law if the mining is all automated - of course, there is good reason for this area of case law to change).

The Commander-in-Chief has the power to fight enemies foreign and domestic. This is less of violation of liberty than actions by past presidents during other wars (which isn't true).

The Unitary Executive theory allows the President to do all this without congressional approval.

If you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to fear.

9/11 changed everything. We can't go back to a pre 9/11 world.

Data mining would be my first reaction. Just because you have the data doesn't mean anything is done with it on an individual level and I'm not sure it's really a bad idea to have a computer simulation run through a series of calls for an "average" American.

But I'm looking really, really hard at how this is a link from a chain. The sheer numbers and staggering amount of data will make it difficult for them to track anyone specific. What they have is a huge storage of data, nothing more, nothing less.

As far as tracking individuals, the NSA has already proven it will do this no matter what anyone thinks so I'm not sure this is a big change for the American public.

[duckman]

It is sickening to think that little by little our civil liberties are being stripped away under the so called banner of "national security." The right to privacy should be paramount in a free society. Unfortunately, we are heading towards something right out of 1984. :(

[SirFozzie]

Even some of the Right agree with me regarding the shocking breach of Privacy:

http://www.theamericanmind.com/mt-test/archives/018381.html

Still Not Happy with NSA Revelations

With a little bit of sleep my head is slightly clearer considering the NSA having a record of billions of phone calls made since Sep. 11. I'm not anymore relieved. A database containing all that information without a court order is unacceptable. It's ripe for abuse. One thousand secret FBI files fell into the hands of cronies during President Clinton's term. A record of every phone call made would offer too much temptation for some overzealous or unethical flack.

James Joyner sees the program's harm as "infinitesimal while the potential gain in security is huge." True, since the Sep. 11 showed our intellegence agencies had a poor time dealing with the abundance of information at hand. Many items of interest will hide forever in that giant database. However, the idea the NSA has a record of all my phone calls is creepy.

There has to be a better, constitutional way to keep an eye out for terrorist bad guys while not subjecting everyone who picks up a telephone to surveillence. Unfortunately I don't have any alternatives. Supporters of the program will pounce on that. There are already those who show no concern for the program. Michelle Malkin has declared, the "NSA [is] doing its job!"

One other thought came to me. It hasn't gotten big yet, but encryption could become the big word now. Use VoIP so you can encrypt your phone conversations, encrypt your e-mail, encrypt your web browsing. NSA supercomputers might have ways to break it would take time and effort--unless your 24's Chloe who can crack any code in 20 minutes. Expect to see software companies tout the secrecy elements in their products.

"The NSA Knows Who You

[JonInMiddleGA]

The sheer numbers and staggering amount of data will make it difficult for them to track anyone specific. What they have is a huge storage of data, nothing more, nothing less.

You actually raise the one thing that does bother me about the program.
It appears to have the possibility of creating a larger haystack than is optimal for needle hunting.

Off the top of my head, my first guess would be that it's actually easier to have the data & then mine it for specific items than it is to try to isolate the data in advance. Hand in hand with that is that having the data on file might provide a more thorough ability to backtrack for specifics when a need arises.

[ISiddiqui]

Fucking big government dumbasses. Its quite sad when the Republicans are trying to compete with the liberal Democrats as to who can create the biggest government apparatus.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Not that I am disagreeing, but do you think there are other specific motives in mind?

From the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities in 1975:


The Committee finds that information has been collected and disseminated in order to serve the purely political interests of an intelligence agency or the administration, and to influence social policy and political action.

Subfindings

(a) White House officials have requested and obtained politically useful information from the FBI, including information on the activities of political opponents or critics.

(b) In some cases, political or personal information was not specifically requested, but was nevertheless collected and disseminated to administration officials as part of investigations they had requested. Neither the FBI nor the recipients differentiated in these cases between national security or law enforcement information and purely political intelligence.

(c) The FBI has also volunteered information to Presidents and their staffs, without having been asked for it, sometimes apparently to curry favor with the current administration. Similarly, the FBI has assembled intelligence on its critics and on political figures it believed might influence public attitudes or Congressional support.

(d) The FBI has also used intelligence as a vehicle for covert efforts to influence social policy and political action.

----------------------------

A. Chaos

The most extensive program of alleged "domestic spying" by CIA on Americans was the "CHAOS" program. CHAOS was the centerpiece of a major CIA effort begun in 1967 in response to White House pressure for intelligence about foreign influence upon American dissent. The CHAOS mission was to gather and evaluate all available information about foreign links to racial, antiwar and other protest activity in the United States. CHAOS was terminated in 1974.

[...]

CHAOS received a great deal of information regarding Americans from CIA stations abroad, as well as from the FBI itself. In addition, CHAOS eventually received such information from its own agents who participated in domestic dissident activity in America in order to develop radical "credentials" as cover for overseas assignment. CHAOS also obtained information about Americans from other domestic CIA components, from the CIA mail opening project and from a National Security Agency international communications intercept program. 1

In the process, the CHAOS project amassed thousands of files on Americans, indexed hundreds of thousands of Americans into its computer records, and disseminated thousands of reports about Americans to the FBI and other government offices. Some of the information concerned the domestic activity of those Americans.

----------------------

B. Merrimac and Resistance

The MERRIMAC and RESISTANCE programs were both run by the CIA Office of Security, a support unit of the CIA charged with safeguarding its personnel, facilities and information.

Project MERRIMAC involved the infiltration by CIA agents of Washington-based peace groups and black activist groups. The stated purpose of that program was simply to obtain early warning of demonstrations and other physical threats to the CIA. The collection requirements, however, were broadened to include general information about the leadership, funding and activities and policies of the targeted groups.

Proiect RESISTANCE was a broad effort to obtain general background information for predicting violence which might create threats to CIA installations, recruiters or contractors and for security evaluation of CIA applicants. From 1967 until 1973, the program compiled information about radical groups around the country, particularly on campuses. Much of the reporting to headquarters by field offices was from open sources such as newspapers. But additional information was obtained from cooperating police departments, campus officials and other local authorities, some of whom, in turn, were using more active collection techniques such as informants.


---------------------------


1. Watch Lists Containing Names of Americans

From the early 1960s until 1973, NSA intercepted and disseminated international communications of selected American citizens and groups on the basis of lists of names supplied by other Government agencies. In 1967, as part of a general concern within the intelligence community over civil disturbances and peace demonstrations, NSA responded to Defense Department requests by expanding its watch list program. Watch lists came to include the names of individuals, groups, and organizations involved in domestic antiwar and civil rights activities in an attempt to discover if there was "foreign influence" on them. 14

In 1969, NSA formalized the watch list program under the codename MINARET. The program applied not only to alleged foreign influence on domestic dissent, but also to American groups and individuals whose activities "may result in civil disturbances or otherwise subvert the national security of the U.S." 15 At the same time, NSA instructed its personnel to "restrict the knowledge" that NSA was collecting such information and to keep its name off the disseminated "product." 16

[...]

The names of Americans submitted to NSA for the watch lists ranged from members of radical political groups, to celebrities, to ordinary citizens involved in protests against their Government. Names of organizations were also included; some were communist front groups, others were nonviolent and peaceful in nature.


------------------------


B. Summary of Improper Surveillance Activities

After conducting an investigation of both the foreign and domestic intelligence and investigative activities of the Department of Defense, the Committee identified four types of surveillance, or investigative activity, which have involved the collection of information on the activities of private citizens and private organizations and which may have violated the traditional and legal restraints mentioned above: (1) the collection of information on the political activities of private citizens and private organizations in the late 1960s; (2) monitoring of domestic radio transmissions; (3) investigations of private organizations which the military considered "threats"; and (4) assistance to other agencies engaged in surveillance of civilian political activities. In each case, the Committee attempted to focus upon those activities which are improper in themselves, and those which are improper because it is the military which is engaging in them.

[...]

Elaborate collection plans were issued, calling for the collection of information on the most trivial of political dissent within the United States. 16 As part of this collection program, massive operations were undertaken by Army intelligence agents to penetrate major protest demonstrations. In addition, political dissent was routinely investigated and reported on in virtually every city within the United States. These reports were circulated, moreover, to law enforcement agencies at all levels of Government, and to other agencies with internal security responsibility. In all, an estimated 100,000 individuals were the subjects of Army surveillance. The number of organizations which were the subjects of an Army file was similarly large, encompassing "virtually every group engaged in dissent in the United States." 17


------------------------


A. Conclusions

The findings which have emerged from our investigation convince us that the Government's domestic intelligence policies and practices require fundamental reform. We have attempted to set out the basic facts; now it is time for Congress to turn its attention to legislating restraints upon intelligence activities which may endanger the constitutional rights of Americans.

The Committee's fundamental conclusion is that intelligence activities have undermined the constitutional rights of citizens and that they have done so primarily because checks and balances designed by the framers of the Constitution to assure accountability have not been applied.

Before examining that conclusion, we make the following observations.

[...]

-The crescendo of improper intelligence activity in the latter part of the 1960s and the early 1970s shows what we must watch out for: In time of crisis, the Government will exercise its power to conduct domestic intelligence activities to the fullest extent. The distinction between legal dissent and criminal conduct is easily forgotten. Our job is to recommend means to help ensure that the distinction will always be observed.

-In an era where the technological capability of Government relentlessly increases, we must be wary about the drift toward "big brother government." The potential for abuse is awesome and requires special attention to fashioning restraints which not only cure past problems but anticipate and prevent the future misuse of technology.

-We cannot dismiss what we have found as isolated acts which were limited in time and confined to a few willful men. The failures to obey the law and, in the words of the oath of office, to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, have occurred repeatedly throughout administrations of both political parties going back four decades.

[...]

Our findings and the detailed reports which supplement this volume set forth a massive record of intelligence abuses over the years. Through a vast network of informants, and through the uncontrolled or illegal use of intrusive techniques -- ranging from simple theft to sophisticated electronic surveillance -- the Government has collected, and then used improperly, huge amounts of information about the private lives, political beliefs and associations of numerous Americans.

Affect Upon Constitutional Rights. -- That these abuses have adversely affected the constitutional rights of particular Americans is beyond question. But we believe the harm extends far beyond the citizens directly affected.

[...]

Since the end of World War II, governmental power has been increasingly exercised through a proliferation of federal intelligence programs. The very size of this intelligence system, multiplies the opportunities for misuse.

Exposure of the excesses of this huge structure has been necessary. Americans are now aware of the capability and proven willingness of their Government to collect intelligence about their lawful activities and associations. What some suspected and others feared has turned out to be largely true -- vigorous expression of unpopular views, association with dissenting groups, participation in peaceful protest activities, have provoked both government surveillance and retaliation.



The motives are the same as they ever were...

[Franklinnoble]

Am I the only one who doesn't really care if the government keeps a database of who I call?

For starters - if I'm a suspect for any sort of crime, any law enforcement agency can subpoena my phone records anyway - so the net effect here as far as "privacy invasion" goes is zero.

I don't use my phone to commit crimes, and I don't call anyone that I wouldn't want anyone to know about, so I don't really see what the problem is here.

Of course, I also wonder how effective this will be. Most criminals with half a brain will be using pre-paid wireless phones at this point, which are much more difficult to track.

[tategter]

I really don't see the problem here. Hell, the government can post the transcripts of all of my personal calls on the front page of the NY Times for all I care. If the NSA can nip even one terrorist action in the bud by monitoring phone calls then by-all-means let them.

[TroyF]

You actually raise the one thing that does bother me about the program.
It appears to have the possibility of creating a larger haystack than is optimal for needle hunting.

Off the top of my head, my first guess would be that it's actually easier to have the data & then mine it for specific items than it is to try to isolate the data in advance. Hand in hand with that is that having the data on file might provide a more thorough ability to backtrack for specifics when a need arises.

Correct. The only thing I can find useful about his data would be a computer simulation that would run off a list of an "average" American and look for outliers.

Tracking down all of the outliers would take a ridiculous amount of time and effort and come up with very little in the way of results IMHO. Honestly, I just don't see a lot of relevance for much of the data here, for much of anything. The only thing I can see is finding a baseline type of median or average and looking for trends.

I see very, very little use for this in a micro situation. If you are already on teh governments watch list, they know your calls and they are probably listening to them. This list can really only be useful in a macro capacity, thus the individual rights issues are tough to support here.

So with all of that, I guess what I'm saying is two things:

1) The government may find some useful things with the data, but I'm not sure it was worth the bad PR to collect it.

2) I don't see how this is a link in a chain and how another civil liberty has been eroded. I don't see how 99.999% of the people in this country will ever be impacted by this in the slightest. I don't see the "evil" here.

[Toddzilla]

Hrm....wasn't the President supposed to "uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America"??

[JonInMiddleGA]

1) The government may find some useful things with the data, but I'm not sure it was worth the bad PR to collect it.

The fact that there was any bad PR to deal with in the first place should raise some questions of national security itself AFAIC.

2) I don't see the "evil" here.[/QUOTE]

The evil appears to be that we're actually doing something that at least might help catch some criminals. Apparently we're supposed to sit around & let thinking good thoughts do the work.

[cartman]

Am I the only one who doesn't really care if the government keeps a database of who I call?

For starters - if I'm a suspect for any sort of crime, any law enforcement agency can subpoena my phone records anyway - so the net effect here as far as "privacy invasion" goes is zero.

I don't use my phone to commit crimes, and I don't call anyone that I wouldn't want anyone to know about, so I don't really see what the problem is here.

Of course, I also wonder how effective this will be. Most criminals with half a brain will be using pre-paid wireless phones at this point, which are much more difficult to track.


To take this out further, you don't use your home to commit crimes, but would you want them to put a video camera in your living room to see who comes over to your house? Based on "attendance patterns", it could be helpful in the war on terror to see what is the average number of people and length of visit.

I don't buy the argument that just because you don't do anything wrong, it's not a problem. Seemingly innocuous behavior can and has been twisted to be used against people for a long, long time.

[ISiddiqui]

if I'm a suspect for any sort of crime, any law enforcement agency can subpoena my phone records anyway - so the net effect here as far as "privacy invasion" goes is zero.

A subpeona is a bit different than a warrentless search.

[JonInMiddleGA]

To take this out further, you don't use your home to commit crimes, but would you want them to put a video camera in your living room to see who comes over to your house?

Seems, just from the surface here, that "at the front door" would be a better analogy. ("In the living room" would be more akin to listening to the calls as opposed to simply tracking the calls made/rcvd).

With that difference in mind ...

Want? Probably not, from an aesthetic standpoint.
See the value in it? Yep.
Mind? Not one damned bit.

[KWhit]

And the American People will greet this news with a collective shrug, at most.

Or more likely applause.

Sigh.

[SirFozzie]

The fact that there was any bad PR to deal with in the first place should raise some questions of national security itself AFAIC.


Cuz gosh darn it, we shouldn't want to know what our government is doing, right?

[TroyF]

The fact that there was any bad PR to deal with in the first place should raise some questions of national security itself AFAIC.

2) I don't see the "evil" here.

The evil appears to be that we're actually doing something that at least might help catch some criminals. Apparently we're supposed to sit around & let thinking good thoughts do the work.[/QUOTE]

Agree there. The administration is a disaster at the moment. I'm not sure anyone in their right mind could defend it. the in fighting, the leaks, the one hand not knowing or agreeing with what the other is doing. . . the thing is in shambles and heading further downward if that's possible.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Cuz gosh darn it, we shouldn't want to know what our government is doing, right?

"Want to know" and "need to know" are sometimes two different things.

And, if revealing the information damages national security capabilities, then yes I believe somebody should be looking at some serious federal prison time at the very least.

[SirFozzie]

"Want to know" and "need to know" are sometimes two different things.

And, if revealing the information damages national security capabilities, then yes I believe somebody should be looking at some serious federal prison time at the very least.

Whistleblower laws, probably.

[Toddzilla]

That's real sweet that some people don't care if they are spied on or if their phone calls are recorded. I do, and the Constitution protects me from that. Well, it should when the POTUS and NSA aren't shitting all over it.

[ISiddiqui]

Whistleblower laws, probably.

Well, we can't have that. Governments should be able to do anything with impunity and if they want to keep the people in the dark, then by God, that's their right! Oh, and W. Mark Fields was a traitor!

[Flasch186]

see the problem with the idea of you can have my phone records cuz I dont commit a crime works until the interpretation of a law or ideal changes. See it might be fine for you today but what if someday they decide that calling X should be a crime and eventhough the constituency is in an uproar no one in the government does anything about it because the Congress has shirked their responsibility to be a check and the Pres. is under the impression that he has a mandate. I guess, what Im saying is what if someday they decide that Jews seem to be a hotbed of terrorist activity so they start looking closely at my calls and one day I say, "I hate our President" and at that time, maybe a year from now, the Admin and its supporters have cowtowed to that statement being a precursor to terrorism. Off I go to Gitmo. It is a slippery slope but from where we started a while ago, years ago, we ARE moving down it.

[Daimyo]

But I'm looking really, really hard at how this is a link from a chain. The sheer numbers and staggering amount of data will make it difficult for them to track anyone specific. What they have is a huge storage of data, nothing more, nothing less.
Is it true that its really so staggering? Assuming that the average American makes 50 outgoing phone calls per month. Also assume that table holds source phone number, desitnation phone number, date/time of call (accurate to the minute) and duration of the call in seconds. In that case you're looking at each row containing 14 bytes of data (4 bytes for 10 digit phone numbers, 2 bytes for duration, and 4 bytes for date/time). So you end up with the following:

270,000,000 Americans * 50 calls/American/month * 14 bytes/call = 189 GB/month of data or 6.3 GB of raw data captured every day.

That seems like a lot of data to the layman, but my firewall logs generate 1 GB of data per day for a single subnet and I can pretty easily keep a month of data online and fully searchable and generate useful reports on the data in reasonable time (measured in hours) on database server that's over five years old.... assuming you have the budget, staffing, and motive of a group like the NSA and I can't see how that amount of data is anywhere near staggering.

[flounder]

Here's an interesting article (http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1998/july98/psrjuly98.html) showing what Republicans were saying about this kind of stuff when it was going on in the Clinton administration. The problem is that no one is ever opposed to this when their guy is doing it. It's only when the other side is in power that people get concerned about civil rights.

Two of the principal mechanisms by which the rulers of 20th century police states maintained their control over their people were the file and the internal passport. These governments kept a cumulative file (called the dangan in Communist China) on every individual's performance and attitudes from school years through adult employment. Citizens carried an internal passport or "papers" that had to be presented to the authorities for permission to travel within the country, to take up residence in another city, or to apply for a new job.

These two methods of personal surveillance -- efficient watchdogs that prevented any emergence of freedom -- required an army of bureaucrats fortified by a Gestapo, a Stasi or a KGB, plus the ability to commandeer an unlimited supply of paper and file folders. Technology has now made the task of building personal files on every citizen, and tracking our actions and movements, just as easy as logging onto the Internet.

Unknown to most Americans, coordinated plans are well underway to give the Federal Government the power to input personal information on all Americans onto a government database. The computer will record our school, business, medical, financial, and personal activities, and track our movements as we travel about the United States.

These plans were authorized by the so-called conservative Congress and are eagerly implemented and expanded by the Clinton Administration liberals. They plan to force all Americans to carry an I.D. card linked to a federal database, without which we will not be able to drive a car, get a job, board a plane, enter a hospital emergency room or school, have a bank account, cash a check, buy a gun, or have access to government benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Putting all that information on a government database means the end of privacy as we know it. Daily actions we all take for granted will henceforth be recorded, monitored, tracked, and contingent on showing The Card.

[Franklinnoble]

Don't worry... I'm sure the American Criminal Liberties Union will be suing all over the place on this one.

[BrianD]

Here's an interesting article (http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1998/july98/psrjuly98.html) showing what Republicans were saying about this kind of stuff when it was going on in the Clinton administration. The problem is that no one is ever opposed to this when their guy is doing it. It's only when the other side is in power that people get concerned about civil rights.

I'm not sure these situations are close enough to use for a comparison.

[kcchief19]

I really don't see the problem here. Hell, the government can post the transcripts of all of my personal calls on the front page of the NY Times for all I care. If the NSA can nip even one terrorist action in the bud by monitoring phone calls then by-all-means let them.
Setting aside any constitutional arguments of turning over evidence against yourself, this is the argument I would expect from people who will support one agenda without blinking.

So let's say the government does have a list of your personal calls -- not transcripts, because these are just lists of calls. Last month, you tried to call a store to see how late they are open. You transpose a number and call the wrong number. The number you called is an idividual linked to terrorist. You are called in for questioning and held on suspcion of terrorism. You protest that it was a wrong number, but you can't prove that. The call was short, but it was certainly long enough to get a across a coded message.

Is it far fetched? Might seem that way, but there have been plenty of people held in times of war in this country, including today, on weaker evidence. A stroll through a history book will show you that.

[BrianD]

On the plus side, I was under the impression that the NSA was already doing all of this tracking and more, so I'm not really any farther behind. :)

[Subby]

Don't worry... I'm sure the American Criminal Liberties Union will be suing all over the place on this one.
Stop taking your privacy and freedom for granted. It used to be for what your party stood before it got sidetracked by the neocons...

[Celeval]

The problem is that no one is ever opposed to this when their guy is doing it. It's only when the other side is in power that people get concerned about civil rights.

Lucky for me that I don't hold allegiance to any political party, and vote instead based on individual candidates.

Speaking of which, I hate this shite.

[KWhit]

Don't worry... I'm sure the American Criminal Liberties Union will be suing all over the place on this one.

You say that as if it is a bad thing. More power to them.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

see the problem with the idea of you can have my phone records cuz I dont commit a crime works until the interpretation of a law or ideal changes. See it might be fine for you today but what if someday they decide that calling X should be a crime and eventhough the constituency is in an uproar no one in the government does anything about it because the Congress has shirked their responsibility to be a check and the Pres. is under the impression that he has a mandate.

The real problem is that every time we've had something like this in the past it has ended up being subverted and used for political purposes. See the Church Committee stuff I posted earlier. Guilt and innocence aren't important, it's political affiliation that will determine whether or not you'll be victimized by this program.

[Franklinnoble]

Stop taking your privacy and freedom for granted. It used to be for what your party stood before it got sidetracked by the neocons...

As far as I'm concerned, my privacy and personal freedom isn't compromised by this.

If they start telling me that phone calls to my office or to my parents in Tennessee is a crime, then I'll worry about it. But right now, my phone calls are just a handful amongst billions. The only thing this database is good for is if someone wants to be able to do a quick and easy query against a specific phone number. I could see it being very helpful for law enforcement, and it will have zero effect on me.

[tategter]

Setting aside any constitutional arguments of turning over evidence against yourself, this is the argument I would expect from people who will support one agenda without blinking.

So let's say the government does have a list of your personal calls -- not transcripts, because these are just lists of calls. Last month, you tried to call a store to see how late they are open. You transpose a number and call the wrong number. The number you called is an idividual linked to terrorist. You are called in for questioning and held on suspcion of terrorism. You protest that it was a wrong number, but you can't prove that. The call was short, but it was certainly long enough to get a across a coded message.

Is it far fetched? Might seem that way, but there have been plenty of people held in times of war in this country, including today, on weaker evidence. A stroll through a history book will show you that.

I'll take those odds if the program foils even one terrorist plot before it happens. I love the 'what if' scenarios that people come-up with to counter a problem that doesn't exist.

As Americans we should expect certain civil liberties, but we must also protect ourselves from those that would do us harm. Can you really look a family who lost a loved one to terrorism in the eye and say that your phone records are more important than their son/daughter/father/mother/etc?

[Coffee Warlord]

As Americans we should expect certain civil liberties, but we must also protect ourselves from those that would do us harm. Can you really look a family who lost a loved one to terrorism in the eye and say that your phone records are more important than their son/daughter/father/mother/etc?

No, but our rapidly eroding right to live our life without the government controlling/watching every move we make IS more important.

[John Galt]

Can you really look a family who lost a loved one to terrorism in the eye and say that your phone records are more important than their son/daughter/father/mother/etc?

It's like Madlibs:

Can you really look a family who lost a loved one to terrorism in the eye and say that your _____________ are/is more important than their son/daughter/father/mother/etc?

______________ can equal any liberty or intrusion

private mail
day spent in jail
right to attend a mosque
access to books
right to vote
being fired by your employer because the government database flags you
weekly home searches by the police
freedom from constant video surveillance

The list is virtually infinite. And each intrusion can be justified on its own terms with that simple rhetorical question.

[KWhit]

It's like Madlibs:

Can you really look a family who lost a loved one to terrorism in the eye and say that your 4-fingered anal cavity search is more important than their son/daughter/father/mother/etc?

This game is fun.

[cartman]

I'll take those odds if the program foils even one terrorist plot before it happens. I love the 'what if' scenarios that people come-up with to counter a problem that doesn't exist.

As Americans we should expect certain civil liberties, but we must also protect ourselves from those that would do us harm. Can you really look a family who lost a loved one to terrorism in the eye and say that your phone records are more important than their son/daughter/father/mother/etc?

That's part of the problem. It seems that to stifle debate, people pull out "It's part of the war on terror" card.

No one is saying phone records are more precious than a life. That's a strawman intended to also stifle debate and ridicule those who are against this practice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Stop taking your privacy and freedom for granted.

Freedom to do what exactly Subby?

Seriously, what are you afraid you're going to lose the ability to do?

[Toddzilla]

No one is saying phone records are more precious than a life. That's a strawman intended to also stifle debate and ridicule those who are against this practice.Bingo. And it's the tactic that the GOP has used to death for 4 years to an unbelievable degree of success. I'm glad to see the tide is turning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/washington/10poll.html?ex=1304913600&en=b14936161b670908&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[Toddzilla]

Freedom to do what exactly Subby?
Seriously, what are you afraid you're going to lose the ability to do?Freedom also includes freedom "from" something. An athiest/Jew/Buddist in a public school isn't forced to do or not do anything when the teacher decides to lead the class in prayer to Jesus Christ, but our laws protect us "from" being subjeced to religion in the public schools. No one is claiming they don't think they will be able to make a phone call, rather we should be able to do so without being spied upon unwarranted.

not the strongest analogy, I know...

[cartman]

The government's track record for "compartmentalizing" data they collect and not allowing it to be used for other than the originally intended purpose is extremely poor. For example, did you expect that the data collected from the "No Child Left Behind" act would be used by the Pentagon to find potential military recruits?

No one is against being protected from harm. That goes for both external threats as well as internal threats. This current program of collecting all phone calls reeks of "out of the frying pan" (detecting and preventing terrorist attacks) and "into the fire" (other government agencies culling this data without explanation or oversight).

[JonInMiddleGA]

This current program of collecting all phone calls reeks of "out of the frying pan" (detecting and preventing terrorist attacks) and "into the fire" (other government agencies culling this data without explanation or oversight).

Did you really just equate those two possibilities?

And if so, was it intentional?

[dixieflatline]

Freedom to do what exactly Subby?

Seriously, what are you afraid you're going to lose the ability to do?

Lets say that I am a jounalist trying to get a story. If all of my calls are being stored in a database this could seriously affect my ability to report. Not just talking about government leaks but corperate connections, people with connections to illegal activity, whatever. Maybe on the surface this looks harmless but it is far from that.

[NoMyths]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/05/11/nsa.phonerecords/newt1.1312.bush.ap.jpg

Link: Bush: We're Not Trolling Your Personal Life (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/nsa.phonerecords/index.html)

Full Text:
Bush: We're Not Trolling Your Personal Life

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday the government is "not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans" with a reported program to create a massive database of U.S. phone calls.

"Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates," Bush said. "The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities."

Bush was responding to a USA Today report Thursday that three telecommunication firms provided the National Security Agency with domestic telephone call records from millions of Americans beginning shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001. (Transcript of Bush's statements)

Bush did not specifically mention the newspaper's report.

In response to the USA Today article, NSA spokesman Don Weber issued a statement saying, "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.

"However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."
Lawmakers concerned

Members of Congress expressed concern Thursday about the report.

"It's our government, government of every single American -- Republican, Democrat or independent," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "...Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing."

In the House, Majority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, "I'm concerned about what I read with regard to the NSA database of phone calls. ... I'm not sure why it's necessary to us to keep and have that kind of information."

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said he would call on representatives from the companies named in the USA Today story, AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, to testify.
Conservatives defend program

However, during a morning session, Republican members of the committee defended the legality and necessity of such a database.

The USA Today report said the program did not involve the NSA "listening to or recording conversations," a point that Sen. Jeff Sessions touched on.

"No recordings and no conversations were intercepted here, so there was no wiretapping here," Sessions said.

"The president after 9/11 told the American people he was going to use the powers given to him to protect this country. ... It's not a warrantless wiretapping of the American people."

Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona also faulted the revelation of the program as harmful to national security.

"This is nuts," said Kyle. "We are in a war and we've go to collect intelligence on the enemy and you can't tell the enemy in advance how you are going to do it. And discussing all of this in public leads to that."

But Leahy, a vocal critic of the wiretapping program, praised the USA Today report, saying "it's a sorry state" that the committee will have to call on the telecom companies for the information.

"We have to do that because our own government won't answer questions," Leahy said. "Neither this committee nor any committee in the House or in the Senate has gotten adequate answers. ...

"The press is doing our work for us and we should be ashamed."
Hayden visits canceled

The report comes at an awkward time for CIA director nominee Gen. Michael Hayden, whom President Bush named this week to replace Porter Goss as head of the spy agency. Hayden, whose confirmation hearings begin next Thursday, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005.

Boehner said he thought that Hayden will "have a lot more explaining to do."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California -- who supports Hayden's nomination -- said the information will "present a growing impediment" to his confirmation, a development she said she regretted.

Facing Senate confirmation hearings before the Senate Intelligence Committee on May 18, Hayden's meeting today with Sens. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, were canceled.

The report comes months after the Bush administration came under criticism on Capitol Hill for ordering an NSA surveillance program, that allowed communication to be monitored between people in the United States and terrorism suspects overseas without a court order.

Hayden headed the NSA when the wiretapping program was launched in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

President Bush has argued that the resolution authorizing military action after the 9/11 attacks, along with his authority as commander-in-chief of the military, give him the power to initiate the program without a court order, as a 1978 law requires.

[Celeval]

Lets say that I am a jounalist trying to get a story. If all of my calls are being stored in a database this could seriously affect my ability to report. Not just talking about government leaks but corperate connections, people with connections to illegal activity, whatever. Maybe on the surface this looks harmless but it is far from that.

Good point. Would have changed the "who is the leak to xyz story" investigations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Lets say that I am a jounalist trying to get a story. If all of my calls are being stored in a database this could seriously affect my ability to report.

Lemme see here ... something for national security vs inconvienience for a reporter.

Gee, I wonder how the scales on that comparison will balance?

[ISiddiqui]

Lemme see here ... something for national security vs inconvienience for a reporter.

Gee, I wonder how the scales on that comparison will balance?

When too many times this administration seems to believe that anything criticizing the government is against 'national security', the scales should balance for the reporter. Freedom of speech is the last bulwark of a free society and all attempts to diminish it should be fought tooth and nail against the big government folk.

[Daimyo]

Lemme see here ... something for national security vs inconvienience for a reporter.

Gee, I wonder how the scales on that comparison will balance?
Does this DB really help national security? Seems if they identify a number as being related to terrorist activity they can pretty easily get the same information that would be in the DB through legit channels that no one would complain about.

[dixieflatline]

Lemme see here ... something for national security vs inconvienience for a reporter.

Gee, I wonder how the scales on that comparison will balance?

How about this one Jon. Which would you rather our government is doing? Compiling phone information on everyone or scanning every single shipment that comes through our ports. I sure know which one I would choose yet they don't seem to be focused in on simple, effective, ideas that have already been proposed. They seem intent on stupid things like this that are relatively worthless AND are an inconvienience for a reporter.

[dixieflatline]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday the government is "not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans" with a reported program to create a massive database of U.S. phone calls.

"Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates," Bush said. "The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities."

They aren't mining through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans? That is exactly what they are doing. And, if they are actually going to use this data to try to catch terrorists, then that is exactly what they need to do. They need to mine the data to find regular paterns so they can find the anomolies. Without the regular paterns this is useless.

[BrianD]

Lemme see here ... something for national security vs inconvienience for a reporter.

Gee, I wonder how the scales on that comparison will balance?

You have a very good ability to take a point and twist it to make it sound absurd. This inconvenience for a reporter could well amount to an informant being unwilling to talk about corruption or scandal becase he knows his anonymity can't be protected. This sort of thing could weaken national security as well.

[Glengoyne]

I'm not near as sensitive to this as others I guess. By the way, when Republicans were making claims about liberals collecting data about everyday citizens in huge databases, I rolled my eyes as well. If I look at this as simply a governement agency collecting data to use in the protection of our Nation, I don't have a problem with it. If the NSA records every call in the US, I don't have a problem, so long as they are using the information to protect the people of the United States.

That said I'm making a couple of assumptions. The data won't be used for other purposes, including domestic law enforcement. Same goes with the "wiretapping" program. If I understand it correctly the FISA court ruled that anything gathered using the techniques employed wouldn't be admissable in a court of law. So, from that perspective, why would a warrant be required in the first place?

[BishopMVP]

Without even arguing the merits of the case, I did find it hilarious to see this as the huge front-page story today in the USA Today. I mean, the EFF sued AT&T over this back in January hxxp://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ and the government filed a State Secrets motion 2 weeks ago hxxp://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/USA_statement_of_interest.pdf

AT&T's Daytona database and its uses (Hawkeye - the program in question here) is even on the web @ http://www.research.att.com/~daytona/ 270,000,000 Americans * 50 calls/American/month * 14 bytes/call = 189 GB/month of data or 6.3 GB of raw data captured every day.According to that last link,
Hawkeye, the database of record for all of AT&T's call detail, consisting of over 312 terabytes of information and 1.88 trillion records.

Here http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/faq.php#16 is probably a much better FAQ on the actual program than anything out of mainstream news reports.

Overall, maybe it's just that I know people who have worked for the government in areas near this, but this is really that surprising? I can't wait until USA Today, CNN and everyone else up in arms about FISA court violations find out about the NSA's Echelon program.

[Glengoyne]

..

270,000,000 Americans * 50 calls/American/month * 14 bytes/call = 189 GB/month of data or 6.3 GB of raw data captured every day.

...

This is a dramatic underestimation. 6.3 Gb is probably a factor of the actual number, but it can't be anywhere close. These numbers would presumably include business calls as well. Not to mention that I made 5 calls from my home this morning before I came to work, and at least five before I went to bed last night. We're WAY talking about the average number of calls for home use being way over 50/month.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

That said I'm making a couple of assumptions. The data won't be used for other purposes, including domestic law enforcement. Same goes with the "wiretapping" program.

I'm curious why you would assume that given that past evidence has consistently shown the opposite?

[BishopMVP]

That said I'm making a couple of assumptions. The data won't be used for other purposes, including domestic law enforcement. Same goes with the "wiretapping" program. If I understand it correctly the FISA court ruled that anything gathered using the techniques employed wouldn't be admissable in a court of law. So, from that perspective, why would a warrant be required in the first place?Shit, it's behind the subscriber archive wall now, but law enforcement has been data-mining this for a looooooong time already. AT&T's database at least also predates 9/11 - it's been collecting and storing data pretty much since the 50's at least from what little I've heard. the mining of the databases in other law enforcement investigations is well established, with documented results. One application of the database technology, called Security Call Analysis and Monitoring Platform, or Scamp, offers access to about nine weeks of calling information. It currently handles about 70,000 queries a month from fraud and law enforcement investigators, according to AT&T documents.
A former AT&T official who had detailed knowledge of the call-record database said the Daytona system takes great care to make certain that anyone using the database - whether AT&T employee or law enforcement official with a subpoena - sees only information he or she is authorized to see, and that an audit trail keeps track of all users. Such information is frequently used to build models of suspects' social networks.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was discussing sensitive corporate matters, said every telephone call generated a record: number called, time of call, duration of call, billing category and other details. While the database does not contain such billing data as names, addresses and credit card numbers, those records are in a linked database that can be tapped by authorized users.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You have a very good ability to take a point and twist it to make it sound absurd.

Honestly Brian, you did that for me. For you to even hint that your hypothetical was somehow a concern worth not undertaking this program over was, frankly, absurd all by itself.

[TroyF]

Is it true that its really so staggering? Assuming that the average American makes 50 outgoing phone calls per month. Also assume that table holds source phone number, desitnation phone number, date/time of call (accurate to the minute) and duration of the call in seconds. In that case you're looking at each row containing 14 bytes of data (4 bytes for 10 digit phone numbers, 2 bytes for duration, and 4 bytes for date/time). So you end up with the following:

270,000,000 Americans * 50 calls/American/month * 14 bytes/call = 189 GB/month of data or 6.3 GB of raw data captured every day.

That seems like a lot of data to the layman, but my firewall logs generate 1 GB of data per day for a single subnet and I can pretty easily keep a month of data online and fully searchable and generate useful reports on the data in reasonable time (measured in hours) on database server that's over five years old.... assuming you have the budget, staffing, and motive of a group like the NSA and I can't see how that amount of data is anywhere near staggering.

I think we have a misunderstanding.

Is the data so staggering it can't be tracked? Hell no. Creating a database that can do it is not all that complex.

But once you have data, you have to do something with it. You can number crunch data. (ie: length of calls, distance of calls, time of day calls happen in) or any variety of that fairly easily.

Now, digging down deeper than that in a large database? It's a thankless, time consuming mess. Even if they get the information that say Tim at 555-555-5555 has called these numbers at these times, they then have to find out who the hell Tim is, who the hell he was calling, if it varied from the norm. . . It never ends.

Getting macro data on the habits of the "average" American will be a snap. Digging down to individuals and being able to use things for "evil" purposes is a ridiculously tough thing to do.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't wait until USA Today, CNN and everyone else up in arms about FISA court violations find out about the NSA's Echelon program.

LOL, nice play.

[BishopMVP]

This is a dramatic underestimation. 6.3 Gb is probably a factor of the actual number, but it can't be anywhere close. These numbers would presumably include business calls as well. Not to mention that I made 5 calls from my home this morning before I came to work, and at least five before I went to bed last night. We're WAY talking about the average number of calls for home use being way over 50/month.Yeah, espeically with the recent proliferation of cell phones. AT&T's database alone is "over 312 terabytes of information and 1.88 trillion records." And I don't think they even deal with cell phones. When people are talking about the NSA eavesdropping, it seems like they have this mental picture of thousands of employees listening to every conversation. I then think about walking around campus and the thousands of different inane conversations people are having and laugh. Just imagine a government employee sitting there and listening to some college-age girl talk about what this cute boy said to her and what the professor said and oh my god totally and whats going on tonight and multiply by several thousand.

The reality is far different, with flagging and stuff, but I've always assumed that every phone call could be eavesdropped on - if I mention something on the phone like "you see the vice president is in trouble for shooting somebody" my dad will half-jokingly say "well, this call's been flagged."

[BishopMVP]

Now, digging down deeper than that in a large database? It's a thankless, time consuming mess. Even if they get the information that say Tim at 555-555-5555 has called these numbers at these times, they then have to find out who the hell Tim is, who the hell he was calling, if it varied from the norm. . . It never ends.

Getting macro data on the habits of the "average" American will be a snap. Digging down to individuals and being able to use things for "evil" purposes is a ridiculously tough thing to do.Guess who is the leading employer of mathematicians in the country? http://www.nsa.gov/careers/careers_3.cfm

For a bonus question, guess what building contains the largest accumulation of computer power in any one building on Earth? Congrats if you figured out the answer - "one Cray Triton supercomputer at the facility can handle 64 billion instructions per second, and there are many of them at the NSA."


Overall, yeah, I know what you're getting at and I'm trying to find some article somewhere that discussed how the NSA was handling this and the algorithms and crazy stuff they were doing and implementing. EDIT - I can't find it now, but if you're interested in the topic there is some fascinating stuff on the cryptanalysis out there.

[Glengoyne]

Shit, it's behind the subscriber archive wall now, but law enforcement has been data-mining this for a looooooong time already. AT&T's database at least also predates 9/11 - it's been collecting and storing data pretty much since the 50's at least from what little I've heard.

I don't have a problem with law enforcement collecting the data directly from the vendors with a search warrant, which is what I believe you are talking about. I just don't want my local PD to decide that they want a list of all numbers frequently calling or being called by those temporary cell phones in some sort of attempt at a drug probe. I don't want this particular data available for mining by just any portion of the governement.

[Glengoyne]

I'm curious why you would assume that given that past evidence has consistently shown the opposite?

What evidence do you have that ANY of the so-called wire-tapping evidence has made it to law enforcement officials. This kind of thing is spurred on by shows like Law and Order showing detectives dropping into libraries with search warrants, citing the patriot act, to gather evidence regarding a fraud or murder investigation. It just isn't happening, but that doesn't stop people from citing it as fact.

[BrianD]

Honestly Brian, you did that for me. For you to even hint that your hypothetical was somehow a concern worth not undertaking this program over was, frankly, absurd all by itself.

I never said it was worth not undertaking this program over. Just pointing out that it was valid enough to not dismiss so completely.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

What evidence do you have that ANY of the so-called wire-tapping evidence has made it to law enforcement officials. This kind of thing is spurred on by shows like Law and Order showing detectives dropping into libraries with search warrants, citing the patriot act, to gather evidence regarding a fraud or murder investigation. It just isn't happening, but that doesn't stop people from citing it as fact.

Have a look at my post on the Chuch Report (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1136640&postcount=35), or better yet, go read it yourself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee#Books_II_and_III_.22Church_Committee.22_report) They found that programs for domestic surveillance, be they FBI, DoD, CIA, or NSA, going back four decades through numerous presidential adiminstrations, had all been twisted to political ends, used for political espionage, interference, and intimidation. Not by a few bad apples, but consistently and repeatedly.

I have no information on precisely how this program is being used. It's classified. I don't have security clearance. Nobody knows except the NSA and possibly some of the high level administration officials. We're all in the dark on this. But my point is, why do you assume it isn't being used to other ends when every other similar program has been?

Democracy is founded on the idea that unchecked power cannot be trusted. Accumulated political power is made acceptable through transparency and accountability. If you believe in the basic tenets of democracy, why would you assume that secret and unaccountable powers would not be abused? Particularly when we have so much evidence that in similar situations in the past that is exactly what has happened? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me...

[cartman]

Lemme see here ... something for national security vs inconvienience for a reporter.

Gee, I wonder how the scales on that comparison will balance?

Ok, lets say a competitor of yours gets your call info via a contact at the NSA or which ever agencies end up with access to the data, and starts to target your customers for account takeovers. You find out, get pissed off, and want to know how they got this data. "Sorry your business is ruined, Mr. JIMGA, but that is classified information in the War on Terror. We can't divulge how that information was leaked."

something for national security vs. one guy's business

I wonder how that balances on the scales.

[cartman]

Did you really just equate those two possibilities?

And if so, was it intentional?

Dola,

In no way was I equating them as being equally bad. You might have read that into it, but it was more of an argument against "the ends justify the means" when there is more than one possible "end".

[Glengoyne]

Have a look at my post on the Chuch Report (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1136640&postcount=35), or better yet, go read it yourself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee#Books_II_and_III_.22Church_Committee.22_report) They found that programs for domestic surveillance, be they FBI, DoD, CIA, or NSA, going back four decades through numerous presidential adiminstrations, had all been twisted to political ends, used for political espionage, interference, and intimidation. Not by a few bad apples, but consistently and repeatedly.

I have no information on precisely how this program is being used. It's classified. I don't have security clearance. Nobody knows except the NSA and possibly some of the high level administration officials. We're all in the dark on this. But my point is, why do you assume it isn't being used to other ends when every other similar program has been?

Democracy is founded on the idea that unchecked power cannot be trusted. Accumulated political power is made acceptable through transparency and accountability. If you believe in the basic tenets of democracy, why would you assume that secret and unaccountable powers would not be abused? Particularly when we have so much evidence that in similar situations in the past that is exactly what has happened? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me...

Well for one thing. There are now laws on the books that prevent the use of FBI information for political ends. The period you describe was why we have laws like the one establishing the FISA court. Also what the data is being used for ISN'T above review by congress. Members of Congress have been briefed regularly about what this data is being used for. FISA isn't so much being circumvented, as much as it essentially is being found lacking. If a FISA judge says that calls recorded in the manner being discussed, even with a FISA warrant, won't be admissable in a court of law, then why bother with FISA? The NSA isn't trying to enforce the law, it is trying to identify threats to the United States and gather intelligence to that end. The NSA is doing its job, and nothing they are gathering can be used to prosecute a US citizen for a crime.

[SirFozzie]

Here's the part I love.

The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as "product" in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.

The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.

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.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

FISA won't rubber stamp us and might say no.., so we won't ask em. Besides, all the other cool kids are doing it, so should you.

and they wouldn't even go to the AG (who's a Bush yes-man) to get a letter to say it was ok!

Way way out of bounds

[SirFozzie]

Well for one thing. There are now laws on the books that prevent the use of FBI information for political ends.

That will get roundly ignored, like the other laws they encourage others to break.

The period you describe was why we have laws like the one establishing the FISA court.

That the NSA ignores, because they won't rubberstamp whatever they want to do.

[quot=Glengoyne] Also what the data is being used for ISN'T above review by congress. Members of Congress have been briefed regularly about what this data is being used for. [/quote]

And if they complain, the door is slammed in their face with regards to clearnace.

FISA isn't so much being circumvented, as much as it essentially is being found lacking. If a FISA judge says that calls recorded in the manner being discussed, even with a FISA warrant, won't be admissable in a court of law, then why bother with FISA? The NSA isn't trying to enforce the law, it is trying to identify threats to the United States and gather intelligence to that end. The NSA is doing its job, and nothing they are gathering can be used to prosecute a US citizen for a crime.

See my post above, it's being shared with various other intelligence agencies.

[KWhit]

And even threatened to withhold future contracts from Qwest. That doesn't sound legal to me.

[SirFozzie]

Break the law, or you don't get any more business from us...

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Well for one thing. There are now laws on the books that prevent the use of FBI information for political ends. The period you describe was why we have laws like the one establishing the FISA court. Also what the data is being used for ISN'T above review by congress. Members of Congress have been briefed regularly about what this data is being used for. FISA isn't so much being circumvented, as much as it essentially is being found lacking. If a FISA judge says that calls recorded in the manner being discussed, even with a FISA warrant, won't be admissable in a court of law, then why bother with FISA? The NSA isn't trying to enforce the law, it is trying to identify threats to the United States and gather intelligence to that end. The NSA is doing its job, and nothing they are gathering can be used to prosecute a US citizen for a crime.


The laws on the books don't seem to be accomplishing anything in this case, as you yourself note. The FBI is not in question here, and the NSA programs are well off the FISA reservation. And members of Congress, who are supposedly monitoring this, appear to be anything but sanguine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#Congressional_reaction_to_reported_events) about this program. Whether or not the uses of the program legally should be within the domain of Congressional review, it seems obvious that they have not been privy to it (see Arlen Specter threatening to cut off funding for the NSA unless they inform Congress of what they're doing). The use or non-use of this information in court seems to be fairly irrelevant to the sorts of abuses that have occurred in the past. Used in court, judges could apply the necessary 4th amendment and due process scrutiny to the programs. It's the out-of-court uses that are problematic.

I don't think anything you said really answered my question.. The public has no way to monitor how this program is being used, and neither, apparently, does Congress. Historically programs of this sort have been consistently put to illegitimate uses. The structure of the program runs counter to all of our assumptions of how government should work. Why do you assume that the data will not be misused?

[Samdari]

a party that for decades swore to get government out of your life, the

When they said "your life" they meant their lives.

[Daimyo]

This is a dramatic underestimation. 6.3 Gb is probably a factor of the actual number, but it can't be anywhere close. These numbers would presumably include business calls as well. Not to mention that I made 5 calls from my home this morning before I came to work, and at least five before I went to bed last night. We're WAY talking about the average number of calls for home use being way over 50/month.
You're one person making 10 calls a day... I bet I make fewer than 5 calls a week on averageI imagine there is still a decent number of those 270,000,000 people who don't own a phone and/or are too young to even make calls. That's why its called an average. :) AT&T's web page posted above by someone else claims they service 300,000,000 million calls day... my 50/month estimate would make for 450,000,000 calls a day. I don't know what percentage of calls are handled by AT&T, but I stand by my estimate as being in the ballpark and even doubling it doesn't affect the point of my post.

As for AT&T's database I'm sure they're collecting much more data then what the NSA database will need because they probably use it for troubleshooting purposes.

[Glengoyne]

You're one person making 10 calls a day... I bet I make fewer than 5 calls a week on averageI imagine there is still a decent number of those 270,000,000 people who don't own a phone and/or are too young to even make calls. That's why its called an average. :) AT&T's web page posted above by someone else claims they service 300,000,000 million calls day... my 50/month estimate would make for 450,000,000 calls a day. I don't know what percentage of calls are handled by AT&T, but I stand by my estimate as being in the ballpark and even doubling it doesn't affect the point of my post.

As for AT&T's database I'm sure they're collecting much more data then what the NSA database will need because they probably use it for troubleshooting purposes.

OKAY. I make 10 calls a day. My wife makes at least that many while I'm at the office. You still aren't coming close to the phone call volume of businesses. The call centers at my office take more than 2500 calls a day. The rest of the departments average more than 800 calls a day combined. I still don't think you are close.

[JonInMiddleGA]

In no way was I equating them as being equally bad. You might have read that into it, but it was more of an argument against "the ends justify the means" when there is more than one possible "end".

Fair enough, and I appreciate you taking the time to answer the question ('cause I really wasn't sure whether that's how you meant it or not).

[molson]

There's no constitutional expectation of privacy in your phone records (what numbers you call, and when). That's a 20-year old Supreme Court case - under the constitution, the government can get those records without a warrant, and without a supoena. The idea is that you don't have an expectation of privacy in information you freely disclose to phone companies.

Congress then put some very, very loose restrictions on these records, here my knowledge of it gets a little blury, but I imagine the Patriot Act ended those minor restrictions for record gathering based on general terrorism investigations.

My point is, this isn't the shocking disregard of the Constitution that some people in this thread are making it out to be. The Constitutionality of this kind of thing has long been determined - it's a pure political/policy issue now.

[sabotai]

You guys are missing the big picture here.

The terrorists attacked us because, according to Bush, they hate our freedoms. So the President is fixing that. He's taking away our freedoms. Then the terrorists won't have any reason to hate us, so then we'll be safe from terror.

:D

[SirFozzie]

*laughs*

[Schmidty]

http://www.ispep.cx/books/.1984/1984_summary.jpg

[Schmidty]

By the way, that wasn't meant to be a trolling post, it just fit my feelings of the admistration over the past few years.

[ice4277]

By the way, that wasn't meant to be a trolling post, it just fit my feelings of the admistration over the past few years.

I must say, for a Sparty, that pic was pretty witty :)

[SirFozzie]

agreed, well done Schmidty.. sums up what some think of El Presidente Bush :D

[dixieflatline]

You guys are missing the big picture here.

The terrorists attacked us because, according to Bush, they hate our freedoms. So the President is fixing that. He's taking away our freedoms. Then the terrorists won't have any reason to hate us, so then we'll be safe from terror.


This is the best post ever on FOFC. Hands down.

[Buccaneer]

You got what you asked for when nearly everyone was so hyper-critical of the intelligence failures, miscommunications between agencies and ignoring security threats. Did you really mean it when you said you didn't want 9/11 to happen again? Ok, you really want it to work within the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. How do you know if it does or not? How do you know if the federal govt have not pissing on the Constution (whatever that means) for 200 years now? Let's say another 9/11 hits in the next administration, who gets the blame? Let's say it doesn't, who gets the credit? Did you do anything differently today than you did yesterday?

[WVUFAN]

This is the best post ever on FOFC. Hands down.

Too bad it's wrong. As someone stated earlier, no one is entitled to a freedom of phone records.

[cartman]

Too bad it's wrong. As someone stated earlier, no one is entitled to a freedom of phone records.

That's not entirely true either. You make it sound like phone records are public domain, when that is absolutely NOT the case. If an agency wants the records, they still have to explain what the purpose for obtaining the records will be. They don't have to get a search warrant, but the courts have established they have to provide a valid reason for requesting phone records.

[Flasch186]

SO I just heard what Rove's talking point memo on the big summer push and what it will focus on to get things moving back to the right side of the pendulum:

Constitutional ammendment to ban same-sex marriage.

I kid you not they going to go back to the well but I wonder if it will be scoffed att his time as the political ploy it really is? just a thought.

[WVUFAN]

That's not entirely true either. You make it sound like phone records are public domain, when that is absolutely NOT the case. If an agency wants the records, they still have to explain what the purpose for obtaining the records will be. They don't have to get a search warrant, but the courts have established they have to provide a valid reason for requesting phone records.

I can understand why you would say that, but it wasn't my intent. What has been alluded to earlier is that phone records are protected as a right under the Constitution, specifically under the right to privacy. My point was that it wasn't protected in that fashion.

[Glengoyne]

SO I just heard what Rove's talking point memo on the big summer push and what it will focus on to get things moving back to the right side of the pendulum:

Constitutional ammendment to ban same-sex marriage.

I kid you not they going to go back to the well but I wonder if it will be scoffed att his time as the political ploy it really is? just a thought.


That the Al Franken Alert, or did Mr Giggles tell you in a PM?

[MrBigglesworth]

SO I just heard what Rove's talking point memo on the big summer push and what it will focus on to get things moving back to the right side of the pendulum:

Constitutional ammendment to ban same-sex marriage.

I kid you not they going to go back to the well but I wonder if it will be scoffed att his time as the political ploy it really is? just a thought.
Haha, don't tell Glen it was a political ploy, he thinks the fact that the GOP introduces this stuff right before elections and then drops it right after is proof that it ISN'T a political ploy!

[MrBigglesworth]

Turns out the NSA, with the collaboration of every phone company except Qwest, is monitoring all of our calls -- not to listen in to what's being said, but simply to gather data about the calls and draw inferences from that. It's important to link this up to the broader chain. One thing the Bush administration says it can do with this meta-data is to start tapping your calls and listening in, without getting a warrant from anyone. Having listened in on your calls, the administration asserts that if it doesn't like what it hears, it has the authority to detain you indefinitely without trial or charges, torture you until you confess or implicate others, extradite you to a Third World country to be tortured, ship you to a secret prison facility in Eastern Europe, or all of the above. If, having kidnapped and tortured you, the administration determines you were innocent after all, you'll be dumped without papers somewhere in Albania left to fend for yourself.
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/05/post_336.html#002317

Glen, is that just the NSA 'identifying threats'? Is this really what you want America to be? Or only for the people we just know are 'evil'?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I'll be ok. I'm going to put myself on the government's "do not catologue my call" list.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Here's the part I love.

The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as "product" in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.

The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.

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.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

FISA won't rubber stamp us and might say no.., so we won't ask em. Besides, all the other cool kids are doing it, so should you.

and they wouldn't even go to the AG (who's a Bush yes-man) to get a letter to say it was ok!

Way way out of bounds

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Flasch186]

That the Al Franken Alert, or did Mr Giggles tell you in a PM?

Saw it on CNN, John Roberts report from the White House.

[Subby]

While I think what they are doing isn't a huge deal, does anyone see it as a slippery slope towards future erosion of our privacy and civil liberties? Over time, standards change and it seems like the public's and government's standards for what is acceptable in this area is slowly moving in the wrong direction.

[Buccaneer]

While I think what they are doing isn't a huge deal, does anyone see it as a slippery slope towards future erosion of our privacy and civil liberties? Over time, standards change and it seems like the public's and government's standards for what is acceptable in this area is slowly moving in the wrong direction.

But hasn't been going on for a long time now, like 40 years or so? While the slope may be gradual, it's still downward. It's the only was the fed govt can function among voters that expect them to do something or a lot of things.

[Warhammer]

You got what you asked for when nearly everyone was so hyper-critical of the intelligence failures, miscommunications between agencies and ignoring security threats. Did you really mean it when you said you didn't want 9/11 to happen again? Ok, you really want it to work within the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. How do you know if it does or not? How do you know if the federal govt have not pissing on the Constution (whatever that means) for 200 years now? Let's say another 9/11 hits in the next administration, who gets the blame? Let's say it doesn't, who gets the credit? Did you do anything differently today than you did yesterday?

Amen.

I was going to type out a longer reply, but it Bucc summed it up perfectly.

[flere-imsaho]

You got what you asked for when nearly everyone was so hyper-critical of the intelligence failures, miscommunications between agencies and ignoring security threats.

I can't speak for others, but what I asked for was tha the various intelligence agencies to step up and start acting like professionals. I, for one, want(ed) to see the idiotic turf wars stop, the continual stalling over sharing information stop, and the President take some steps to make sure these agencies work in harmony to more accurately and more quickly identify and act on threats. Faced with the most significant intelligence failure in American history, Bush had a golden opportunity to bash some heads together and get these turkeys working more effectively and efficiently.*

What I got was the President expanding the authority and remit of these various agencies exponentially, on the basis, apparently, that approximating a police state guarantees our safety from terror.

There's a big difference between the two.

*And, for the record, I'm being charitable and not assuming (for the moment), that they did in fact provide this intel and he just ignored it.

[dixieflatline]

SO I just heard what Rove's talking point memo on the big summer push and what it will focus on to get things moving back to the right side of the pendulum:

Constitutional ammendment to ban same-sex marriage.

I kid you not they going to go back to the well but I wonder if it will be scoffed att his time as the political ploy it really is? just a thought.

You seriously should not underestimate the power this holds in politics today. This lone topic won Bush Ohio, which won him the last election. Ohio was hemorrhaging jobs, their local economy was in the toilet, but who really cares about that stuff as long as we make sure those gay folk can't marry.

[st.cronin]

I've always assumed that every phone call could be eavesdropped on.

This is definitely true. The only thing remarkable about this story is that they haven't gotten to this yet. I would have assumed something like this already existed.

[Warhammer]

I can't speak for others, but what I asked for was tha the various intelligence agencies to step up and start acting like professionals. I, for one, want(ed) to see the idiotic turf wars stop, the continual stalling over sharing information stop, and the President take some steps to make sure these agencies work in harmony to more accurately and more quickly identify and act on threats. Faced with the most significant intelligence failure in American history, Bush had a golden opportunity to bash some heads together and get these turkeys working more effectively and efficiently.*

What I got was the President expanding the authority and remit of these various agencies exponentially, on the basis, apparently, that approximating a police state guarantees our safety from terror.

There's a big difference between the two.

*And, for the record, I'm being charitable and not assuming (for the moment), that they did in fact provide this intel and he just ignored it.

There is a big difference between hearing that something is going to happen, and knowing when and where things are going to happen.

Hearing that terrorists are going to start flying planes into buildings is one thing. All you can do is try to beef up security.

Knowing that on 9-11 terrorists are going to board planes in Boston and fly them into buildings in NYC is a completely different thing, and information you can really take steps to act and prevent the event from occurring.

[SirFozzie]

Well, apparently a majority of Americans just don't give a fuck about what civil liberties (or even laws) are trashed as long as the magic words "To Fight Terror" are attached, 37% have significant concerns about this plan, 63% do not, in an overnight poll.

(BTW, before someone says I'm lying about the breaking of laws.. the information in this case, phone records, was NOT supposed to be released by the phone company without a court order, and has huge fines for those who release the records improperly)

[Glengoyne]

One thing the Bush administration says it can do with this meta-data is to start tapping your calls and listening in, without getting a warrant from anyone. Having listened in on your calls, the administration asserts that if it doesn't like what it hears, it has the authority to detain you indefinitely without trial or charges, torture you until you confess or implicate others, extradite you to a Third World country to be tortured, ship you to a secret prison facility in Eastern Europe, or all of the above. If, having kidnapped and tortured you, the administration determines you were innocent after all, you'll be dumped without papers somewhere in Albania left to fend for yourself.

This smells of unmitigated bullshit. It takes extreme examples, not from reality, but from the talking points of admin opponents.

[MrBigglesworth]

This smells of unmitigated bullshit. It takes extreme examples, not from reality, but from the talking points of admin opponents.
Which would you like me to show you the link for?

[Arctus]

This smells of unmitigated bullshit. It takes extreme examples, not from reality, but from the talking points of admin opponents.

Dude, it came from an internet blog, it must be true.

[flounder]

Interestingly, this seems to be a violation of the Stored Communications Act which could force the telephone companies to pay up to $1000 to each customer affected.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liable/


1. It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.

2. The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation. Section 2707 of the Stored Communications Act gives a private right of action to any telephone customer “aggrieved by any violation.” If the phone company acted with a “knowing or intentional state of mind,” then the customer wins actual harm, attorney’s fees, and “in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.”

(The phone companies might say they didn’t “know” they were violating the law. But USA Today reports that Qwest’s lawyers knew about the legal risks, which are bright and clear in the statute book.)

3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t get the telcos off the hook. According to USA Today, the NSA did not go to the FISA court to get a court order. And Qwest is quoted as saying that the Attorney General would not certify that the request was lawful under FISA. So FISA provides no defense for the phone companies, either.

[Glengoyne]

Which would you like me to show you the link for?

The part where the Whitehouse plans on using the data for any of the above. Your earlier assertion.

[Flasch186]

BTW Ive thought about this a lot today and Im okay with datamining for patterns of calls, if thats a flip-flop so be it. Listening to the actual calls I have a problem with but the mining from the sidelines I view as a necessary evil after 9/11. Im okay with the mining, anyhting more than that would require a warrant IMO.

[Klinglerware]

Interestingly, this seems to be a violation of the Stored Communications Act which could force the telephone companies to pay up to $1000 to each customer affected.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liable/

Ha ha. I totally see the feds saying, "sorry, we can't help you now", to the telecoms if and when the fines start hitting...

[John Galt]

This smells of unmitigated bullshit. It takes extreme examples, not from reality, but from the talking points of admin opponents.

I agree that MrBigglesworth's claims are over-the-top, but some of them do seem to follow from this administration's interpretation of Article II. Their actions in this case (even moreso than the FISA case) are more directly in conflict with other statutes (I think it will be clear in the next week or so that this program is clearly in conflict with several statutes). The administration's position has been that Article II trumps all of these statues. I expect a similar defense in this case. Such a broad reading of Article II powers means that the administration can do a lot of very ugly things (albeit not to the level MrBigglesworth talks about because the Bill of Rights overrides Article II even under the administration's current view) that we would find very distasteful. The greatest threat here is this administration takes signing statements and a bizarre Article II theory to mean that only the Constitution is a check on executive actions. That is historically unprecedented and VERY dangerous, IMO. It also prevents prior executives (by signing laws) from restraining themselves. It is even more of a concern because the progressive interpretations of the many Bill of Rights provisions adopted by the Warren Court are slowly being eroded. That means Constitutional checks on the executive are also decreasing. Things like having the phone companies tape all of your calls and turning that over to the NSA without a warrant may be Constitutionally supportable these days. And if there is a colorable argument (even a bad one), I think this administration will use it. And that is just the tip of the iceberg using the Article II theories offered by the DOJ nowadays.

[MrBigglesworth]

Such a broad reading of Article II powers means that the administration can do a lot of very ugly things (albeit not to the level MrBigglesworth talks about because the Bill of Rights overrides Article II even under the administration's current view)
The administration HAS done all of those things that I mentioned. So while I agree that the Bill of Rights overrides Article II, how do you make the assertion that that is what the administration believes?

[MrBigglesworth]

The part where the Whitehouse plans on using the data for any of the above. Your earlier assertion.
First of all I never said that that is what they will do. I said that they have 'asserted the right' to do that. Secondly, when someone has already held someone indefinitely without trial, and already listened in to phone calls without a warrant, and already illegally taken information to get a pattern of phone calls, I don't see how it is out of the realm of possibility that they would connect the three. After all, they can't use anything from the phone calls in court, so what do they do with the bad guys they catch from it? They can't go to trial, because it will get thrown out. So their options are to let them go, detain them indefinitely, or ship them off to a secret prison.

[MrBigglesworth]

BTW Ive thought about this a lot today and Im okay with datamining for patterns of calls, if thats a flip-flop so be it. Listening to the actual calls I have a problem with but the mining from the sidelines I view as a necessary evil after 9/11. Im okay with the mining, anyhting more than that would require a warrant IMO.
Assuming this datamining has no oversight, are you still ok with it? What if the datamining was used to determine who leaked the information about the secret prisons from the CIA? What if the datamining is used to sabotage a political opponent? How do we know that ISN'T what it is being used for? Isn't that why we need a court order in the first place, to prevent such abuses that history has shown will happen when someone is given unfettered power?

[John Galt]

The administration HAS done all of those things that I mentioned. So while I agree that the Bill of Rights overrides Article II, how do you make the assertion that that is what the administration believes?

A lot of the things you listed were done to enemy combatants (and in one fairly unique case a U.S. citizen). While you and I may feel that is wrong, it is not fair YET to say that this administration would contemplate torturing you or me or sending us to another country to do the same. Believing that the Bill of Rights does not apply to a class of people is not the same as saying Article II overrides the Bill of Rights. There are other ways the Bill of Rights can be eroded (especially since balancing tests are used for a variety of important Constitutional protections), but the administration is still a long way from throwing it out entirely where U.S. citizens are concerned. So, I prefer to speak about the exact ugly things this administration has done rather than blurring over distinctions that do matter.

[Flasch186]

Assuming this datamining has no oversight, are you still ok with it? What if the datamining was used to determine who leaked the information about the secret prisons from the CIA? What if the datamining is used to sabotage a political opponent? How do we know that ISN'T what it is being used for? Isn't that why we need a court order in the first place, to prevent such abuses that history has shown will happen when someone is given unfettered power?


I would LOVE to see Congressional oversight, but with the political arena the way it is im not sure it would do any good. But yes, id love to see oversight and some guidelines...I do not think that the collection of data and stats needs a warrant but this is all new to me so my opinion is evolving as I learn more and discuss/debate more.

[MrBigglesworth]

A lot of the things you listed were done to enemy combatants (and in one fairly unique case a U.S. citizen).
The first three steps (datamining, listening in, and detaining indefinitely) were all employed already against US citizens. John, you are a lawyer I think, so you probably know this better than me, but what happens when the administration uses datamining illegally obtained, to listen in to conversations without a warrant, to arrest a US citizen? It's my understanding that the case would be thrown out of court. So what to do then? You have this person in custody and he can't go to trial. Does he go free? Or does he get detained indefinitely? Or does he disappear, like people have off of the street in Italy?

Furthermore, with all the lines that the administration has already crossed, is it really that outlandish and over-the-top to think that they will send American citizens to prisons in eastern Europe instead of foreign nationals?

[MrBigglesworth]

I do not think that the collection of data and stats needs a warrant but this is all new to me so my opinion is evolving as I learn more and discuss/debate more.
I'm not completely sure either, but with Qwest saying that the NSA refused to talk to the FISA court and also refused to get a letter from the AG, I think that speaks volumes to how they view the legality of it.

[flere-imsaho]

Hey folks, this is the same government whose "No Fly" lists flagged up Sen. Ted Kennedy as a possible threat (which may not have been a mistake, but I digress). Can we trust them to not draw false conclusions from data-mining and mistake your 10 tech support calls to India as evidence of your cooperation with Al-Qaeda?

[oliegirl]

Hey folks, this is the same government whose "No Fly" lists flagged up Sen. Ted Kennedy as a possible threat (which may not have been a mistake, but I digress). Can we trust them to not draw false conclusions from data-mining and mistake your 10 tech support calls to India as evidence of your cooperation with Al-Qaeda?


Yes, we can.

[John Galt]

The first three steps (datamining, listening in, and detaining indefinitely) were all employed already against US citizens. John, you are a lawyer I think, so you probably know this better than me, but what happens when the administration uses datamining illegally obtained, to listen in to conversations without a warrant, to arrest a US citizen? It's my understanding that the case would be thrown out of court. So what to do then? You have this person in custody and he can't go to trial. Does he go free? Or does he get detained indefinitely? Or does he disappear, like people have off of the street in Italy?

Furthermore, with all the lines that the administration has already crossed, is it really that outlandish and over-the-top to think that they will send American citizens to prisons in eastern Europe instead of foreign nationals?

To answer your first hypothetical, the person would go free. There is little doubt on that one.

One danger of the datamining to me is that it could be used for probable cause to get a warrant (still unlikely to happen) or reasonable suspicion to get an administrative subpoena from the FBI or another organization (much more likely to happen). If the datamining starts creating profiles and flags (which is the intended purpose), then you may able to use that to get legal searches (which won't be thrown out in court). Once you have a legal search, it does not matter that much what evidence you turn up (even if it has nothing to do with terrorism). So, law enforcement gets a new tool that wouldn't normally be constitutional if not for the terrorism excuse. This is a dangerous step, IMO, in undermining the 4th Amendment.

Yes, I still think your scenario is outlandish because habeas relief has not been suspended for U.S. citizens. If habeas is ever suspended again (as it was during the Civil War by Lincoln), then we are in a whole new world. Until then, people should be given access to the courts and to due process. Until we have a verified case that this administration has denied habeas access (and admittedly we probably won't know until many cases have already happened), I think your claims are alarmist.

This administration has done enough scary things that I think creating extreme hypotheticals only distracts us from the ugliness that is already happening. It's like Hannah Arendt's theory of the "Banality of Evil" - truly bad stuff is dangerous precisely because it looks so ordinary and bureacratic to us.

[ISiddiqui]

Interestingly, this seems to be a violation of the Stored Communications Act which could force the telephone companies to pay up to $1000 to each customer affected.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liable/

SWEET! Someone HAS to get a class action started on this :D.

[John Galt]

SWEET! Someone HAS to get a class action started on this :D.

I think the EFF already has.

[Glengoyne]

...

One danger of the datamining to me is that it could be used for probable cause to get a warrant (still unlikely to happen) or reasonable suspicion to get an administrative subpoena from the FBI or another organization (much more likely to happen). If the datamining starts creating profiles and flags (which is the intended purpose), then you may able to use that to get legal searches (which won't be thrown out in court). Once you have a legal search, it does not matter that much what evidence you turn up (even if it has nothing to do with terrorism). So, law enforcement gets a new tool that wouldn't normally be constitutional if not for the terrorism excuse. This is a dangerous step, IMO, in undermining the 4th Amendment.

...
This administration has done enough scary things that I think creating extreme hypotheticals only distracts us from the ugliness that is already happening. It's like Hannah Arendt's theory of the "Banality of Evil" - truly bad stuff is dangerous precisely because it looks so ordinary and bureacratic to us.

I guess the reason I'm not too concerned with this is because I sincerely believe that this information will specifically NOT be available for domestic law enforcement purposes.

As for the what if scenarios others have brought up regarding the use of this data for political means, I really think that the people capable of doing such things are well aware that the risks and punishments don't come close to outweighing the gains.

I do appreciate that you, JG, see the outlandish claims as being counter productive to the causes of those making them. There are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with this administration without making stuff up.

By citing the "Banality of Evil" theory you did run across the one fear I do have about this event. It is strictly an argument based on privacy concerns. I fear that after using this as an anti-terror technique for a period of years that someone will get an idea to use this data as the means to achieve some other end desired by the government. Say the government bans iPods. I wouldn't want the government to be able to identify all of the folks who called Apple for technical support, and then pay them a visit to collect possible contraband(or illegally dowloaded music in Sir Fozzie's case).

[John Galt]

I guess the reason I'm not too concerned with this is because I sincerely believe that this information will specifically NOT be available for domestic law enforcement purposes.

I'm really not sure why you are at all optimistic on this point. I've never known any member of law enforcement that wouldn't use any tool they thought they could get their hands on.

The database starts by flagging a whole bunch of people. Those people then get heightened scrutiny and monitoring. Under surveillance, the investigators find out all sorts of domestic crime occurring. But at first, they tow the line and don't turn over the evidence. But sooner or later, they start hearing some serious shit and they drop a line to the FBI.

Truthfully, if this monitoring is legal under the administration's arguments for fighting terrorism there is no LEGAL reason it isn't also legal for domestic law enforcement. Once you accept the administration's Article II arguments, the line between terrorism and crime is lost. It certainly isn't a domestic/foreign distinction anymore (a line lots of people defended after the FISA thing came out).

So, with no legal prohibition in giving a tip to the FBI, it only seems like a matter of time before the line is crossed. Even if Congress passes a law to stop it, this administration will issue a signing statement limiting the law so that it wouldn't matter.

Given this program has been going on since soon after September 11, I would bet money it has already been used to get warrants in domestic operations. I just don't see what would have stopped well-meaning law enforcement officers from doing it.

[Glengoyne]

I'm really not sure why you are at all optimistic on this point. I've never known any member of law enforcement that wouldn't use any tool they thought they could get their hands on.

The database starts by flagging a whole bunch of people. Those people then get heightened scrutiny and monitoring. Under surveillance, the investigators find out all sorts of domestic crime occurring. But at first, they tow the line and don't turn over the evidence. But sooner or later, they start hearing some serious shit and they drop a line to the FBI.

Truthfully, if this monitoring is legal under the administration's arguments for fighting terrorism there is no LEGAL reason it isn't also legal for domestic law enforcement. Once you accept the administration's Article II arguments, the line between terrorism and crime is lost. It certainly isn't a domestic/foreign distinction anymore (a line lots of people defended after the FISA thing came out).

So, with no legal prohibition in giving a tip to the FBI, it only seems like a matter of time before the line is crossed. Even if Congress passes a law to stop it, this administration will issue a signing statement limiting the law so that it wouldn't matter.

Given this program has been going on since soon after September 11, I would bet money it has already been used to get warrants in domestic operations. I just don't see what would have stopped well-meaning law enforcement officers from doing it.

My thought is that the fact that this information can't normally be obtained by law enforcement without a warrant. With no warrant, and the only probable cause to base a warrant on, coming from information obtained without a warrant, I'd think the case would be thrown out before it started. This may be an overly simplistic view, but I honestly believe they couldn't/wouldn't use this in domestic law enforcement.

I don't believe that the administration would issue a signing statement allowing this data to be used against American citizens in domestic criminal cases. That isn't what they are collecting the data for. Even in the "wire tapping" case, when the FISA judge ruled that nothing obtained using those techniques would be admissible in court, even if he did issue a warrant. When the Admin/NSA/whoever got that news, they still pressed on with the program because they said they weren't doing this for law enforcement reasons. They were trying to prevent terror attacks on US soil.

[John Galt]

My thought is that the fact that this information can't normally be obtained by law enforcement without a warrant. With no warrant, and the only probable cause to base a warrant on, coming from information obtained without a warrant, I'd think the case would be thrown out before it started. This may be an overly simplistic view, but I honestly believe they couldn't/wouldn't use this in domestic law enforcement.

I don't believe that the administration would issue a signing statement allowing this data to be used against American citizens in domestic criminal cases. That isn't what they are collecting the data for. Even in the "wire tapping" case, when the FISA judge ruled that nothing obtained using those techniques would be admissible in court, even if he did issue a warrant. When the Admin/NSA/whoever got that news, they still pressed on with the program because they said they weren't doing this for law enforcement reasons. They were trying to prevent terror attacks on US soil.

The FISA court did say that although that is a pretty unique case. Most courts don't have that power. If you aren't aware, let me introduce to the world of confidential informants (CIs).

In today's world of law enforcement a great many (if not most) warrants are issued on the information of CIs. Usually the warrant reads something like, "Based upon information for a confidential informant, who is reliable and we have received reliable information from in the past . . ." A judge then signs the warrant and the search is executed. Often these CIs are totally not credible in a conventional sense. Since most searches are for drug cases, the CIs are usually junkies. Nonetheless, warrants are issued on the word of an unnamed junkie on a regular basis.

Now imagine your CI is an NSA agent. That's a credible source. You get the warrant and the search is executed. Because the case only get prosecuted if the search turns something up, the CI looks credible in hindsight. Despite what they show in Law & Order, searches like this almost never get suppressed. When they do, it's often because of scope issues. The CI never has to testify and no one ever need know where the information came from. And people rarely even ask anymore.

The Patriot Act took the world of CIs one step further. It allows some agencies like the FBI (notably Congress did not trust the NSA with this authority) the power to issue administrative subpoenas. This subpoenas act like warrants but you need only show reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. These subpoenas since the Patriot Act are relatively new in America, but they seem to be virtually unreviewable. As a result, an FBI agent can get information from the NSA, issue an administrative subpoena and the searching begins. And the search does not have to have anything to do with terrorism under the Patriot Act.

Based on that, I think the NSA information has already been used in domestic law enforcement.

Now, you raise one other point about signing statements. This administration pretty much takes any law that has anything remotely to do with Article II powers and says they accept the law insofar as it doesn't intrude on the president's Article II powers. They don't have to actually say what they are doing in conflict with the law under their interpretation of Article II. Consequently, even if Congress passes a law saying the NSA information can't be used for domestic law enforcement, the normal signing statement can be issued, and the information can continue to be used. A veto would be proper, but signing statements have essentially become the line-item veto of the Bush administration. And they never have to say what the scope of the Article II exception is.

And all of the above I described doesn't assume people are intentionally abusing the system. This is all legal if you accept the administration's Article II arguments. If you throw in all the history showing abuse of similar information along with the corruption we are finding out about in the CIA, Congress, and elsewhere, and I think you are looking at a VERY strong potential for dirty tricks Nixon style or worse. But again, what I've outlined is not even a form of abuse or illegality, but still scares me a lot.

[MrBigglesworth]

I do appreciate that you, JG, see the outlandish claims as being counter productive to the causes of those making them. There are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with this administration without making stuff up.
What's outlandish here? A year ago you would have told me that secret prisons and spying on American citizens without a warrant is outlandish.

Gonzales has stated that Bush "wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department." In March of '04 the Justice Department drafted a memo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57363-2004Oct23?language=printer) authorizing the CIA to secretly transport prisoners to other countries, ie rendition. They have asserted their right to detain any US citizen indefinitely as an enemy combatant (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld). This isn't science fiction that I am talking about, this is what they say they can do. You could say, "They can't, that's against the law," but the law to them is what Bush says it is. A couple years ago you would have told me that they can't torture prisoners.

The most dangerous thing here isn't me pointing out what the administration is saying, it is people that slowly allow this to happen. Each step is seen as 'outlandish' until it actually happens, then it is necessary for national security. Then the process repeats itself.

Again, I'm not saying that we have done all those things to American citizens, just that the administration has asserted the legal right to do so. That is in black and white, whether or not you agree that they will eventually do that is another story.

[Oilers9911]

Defend it?

Hell, I'm amused as all get out that there are people so naive about the world we live in that they try to attack it.

I'm in favor of it, should have been done a long time ago.

Jon's nose meet Mr. Bush's anus. You'd do very well in Communist China.

[SirFozzie]

Jon's nose meet Mr. Bush's anus. You'd do very well in Communist China.

Wow, and folks were accusing ME of being a dick yesterday.

I bow to your superior Asshole-Fu!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon's nose meet Mr. Bush's anus. You'd do very well in Communist China.

Oh goodie, just what I always wanted: a random personal attack from some fuckin noob.

If you could only be bothered to pay attention then you'd know this is the first thing I've thought the President got right in a number of weeks.

[Flasch186]

Oh goodie, just what I always wanted: a random personal attack from some fuckin noob.

If you could only be bothered to pay attention then you'd know this is the first thing I've thought the President got right in a number of weeks.

anus :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

anus :)

:D

See how easy that was? At least it wasn't totally random nor are you a noob that inspires a "Who?" response when your name comes up.

[Oilers9911]

Oh goodie, just what I always wanted: a random personal attack from some fuckin noob.

If you could only be bothered to pay attention then you'd know this is the first thing I've thought the President got right in a number of weeks.

Great, just what I always wanted, an assumption that a low number of posts equals a "fuckin noob".

[Oilers9911]

:D

See how easy that was? At least it wasn't totally random nor are you a noob that inspires a "Who?" response when your name comes up.

Yeah Jon, you're the man alright. Over 9000 posts on a message board qualifies you as what exactly? An authourity?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Great, just what I always wanted, an assumption that a low number of posts equals a "fuckin noob".

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 53

Umm ... that leaves a fairly limited number of possibilities
1) You abandoned a previous monicker for legitimate reasons.
2) You're trolling under a pseudonym.
3) You're a noob.

[Flasch186]

i believe its Athoritay!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

i believe its Athoritay!!

Splelchcek courtsey of Daivd's awesome Mackseemum Fotobawl?

[Franklinnoble]

Splelchcek courtsey of Daivd's awesome Mackseemum Fotobawl?

Sounds funnier if you read this with a Daffy Duck voice... just FYI...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sounds funnier if you read this with a Daffy Duck voice... just FYI...

Or Porky Pig for that matter.

[SirFozzie]

Yor All Dithpicable... (taking fingers and puts out singed hair)

[SirFozzie]

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 53

Umm ... that leaves a fairly limited number of possibilities
1) You abandoned a previous monicker for legitimate reasons.
2) You're trolling under a pseudonym.
3) You're a noob.

Or More Politely

1-2) If you've been here a while, you know Jon has his point of view on things, and what he does feel about things, he feels very strongly, so attempting to cheap shot him with such a "devestating" one-liner will do nothing more then make him feel even stronger about what he believes in, cuz "witty" one liners like the one advanced above in lieu of an actual argument make his point.

3) If you are that new to the board, jumping in with a flame, a day after the initial post is rather bad form, and most folks usually like to see the lay of the land before diving into deep water.

[JonInMiddleGA]

3) If you are that new to the board, jumping in with a flame, a day after the initial post is rather bad form, and most folks usually like to see the lay of the land before diving into deep water.

Check his post history (won't take long to review 'em) he's either a legit noob or a non-noob who has created a quasi-troll duplicate ID. (And, IIRC, the latter would be a bannable offense, so he really ought to stick with the "I'm a noob" defense).

[Franklinnoble]

Or More Politely

1-2) If you've been here a while, you know Jon has his point of view on things, and what he does feel about things, he feels very strongly, so attempting to cheap shot him with such a "devestating" one-liner will do nothing more then make him feel even stronger about what he believes in, cuz "witty" one liners like the one advanced above in lieu of an actual argument make his point.

3) If you are that new to the board, jumping in with a flame, a day after the initial post is rather bad form, and most folks usually like to see the lay of the land before diving into deep water.

Or, more realistically:

1.) Anyone with less than 1,000 posts had better not mouth off, especially in a politically or morally charged thread.

2.) Ditto anyone who's a Vikings fan.

[SirFozzie]

Or, more realistically:

1.) Anyone with less than 1,000 posts had better not mouth off, especially in a politically or morally charged thread.

2.) Ditto anyone who's a Vikings fan.

You know, FN, I was gonna make a joke that with your persecution complex, it must be hard to carry that cross around, but I'm afraid you'd take it as blasphemous..

So.. :p :p :p :p instead

[SirFozzie]

BTW Jon, would it kill you to tidy your PM box? :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

BTW Jon, would it kill you to tidy your PM box? :D

Nah, not now that I realize it was full.

[Glengoyne]

...

Based on that, I think the NSA information has already been used in domestic law enforcement.

Now, you raise one other point about signing statements. This administration pretty much takes any law that has anything remotely to do with Article II powers and says they accept the law insofar as it doesn't intrude on the president's Article II powers. They don't have to actually say what they are doing in conflict with the law under their interpretation of Article II. Consequently, even if Congress passes a law saying the NSA information can't be used for domestic law enforcement, the normal signing statement can be issued, and the information can continue to be used. A veto would be proper, but signing statements have essentially become the line-item veto of the Bush administration. And they never have to say what the scope of the Article II exception is.

And all of the above I described doesn't assume people are intentionally abusing the system. This is all legal if you accept the administration's Article II arguments. If you throw in all the history showing abuse of similar information along with the corruption we are finding out about in the CIA, Congress, and elsewhere, and I think you are looking at a VERY strong potential for dirty tricks Nixon style or worse. But again, what I've outlined is not even a form of abuse or illegality, but still scares me a lot.

FIrst, if you turn out to be correct about how this information is being used, then I'll stand up and agree with you that this is a HUGE abuse of power, and should be stopped. If the scope of use of this data is limited to anti-terrorism, then I will continue to have no trouble with it.

On the signing statement bit. I heard an interview on NPR a while back, the guy being interviewed was some poli-sci constitutional lawer mucky muck, who was addressing the constitutionality of the domestic wire-tapping scandal. He was no fan of the Bush administration, and pretty well mocked their "use of force" assertion. He did point out that the admin had far stronger ground to stand on with its assertion that the executive's duty to protect the United States outweighed the requirement that the office follow the laws laid out by congress. He also mentioned that the last several presidents had issued statements to that effect. He listed them by name, and I can't recall if it was specifically all of them, or how far the list went back, but I reasonably recall Reagan, I'm not sure if Carter was on there, but it might have even gone back further as well.

I'm not certain that what this administration is doing, when viewed from the standpoint of protecting the nation from terror attack, is all that scandalous. I do see that there is a huge difference between other presidents asserting they have this power, and actually laying claim to it as Bush has. I'm not really honestly comfortable with the ability of the executive branch to declare that its powers exceed the legislative branch's ability to check them. At the same time I believe that assembling a call database and performing somewhat limited recording of phone calls aren't entirely too onerous steps, given that their use is limited to anti-terrorism.

[MrBigglesworth]

And the hits just keep on coming:

A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said Thursday he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens. …

[Tice] said he plans to tell the committee staffers the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens while he was there with the knowledge of Hayden. … “I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. It’s pretty hard to believe,” Tice said. “I hope that they’ll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn’t exist right now.” …

Tice said his information is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program that Bush acknowledged in December and from news accounts this week that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of millions of Americans. “It’s an angle that you haven’t heard about yet,” he said. … He would not discuss with a reporter the details of his allegations, saying doing so would compromise classified information and put him at risk of going to jail. He said he “will not confirm or deny” if his allegations involve the illegal use of space systems and satellites.

[Dutch]

I'm don't see what the big deal is.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

And the hits just keep on coming:

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Glengoyne]

What's outlandish here? A year ago you would have told me that secret prisons and spying on American citizens without a warrant is outlandish.

...


Hey if JG says it's outlandish, that's good enough for me. The two of us agree on so few things, we must both be correct when we do.;)

[Flasch186]

it is kind of alarming that this stuff keeps getting revealed and opening up the onion seems to show more dirtiness and ore dirtiness. While Dutch may not be surprised I am. Taken on its own datamining doesnt seem like a big deal, but as Glen said they probably arent using it for domestic law enforcement issues....

....but coupled with everything else that they are doing, without any permission or oversight, how can we trust what they are doing with the information. I mean considering that they tried to kidnap people in other countries without a warrant, have secret prisons set up, secret plane flights, secret programs. I must say that I think oversight is sorely needed by this rogue, and I said rogue due to their behavior, administration.

[Buccaneer]

Now you are beginning to distrust the federal govt?!?!? Why? Because now we have the internet and 24-hr "news" channels? Go read a book on J. Edgar Hoover. Or about Kennedy and the Mob connections. Or Master of the Senate (LBJ). Or about the Nixon administration. Or if you really want to get repulsed, about the US Congress under Tip O'Neil.

It's a bigger deal now because we have the internet and 24-hrs media trying to get ad revenues and eyeballs, which not altogether a bad thing. But don't be naive to think past administrations/congresses were pure - they had people killed, maimem, shut away, harassed, followed and with dossiers the size of dictionaries. We just didn't know a lot of what was happening back then.

[Flasch186]

Now you are beginning to distrust the federal govt?!?!? Why? Because now we have the internet and 24-hr "news" channels? Go read a book on J. Edgar Hoover. Or about Kennedy and the Mob connections. Or Master of the Senate (LBJ). Or about the Nixon administration. Or if you really want to get repulsed, about the US Congress under Tip O'Neil.

It's a bigger deal now because we have the internet and 24-hrs media trying to get ad revenues and eyeballs, which not altogether a bad thing. But don't be naive to think past administrations/congresses were pure - they had people killed, maimem, shut away, harassed, followed and with dossiers the size of dictionaries. We just didn't know a lot of what was happening back then.

wasnt good then, not good now.

ignorance of an act does not make an act ethical.

[MrBigglesworth]

Hey if JG says it's outlandish, that's good enough for me. The two of us agree on so few things, we must both be correct when we do.;)
Can you tell me then, if someone gets caught from the datamining, from listening in to phone conversations without a warrant, what happens to them?

[SirFozzie]

Yup, here's the lawsuit.. any guess on how soon the government attempts to quash it by saying NATIONAL SECURITY! (ad nauseum)

Verizon sued for $50 billion over wiretap program
By Leslie Wines, MarketWatch
Last Update: 11:31 AM ET May 13, 2006

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) - AT&T Corp., BellSouth Corp and Verizon Telecommunications are facing lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages for the decision to turn over calling records to the government, the New York Times reported Saturday.

A federal lawsuit was filed in Manhattan yesterday seeking as much as $50 billion in civil damages against Verizon on behalf of its subscribers.

Under telecommunications law, the phone companies are at risk for at least $1,000 per person whose records they disclosed without a court order, according to Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor and assistant professor at George Washington University

The telecommunications companies allegedly complied with an effort by the National Security Agency to build a vast database of calling records, without warrants, to increase its surveillance capabilities after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

AT&T (T: news, board) , BellSouth (BLS: news, board) and Verizon Communications (VZ: news, board) have insisted that they were vigilant about their customers' privacy, but did not directly address their cooperation with the government effort, the report said.

Verizon said it gave customer information to a government agency "only where authorized by law for appropriately defined and focused purposes," but declined comment on any relationship with a national security program that was "highly classified."

"Verizon does not, and will not, provide any government agency unfettered access to our customer records or provide information to the government under circumstances that would allow a fishing expedition," the company said in a statement on Friday.

A fourth telecommunications company, Qwest Communications International Inc. (Q: news, board) , rebuffed government requests for the company's calling records after 9/11 because of "a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process," according to a statement released by an attorney on behalf of the company's former chief executive, Joseph Nacchio.

The legal experts said consumers could sue the phone service providers under communications privacy legislation that dates back to the 1930s. Relevant laws include the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, and a variety of provisions of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, including the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986.

The law governing the release of phone company data has been modified repeatedly to grapple with changing computer and communications technologies that have increasingly bedeviled law enforcement agencies, the report said.

Wiretapping has been tightly regulated by these laws. But in general, the laws have set a lower legal standard required by the government to obtain what has traditionally been called pen register or trap-and-trace information -- calling records obtained when intelligence and police agencies attached a specialized device to subscribers' telephone lines.

The restrictions still hold, said a range of legal scholars, in the face of new computer databases with decades' worth of calling records, according to the newspaper.

[Dutch]

it is kind of alarming that this stuff keeps getting revealed and opening up the onion seems to show more dirtiness and ore dirtiness. While Dutch may not be surprised I am. Taken on its own datamining doesnt seem like a big deal, but as Glen said they probably arent using it for domestic law enforcement issues....

....but coupled with everything else that they are doing, without any permission or oversight, how can we trust what they are doing with the information. I mean considering that they tried to kidnap people in other countries without a warrant, have secret prisons set up, secret plane flights, secret programs. I must say that I think oversight is sorely needed by this rogue, and I said rogue due to their behavior, administration.

I'm not surprised for many reasons. First and foremost is because we are at war. I wonder if the 3,000 people who died on 9/11 would have been okay with this effort by the NSA to prevent shit like that happening again?

But regardless of what the NSA is fighting to prevent, let me ask you a question. Because this really bugs me about some of the comments I am seeing here. Who do you think works at the NSA? Meaning, what is your vision of the kind of person that actually works there? In your view, is the NSA comprised of Bush/rogue administration lackeys that are eager to find out which Pizza Hut Bob Jones calls? Do you think there is a room in the back where rogue elements of the Bush administration sit around and listen in to Mary Smith phone conversations to see if she's calling a secret boyfriend?

What if I told you the NSA is made up of an equal representation of American society? More specifically, made up of people from the northeast? Closer to Maryland maybe, even? Is that part of the country filled to the brim with criminals eager to destroy America? I'd hazzard to say it is not. In fact, I would suggest that many of the people hired by the NSA might be people who might be labelled as Republicans or liberals or conservatives or Democrats or Libertarians even. I would also suggest that it's probably close to a 50/50 split between "your side" and "my side".

In addition, the people who work there were not hired post Clinton. There are actually employees that have been in the NSA during the Clinton administration. The leadership has probably been around since the Reagan and Bush Sr timeframe. And senior leadership from (25+ years of service) have been around since Carter and earlier.

So what the heck are these people blindly following the "rogue administration" for? Because they want to spy on Bob Jones and Mary Smith? Or is there some other reason. Are they taking these numbers and looking for calling patterns perhaps? Are they tagging questionable numbers in Pakistan or Bangledesh or Saudi Arabia or Yemen? Are they keying in on which stateside numbers are calling these questionable world-wide locations? Should we be doing that? Does that provide some value to us as Americans? It seems like a decent way to provide support to the fight against global terrorism and espionage.

If it's simply a big joke set up to spy on Americans, shut it down. But if the mission is really to protect us from enemies that would attempt another 9/11 attack then we do not shut that mission down. Ever. Those people at the NSA are not just working for "my side" or "your side". They are Americans that are working for Americans. Don't ever forget that.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm not surprised for many reasons. First and foremost is because we are at war. I wonder if the 3,000 people who died on 9/11 would have been okay with this effort by the NSA to prevent shit like that happening again?

But regardless of what the NSA is fighting to prevent, let me ask you a question. Because this really bugs me about some of the comments I am seeing here. Who do you think works at the NSA? Meaning, what is your vision of the kind of person that actually works there? In your view, is the NSA comprised of Bush/rogue administration lackeys that are eager to find out which Pizza Hut Bob Jones calls? Do you think there is a room in the back where rogue elements of the Bush administration sit around and listen in to Mary Smith phone conversations to see if she's calling a secret boyfriend?

What if I told you the NSA is made up of an equal representation of American society? More specifically, made up of people from the northeast? Closer to Maryland maybe, even? Is that part of the country filled to the brim with criminals eager to destroy America? I'd hazzard to say it is not. In fact, I would suggest that many of the people hired by the NSA might be people who might be labelled as Republicans or liberals or conservatives or Democrats or Libertarians even. I would also suggest that it's probably close to a 50/50 split between "your side" and "my side".

In addition, the people who work there were not hired post Clinton. There are actually employees that have been in the NSA during the Clinton administration. The leadership has probably been around since the Reagan and Bush Sr timeframe. And senior leadership from (25+ years of service) have been around since Carter and earlier.

So what the heck are these people blindly following the "rogue administration" for? Because they want to spy on Bob Jones and Mary Smith? Or is there some other reason. Are they taking these numbers and looking for calling patterns perhaps? Are they tagging questionable numbers in Pakistan or Bangledesh or Saudi Arabia or Yemen? Are they keying in on which stateside numbers are calling these questionable world-wide locations? Should we be doing that? Does that provide some value to us as Americans? It seems like a decent way to provide support to the fight against global terrorism and espionage.

If it's simply a big joke set up to spy on Americans, shut it down. But if the mission is really to protect us from enemies that would attempt another 9/11 attack then we do not shut that mission down. Ever. Those people at the NSA are not just working for "my side" or "your side". They are Americans that are working for Americans. Don't ever forget that.
Dutch you have absolutely no understanding of the situation. At all.

And I didn't realize you were a totalitarian.

[WVUFAN]

Dutch you have absolutely no understanding of the situation. At all.

And I didn't realize you were a totalitarian.

I actually think Dutch hit it pretty much on the head. You see it as some vast conspiracy against the American public, while the truth is right where Dutch is saying.

[JPhillips]

Dutch,

Would you object to searches of our homes? What about searches of our person? What about cavity searches?

All of these will make it less likely for a terrorist to perpatrate an attack, but where is the line drawn? At what point do you see our basic right to be free of government intrusion?

Every time we agree to give away some protection from government its likely gone for good. I'm certain the next president will expand on these programs, afterall what's it matter if the government listens to every phone call? At some point we need to define what basic liberties we won't give away, ever. There will always be a threat, but somehow we managed to get through WWII and the Cold War without these programs and we didn't all die.

Its simply amazing to me how much fear there is in the country and how willing our leaders are to capitalize on that fear.

[Flasch186]

Dutch

There is a balance though which you fail to see. You think it should be roughshod over civil liberties because were at war. I would venture to guess that in our history at every moment we have been at war either declared on undeclared with someone at all times, and will continue to be forever. Thats just the way it will be.

I believe in the constitutional purposes behind the 3 branches of gov't. that have equal powers via checks and balances. Should any one of these branches usurp this system than I think that that is a very bad thing. even when we are at war.

On the spectrum, you fall on one side that while we are at war, the Republican party and this admin have done all of their actions, above and below board in an effort to protect us. I agree with you that at no point has their intentions for the greater good of our people been at the forefront of their minds, regarding the war on terror. sometimes this gets blurred by the fact that they do things that clearly favor one sector of society over others, ie. the most recent tax cuts, the bankruptcy laws, the student loan debacle, medicare, prescription drug plans, etc. but regarding the war What they have done has been in an effort to reduce the chances of an attack on us.

Have they done enough? quickly enough? Most agree not. Immigration at the border is a clear example of the sieve they have left down there. The number of cans scanned coming into our ports, etc.

However, when the govt has a SOP set up to allow them much wiggle room regarding clandestine behavior, yet they even skirt or scoff at that, it raises questions as to the why? For example, when they dont go to the FISA courts even when they have time AFTER they have already acted one asks why? then when they say they are collecting data but assures us that they are following the law not to listen to those calls without a warrant....a normal citizen might ask..."well if they didnt go back to FISA to get a warrant to act before, why would they feel so compelled to get a warrant now?" Then add the Qwest execs statement to the fold and any non-partisan spinser would at least be able to see where the other side is coming from and that perhaps, perhaps, your staunch backing of the admin. might be based in faith...which like religion varies widely.

[WVUFAN]

Dutch,

Would you object to searches of our homes? What about searches of our person? What about cavity searches?

Those are protected under the 4th Amendment; there is no protection of your phone number or records. There is no expectation of privacy of phone records according to the Supreme Court. Big difference between what they're doing and what you mentioned above.

Everyone on the left is screaming "this is ILLEGAL!!! Violation of our Rights!!" of which NONE is true. Even local law enforcement does not have to get a warrant to retreive phone numbers or records.


There will always be a threat, but somehow we managed to get through WWII and the Cold War without these programs and we didn't all die.

How do you know it wasn't? Unlike today, at those times the media respected the words "national security" and for the most part did not disclose classified programs even if they found out about them. This was a classified action, and should have never been made public. It's entirely possible something similar DID occur during the Cold War -- you just never knew.


Its simply amazing to me how much fear there is in the country and how willing our leaders are to capitalize on that fear.

Fear is a part of war, and we are at war. If Clinton would have done his job, maybe we wouldn't have been in this situation in the first place.

[MrBigglesworth]

I actually think Dutch hit it pretty much on the head. You see it as some vast conspiracy against the American public, while the truth is right where Dutch is saying.
Are you kidding? This is crazy. I feel like I'm no longer living in America. I believe that unlimited power can be corrupted, and all of a sudden I am believing in vast conspiracies against the American public? That's insane. OF COURSE if you give someone unchecked power it is going to be abused. OF COURSE you shouldn't let the administration break the law at will. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[panerd]

Dutch,

Would you object to searches of our homes? What about searches of our person? What about cavity searches?

All of these will make it less likely for a terrorist to perpatrate an attack, but where is the line drawn? At what point do you see our basic right to be free of government intrusion?

Every time we agree to give away some protection from government its likely gone for good. I'm certain the next president will expand on these programs, afterall what's it matter if the government listens to every phone call? At some point we need to define what basic liberties we won't give away, ever. There will always be a threat, but somehow we managed to get through WWII and the Cold War without these programs and we didn't all die.

Its simply amazing to me how much fear there is in the country and how willing our leaders are to capitalize on that fear.

Which answer will he give?

A) We are at war
B) I have nothing to hide
C) Something to do with 9-11
D) A combination of the three talking points above


The administration broke the law again? We are war since 9-11, so I don't mind strip searches everyday when I leave my house. Do you have something to hide?

[MrBigglesworth]

Everyone on the left is screaming "this is ILLEGAL!!! Violation of our Rights!!" of which NONE is true.
You are useless to have a discussion with. If you want to argue the legality of it, fine, but you have given ABSOLUTELY NO reason why it would be legal, while your opponents have shown portions of the US Code that makes it illegal. Plus, at least one telecom is facing a multi billion dollar lawsuit for its conduct. Yet you still say that nothing illegal was done. It's mind boggling.

[WVUFAN]

Are you kidding? This is crazy. I feel like I'm no longer living in America. I believe that unlimited power can be corrupted, and all of a sudden I am believing in vast conspiracies against the American public? That's insane. OF COURSE if you give someone unchecked power it is going to be abused. OF COURSE you shouldn't let the administration break the law at will. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

So, were you bitching to high heaven during Clinton's adminstration while Project ECHELON was going on? After all, they were spying too. Unchecked balance and all, or are you complaining because it's Bush that's doing this?

Look, it's a general disagreement on the fundamental principles of things -- you seem to think your rights are being taken away -- I don't see that. I don't feel I've lost ANY rights at all since Bush took office. You seem to think Bush should disclose all actions the government is taking to fight terrorism. I think if I know everything the government is doing, they're not doing their job right.

That's my only complaint about the whole NSA deal -- that I even know about it. That someone in government is traitorous enough to reveal this sort of CLASSIFIED program to a newspaper, and that the newspaper has so little regard for this country that they make it public.

[MrBigglesworth]

So, were you bitching to high heaven during Clinton's adminstration while Project ECHELON was going on? After all, they were spying too. Unchecked balance and all, or are you complaining because it's Bush that's doing this?
Project ECHELON was for international communications, ie, not against the law. It is Bush that has moved ECHELON to domestic surveillance, which is against the law for good reason.

[WVUFAN]

You are useless to have a discussion with. If you want to argue the legality of it, fine, but you have given ABSOLUTELY NO reason why it would be legal, while your opponents have shown portions of the US Code that makes it illegal. Plus, at least one telecom is facing a multi billion dollar lawsuit for its conduct. Yet you still say that nothing illegal was done. It's mind boggling.

Ok, once again, it's not protected under the 4th Amendment due to Smith v Maryland, which stated, in fairly plain language, that phone records are not protected as one of your privacy rights.

You countered with the Comm Act, which still doesn't make it illegal, since the Comm Act only covered Names and addresses of phone records, OF WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT COLLECTING. You can twist the wording of the Act however you like, but in no way, shape or form is PHONE NUMBERS protected. You say it's "communications", but it's not. Communications, or the words spoke in the conversation, IS protected, but, again, that's not what they're collecting.

So, you then countered with "a phone number can lead to the name and address of the number", which is true, and it's still not protected. If I had your phone number, any rational, intelligent person could retrieve the name and address. Bill Collectors do it all the time. Still, it's not protected.

And as for your lawsuit argument, as everyone knows, anyone can sue for any reason. Doesn't mean they'll win.

[Buccaneer]

Did the end justify the means in the American Civil War?

[WVUFAN]

Project ECHELON was for international communications, ie, not against the law. It is Bush that has moved ECHELON to domestic surveillance, which is against the law for good reason.

And yet Congress ended their investigation of the wiretapping issue, and no actions were taken.

Yeah, sounds "illegal" to me.

[Flasch186]

And yet Congress ended their investigation of the wiretapping issue, and no actions were taken.

Yeah, sounds "illegal" to me.

that was not the reasoning behind ending the investigation and you know it. That is an unfair insinuation and skews your arguments if you want others to believe that that is the case.

[MrBigglesworth]

Ok, once again, it's not protected under the 4th Amendment due to Smith v Maryland, which stated, in fairly plain language, that phone records are not protected as one of your privacy rights.

You countered with the Comm Act, which still doesn't make it illegal, since the Comm Act only covered Names and addresses of phone records, OF WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT COLLECTING. You can twist the wording of the Act however you like, but in no way, shape or form is PHONE NUMBERS protected. You say it's "communications", but it's not. Communications, or the words spoke in the conversation, IS protected, but, again, that's not what they're collecting.

So, you then countered with "a phone number can lead to the name and address of the number", which is true, and it's still not protected. If I had your phone number, any rational, intelligent person could retrieve the name and address. Bill Collectors do it all the time. Still, it's not protected.

And as for your lawsuit argument, as everyone knows, anyone can sue for any reason. Doesn't mean they'll win.
(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the--

(A) name;

(B) address;

(C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;

(D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;

(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and

(F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),

of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).

(3) A governmental entity receiving records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer.

Paragraph 1:
(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity--

(A) obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant;

(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;

(C) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure; or

(D) submits a formal written request relevant to a law enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for the name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer of such provider, which subscriber or customer is engaged in telemarketing (as such term is defined in section 2325 of this title);

pwned.

[st.cronin]

The reason that the NSA didn't respond to Qwest's request for a letter or a subpoena is because the NSA doesn't NEED Qwest's cooperation in this matter. If you doubt that for a second, you don't understand the world we live in.

[MrBigglesworth]

And yet Congress ended their investigation of the wiretapping issue, and no actions were taken.

Yeah, sounds "illegal" to me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12515341/
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said Thursday he is considering legislation to cut off funding for the Bush administration’s secret domestic wiretapping program until he gets satisfactory answers about it from the White House.
pwned.

[MrBigglesworth]

The reason that the NSA didn't respond to Qwest's request for a letter or a subpoena is because the NSA doesn't NEED Qwest's cooperation in this matter. If you doubt that for a second, you don't understand the world we live in.
Then why did they continually ask for Qwest's cooperation?

[SirFozzie]

They certainly DO need Qwest's cooperation in this matter.. otherwise they'd have that info and they don't do they?

[st.cronin]

Then why did they continually ask for Qwest's cooperation?

It's bureaucracy, man - these things happen. Some suit in some random office, possibly a lawyer, figured documentation wasn't as tight as he would have liked. Regardless, this little flap changes nothing.

[st.cronin]

They certainly DO need Qwest's cooperation in this matter.. otherwise they'd have that info and they don't do they?

I say "of course they do." As always, you are free to think whatever you like.

[ISiddiqui]

I say "of course they do." As always, you are free to think whatever you like.

So you think they have Qwest's info? Not from Qwest at any rate! Or else you are living in fantasy land.

[st.cronin]

So you think they have Qwest's info? Not from Qwest at any rate! Or else you are living in fantasy land.

*shrug*

I think the NSA can easily penetrate the security of pretty much any American corporation and get whatever information they want.

[ISiddiqui]

*shrug*

I think the NSA can easily penetrate the security of pretty much any American corporation and get whatever information they want.

So why not do that instead of asking them for the info? I think you are just believing what you want to believe instead of realizing the NSA couldn't get all the records, so were required to ask.

[MrBigglesworth]

*shrug*

I think the NSA can easily penetrate the security of pretty much any American corporation and get whatever information they want.
Isn't breaking in to get the info MORE illegal than asking for it?

[st.cronin]

So why not do that instead of asking them for the info? I think you are just believing what you want to believe instead of realizing the NSA couldn't get all the records, so were required to ask.

Because it would be easier or less expensive? Or because it would actually be legal? I don't know, I can only guess.

[WVUFAN]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12515341/

pwned.

That article is nearly a month old. Specter is no longer pursuing that bill.

[Flasch186]

That article is nearly a month old. Specter is no longer pursuing that bill.

i must be on your ignore list. you saw that I called you out on your misleading insinuation and moved on....perhaps someone could quote me so he'll see it.

[st.cronin]

that was not the reasoning behind ending the investigation and you know it. That is an unfair insinuation and skews your arguments if you want others to believe that that is the case.

Quoted because I love Flasch with the heat of a thousand suns.

[MrBigglesworth]

That article is nearly a month old. Specter is no longer pursuing that bill.
Actually it's just over two weeks old. And Specter is still going after it.

No comment on the section of the code that I posted that 100% contradicts what you said? Can we agree that it is illegal?

[WVUFAN]

No comment on the section of the code that I posted that 100% contradicts what you said? Can we agree that it is illegal?

Sorry for the delay, was doing research -- I knew that law has been supervented recently, and I just found it.

PATRIOT ACT revision 2005:
To assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, the title allows for the seizure of communications records (section 215 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detailed_breakdown_of_USA_PATRIOT_Act%2C_Title_II#Section_215:_Access_to_records_and_other_items_under_FISA)) and any records of session times, durations of electronic communication as well as any identifying numbers or addresses of the equipment that was being used (section 210 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detailed_breakdown_of_USA_PATRIOT_Act%2C_Title_II#Section_210:_Scope_of_subpoenas_for_records_of_electronic_communications)).

This supervents the Comm Act. It's legal.

[WVUFAN]

i must be on your ignore list. you saw that I called you out on your misleading insinuation and moved on....perhaps someone could quote me so he'll see it.

No, I don't have anyone on Ignore -- I just didn't see it. Lemme find the post and I'll respond in a sec.

Didn't mean to ignore your posts, Flasch, and you're certainly not on any ignore list -- sorry -- I just didn't see it.

[WVUFAN]

that was not the reasoning behind ending the investigation and you know it. That is an unfair insinuation and skews your arguments if you want others to believe that that is the case.

Ok -- so enlighten me -- why did Congress end the "formal" investigation?

[WVUFAN]

SPECIFICALLY, the section amended which makes this legal is:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2702(c)

(4): to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously, 3 of the 4 (y'know, the 3 whose CEO are NOT under indictment) believed a voluntary release of those records were necessary. This makes it legal.

[MrBigglesworth]

SPECIFICALLY, the section amended which makes this legal is:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2702(c)

(4): to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously, 3 of the 4 (y'know, the 3 whose CEO are NOT under indictment) believed a voluntary release of those records were necessary. This makes it legal.
:) Yeah, I'd love to see you argue in court that this program, which has been going on for 5 years now, is in response to an "emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury". A five year emergency, involving every person in the country. What a joke.
Sorry for the delay, was doing research -- I knew that law has been supervented recently, and I just found it.

PATRIOT ACT revision 2005:
To assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, the title allows for the seizure of communications records (section 215 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detailed_breakdown_of_USA_PATRIOT_Act%2C_Title_II#Section_215:_Access_to_records_and_other_items_under_FISA)) and any records of session times, durations of electronic communication as well as any identifying numbers or addresses of the equipment that was being used (section 210 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detailed_breakdown_of_USA_PATRIOT_Act%2C_Title_II#Section_210:_Scope_of_subpoenas_for_records_of_electronic_communications)).

This supervents the Comm Act. It's legal.
Did you even read that those links?
Section 215: Access to records and other items under FISA

FISA was modified by section 215 (Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to allow the Director of the FBI (or an official designated by the Director, so long as that official's rank is no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The act specifically gives an example to clarify what it means by "tangible things": it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".

It is specified that any such investigation must be conducted in accordance with guidelines laid out in Executive Order 12333 (which pertains to United States intelligence activities). Investigations must also not be performed on U.S. citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Any order that is granted must be given by a District Court Judge or by a United States Magistrate Judge who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to allow such an order to be given. Any application must prove that it is being conducted without violating the First Amendment rights of any U.S. citizens. The application can only be used to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. citizen or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

This section of the Patriot Act is controversial because the order may be granted ex parte, and once it is granted — in order to avoid jeopardizing the investigation — the order may not disclose the reasons behind why the order was granted.

In order to protect anyone who complies with the order, FISA now prevents any person who complies with the order in "good faith" from being liable for producing any tangible goods required by the court order. The production of tangible items is not deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

As a safeguard, section 502 of FISA compels the Attorney General to inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate of all such orders granted. Every six months, the Attorney General must also provide a report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate which details the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things and the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.[29]
For the first bolded part, it wasn't the FBI that was going after the records but the NSA, and there were no orders produced, and in fact the NSA specifically denied the request for an order from Qwest. For the second bolded part, there is no way that isn't the case for a mass collection of records. For the third bolded part, there is a 99.9999999% chance that the AG didn't go to the House and Senate every six months and tell them that 255 million applications were made.

What's your next legal backing?

[WVUFAN]

:) Yeah, I'd love to see you argue in court that this program, which has been going on for 5 years now, is in response to an "emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury". A five year emergency, involving every person in the country. What a joke.

Yes, the threat of terrorism is an emergency involing immediate danger of death or serious physical injury. What exact do you think the Patriot Act, which this is a part of, was written specifically for?



For the first bolded part, it wasn't the FBI that was going after the records but the NSA, and there were no orders produced,

And you didn't read the part that says no orders are needed when that exception is made -- that's the purpose of exceptions. And besides, that's not even what I'm referencing. After I quoted that part of Wikipedia, which also quoted, I looked up the actual revised Patriot Act, which mentioned "government entity", not a specific branch. I can give you the link to the law if you like. What you mentioned above has nothing to do with what I was saying.


For the second bolded part, there is no way that isn't the case for a mass collection of records.

PHONE RECORDS ARE NOT PROTECTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. You yourself has admitted it. The Supreme Court has say so. You keep saying it's illegal. It's quite apparant isn't not illegal at all.


For the third bolded part, there is a 99.9999999% chance that the AG didn't go to the House and Senate every six months and tell them that 255 million applications were made.

Actually, they did -- to the subcommittee overseeing this particular program. It consisted of 7 members, of which the entire subcommittee has admitted they were notified -- and that's all that is needed. Remember this was SUPPOSED to be a classified project -- the full permission of Congress is not required.

Again, the above part you highlighted is supervented by the exception I listed in my former post. Evidentally 3 of the 4 phone companies felt is was a substantial risk to life that they willingly released those records.

It doesn't matter what YOU think is a risk to life in this country, only what the phone companies felt. Given this request was made the day AFTER 9/11, you know damn well that's what the government was saying. It's no less a threat to citizens' life now than it was that day.

To say that terrorism isn't an immediate threat for death and injury of our citizens is idiotic. Thousands DIED on 9/11, and you sit there and say it's not a threat. Amazing.

Again, 3 of the 4 felt it was important enough. I have a sneaky suspicion that the 4th companies' CEO didn't deny because of concern over privacy rights rather than a vendetta over the government going after him for criminal charges. My point is, at no time, in any shape did anything the government do break the law.

The actual LAW was broken by whomever told USA Today and the New York Times about it. Law very well could have been broken by those newspapers when they wrote the story. National security, especially in this time and place, is very important, and whomever broke it needed to be found and tossed in a cold, dark jail for the rest of their lives.

[Flasch186]

Ok -- so enlighten me -- why did Congress end the "formal" investigation?

...you already know why. The NSA refused to allow the investigation for fear that some confidential things would come out NOT that there wasn't meat to the sandwich, just that they wouldnt allow the investigation access. You already knew that but wanted others, who dont know, to think otherwise. I think that that is crap. Whatever the crux of your other arguments, at least you believe those, but this is the sort of stuff I cant stand.

[WVUFAN]

...you already know why. The NSA refused to allow the investigation for fear that some confidential things would come out NOT that there wasn't meat to the sandwich, just that they wouldnt allow the investigation access. You already knew that but wanted others, who dont know, to think otherwise. I think that that is crap. Whatever the crux of your other arguments, at least you believe those, but this is the sort of stuff I cant stand.

Well, that's your interpretation. The truth is that the lawyers did not have the credentials to get the clearance needed for the sensitive information they were requesting. National Security takes precedence above all else.

But, seriously the bottom line is that the investigation, for whatever reason, has been closed officially. The investigators could have gotten lawyers that would have passed clearance, but they chose not to do so.

Or do you think that national security should be breached in a situation like this?

Last thing -- for what it's worth, I DIDN'T know the reason why the investigation was closed until you called me on it. I had to look it up. I just knew from glancing at a tv show a few days ago that is was. So, I wasn't purposely misleading anyone.

[Glengoyne]

You are useless to have a discussion with....

It's like looking into a mirror, ain't it Giggles?

[Glengoyne]

Quoted because I love Flasch with the heat of a thousand suns.

DAMN QOTM Material AGAIN!!!

[WVUFAN]

Project ECHELON was for international communications, ie, not against the law. It is Bush that has moved ECHELON to domestic surveillance, which is against the law for good reason.

Wrong:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml

It was created during Clinton's admin, and is and has been used for domestic surveilance, but in a roundabout way -- they has associated countries do the spying, and the information, including actual phone call conversations, are turned over to the US. Sounds like spying on US civilians to me ...

AND CLINTON DID IT.

[Dutch]

Dutch

There is a balance though which you fail to see. You think it should be roughshod over civil liberties because were at war.

I don't think 'roughshod over civil liberties' best describes what's going on. I think that's a gross exaggeration, in fact.

I believe in the constitutional purposes behind the 3 branches of gov't. that have equal powers via checks and balances. Should any one of these branches usurp this system than I think that that is a very bad thing. even when we are at war.

The government/military owning guns is a very bad thing. Killing someone is the ultimate civil rights violation. They have enough guns and weapons to kill every American a million times over. In a perfect world, I would love to see all weapons banned. But the reality is that we need our military and those guns to protect us.

On the spectrum, you fall on one side that while we are at war, the Republican party and this admin have done all of their actions, above and below board in an effort to protect us. I agree with you that at no point has their intentions for the greater good of our people been at the forefront of their minds, regarding the war on terror. sometimes this gets blurred by the fact that they do things that clearly favor one sector of society over others, ie. the most recent tax cuts, the bankruptcy laws, the student loan debacle, medicare, prescription drug plans, etc. but regarding the war What they have done has been in an effort to reduce the chances of an attack on us.

The Republican party is what it is. The mere fact that they are in the Oval Office and the majority in Congress suggests to me that the American people prefer their offerings to that of the Democrats. They are only serving the people that elected them. I support nearly everything they do. Maybe that's because I am a Republican as well.

On the flip-side, I do not expect a Democratic president or a Democratic Congress to act like I want them to act. If I did, I would have voted for them. However, my priority is to the process, moreso than to the party. I will never engage in 100% obstructionism of a Democratic president. I may not agree, but we all have to do our best to support the decisions that are made. And if we want to go in a different direction, we vote them out of office.

Have they done enough? quickly enough? Most agree not. Immigration at the border is a clear example of the sieve they have left down there. The number of cans scanned coming into our ports, etc.

Is that the fault of Republicans or is that a political trap? I wasn't born yesterday. I remember border security questions during the Clinton Administration. People have always been of the mind-set that "You are damned if you do and damned if you don't." To think the border security has only been a problem "since Bush got here" is disingenuous or naive. What is the solution? Build a wall? No. Use the National Guard? No. Set up a minefield? No. No matter what has been proposed or suggested, everybody else is ready to say that's no good. Should the President "go it alone?"

the govt has a SOP set up to allow them much wiggle room regarding clandestine behavior, yet they even skirt or scoff at that, it raises questions as to the why? For example, when they dont go to the FISA courts even when they have time AFTER they have already acted one asks why? then when they say they are collecting data but assures us that they are following the law not to listen to those calls without a warrant....a normal citizen might ask..."well if they didnt go back to FISA to get a warrant to act before, why would they feel so compelled to get a warrant now?" Then add the Qwest execs statement to the fold and any non-partisan spinser would at least be able to see where the other side is coming from and that perhaps, perhaps, your staunch backing of the admin. might be based in faith...which like religion varies widely.

My backing is partly based on faith in the system. Faith in our processes. I agree with that. And like our faith in religion varies wildly, so do our beliefs in government. Or in our families. Our spouses. Our significant others. Our neighbors.

While it's true that some religions are fucked up, some governments are fucked up, some families are disfuntional, some spouses and significant others cheat and some neighbors just plain suck--that is not the proof required to show that everybody is like that.

It comes down to the individual to decide for themselves. Their American granted right to choose. I do look at the big picture, but it comes down to me. My vote goes to the policy I agree with the most. Just like yours.

Like I said, if the government is collecting phone numbers to find out if I'm eating Domino's Pizza or Pizza Hut Pizza, my God in heaven, they are going down. But if they counter that accusation with something I would agree with, hunting down terror cells around the world and particularly in America, I will support that.

Yes, I've seen the movies where government agents are spying on us and I've seen the blogs. But until it happens to me, or hell, to people I know and it moves away from the political speak and moves away from theory, then I will have a concern, but for now, it's bullshit. Your argument is not the reality. It's a theory. But 9/11 was not a theory. And we raised holy hell when we found out our government was flat-footed during and before that attack. I will not vote for a President or a government that will remain, act, or blindly allow another attack on my country. I will however, support any government the best I can. So long as the voting system works, I think we all should.

[Flasch186]

i read it all but one thing that stands out is that you say if a Dem were in office or hold power you wouldnt expect them to act like you want them too...but then you add at the bottom "I think we all should." That seems a bit convenient considering the circumstances.

[Flasch186]

I don't think 'roughshod over civil liberties' best describes what's going on. I think that's a gross exaggeration, in fact.

opinion



The government/military owning guns is a very bad thing. Killing someone is the ultimate civil rights violation. They have enough guns and weapons to kill every American a million times over. In a perfect world, I would love to see all weapons banned. But the reality is that we need our military and those guns to protect us.

I dont understand the analogy.



The Republican party is what it is. The mere fact that they are in the Oval Office and the majority in Congress suggests to me that the American people prefer their offerings to that of the Democrats. They are only serving the people that elected them. I support nearly everything they do. Maybe that's because I am a Republican as well.

but you still care about the minority, understand that the framework of Democracy is to hear more than one opinion and therefore support avenues to have that dissent voiced through the media, journalism, etc.?



On the flip-side, I do not expect a Democratic president or a Democratic Congress to act like I want them to act. If I did, I would have voted for them. However, my priority is to the process, moreso than to the party. I will never engage in 100% obstructionism of a Democratic president. I may not agree, but we all have to do our best to support the decisions that are made. And if we want to go in a different direction, we vote them out of office.


I whole heartedly disagree that we have to blindly support the decisions our elected officials make. We should never close our eyes.



Is that the fault of Republicans or is that a political trap? I wasn't born yesterday. I remember border security questions during the Clinton Administration. People have always been of the mind-set that "You are damned if you do and damned if you don't." To think the border security has only been a problem "since Bush got here" is disingenuous or naive. What is the solution? Build a wall? No. Use the National Guard? No. Set up a minefield? No. No matter what has been proposed or suggested, everybody else is ready to say that's no good. Should the President "go it alone?"

I say yes to the above except the minefield. Should the pres. go it alone? nope, Congress is at fault too.



My backing is partly based on faith in the system. Faith in our processes. I agree with that. And like our faith in religion varies wildly, so do our beliefs in government. Or in our families. Our spouses. Our significant others. Our neighbors.

While it's true that some religions are fucked up, some governments are fucked up, some families are disfuntional, some spouses and significant others cheat and some neighbors just plain suck--that is not the proof required to show that everybody is like that.

It comes down to the individual to decide for themselves. Their American granted right to choose. I do look at the big picture, but it comes down to me. My vote goes to the policy I agree with the most. Just like yours.

Like I said, if the government is collecting phone numbers to find out if I'm eating Domino's Pizza or Pizza Hut Pizza, my God in heaven, they are going down. But if they counter that accusation with something I would agree with, hunting down terror cells around the world and particularly in America, I will support that.

..but each action that the gov't. takes in the name of war, especially when the war will last forever in my opinion, should be checked and rechecked. Oversight is what we are talking about via warrants, congress, etc.



Yes, I've seen the movies where government agents are spying on us and I've seen the blogs. But until it happens to me, or hell, to people I know and it moves away from the political speak and moves away from theory, then I will have a concern, but for now, it's bullshit. Your argument is not the reality. It's a theory. But 9/11 was not a theory. And we raised holy hell when we found out our government was flat-footed during and before that attack. I will not vote for a President or a government that will remain, act, or blindly allow another attack on my country. I will however, support any government the best I can. So long as the voting system works, I think we all should.

i addressed this one above on the quick draw.

[Dutch]

opinion

Fair. And I agree.

I dont understand the analogy.

You don't think that the government owning guns and running around killing innocent Americans isn't some sort of violation of our civil rights? Obviously it's murder, but that's a violation of our civil rights.

The point being, just becuase they "can" violate our civil rights, doesn't mean they "are". A big difference. Same with finding phone calling patterns to suspected terrorists.

but you still care about the minority, understand that the framework of Democracy is to hear more than one opinion and therefore support avenues to have that dissent voiced through the media, journalism, etc.?

I still believe that Republicans and Democrats alike are working for everybody. Maybe some Democrats believe Bush is really just trying to keep them down. Maybe some Republians believe Clinton was trying to keep them down. But the end result is that the President is working for eveybody, whether they like it or not ( :) ).

I whole heartedly disagree that we have to blindly support the decisions our elected officials make. We should never close our eyes.

I think we are in disagreement over support/dissent. The fact is we don't ever close our eyes. I am not suggesting that one bit. But it is our individual responsabilities to either support the process we have of acquiring our leadership or we need to change the system. Personally, I think voting for leaders is the best way to go. And just because "my guy" didn't win, does not mean that the next 4, 6, 8 years are going to be my time to be obstructionist. Of course, being in the military, my rights are a little different than yours, so maybe that is where the discrepencies arise. Who knows.

I say yes to the above except the minefield. Should the pres. go it alone? nope, Congress is at fault too.

I agree on all counts. But we all know why they won't do it. To do so would be the loss of a huge voting block of people. That's the reality. Do I agree with that? I guess the weak answer is -- it's more complicated that. I *wish* Bush would have the balls to just take care of business with regards to the southern border.

..but each action that the gov't. takes in the name of war, especially when the war will last forever in my opinion, should be checked and rechecked. Oversight is what we are talking about via warrants, congress, etc.

And they are checked and rechecked and balanced. If the worst thing the NSA "leaker" can come up with is a database of phone numbers being collected by private phone corporations and then passed on to the NSA then we should not claim the sky is falling. I'd actually think that was some sort of proof that the checks and balances are working pretty well.

[MrBigglesworth]

Yes, the threat of terrorism is an emergency involing immediate danger of death or serious physical injury. What exact do you think the Patriot Act, which this is a part of, was written specifically for?
Erroneous. Terrorism, which will be a threat until the end of time, gives the government carte blanche to do whatever they want forever? I do not think you know what an emergecy is. This portion of the Patriot Act, since it was written for this situation, could just have given them the permission to do it at any time. But they didn't. They specified 'emergency'. So any reasonable court will deny your interpretation of the law.

And you didn't read the part that says no orders are needed when that exception is made -- that's the purpose of exceptions. And besides, that's not even what I'm referencing. After I quoted that part of Wikipedia, which also quoted, I looked up the actual revised Patriot Act, which mentioned "government entity", not a specific branch. I can give you the link to the law if you like. What you mentioned above has nothing to do with what I was saying.
There is no mention of exceptions in either of the Sections that you quoted. I just looked up the actual Patriot Act, and it says:
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
PHONE RECORDS ARE NOT PROTECTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. You yourself has admitted it. The Supreme Court has say so. You keep saying it's illegal. It's quite apparant isn't not illegal at all.
Holy shit. I'll repeat it again. Slowly. It is not against the Constitution. IT...IS...AGAINST...THE...LAW. Like if I were to kill you for having to repeat a simple point over and over, that isn't unconstitutional, there is no murder clause in Article IV, but it is against the law. The phone companies broke the law. Was the government breaking the law? I think that depends on if they forced the other phone companies to give up the records.

It doesn't matter what YOU think is a risk to life in this country, only what the phone companies felt.
Haha, so the liability rests on how the phone companies 'felt' at the time? No, that's not how it works. Even if everything else you say is true, which it isn't, the courts will rule on whether there was any kind of threat. And since most rational people don't wet their bed thinking about terrorism every night, I doubt they will see an emergency.

To say that terrorism isn't an immediate threat for death and injury of our citizens is idiotic. Thousands DIED on 9/11, and you sit there and say it's not a threat. Amazing.
Haha, incredible. Take this to it's logical conclusion: crime is an immediate threat for death and injury of our citizens, so the laws should be thrown out when fighting crime. You act like terrorism is a threat to bring down the republic.

The actual LAW was broken by whomever told USA Today and the New York Times about it. Law very well could have been broken by those newspapers when they wrote the story. National security, especially in this time and place, is very important, and whomever broke it needed to be found and tossed in a cold, dark jail for the rest of their lives.
You know, for all your whining about the brown menace, you really hate American values.

[MrBigglesworth]

Wrong:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml

It was created during Clinton's admin, and is and has been used for domestic surveilance, but in a roundabout way -- they has associated countries do the spying, and the information, including actual phone call conversations, are turned over to the US. Sounds like spying on US civilians to me ...

AND CLINTON DID IT.
'Roundabout way'. I definitely don't agree with it, it is a loophole that needs to be closed, with quasi-legality. I am not surprised that Clinton did it though, OF COURSE Presidents are going to take as much power as possible. That's why we need to check the power.

It's funny to me that since you think everything Bush does is great and legal, that you would assume that I have the same personality cult around Clinton.

[Flasch186]

You act like terrorism is a threat to bring down the republic.



it is a possibility. a slim one, but there is a chance that somewhere in time the Republic falls due to "terrorism". Just wanted to point that out.

[EagleFan]

LOL, it's funny how self-important some of the "conspiracy" idiots are. I've got news for you, you are not being watched. You are a freaking number on a database that is meaningless to "big brother".

Oh my God, there is a database with phone calls on it. I've got news for you, there already is a database with phone calls that you made on it, it's called the phone company and they are doing more with that information than any government agency EVER will.

I really love the idiotic comment that tries to compare this to a "camera in your house". Can we stretch this any farther?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Can we stretch this any farther?

Please, do not create temptation.

[Dutch]

LOL, it's funny how self-important some of the "conspiracy" idiots are. I've got news for you, you are not being watched. You are a freaking number on a database that is meaningless to "big brother".

Oh my God, there is a database with phone calls on it. I've got news for you, there already is a database with phone calls that you made on it, it's called the phone company and they are doing more with that information than any government agency EVER will.

I really love the idiotic comment that tries to compare this to a "camera in your house". Can we stretch this any farther?

It's already been compared to illegal random cavity searches in this thread, so I'd guess we could say it could be stretched further. No pun intended, of course. :)

[MrBigglesworth]

LOL, it's funny how self-important some of the "conspiracy" idiots are. I've got news for you, you are not being watched. You are a freaking number on a database that is meaningless to "big brother".

Oh my God, there is a database with phone calls on it. I've got news for you, there already is a database with phone calls that you made on it, it's called the phone company and they are doing more with that information than any government agency EVER will.

I really love the idiotic comment that tries to compare this to a "camera in your house". Can we stretch this any farther?
Where did anyone say that they were being watched? Talk about a straw man. Let me break this down for you, slowly and carefully, so that you can understand:

Problem 1: The System) The system probably works by inputting a certain amount of 'evil' phone numbers, and then a program is run to see how many hits every phone number has for these 'evil' phone numbers, maybe regressing back a couple of hits too, so that if you call someone who calls an evil number, you are given a point or whatever. At a certain threshold level, that person is flagged, and their conversations are taped and listened to by the NSA. As we have heard, most if not all of these have turned out to be phony positives, which means that the threshold, assuming we have good information of what the evil numbers are, is very low. One problem with a low threshold is the six degrees of seperation theory, ie everyone is connected so even patriotic EagleFan has some connection to an evil number. A problem with a high threshold is that it flags a lot of people that have a lot of close connections to evil numbers because of their occupations but are innocent, but still people that the government would love to listen to. Someone like Christiane Amanpour, a journalist of Iranian descent. Several journalists and even politicians have close ties to potential evil numbers. The right has already deemed the press to be its mortal enemy, and suddenly they are able to listen in at will to these conversations.

Problem 2: Total Abuse) Political opponents, peace rally leaders, journalists, government leakers of criminal information, etc., are flagged and searched. This is a complete abuse of power. Sure, some of you may think that is a good thing, but what if Hillary was doing it?

As it is, these programs have no oversight, and thus any of these are possible without anyone's knowledge. History has shown that people that have power will use the power, that is why we have the government system that we have today.

Problem 3: It Works) Now what? None of it can be used in court, because it was all obtained illegally. Either you let someone go, detain them forever without trial, or send them off to Eastern Europe prison camps.


Those are three very legitimate complaints and possibilities, and none of them have anything to do with fear of being watched.

[Glengoyne]

...

Problem 1: The System) The system probably works by inputting a certain amount of 'evil' phone numbers, and then a program is run to see how many hits every phone number has for these 'evil' phone numbers, maybe regressing back a couple of hits too , so that if you call someone who calls an evil number, you are given a point or whatever. At a certain threshold level, that person is flagged, and their conversations are taped and listened to by the NSA. As we have heard, most if not all of these have turned out to be phony positives, which means that the threshold, assuming we have good information of what the evil numbers are, is very low. One problem with a low threshold is the six degrees of seperation theory, ie everyone is connected so even patriotic EagleFan has some connection to an evil number. A problem with a high threshold is that it flags a lot of people that have a lot of close connections to evil numbers because of their occupations but are innocent, but still people that the government would love to listen to. Someone like Christiane Amanpour, a journalist of Iranian descent. Several journalists and even politicians have close ties to potential evil numbers. The right has already deemed the press to be its mortal enemy, and suddenly they are able to listen in at will to these conversations.

Problem 2: Total Abuse) Political opponents, peace rally leaders, journalists, government leakers of criminal information, etc., are flagged and searched. This is a complete abuse of power. Sure, some of you may think that is a good thing, but what if Hillary was doing it?

As it is, these programs have no oversight, and thus any of these are possible without anyone's knowledge. History has shown that people that have power will use the power, that is why we have the government system that we have today.

Problem 3: It Works) Now what? None of it can be used in court, because it was all obtained illegally. Either you let someone go, detain them forever without trial, or send them off to Eastern Europe prison camps.

...

Everything that isn't bolded is wild conjecture.

That said....Something I learned about your "problem 3". Well apparently the President can authorize warrantless searches the results of which can be used legally in a court of law. This is something not done yet by Bush(AFAIK), but something that President Clinton did utilize.

I think a lot of the administration opponents are simply so blinded by their hatred that they can't see the possibility that these steps the President has authorized aren't the apocalyptic assault on Civil Rights that they are made out to be. The president does have certain duties or obligations to the nation laid out in the Constitution. It is apparently a commonly held belief amongst Executive Branch lawyers, not just those associated with this administration, that those obligations outweigh even laws passed by the legislative branch. This is a constitutional question that hasn't been addressed yet. The steps the Administration has taken doesn't amount to some obviously illegal power grab to be depicted in shades of white or black. This is a question of constitutional law, that needs to be addressed by the court.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I gave up on this thread a long time ago. Debating with someone like WVUFan who has now admitted he has made comments without even knowing really about the topic, and then keeps quoting legal sources that he hasn't read himself (rather than listening to someone else's baloney on it), is enough for me. Believe me, any judge would laugh at the argument that the ongoing threat of terrorism can be categorized as imminent threat of injury/death. Those are common legal terms that have been interpreted in thousands of cases to mean essentially you find out a suspect is planning to kill a target imminently - when there is no time to get a warrant. This program is not this at all. In fact, the whole point of the program is based on the fact that there is nothing imminent -- they're asking for the records to create a database.

I learned a long time ago to stop banging your head against a brick wall when it starts to hurt. I'm outta here.

[MrBigglesworth]

Everything that isn't bolded is wild conjecture.
Of course it is! Congratulations on stumbling into the problem with the whole thing: it's secret! And we are just supposed to trust them? Not good enough! God damn, I said stuff like this 10 years ago and I was called a crazy conservative, now I'm blinded by hatred of a conservative president.

The president does have certain duties or obligations to the nation laid out in the Constitution. It is apparently a commonly held belief amongst Executive Branch lawyers, not just those associated with this administration, that those obligations outweigh even laws passed by the legislative branch. This is a constitutional question that hasn't been addressed yet. The steps the Administration has taken doesn't amount to some obviously illegal power grab to be depicted in shades of white or black. This is a question of constitutional law, that needs to be addressed by the court.
That's fantastic that "it's a commonly held belief amongst Executive Branch laywers" (given, obviously, without any corroborating evidence whatsoever), but I don't care. It's a pretty commonly held belief by everyone else in the country that the President does NOT have the right to break the law. That is called a King, not a President. The only reason this question has not been addressed yet is that the administration knows they will lose if they bring it into court.

I think a lot of the administration opponents are simply so blinded by their hatred that they can't see the possibility that these steps the President has authorized aren't the apocalyptic assault on Civil Rights that they are made out to be.
Really? And what is the extent of what they are doing Blen? Because for years, the President told everyone that nobody was being wiretapped without a warrant. Then it turned out that there were actually some people being wiretapped without a warrant. Then he told us the wiretapping without a warrant that he had told us for years wasn't being done was only being done to international calls and was narrowly targetted. Then it was revealed that there was a second part to the program that wasn't restricted to international calls and also wasn't narrowly targetted.

So how far does it go, Blen? What all is being done? How could you possibly still take them at their word? That's just the lying that was done about this single issue! It wasn't like they divulged these programs, they are furious that this stuff came out. It's ludicrous to believe that this is the extent of everything.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

You're still banging your head against the wall.

[WVUFAN]

You're still banging your head against the wall.

You call it banging against the wall; it is in fact arguing against the truth. I figure it feels the same, that something you hate (Bush and his administration) are doing things you dislike, but a majority of people disagree with you. That things you think are "liberties" aren't, and things you feel should be illegal really isn't.

Must hurt (like banging your head against the wall) to scream to the high heavens that Bush and his ilk are evil, yet they are elected by the people of this nation not once, but twice. Must feel bad to realize that 75% of the American people don't feel that this NSA program isn't a breach of their liberties at all, regardless of how loudly you and the liberal media yells.

[WVUFAN]

Of course it is! Congratulations on stumbling into the problem with the whole thing: it's secret! And we are just supposed to trust them? Not good enough! God damn, I said stuff like this 10 years ago and I was called a crazy conservative, now I'm blinded by hatred of a conservative president.

This government has secrets, and for the most part they SHOULD be secret. You are not entitled to know everything the government does -- if you know, you damn well better bet the terrorists do too.

There's a reason it's called CLASSIFIED.


That's fantastic that "it's a commonly held belief amongst Executive Branch laywers" (given, obviously, without any corroborating evidence whatsoever), but I don't care. It's a pretty commonly held belief by everyone else in the country that the President does NOT have the right to break the law. That is called a King, not a President. The only reason this question has not been addressed yet is that the administration knows they will lose if they bring it into court.

Did you yell this loudly when Clinton committed multiple felonies while in office, or does that not count?

The reason the "question" of whether the President has broken the law or not hasn't been pushed is because he HASN'T broken the law.


Really? And what is the extent of what they are doing Blen? Because for years, the President told everyone that nobody was being wiretapped without a warrant. Then it turned out that there were actually some people being wiretapped without a warrant. Then he told us the wiretapping without a warrant that he had told us for years wasn't being done was only being done to international calls and was narrowly targetted. Then it was revealed that there was a second part to the program that wasn't restricted to international calls and also wasn't narrowly targetted.

So how far does it go, Blen? What all is being done? How could you possibly still take them at their word? That's just the lying that was done about this single issue! It wasn't like they divulged these programs, they are furious that this stuff came out. It's ludicrous to believe that this is the extent of everything.

Sigh. You don't live in this world, Bigglesworth. In this world, things need to be done to ensure that more innocents aren't killed on American soil by terrorists. Your "right" to know everything the government does simply does not exist. You scream to the high heavens about the government keeping things from us; I'm screaming to the high heavens that there seems to be people in the government that cares so little for this country that they tell essential security secrets to the press; and the press are more concerned about making money than they risk lives by publishing those same secrets.

You're not entitled to know these things. You have no right to know national security programs.

[WVUFAN]

I gave up on this thread a long time ago. Debating with someone like WVUFan who has now admitted he has made comments without even knowing really about the topic, and then keeps quoting legal sources that he hasn't read himself (rather than listening to someone else's baloney on it), is enough for me.

Whatever. What I said was the truth -- the investigation WAS stopped. Nothing I have said so far has been incorrect, and that included the legal sources (which I have read).

Let's make a bet, then ... I'll bet you or whomever what becomes of the Dems screaming "illegal action" and calling for investigations on this recent program leak -- NOTHING.


Believe me, any judge would laugh at the argument that the ongoing threat of terrorism can be categorized as imminent threat of injury/death. Those are common legal terms that have been interpreted in thousands of cases to mean essentially you find out a suspect is planning to kill a target imminently - when there is no time to get a warrant. This program is not this at all. In fact, the whole point of the program is based on the fact that there is nothing imminent -- they're asking for the records to create a database.

BULLCRAP. That specific exception was placed in the Patriot Act SPECIFICALLY to reflect the current fight against terrorism. You want to think it's "laughable", but evidently 3 of the 4 phone companies, with, y'know, REAL lawyers that know more of the law than you or I do, felt otherwise.


I learned a long time ago to stop banging your head against a brick wall when it starts to hurt. I'm outta here.

Bye.

[John Galt]

BULLCRAP. That specific exception was placed in the Patriot Act SPECIFICALLY to reflect the current fight against terrorism. You want to think it's "laughable", but evidently 3 of the 4 phone companies, with, y'know, REAL lawyers that know more of the law than you or I do, felt otherwise.


This thread seems to have devolved to a shouting match, but I want to at least address this. WVUFAN's interpretation of "immediate" and "emergency" is just plain wrong. I don't think there is a single case out there to support it. And I doubt you could find any judge to accept it. It goes against decades of interpretation of the constitution and statutes as they relate to searches. The carve-out seems specifically designed for things like the "ticking-bomb" scenario and there is nothing to support the idea that it gives a perpetual "emergency" exception to the statute.

[st.cronin]

This thread seems to have devolved to a shouting match.

I DISAGREE!!!!!!!!