NSA logging all domestic calls

[whitesoxfan101]

I wish Kerry would have won in 2004 more and more everyday. Bush's idiocy is going to ruin the republican party and conservatism as a whole, and the overcorrection by they far left democrat that wins the 2008 election will hurt the country just as much. This is what I mean when I say political extremism of all kinds is a huge danger to this country.

[YASNY]

From Andrew C. McCarthy at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzhmO...zZlYWM5ZmUwZmI=

 

 

Big Brother is watching you. Collecting your names and addresses. Mapping out your telephone numbers and e-mail address. Making note of your interests. Paying close attention to how you spend your money.

 

Big Brother is folding these bits of information about you and millions upon millions of your fellow Americans, and—you’d better be sitting down for this part—entering it into searchable databases.

 

Then, worse yet, it is using sophisticated computer programs to develop targeted strategies about how to deal with you in every aspect of your personal life.

 

What’s that? You think you already read all about that in a hyperventilating, instant-Pulitzer-nominee report in Thursday’s USA Today? Dream on. The hysterical USA Story doesn’t describe anything nearly that intrusive.

 

After all, if you wade through all the layers of reporter Leslie Cauley’s conscious misdirection—including the silly observations about government failing to seek judicial warrants before obtaining non-private information for which government has never been required to get warrants—you will learn that scrupulous measures were actually taken by the National Security Agency and cooperating telephone companies to withhold customer names, street addresses and other personal identifiers from the government.

 

No, I’m not talking about the Big Brother at the NSA. Or the big Big Brother in the Oval Office.

 

I’m talking about the 535 Big Brothers (and Sisters) in Congress.

 

Getting elected to Congress is hard work. It is rivaled only by every incumbent’s dearest preoccupation: remaining in congress. It takes untold hours of dedicated labor by highly motivated staffs and party organizations. It takes the expertise of outside experts. It takes meticulous research into the predilections of likely voters. And, most of all, it takes money. Lots of money.

 

In modern American politics, that requires a fair amount of data mining—the very same bane of our existence that currently has the usual suspects in Congress posturing about whether President Bush should merely be impeached or drawn-and-quartered at high noon.

 

These self-styled champions of our liberties and our privacy are promising to turn the upcoming confirmation hearings of General Michael Hayden—a brilliantly accomplished air force officer, former NSA chief, and current deputy National Intelligence director—into a firefight over wartime-surveillance efforts.

 

General Hayden, of course, has apparently helped design a lawful surveillance program and a lawful data-mining system for the nefarious purpose of … trying to keep us all alive. His efforts respond to the challenge of a vicious enemy—one that has killed massively and assures us it is spending every waking moment scheming to do so again.

 

Hayden doesn’t have anything on his plate nearly as important as getting members of Congress reelected.

 

So if we’re going to have a national conversation about government data mining, by all means let’s have it. But let’s not just put the administration and General Hayden under the microscope.

 

Let’s examine the practices of the opposition that purports to find warehousing information and tracking data about American citizens to be the death-knell of liberty.

 

Let’s take a hard look at the elected officials who are taking a hard look at the NSA.

 

Here are a just a few questions we might ask Democratic-party chairman Howard Dean and the members of the judiciary and intelligence committees currently grousing for the cameras:

 

Do you maintain databases of American citizens for fundraising purposes?

 

Do those databases contain names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and other identifying information?

 

Do the databases contain information about the interests of the citizens who have been entered into them? About candidates or causes to which they have previously donated money?

 

Are those databases searchable? If so, what search criteria do you use to divide these American citizens into various categories?

 

Do you do targeted mailings for purposes of raising funds or pushing particular issues?

 

When you target, how do you know whom to target? That is, what kind of information do you maintain in your databases to guide you about which potential donors or voters might be fruitful to tap on which particular issues?

 

Do you trade information about American citizens with other politicians and organizations in the expectation that they might reciprocate and you all might mutually exploit the benefits?

I’m betting the answers to these questions might prove pretty interesting. Hard as this may be to comprehend, we may even find that our Big Brother on Capitol Hill has been collecting information on all of us … without (gasp!) judicial warrants.

[YASNY]

The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the numbers they dial:

 

[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must “convey” phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .

 

[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not “one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and “exposed” that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.

[mmmmmbeeer]

Bottom line...they have a computer looking at a bunch phone numbers....I can care less. If that computer can develop a pattern and help them catch someone, I'm all for it. There are people out there that want to blow up another building. There are people that want me you and everyone else that doesn't praise Allah dead. Intelligence is necessary, not really on this message board, but definitely for the powers that be when runnig this country.

 

Just cause the media uses words like survellience and spying and eavesdropping doesn't mean the nsa is outside your window with binoculars. A gazillion phone numbers in a database, which probably 95% never even get looked at by human eyes, is hardly infringing on your civil liberties. Here ya go 630-362-6971.

 

I believe that they are actually screening, electronically, the contents of each conversation, not just looking for patterns of phone numbers.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the numbers they dial:

 

[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must “convey” phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .

 

[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not “one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and “exposed” that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.

 

 

The finding in Smith vs. Maryland was related to a man on trial for bank robbery who challenged to suppress the use of his collected information. The court correctly concluded that in committing a crime this individual lost any 4th Amendment right against search of his records relating to the commission of the crime, and that such records could reasonably be assumed to be turned over to the police.

 

Held:

The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required.

 

The case has nothing to say about the legality of phone companies voluntarily turning over call records to the federal government in the absence of any suspicionof guilt or crime, and without meeting any of the well-defined exception criteria in the Stored Communications Act that would allow it.

Edited May 14, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[Texsox]

The only way we can keep terrorists from taking out freedoms, is if we voluntarily give them up The rights are only there to protect guilty people. We don't need freedom of speech if we don't say things the government doesn't like. We don't need legal protection from the government searching our homes anytime they like, if we don't have anything in our homes that the government doesn't like. We don't need our guns, the government has plenty. If the government telle me I don't need rights to stay alive, then let's give them up.

[samclemens]

http://www.nysun.com/article/32651

 

"It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

 

liberal hypocrisy, straight up.

[FlaSoxxJim]

http://www.nysun.com/article/32651

 

"It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

 

liberal hypocrisy, straight up.

 

I'm not seue I see the hypocrisy. The Stored Communications Act lays out a number of well defined exceptions other than court order in which turning over the records would be lawful. This case does not meet the criteria of any of those exceptions. Where are the other exceptions deriving from?

[Texsox]

http://www.nysun.com/article/32651

 

"It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

 

liberal hypocrisy, straight up.

Do conservatives support everything Republicans have ever done?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Its truly staggering to me that people on this board who align themselves with the GOP are OK with this. I've voted for Republican Prez candidates more than Dems over the years, and for a long time, I stood firmly with many of the tenets of the Grand Old Party - smaller government, local control, fiscal discipline, etc. And yet here is another program in a list of many which absolutely flies in the face of some of these principles, and there are people who STILL stand by it. They are forced to use arguments that make those core principles seem irrelevant or non-existent, just to defend the actions of people who happened to also be Republicans.

 

To me, this is akin to the people who try to defend the Catholic Church's complete ineptness in handling molestation, simply because they are Catholic. For me, if I am part of an organization, religion or political party that is chipping away at the very principles that drew me to it, I am MORE inclined to call them on it. Not less.

 

 

Evidently it's not just the GOPers who are ok with this.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/14/coverstory.tm/index.html

 

The day after USA Today broke the story that the National Security Agency (NSA) aimed to "create a database of every call ever made" within the U.S., as one of the paper's sources put it, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 63 percent of those who were asked said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to fight terrorism, and 44 percent said they strongly approved of it.

 

The only reason anyone knew about this is because of investigative journalism. It does not create a perceptible intrusion in my life or anyone elses and it keeps us safe. Hence, I approve.

 

 

http://www.nysun.com/article/32651

 

"It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

 

liberal hypocrisy, straight up.

 

 

Yeppers. Now that its a Republican doing the wiretapping and intercepting their panties are all in a bunch. That was an all Democratic government that passed that law as well.

[Texsox]

It's sad when citizens are expected to toe the party line and support everything a party does. If someone wants to call it liberal hypocrisy to now support everything, so be it. I am scared when people stop thinking for themselves and just pledge allegiance to one party and everything they do.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It's sad when citizens are expected to toe the party line and support everything a party does. If someone wants to call it liberal hypocrisy to now support everything, so be it. I am scared when people stop thinking for themselves and just pledge allegiance to one party and everything they do.

 

 

That would be a valid argument if myself and the others on this board were on record back in 1994 as opposing these types of measures.

[BigSqwert]

That would be a valid argument if myself and the others on this board were on record back in 1994 as opposing these types of measures.

You and the other 29% of Americans must be proud of this administration.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

You and the other 29% of Americans must be proud of this administration.

 

 

The world is a nasty place full of people who would do us all manner of harm if given half a chance. Its becomming painfully clear in the last couple of years that Americans increasingly dont have the balls to deal with a protracted fight against terrorism. They want to be fat and lazy, drive their gas-guzzling SUV's and pretend everything is peachy and then they want to b**** and whine about everything under the sun when things dont go their way. They want to cry when the price of gas goes up or file a lawsuit because eating too much McDonalds made them obese or complain that their jobs are going overseas when they demand benefits out of any proportion to the menial work they're doing.

 

The war against Islamo-fascism is only just starting. This movement is an order of magnitude more dangerous than the Soviet threat ever was and it is coming of age at a time when Americans are getting much softer and pussified. If we lose the war against terrorism it wont be because we are fighting the wrong battles, it'll be because of a bunch of gutless cowards here at home who can't stomach doing what needs to be done to keep America safe.

[BigSqwert]

The world is a nasty place full of people who would do us all manner of harm if given half a chance. Its becomming painfully clear in the last couple of years that Americans increasingly dont have the balls to deal with a protracted fight against terrorism. They want to be fat and lazy, drive their gas-guzzling SUV's and pretend everything is peachy and then they want to b**** and whine about everything under the sun when things dont go their way. They want to cry when the price of gas goes up or file a lawsuit because eating too much McDonalds made them obese or complain that their jobs are going overseas when they demand benefits out of any proportion to the menial work they're doing.

 

The war against Islamo-fascism is only just starting. This movement is an order of magnitude more dangerous than the Soviet threat ever was and it is coming of age at a time when Americans are getting much softer and pussified. If we lose the war against terrorism it wont be because we are fighting the wrong battles, it'll be because of a bunch of gutless cowards here at home who can't stomach doing what needs to be done to keep America safe.

Losing our civil liberties is what makes us the losers in this fight.

[samclemens]

I'm not seue I see the hypocrisy. The Stored Communications Act lays out a number of well defined exceptions other than court order in which turning over the records would be lawful. This case does not meet the criteria of any of those exceptions. Where are the other exceptions deriving from?

 

estimated conservatively, clinton kicked the door open. yet bush should be impeached for walking through it after the worst terrorist attack on our country in it's history. someone please explain why bush should be crucified and people are wishing we didnt have a two term limit for clinton.

 

Losing our civil liberties is what makes us the losers in this fight.

 

no...letting terrorists enter the country and commit terrorist acts would make us the losers in this fight (hint- its called the war on terror)

[Texsox]

That would be a valid argument if myself and the others on this board were on record back in 1994 as opposing these types of measures.

 

I am pointing out the post that because Clinton first authorized it, any Dem against it is a hypocrit is wrong. Liberals do not march in lockstep with everything Clinton, or any Dem did. So now saying because it was created during Clinton's term, all Dems must support it is silly.

 

Also, we've seen many times when a law is created and sold to the American public to do "A" and then it is applied to "B".

 

Maybe conservatives a prepared to defend anything Bush does, and y'all think that is what Americans are suppose to do.

[Rex Kickass]

estimated conservatively, clinton kicked the door open. yet bush should be impeached for walking through it after the worst terrorist attack on our country in it's history. someone please explain why bush should be crucified and people are wishing we didnt have a two term limit for clinton.

no...letting terrorists enter the country and commit terrorist acts would make us the losers in this fight (hint- its called the war on terror)

 

I'd rather the occasional bombing than having my freedom curtailed. Because the occasional bombing is going to happen whether or not we track everyone on camera and tap phones at will. Just ask the folks in London.

 

This sort of stuff stops nothing, ultimately, and its a greater reliance on technology and not actual human intelligence that gave us the intelligence problem we currently have in the first place.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'd rather the occasional bombing than having my freedom curtailed. Because the occasional bombing is going to happen whether or not we track everyone on camera and tap phones at will. Just ask the folks in London.

 

This sort of stuff stops nothing, ultimately, and its a greater reliance on technology and not actual human intelligence that gave us the intelligence problem we currently have in the first place.

 

 

What was it that made us so reliant on technology anyway? Oh yeah. It was Clinton stopping the CIA from recruiting anyone.

[Rex Kickass]

Since it clearly doesn't work, let's continue doing it then! But blame Clinton for why it still doesn't work. Nice.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Since it clearly doesn't work, let's continue doing it then! But blame Clinton for why it still doesn't work. Nice.

 

 

How would you know whether it has worked or not?

[NorthSideSox72]

What was it that made us so reliant on technology anyway? Oh yeah. It was Clinton stopping the CIA from recruiting anyone.

We became reliant on technology because it did SOME things really well. Then the bureaucrats saw things through rose-colored glasses, and extrapolated that into the ability to cut manpower and human intelligence. That second sentence describes what went wrong. And I agree, Clinton was part of that. But then, so was Congress.

 

One of the few good things that has come from our governmental adjustment to the realities of a post-9/11 world is the drive to use BOTH sigint and humint. I hope that continues.

[Balta1701]

The day after USA Today broke the story that the National Security Agency (NSA) aimed to "create a database of every call ever made" within the U.S., as one of the paper's sources put it, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 63 percent of those who were asked said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to fight terrorism, and 44 percent said they strongly approved of it.

 

One day after the Washington Post poll you mention came out, Newsweek also came out with a poll on the subject, and got results in the opposite direction.

 

Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

 

It's probably also worth noting that the Washington Post only was able to poll 502 people, as they did their poll in a rush in 1 night. The Newsweek poll is over 1000. That means the WaPo poll is more likely to be either biased or just off by within 5 percentage points by random chances.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

We became reliant on technology because it did SOME things really well. Then the bureaucrats saw things through rose-colored glasses, and extrapolated that into the ability to cut manpower and human intelligence. That second sentence describes what went wrong. And I agree, Clinton was part of that. But then, so was Congress.

 

One of the few good things that has come from our governmental adjustment to the realities of a post-9/11 world is the drive to use BOTH sigint and humint. I hope that continues.

 

 

Agreed.

[samclemens]

I'd rather the occasional bombing than having my freedom curtailed. Because the occasional bombing is going to happen whether or not we track everyone on camera and tap phones at will. Just ask the folks in London.

 

thats an extremely bold statement that, I would argue, few agree with. until now, i have honestly never met someone that has plainly said that they would prefer to have terrorist bombings on US soil instead of having this NSA program that is listening to our phone conversations. i guess this is where the ranks part ways on the issue. ive said before that i would rather have a prez trying to do too much than i would a prez who sits around and waits to be attacked. i believe this is a substantial reason why bush was elected in the last election.