NSA Phone records

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raise your hand if you were surprised by this. Now, raise your hand if you think traffic analysis is all they're doing, and you think they're not recording calls and processing them electronically before passing them on to actual humans when something interesting is found. Not all calls (unless they actually have the capability to do so, which would be terrifying), but those above certain threshold.

And before anyone says "Good! Anything to catch more terrorists!": you need to realize that all calls are being monitored this way, and are going to be kept forever.
  • Thinking about running for office but used to have a "thing on the side" with a hottie at work? You might have worked this out with your wife and gotten your priorities in order, but once you become a threat this just might come up in an interview. If, like me, you've never cheated on your wife, is there anything in your past that might be used against you by a reporter friendly to the guy currently in office? Imagine if these records could be tied in with logs of your past web browsing habits (which congress is now proposing be kept for a mandatory 5 years by ISPs).
  • Think the 2nd amendment serves as a check on government, and serves as a "last resort" should we ever face totalitarianism? This goes farther than what the Nazis ever did when rounding up Jews and their accomplices -- just think of what the NSA could discover about your life by drawing a map of everyone you called in the last 3 years, everyong they called, and anyone called by that third group. Is there anyone you could trust, or turn to? Not that can't be found by a 0.00015 second query and a tenth of a second graphing and mapping program. Press a button and everyone on that list is tagged for automatic electronic surveillance (telephone, internet, credit/debit card purchases, etc). If that doesn't work, imagine that being used as a tool to identify "potential terrorists" and sieze all assets preemprively from everyone on that list. Oops.
  • If we tolerate this, it will only get worse as word slips out further. Remember how this wasn't happening? Then it was only calls that were overseas calls? Then less than 4,000 americans last year according to the FBI? Here's a hint: you're still being lied to.
  • As computing power gets greater, and federal power becomes more complete, this is only going to get worse. This is a really really bad place to be guys.
Big Brother is stretching his arms, folks. It's all in the name of the children, or that scourge illegal drugs, or in the guise of protecting us from terrorists.

WAKE THE HELL UP ALREADY!
 
I prefer to think of the Gov as Jabba the Hutt. It's a
da*n shame how this Gov is treating it's own citizen's privacy.
I have a feeling this is just the tip of the ice berg..

But what can one expect ? A pres who views
lawbreakers as an asset to the Nation
[illegal aliens], a Gov dept that warns another
Nation of the whereabouts of those trying to put
a clamp on this infestation, etc, attacks it's own
people with a heavily armed force, [Ruby Ridge, Waco] etc.

Sure there are a lot of good things the Gov does.
It just seems that that part is growing smaller and
more invasive action is becoming the norm, while
at the same time the Gov has become more secretive,
and this flat wrong.
 
using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth
Click to expand...

Did these companies volunteer the data, or was it subpoenaed? It might be easier to write to the companies and complain that trying to get the gov't to stop.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

This is the system using the removed list of words.


LAR-15; I'm unsure if you're joking. I am, however, certain you're incorrect.

During the Clinton administration, testimony by then-CIA director George Tenet indicates that the use of ECHELON during the Clinton administration was authorized by the FISA Court
Click to expand...
 
There are still THR members who, today, after this information was made public, arguing that the only people being monitored by the NSA are those calling Al Qaeda members overseas. At least they were until a number of other members posted links to this story. Then they became strangely quiet.

It is really only a very small step from where we are now to declaring gun owners "terrorists." I second Derek's call for everyone to "wake the hell up."
 
Clinton did not do anything like this----------surely you jest. Remember the keeping of all NICS info by his Administration eventhough the law said it was to be destroyed....Well everyone knew what the law meant except him. To him it meant when he felt like it. Finally since Bush it is destroyed within 24 hours. Was this a attempt to keep a "database" of all gun owners. Oh sure Clinton was a saint.PLLLLLLLEEAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSE .:rolleyes:
 
Guys, this is too important to turn into a "which president urinated on the constitution least" match.

Please try to keep on point.
 
Clinton just did not do stuff like this without a VERY good reason.

Bush on the other hands.................:barf:
 
I see the list contains words such as "Viking." If that's the case, we're all under surveylance here in Minnesota.
 
There are still THR members who, today, after this information was made public, arguing that the only people being monitored by the NSA are those calling Al Qaeda members overseas.
Click to expand...

Phone call lists are not the same as "monitoring."

That's not to say that I'm not bothered by them, just that there's a distinction between a computer program looking for call patterns that fit a profile, and people listening in on phone conversations.

Here's another reality: the electronic conveniences we have quickly learned to use, like cell phones, credit/debit cards for every purchase, internet mail-order, etc. are all subject to this sort surveillance, which can be done relatively easily and cheaply. It's being done by Google, as well as the G-men, because it's easy and cheap, and because there's no real Constitutional guarantee of privacy when you're using a large shared resource like the Internet or the phone network.

The Constitution addresses this issue peripherally in the 4th Amendment, which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

Now what I read appears to refer to things happening inside one's own home, business, etc., or on one's person. Since electronic telecommunications did not exist in 1787, we interpret these protections to extend to some (but not all) forms of modern communication. Who's to say when, where and how to extend these protections? Do you trust the President? Congress? The Supreme Court? I don't! I want a government of laws, not men.

I'm not big on "emanations and penumbras", despite being pro-choice (on everything). I want to see constitutional protections spelled out, when they're not obvious. Otherwise, our government will "interpret" the Bill of Rights in whatever way it finds convenient (e.g. freedom of speech and the press doesn't really apply to television).

I think we need an amendment that spells out what limitations there are on the government's actions in the new electronic arena, an amendment or two, added directly onto the Bill of Rights.

The cops can arrest you, if you walk down the street and tell people that you just killed the mayor. What about on the Internet? What about on your cell phone, over the airwaves? What IS admissible in court?

It's time we spelled it out. Seriously.
 
Surveillance on 10s of millions of Americans?!

I saw the Bush statement on this over the lunch hour today. He started
off with the same look my 5 year has when caught lying :what: but his
confidence seemed to return as he stated how he was protecting the
American people from Al-Qaeda, blah blah. :eek: :D "Yeah, that's the
ticket!"

There is no way by any stretch of the most absinthe-deluded imagination
that could justify collecting call data on 10's of millions of Americans under
the guise of determining their possible connection to Al-Qaeda. There
aren't even that many middle eastern immigrants in the US!

Are the sheople so freaking stupid that they're going to eat this pablum and
continue to ask for more!? :eek: :banghead:

Who is the REAL target of this? Anyone who had NICS done? I'm not buying
the Al-Q excuse.
 
I am looking at the phone log on my cell. Since 8:00 this morning I have made 15 calls and received 9. They included such important things as: "Hi, honey, what time did we say the Daly's are coming over tomorrow?" and another gem: "The goddam cat threw up in the family room again."

These conversations are actually all code for my heroin and cocaine import/export business.
 
There is no way by any stretch of the most absinthe-deluded imagination that could justify collecting call data on 10's of millions of Americans under the guise of determining their possible connection to Al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Maybe not someone who's wasted, but someone with some familiarity with databases could. A computer sifts through large amounts of data and looks for patterns. You start out with a large amount of data, and work your way down to something meaningful.

Look at my cellphone list, and you'll see that I called my family, the local lifeguards for a surf report, a few friends, people at work. So the computer will flag mine with a "NO" and move on until it finds a phone list that shows a call to someone connected with a terror network somehow, and adds it to the "MAYBE" pile. It sifts through the "MAYBES" until it finds some "PROBABLY" patterns, then hands that list on to human investigators. (That's an oversimplification of this kind of search, but it's essentially how it works. The point is that you start with a lot of data, but you throw most of it out on the first pass. Having your "data collected" does not equate to having your "phone tapped.")

"Collecting data" and "tapping phones" are TOTALLY different. That's why these things can be subject to free and loose "interpretation" of the Constitution.

And that's why I think we need a serious privacy amendment or two, so that this "interpretation" is taken out of the hands of government, and put into the Constitution.
 
"Collecting data" and "tapping phones" are TOTALLY different. That's why these things can be subject to free and loose "interpretation" of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

If a hacker held onto the credit card numbers of 10s of millions of people in
his own database but never actually used them to buy anything, would
that be legal? :confused:
 
And that's why I think we need a serious privacy amendment or two, so that this "interpretation" is taken out of the hands of government, and put into the Constitution.
Click to expand...

In theory I agree, but this presupposes a government that respects the Constitution. What we have now is a president who calls the Constitution a "piece of paper," and a Republican presidential front runner (John McCain) who dismisses the Bill of Rights by putting verbal "quotes" around the First Amendment.
 
Thin-

That's not the equivalent.

If a hacker collects data regarding what 100,000,000 people buy and where they go on the Internet, but without specifically collecting credit card numbers, etc., we don't call him a hacker. We call him Google, Yahoo, Websense, or some other Internet market researcher.

I don't care how upset some of you people can get about this; this is reality. Our new technology has changed things A LOT in a short time.

And that's why it needs to be addressed by the Constitution, IMO, not by people with a vested interest in augmenting their own power.
 
In theory I agree, but this presupposes a government that respects the Constitution. What we have now is a president who calls the Constitution a "piece of paper," and a Republican presidential front runner (John McCain) who dismisses the Bill of Rights by putting verbal "quotes" around the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

True.

But this is a separate issue. It needs to be addressed, and now.

However, if the guarantees of this kind of privacy don't even exist in the Constitution, then it's much harder to point to anyone in government and say, "You're not allowed to do this." He/she will say, "Yeah? Nothing says I'm not."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
NSA taking gun ownership records...
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
unspellable
U
B
  • Locked
Protestors call for troops to return
Replies
0
Views
386
BowStreetRunner
B
A
  • Locked
FBI wants Internet records kept 2 years
Replies
17
Views
690
xd9fan
X
L
  • Locked
NSA Uses Private Firms for Massive Unchecked Domestic Surveillance [VIDEO]
Replies
21
Views
792
orangeninja
O
B
  • Locked
Why isnt this stickied? NSA caught red handed eavesdropping on, well, everyone.
2 3
Replies
64
Views
2K
Lobotomy Boy
L
Back
Top