NSA Phone records

[Daemon688]

This absolutely disgusts me

The government is monitoring phone calls made by possibly every single American (we don't know how deep this hole goes, so lets assume the worst)? Screaming terrorism doesn't allow you to get free reign to do anything you want. If there are terrorists out there, why don't they just monitor the conversations made by the terrorists? Why does average joe blow suddenly get categorized with the terrorists? As everyday passes, we get one step closer to becomming the UK.

2006 the Republicans are SOL.

 

[Manedwolf]

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?

And what if you were on the phone talking about what you did in a game of Grand Theft Auto?

What if you were having a discussion about the events in the movie "V for Vendetta"?

Do computers that look for "keywords" know fact from fiction?

 

[ArmedBear]

The government is monitoring phone calls made by possibly every single American

There is no indication that anyone is monitoring a large number of phone calls.

Phone number lists and phone audio are different things. That doesn't make it all right; but let's keep this reality-based.

 

[Shadizar]

Excellent post Don't Tread On Me. Surveillance of the Internet is a kind of threat (and safety net) that many do not appreciate. I still don't think its legal, given the Bill of Rights.

-Shadizar

 

[ArmedBear]

Do computers that look for "keywords" know fact from fiction?

Obviously not.

Read my post far above. Computers may be used to sift data (probably not voice recognition, BTW, but even if they are), but not to do any final interpretation.

There's a big difference between looking for patterns that are worth further investigation (computers can do that), and interpreting the variety of meanings of a human conversation (computers can't -- yet).

Hence we need some more elements added to the Bill of Rights -- before computers actually CAN.

 

[Sungun09]

Well, I think we should all sprinkle our conversations with things like....

My girlfriend, she's the "bomb", oh "shoot", I'll have to fall on my "sword" for saying that. Hey ! heard about the new "bullet" train ? Im "gun"na go out for a brewski.

N$A - bite me

PS - I also suggest we all talk in Pig-Latin

ALSO - this is so blatantly anti constitutional. But WE don't count, being "subjects" and all. We have ALREADY crossed the RUBICON. At what point is enough, enough ??

 

[ArmedBear]

Well, I think we should all sprinkle our conversations with things like....

My girlfriend, she's the "bomb", oh "shoot", I'll have to fall on my "sword" for saying that. Hey ! heard about the new "bullet" train ? Im "gun"na go out for a brewski.

N$A - bite me

This is a good example of why the NSA COULDN'T be doing what the more paranoid among us think they are. And do you think that real Al Qaeda operatives speak a lot of English?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I tried to address this in my post waaaay back there, ArmedBear. Note the progression here. From when this started:

• We're not doing domestic surveillance.
• Well, we are, but only people who call suspected terrorists overseas.
• ...and we forgot to mention a few others, but look it was less than 4,000 as certified by the FBI!
• Well, OK, we're monitoring all domestic communications, but it's not like we're listening to them, it's just looking at who's calling whom and when...

You know what the next step is, right? You've heard the Atty General saying the executive branch has a right in a time of war to ignore all these stupid privacy rules and root out terrorists, right? (paraphrased)

I said it before, and I'm saying it again. You're still being lied to. It's worse than they're admitting. Quit apologizing for them.

 

[GoRon]

I laugh at those of you who blame President Bush or the Republicans.

This type of intrusion was going on during the Clinton years, the Bush(41) years, the Reagan years, the Carter years, the Ford years, the Nixon years, the Johnson years, the Kennedy years, you get the picture.

The only change to the secrete surveillance is the phenomenal change in technology and scope of the programs.

This is one area for sure where it doesn't matter which party is in office. They will both do what they think is necessary. Especially after the Gorelick wall proved to be such a disaster allowing the government to miss the impending 9/11 attack.

It's not a brave new world, it's the same old world.

 

[ArmedBear]

I said it before, and I'm saying it again. You're still being lied to. It's worse than they're admitting. Quit apologizing for them.

Who's apologizing?

You seem to assume from the get-go that every single act of the Bush administration is calculated to do as much damage as possible to our civil liberties, and is done for that purpose.

Just because I think that's not the most productive, or for that matter sane position from which to discuss something, doesn't mean I am apologizing for anyone. I may not give a crap that the NSA is looking at calling patterns -- that's my prerogative -- but that's in part because I figured they already were. Everyone else is doing it, just to make a buck. We can differ on our opinions regarding the importance of this data collection; personally I'd like to see it stop, both in the commercial and the government arena. Not one or the other, but BOTH.

But hey, who cares about ferreting out the truth, when all of political and military reality can be reduced to a 4-word bumpersticker on a Volvo, right?

And people wonder why Libertarians have no chance in hell of being trusted with leading the most powerful country in the world... I don't mean libertarians, I mean big-L. Like me, but not for long, now. Sadly.

Now, if you go up and read some of my above posts, you might see that they're aimed at keeping this conversation sane, not apologizing for anyone.

 

[ArmedBear]

Oh and an interesting collection of writings, for those who want to understand the whole situation from a few perspectives rather than just spouting off...

http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/05/nsa_has_massive_database_of_am.php

 

[Derek Zeanah]

You seem to assume from the get-go that every single act of the Bush administration is calculated to do as much damage as possible to our civil liberties, and is done for that purpose.

No, I believe that no-one in the administration sees anything wrong with increasing the scope and power of the federal government in the name of "doing good". And I don't think they believe the law (constitution or otherwise) is something they really care about either -- what they're doing is justified and proper and moral, so why not ignore laws that are (by definition) unjust and improper and immoral?

I wasn't happy when echelon reports came out under Clinton, either. Or the way the feds treated Phil Zimmerman. This has got nothing to do with Bush, and everything to do with a federal executive branch that's finally, after decades of precident, decided to take it way farther than I thought I'd ever see in my lifetime. Has it gone too far? Alas, that's not a discussion appropriate for this board.

But it's nothing about Bush. Hell, I hated Reno worse than Bush.

 

[Shadizar]

GoRon,

The great difference here is that the FISA court was established to address this very issue. The Bush administration first denied all complicity in warrantless wiretapping (Bush himself said it). Then, they said it was entirely lawfull, despite the fact that no court actually approved it (though the Attorney General has-a political appointee).

It becomes more interesting when you actually watch the testimony of "experts" on this issue. The Attorney General refuses to say that it would be unlawfull to listen to entirely domestic calls (i.e. between two U.S. citizens). He said it would compromise operational secrets (could be-but that he would not say otherwise is disconcerning).

Also, you have to look at the scope of this and other NSA programs. Other Presidents have used their perogatives to justify such actions, but the scope of this program (according to Senate Hearings) goes much further than those (according to former FISA judges).

I do not see this as a Republican/Democrat (Bush hater) issue. This is a fundamental constitutional issue which supercedes all partisan concerns (not that the Democrats will not jump all over this).

A REPUBLICAN Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has serious doubts about this program..... Arlen Spectre....

-Shadizar

P.S. ArmedBear.... There are two sides of this issue. The most telling for me was the testimony of former FISA judges. They were carefull not to abridge the power of the President, but when asked if the President had to follow the law, they were unanimous in saying that he did (and that FISA was the law). They went on to say that the President had some rights in very limited circumstances, but not to the extent that this program is going (as far as I understood it).

Edit-I accidentaly posted my previous reply...and to edit spelling.

 

[Waitone]

I tried to address this in my post waaaay back there, ArmedBear. Note the progression here. From when this started:

* We're not doing domestic surveillance.
* Well, we are, but only people who call suspected terrorists overseas.
* ...and we forgot to mention a few others, but look it was less than 4,000 as certified by the FBI!
* Well, OK, we're monitoring all domestic communications, but it's not like we're listening to them, it's just looking at who's calling whom and when...

You know what the next step is, right? You've heard the Atty General saying the executive branch has a right in a time of war to ignore all these stupid privacy rules and root out terrorists, right? (paraphrased)

I said it before, and I'm saying it again. You're still being lied to. It's worse than they're admitting. Quit apologizing for them.

Specifically to Derek's point, here is an old article addressing just exactly what we are discussing right here on this very board.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19583

<snip>

Historically governments can, and do, get away with doing bad stuff because they treat the masses like mushrooms (keep them in the dark and feed them fertilizer). However, now Matt Drudge and Steve Kroft have confirmed what has been rumored for years: "Echelon Bombshell: NSA Accused of Spying on U.S. Politicians"

Yessiree Bob!

According to Margaret Newsham (who reportedly worked at England's notorious Menwith Hill, which is allegedly the largest National Security Agency spy data funnel), "American politicians have been eavesdropped on." Who says you can't end a sentence with a preposition? Margaret says she was shocked and amazed to hear the creaky, drawling articulations of the very senior southern Senator Strom Thurmond on her surveillance tape. Remember that political hack that was excoriated for having taped a cellular phone conversation of Newt Gingrich? That was a small yellow hole in a snow bank compared to this.

<snip>

The chairman of the House Intelligence committee, Rep. Porter Goss reminds me of the kid who says "I didn't do it ... and if I did, I'm sorry, and I won't do it again ... not that I ever did. ..." The House Intelligence Committee is supposed to have oversight of the NSA. They do begrudgingly admit, "the U.S. has the capability to pick up any phone call." Goss claims they have methods to prevent abuse of data and that although they cannot "stop dust in the ether," he asserts, "I can make sure ... the capability is not abused." Kinda like the Privacy Act prevents FBI files from being abused by political opposition research wonks.

<snip>

Long ago and far away, Adolf Hitler was talking to Hermann Rauschning and said, "The people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them: They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possession and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation: a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

 

[Matt King]

How far will the government go? What will be next?

If the government can moniter citizen's phone calls, what can't it do?

 

[odysseus]

There's a big difference between looking for patterns that are worth further investigation (computers can do that), and interpreting the variety of meanings of a human conversation (computers can't -- yet)

True, but you have been carrying on in this thread that the government technologically can't do this. However I am sure someone deeper into it, if they want to, can bring in some data that may shed some light to you that in fact this technology of voice recognition to scrape audio conversations to digital data for assimilation is here and now. So it is no stretch of the imagination from an accepted academic point of view that this is in fact a reality.

How well it works currently is another conversation, however again academically it doesn't take a security clearance nor tin-foil hat to know it is here and now. Is that the issue you are currently balancing on?

I will say it again, once you pave the way, the devil just needs to take over the driver's seat.

 

[Manedwolf]

This type of intrusion was going on during the Clinton years, the Bush(41) years, the Reagan years, the Carter years, the Ford years, the Nixon years, the Johnson years, the Kennedy years, you get the picture.

But mooooom! All the OTHER kids did it too! So it's not my fault, I don't deserve to be punished!

That's what that sort of argument boils down to, you know?

 

[1wildbill]

Business as usual

But mooooom! All the OTHER kids did it too! So it's not my fault, I don't deserve to be punished!

So who else got punished? Nothing new here. From personal experience, this is just status quo, that's the point.

And nobody wants your Aunt Betty's cake recipe. There used to be key words, addresses, numbers, frequencies, etc. that people looked or listened for, I'm pretty sure a computer sorts through this stuff now. Now maybe that computer wants your Aunt Betty's recipe.

Politics as usual.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I believe that no-one in the administration sees anything wrong with increasing the scope and power of the federal government in the name of "doing good".

Remember, Hitler thought he was doing what was best for Germany, and considered himself as "doing good."

 

[tyme]

The other kids did not do it, at least nobody before Clinton. The technology for wholesale surveillance simply wasn't available, nor did the internet even exist as it does today... so there wasn't much to tap besides voice.

Also, a fair number of communications providers may have given the NSA the finger in the late 90's, but after Sept. 11th there was a lot of pressure to comply with friendly requests from everyone's favorite three-letter agency.

 

[NCP24]

I just hope phone solicitors don’t get their paws on the data.

 

[GoRon]

But mooooom! All the OTHER kids did it too! So it's not my fault, I don't deserve to be punished!

That's what that sort of argument boils down to, you know?

My point is voting in such a manner that puts the Dems in power changes nothing.

Voting third party doesn't do any good. 1%,2% or even 10% third party vote doesn't even send a message.

I know you disagree but the lesser of evils is the best we can hope for when it comes to the ballot box.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Wow, I am shocked by all the JBT apologists and Big-brother denial artists in this thread.

My God, a government that can do what it did to Randy Weaver and his family, what it did to the Branch Davidians, what it did to the bonus expeditionary force, during the entire drug war, and to literally thousands of countless others....IS INTENT ON TAKING IT ALL. There is absolutely no limit on what they can or cannot due or will do.

To even debate the idea that the government may or may not be abusing its NSA spying powers is so ludicrous, so insane. It is a fact backed by all reason.

Stop for a minute and think, THINK. There are elected politicians in our nation who would 100% positively ban every single firearm if they could. There are many of them with these beliefs, and they run the federal government. If they believe in things like that, and they desire these types of things - what on Earth makes anyone believe they give a **** about your right to privacy?

I'm talking about the character of the people who run a massive establishment known as the Federal government. People of that character are evil. That is not the type of character that acts in the benefit of the people.

The liberals are screaming the the Republicans are creating a police state, all because they use their powers to hound child pornographers, pot smokers, and whomever they determine is undesireable. But when Clinton OK's the practice of door to door firearm sweeps in ghettos - that's not police statism.

Don't be foolish by believing this is a partisan issue. Both parties loathe your freedom. In fact, they don't believe you have any to begin with. What you have is what they allow you to have, or what they can't take away (yet) by force.

***

As for the phone and email surveillance. It works, and works well. But there are ways around it. Why do you think the terrorists use highly cryptic, almost nonsensical religious jargon in their messages? Half of it is probably real communication, the other half is probably genuine malarky that is designed to confuse and distract.


OK, say I wanted to hide messages across the internet because our operation spans a distance which isn't convenient for face to face communication. I could meet with my team face to face once and only once. During that time, we'll map out all the phases of the plan and when to execute them. To designate when to communicate to one another, we could send photos via email. It could be preplanned that any picture of an animal means "not ready"..or a picture of a vehicle means "proceed"..specific images could mean specific things. Or, the main subject of the photo whose first letter is, might have a meaning. Like a picture of a tree. T. T could mean something. Or the color of the subject in the picture. A picture of mickey mouse could mean there's a serious problem, and to meet at the pre-determined location at a pre-determined time to regroup and rethink the plan.

This type of communication raises no flags and is virtually impossible to stop. The only thing the government could do, is detect that there is an email relationship between myself and my teamates. Which is no different than any one else sending out an email to 2-3 people. If you aren't a suspect, then you are home free. If you are suspect and are being watched, then no form of electronic communication is safe.


The terrorist aren't stupid. In fact, they are much more intelligent than the idiots forming our bureaucracy. They use this method, and use it well. Which renders our systems useless. If it doesn't work on terrorists, and the government knows this, why have it in the first place? The reason the government wants all this spying power is to spy on me and you. Most Americans are dumb as rocks, and it is very useful to know what everyone is saying to one another. When the people who run the military and government know everything about future candidates or new political movements, they will work to shut them down. Knowledge is power. They can control the flow of power. They can spy on corporations, on businesses. On individuals. On doctors and researchers. If you sit down and think about the applications of this kind of power, there is NO end to what can be done. It is truly a God-like power to have.

They know that what holds this nation together, or better yet, what holds the status quo together is the illusion of power. If everyone knew how easy it were to get away with things, and got a little cocky and mustered up some courage, the Feds are finished. They know that, which is why they are diligently working to create an overbearing, nearly omniscient police-state surveillance system to squash any dissenters before they grow. Remember, revolution is contagious. The techonology is a decade or two away to be able to fully control people and to lock out any chance of rebellion. We're talking the RFID tagging of people, or GPS tagging. It is a race to that threshold. Folks, we are truly at the doorstep of what will be a future of virtually permanent slavery. All in the name of BS "security".

 

[xd9fan]

And the GoRon's of the world are not what this country needs. Sorry man, I'm sure your a great guy but this "vote the lesser of two evils" crap and voting based on fear that the other Pro-Govt party might win......is not enough. Its nothing more than appeasement to political slavery. Your in a cage.

My God people, vote like your americans....not like your sheep.

 

[SirPorl]

Now Now

Comparing the .gov to Jabba the Hutt is a tad unfair to Jabba. Even he wasn't that big a crook.

SirPorl