NSA Phone records

Status
Not open for further replies.
Armed Bear, I think most of us see the logic in what you suggest, but right now we're so ticked off at the Administration that almost every post might appear contentious whether we agree with you or not.
 
Technology wise, this technique has been around for sometime and used. According to a great article years ago in Business 2.0, they detailed the discovery of a cocaine cartel's datacenter and a captured AS/400 system that tracked all of their "employees" or contacts. It associated train/hotel/plane/travel logs with phone logs and other data, and with software correlated this data to see if any of these people were at risk to the cartel. People were killed because of the correlations this system provided.

This was a south american cocaine cartel and 1 IBM mainframe, discovered in a raid about 6 years ago.:scrutiny:

Now does anybody really think that the NSA hasn't collected massive amounts of data among all the types of information we use? Phone calls, credit cards, travel tickets, rentals, internet browsing, email? Now not just the logs, but the content - the behavioral analysis of what you say and how you say it. It is probably so evasive to be a downright Orwellian reality come very, very true. :uhoh:

Here's a paranoia example that can come true: just wait while the technology gets even better with facial recognition via public cameras and now you can be tracked in public places where you are, along with the gps on your cell phone and calls you make. Oh of course, if you have nothing to worry about what's the problem right? :rolleyes: Once you pave the way, the devil just needs to take over the driver's seat.

Personal liberty is slowly becoming essentially an ideal from the past, a jewel from the age of Enlightenment of the type Rousseau, Hobbes, and Lock our fore founders believed in so much to sacrifice everything to gamble for it in this land. Even if these invasions to our constitution were court approved, who has been able to review these secret court rulings and paper work? Does it even matter they are from some "court"? Where is the freedom of information?

Perhaps I need to stop drinking so much coffee :p, but we as the USA have been the grand experiment of human civilization. We may fail this experiment because we cannot trust ourselves. Our government is us. Its power is derived from us, the people. I am not a sentimental lackey thinking that terrorists need to be "talked" to. I just don’t agree that violating our constitution and personal liberty is how we win, and I am not convinced at all this full on surveillance of the US citizen is how we do it.

Ask yourself, who is really winning in this war? If we allow our Republic to be eroded more and more by these actions with no public review or vote - how will we be that much different than other countries and people we point to here and criticize on very true matters?
 
BTW, for those who think that the 4th Amendment (which specifically addresses private property, not privacy in general) covers this fully, then consider HIPAA.

We needed HIPAA so that the privacy of our medical records is protected. Clearly, the courts had ruled that the 4th Amendment did not, by itself, do this.

HIPAA works pretty well.

But for telecom, I'd like to see an additional Amendment, similar to the 4th, added to the Constitution, not just legislation. Then, legislation can be based on enforcing the privacy guaranteed in the Constitution.
 
Just what we need. A subversive snake-in-the-grass, just joined to sow discontent with misleading garbage.
Click to expand...

I won't address the name calling part of the post, but regarding the actual point made, no one needed to "sow discontent" because very few people are content with this situation to start with.
 
Third Rail: the info is gone from your wikipedia edit.

If you rename the file and re-upload it, I feel pretty confident that no moderator will remove it this time.
 
That word list is totally unverifiable. Anyone who might be able to state that it is, or was, the eschelon watchlist, would be committing a crime by doing so.

I really doubt that list is real, with words like "violence," "timer," and "threshold," "tablet," "tank," and "ssl" in it. I'm sure a lot of those words are of interest to the NSA, but only in certain contexts and with other words nearby.

You can see the list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Text_mining&diff=52687842&oldid=52677646
 
Imagine what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao could have done with the technology
we have today.....
Click to expand...

Imagine what Hilary will do with it, given the precedent being set by the current occupant in chief.
 
Just classic! Here we have the federales sifting through every phone call in the US. Lots of stuff out there about emails getting the same treatment. Cell phones get the works. Why? Because we are looking for people who will cause us harm. Meanwhile on the southern border untold thousands of unknown people cross into the US every day AND THE SAME ADMINISTRATION SEES NO PROBLEM. Come on people. I don't really care which one you pick; just pic one and go with it.

Goes to show government will control what it can control because it can control it. Reminds me of the joke about the drunk searching for his keys in the gutter under a street light because he could see there better than where he actually lost his keys.

Said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. We now have the technology to become the most thoroughgoing tyranny the earth has ever seen. All that keeps it from happening is the moral framework to refuse to go down that road. It appears the framework is rickety.


A little more information on what's happening.
http://www.defensetech.org/
 
...and if you're not for us, then you're against us and a threat!

Has anyone here ever studied the power variable in statistics? Great
stuff --tyrants can always say they were justified in watching (or
liquidating) everyone: "Well, sure there were a lot of innocent people
who got caught up in all this, BUT WE ALSO GOT MOST OF THE GUILTY
ONES!"

How friggin Soviet we've become :barf: Very very dangerous thinking :evil:
 
waitone said:
Meanwhile on the southern border untold thousands of unknown people cross into the US every day AND THE SAME ADMINISTRATION SEES NO PROBLEM.
Click to expand...

I don't have a copy handy, but this reminds me of a political cartoon in the mainstream press that went out when the Patriot Act first was drafted and going through the rounds on the Hill. The cartoon had a outline of the USA and cameras all around the borders, but instead of pointing to the outside - the cameras were all pointing to the inside. How ironic.
 
:rolleyes:

If y'all think this is bad, just wait until you find out what kind of info the IRS has on you (plus they take your money).

Hello... are you really getting worked up about this? Where have you been since FDR?
 
I know this won't give some of you the emotional high you seek, but here's an article looking at the story from a different angle...

http://newsbusters.org/node/5319

And I still think it's time to address electronic privacy with the vigor that the Founders did privacy within one's home.
 
Where is the outrage towards all the "lists" being sold of everyone's phone numbers? credit listings? addresses? and I can't imagine what else.

Information by banks and magazines and information sellers that goes on all the time is not getting the headlines they deserve. Isn't every cookie and malware on my computer following my moves around the web?

This is only another use of what is available to those that are having access.

Random thought. "Do AT&T and others look at our phone dialing habits to tailor phone plans?

Although I don't:
don't use the phone
use only cash
ect.ect.

Unless conversations are listened into, I can't imagine that if one want to look at phone patterns, I can realistically be outraged or surprised.

have a great day
cavman

edit: armedbears' newsbusters is kinda what I was thinking about...
 
Certainly a Democrat would never think of doing anything like that!

Sure.

Clinton had the NRA's phones tapped and their calls recorded, and had the IRS practically close them down while agents went over their books with a fine tooth comb.

Jim
 
As far as I'm concerned this reported spying program is unconstitutional. Collect intelligence on terrorists, but do it legally. If its not done legally, then the terrorists have won. They will have succeeded in terrorising the U.S. people into a form of government that is not constitutional.

ArmedBear,

HIPAA has already been trumped in the name of the "War On Terror." The Patriot Act did that http://www2.jsonline.com/news/state/dec04/285173.asp.

I'm not sure if you were aware of that or not.


I clearly see this as an assault on our civil liberties (intended or not). If, this administration or government, has the need to combat terrorism (which I believe they do) then they should do it lawfully. To do otherwise undermines our constitutional rights.

Looking at this story in isolation does it a disservice. By monitoring phone calls of every American, the NSA can then further wiretap (listen to the content) any phone they wish without ANY judicial oversite. FISA was made for just this kind of surveillance. Former FISA Judges agree (if you watched their testimony in the Senate Judiciary Commitee hearings).

The Congress is failing us in its oversight responsibilities. The administration is completely stonewalling any efforts of the Judiciary Committee to impose oversight (even the Chairman-Republican Arlen Specter admits this).

The Supreme Court cannot (as far as I understand it) make a ruling on this unless a case is brought before them. The likelyhood of this is small. The U.S. will simply sequester any terrorists (or suspected innocents) found into untouchable prisons, which are btw not subject to Supreme Court reviews (to my limited understanding of the law).

In all we are seeing a completely broken system of checks and balances. It is, in my opinion, masterfull.

If the administration would like to make these kind of programs legal, then they should change the laws to make them so. I've been following the whole NSA wiretapping issue closely (watching the Judiciary Commitee hearings) and I'm not convinced it's legal. I'm furious!

-Shadizar
 
I don't think what is going on is unconstitutional.

One of the first cases we studied in Criminal Procedure -


Smith v Maryland, [pen register], 442 US 735 (1979), citizen voluntarily
conveys telephone numbers he dials to telephone company so no
reasonable expectation of privacy preventing police from installing
pen register at telephone office to record outgoing call numbers.

more information from the case -

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

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. Pp. 739-746.

(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576. Pp. 2579-2580.

(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 96 S.Ct. 1619, 48 L.Ed.2d 71. Pp. 741-746.
 
Chuckulator,

Well, I'm no legal expert. Does the ruling have anything to say about private companies releasing the information to the Government? Further, does it say the Government can then collect, store, and analyze this data?

Edit-My apoligies I did not read the entirety of your post (for some reason I only got the first paragraph at first). Your post does address this. Given our legal system, it would appear this is indeed lawfull (I don't agree).

Even further, can the government use this data to prosecute an individual for a crime (without a warrant)? Edit-Former FISA officials have testified that evidence gathered from programs outside of FISA cannot be used in court. Does this fall under that unbrela?

I may be wrong, but I think FISA may cover that (as I understand it).

-Shadizar
 
As far as I'm concerned this reported spying program is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It's unconstitutional under two conditions:

1. You can find someplace in the Constitution that indicates that it is illegal, (e.g. a law or government act banning the publication of something, based on the 1st Amendment).

2. A majority of SC Justices decide that, given the content of the Constitution and all that it might be imagined to imply, they'd have to rule that it is unconstitutional (e.g. bans on abortion based on a general inferred right to privacy).

So, you can choose to amend the Constitution, or you can cast your fate to the whims of a Supreme Court that decided that somehow abortion is an unassailable right based on, well, something, but that the Assault Weapons Ban didn't infringe on our stated right to keep and bear militia weapons, or that seizing property "for public use" means seizing individuals' homes so a private developer can use that money can make a fat profit on the land.

I support abortion rights, but I think Roe v. Wade was bad precedent. Clearly, the court now interprets the Constitution rather, well, loosely. Do you trust your freedoms to the Supreme Court, when they're not spelled out? (Okay, even if they are, but still.)
 
Derek nailed some important points in his first bulleted post.


I believe the government records every single phone conversation, either cell or land line (they're all digital at the hub). Aside from code breaking, many of the most massive super-computers have no other purpose than to run automated voice recognition on every call and store transcripts. The likes of which can then be searched by actual humans with key word searches.

Others suggest that the actual voice itself is stored, and when you use a different line, the software can detect it is you. I'm not certain that the computer horsepower to do that is available for all calls, but I'm sure that can be done on the lines and voices that they've targeted on the "watch list".


I have some interesting insight as to how the Second Amendment would play out successfully in an ultra-Big Brother state (like we have now). The formula for running a successful resistance/revolution/insurgency/freedom fighter war... is actually very simple. It is modeled off of a couple different situations.

One is the former November 17th terrorist organization in Greece. The other is the Mohammed/Malvo D.C. sniper situation.

In the first group, this terrorist group was small and ineffective, but they never got caught or remotely detected in 30 years (until recently). They elluded authorities for a long time, and in such a way that puzzled interpol. Why?

Malvo and Mohammed went on a killing spree and did not get caught until THEY called in their own tip to catch themselves. There's a good chance that if they didn't do that, then ceased their "operation", they'd still be loose today. Why was Malvo and Mohammed so successful in not being caught?

In both of these scenarios, their actions and their group were decentralized. There was no large organization. They were all small member groups (less than 4 people). Their "footprint" was very small, virtually undetectable.

Why do people get busted? Assuming you don't get caught in the middle of an operation or seen, the only other way is to give yourself away. This can be done a lot of way. Rewards. Government puts out $1,000,000 to anyone who snitches out on the "militia"....if you ran a 500 man militia in Montana, do you really believe everyone will be loyal, even with $1,000,000 at stake? HA! You can forget about that.

Another way is the second you get on the phone, use the PC, use the radio, snail mail etc...you're busted. You're "on the grid". So all operations must be done with word of mouth communication only.

By nature, this physically limits the size of an organization. It is impossible to organize more than a handful of people without using electronic or written means. Cannot be done. So, instead, you rely on a pack of 2-3 extremely close people that will not turn one another in. There's no way even a group of 50 people, with 50 mouths, and 50 phones, and 50 lives outside of the "resistance" can keep quiet. No phones, no email, no nothing. All decisions and planning are done in a safe location face-to-face.


There's just too much spying and surveillance to start up a revolution to bring back liberty to the nation. As soon as any small group gains steam, the government will know everything about them-inside and out, and will squash them before they grow.


The Greek terrorist group was a couple of men and a priest. They'd meet, plan, and execute a mission. There were NO warnings. No demands, and no notes taking credit. There was just violence against those whom they perceived as targets. That's all that's needed, is the extermination of those who are attacking liberty. What is the point of making demands? What is the point of taking credit? What is the point of warning? Either you decide someone is an enemy of freedom and the country would be better off with them dead, or you do not. They ultimately got busted when cops found a 1911 in one of the members car. They weren't effective, or popular, but that's not the point. They were successful at sticking around without being caught for decades. Imagine 100 of these groups all at once? All of which are not in communication with each other? That shows the operational structure.


As for the tactical structure, we go back to Malvo or Mohammed. While crude, their methods worked. Anyone with half a brain can come up with a much better system. The point is, tactically, they conducted their mission and no one knew any better. How many law enforcement departments put forth all of their manpower to catch them? Many. They used all their resources and power, and in the end - they didn't even have the correct car description. The incompetence of the State was incredible. They had no clue where to begin. If Malvo and Mohammed were after judges, local politicans, police administrators...they would have bagged many of them. It isn't hard to Google the information of where someone lives...


Everyone envisions a scenario where everyone marches in the streets and resolves the problems. While that is what it will probably take, the initiation of such action cannot take place unless there are precursors, like dozens, or hundreds, or perhaps thousands of tiny groups doing their thing for liberty. That would destabilize the nation, change the political climate and only then can change occur. The key is the breaking of the status quo. One group taking stand is a suicide march. The Branch Davidians said "No! Louder" to the BATFE over full-auto rifles (which we all believe are being unconstitutionally regulated) and waht did they get? Burned to death. Welcome to America.


Like the ARMY commercials say "You can be an Army of one"...that's true. Very true. It is the wave of the future. 4th Generation warfare is the domain of the civilian, insurgent, revolutionary, freedom fighter, patrior, militia man...you name it. These small groups are less effective, but that's the price you pay. When the "movement" grows, and there are many small groups of people or individuals acting, then it is like death by piranas. Death by 1,000 paper cuts. All it would take is each freedom loving American to do away with one socialist gun grabber or UN lover.


It is exactly what Bin Laden has tried to form. Al-Qaeda's core unit is gone, dead, and destroyed. But Al-Qaeda lives on as a "movement" with a doctrinal guide for structure. It is all about unrelated muslim fanatics, forming in small groups, deciding to act for the cause, organizing on their own, and doing their own missions. No centralized effort. In the early days, it was centralized, but it is not anymore.


It's hard to catch people like that. Think about it. It's like a group of 3-4 college kids at Starbucks deciding one day that they want to blow up the local congressman's office because he supports a new gun ban. If they work on their own, they can pull it off. There's no "tip off" for the government to begin suspecting them. Timothy McVeigh and Nichols might have pulled it off and never got caught if he didn't make some very elementary errors (I think he wanted to get caught though)...Again, small group, but they made fatal errors.

This is the only model that would work under the ultra-big brother surveillance state of the future. The State and the establishment has made assembly in numbers obsolete, therefore, modern aggression will be conducted by individuals or extremely small numbers of dedicated people all acting for a common good.

****

DO NOT construe this as the planning or some anti-government proposal. It is merely a discussion about the structure of future State vs. Civilian warfare. I do not advocate any of this. For informational/discussion purposes only.

****
 
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
382
BowStreetRunner
B
L
  • Locked
NSA Uses Private Firms for Massive Unchecked Domestic Surveillance [VIDEO]
Replies
21
Views
783
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
A
  • Locked
FBI wants Internet records kept 2 years
Replies
17
Views
689
xd9fan
X
Back
Top