NSA building massive database of phone records
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
Rich Lucibella
Staff
The obverse, of course, is where there is zero demonstrated benefit to the privacy invasion. In that case, you're "taking it" both ways....and then saying, "Thank you, Sir. May I have another?"
Rich
spacemanspiff
New member
constitutional and privacy arguments aside, this is, in my humble lowly opinion, simply more of the 'non-profiling' method of anti-terrorism.
instead of looking at actual potential terrorists, everyone is assumed to be one so our telephone records are perused. i want to compare it to how airline passengers are 'selected' for 'additional screening', but i think its worlds different. the TSA measures are 'feelgood' and are 100% ineffective, but the .gov's efforts here with telephone records are certainly not 'feelgood', but just as ineffective.
gc,
In response to your first post they had all the dots they needed, they merely failed to connect them. Your supposition that you can't have it both ways is false. They are perfectly capable of operating within the law while keeping tabs on terrorism.
In response to your second post, FISA '78, '34 Telecomm law, and the 4th Amendment.
In response to your first post they had all the dots they needed, they merely failed to connect them. Your supposition that you can't have it both ways is false. They are perfectly capable of operating within the law while keeping tabs on terrorism.
In response to your second post, FISA '78, '34 Telecomm law, and the 4th Amendment.
Do you have a job or go to school?
Did you file an income tax return?
Do you have a Social Security Account?
Did you spend time in the military?
Do you have a driver's license?
Do you have a passport?
Do you have a CCW?
Do you own property?
Did you vote in the last election?
Do you have a bank account?
Got a credit card?
Do you have....
The gubmint ain't interested in you or your grabassing on the telephone with your girlfriend unless her number keeps coming up connected to someone they are interested in. Then, they are interested in you - for a minute or three..., maybe. What makes you think YOU are SOOOO important to them?
This whole thing came up ONLY because Gen Hayden was NSA when it started up, and is now nominated for CIA. It's just another witch hunt, boys. You don't have to like the current administration, or you can think they're all saints, but bottom line is that all these programs are gonna run, like it or not, know it or not. sundog
Did you file an income tax return?
Do you have a Social Security Account?
Did you spend time in the military?
Do you have a driver's license?
Do you have a passport?
Do you have a CCW?
Do you own property?
Did you vote in the last election?
Do you have a bank account?
Got a credit card?
Do you have....
The gubmint ain't interested in you or your grabassing on the telephone with your girlfriend unless her number keeps coming up connected to someone they are interested in. Then, they are interested in you - for a minute or three..., maybe. What makes you think YOU are SOOOO important to them?
This whole thing came up ONLY because Gen Hayden was NSA when it started up, and is now nominated for CIA. It's just another witch hunt, boys. You don't have to like the current administration, or you can think they're all saints, but bottom line is that all these programs are gonna run, like it or not, know it or not. sundog
How can this be related to terrorism when our President - the greatest leader of our time - is willing to make the following collection of statements regarding terrorist number 1 (Bin Laden).
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
invention_45
New member
I believe the government should do both.
But I think they should get up off their FLA's and do it by good old-fashioned police work, not by snooping on my calls to grandma.
That way, there's less time to be wasted by idiots chasing innocent people so that serious leads will be concentrated upon.
FISA '78: http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel/FISA-Summary.html
I'll just link you to the entire thing since he's violating all of it. Much easier than listing every law he's violating.
Communications act '34 US Code Title 47 Chapter 5 Subchapter 2 Part 1 SS 222: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000222----000-.html
"Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories."
And of course I won't bother quoting the 4th. You know what it says.
I'll just link you to the entire thing since he's violating all of it. Much easier than listing every law he's violating.
Communications act '34 US Code Title 47 Chapter 5 Subchapter 2 Part 1 SS 222: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000222----000-.html
"Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories."
And of course I won't bother quoting the 4th. You know what it says.
And those are not 2 extreme sides of the same coin, they're the foundation of a false-choice argument.
The Federal government does not need to break the law in order to combat terrorism. The failures of 9/11 were on the analysis and consolidation side, not on the data side. If you can't connect the dots, burying them in a sea of dots doesn't help.
Therefore the choice between Big Brother and terrorism is a false one. And yet they choose this path anyway.
The Federal government does not need to break the law in order to combat terrorism. The failures of 9/11 were on the analysis and consolidation side, not on the data side. If you can't connect the dots, burying them in a sea of dots doesn't help.
Therefore the choice between Big Brother and terrorism is a false one. And yet they choose this path anyway.
I think we want the best intelligence for our nation, you do not trample all over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to get it. The terrorists are figting this war to kill the idea of individual rights. If the US kills our individual rights using the war on terrorism as an excuse they are no better than the terrorists we are fighting.
I think what most of us object to is that there is an appearance of no judicial review over this process or checks and balances. America is based on the system of "due process" The FISA court sytem has built in things to allow the administration to get a warrant later if neccesary. Right now there is only the appearance of the administration saying we can do what we want because its wartime, screw due process. As a former NCO the worst thing you could do is not keep your soldiers informed. I feel this administration has a communication problem.
There may be nothing wrong with what the are doing and they could be doing a good job or they could be doing a bad job. Congress and the Courts should have oversight on this. Even some FISA justices have expressed concern. I am alarmed at this situation myself. If I felt that there was a guarantee that this process was being watched by FISA justices and they were steering the administration right, then i might not have as much concern as to what the NSA is doing. Its all about checks and balances.
The issue here is ensuring that this information does not fall into the wrong hands and is misused at the expense of citizens. The right for a person to be secure in his person, effects, property and communications is one of the cornerstones of freedom of this nation.
I think what most of us object to is that there is an appearance of no judicial review over this process or checks and balances. America is based on the system of "due process" The FISA court sytem has built in things to allow the administration to get a warrant later if neccesary. Right now there is only the appearance of the administration saying we can do what we want because its wartime, screw due process. As a former NCO the worst thing you could do is not keep your soldiers informed. I feel this administration has a communication problem.
There may be nothing wrong with what the are doing and they could be doing a good job or they could be doing a bad job. Congress and the Courts should have oversight on this. Even some FISA justices have expressed concern. I am alarmed at this situation myself. If I felt that there was a guarantee that this process was being watched by FISA justices and they were steering the administration right, then i might not have as much concern as to what the NSA is doing. Its all about checks and balances.
The issue here is ensuring that this information does not fall into the wrong hands and is misused at the expense of citizens. The right for a person to be secure in his person, effects, property and communications is one of the cornerstones of freedom of this nation.
Go/27,
FISA '78: Explain how the government getting lists of phone calls, voluntarily provided by phone companies, constitutes "electronic surveillance."
Communications act '34 US Code Title 47 Chapter 5 Subchapter 2 Part 1 SS 222: Of course, it is perfectly legal (for anyone) to obtain:
FISA '78: Explain how the government getting lists of phone calls, voluntarily provided by phone companies, constitutes "electronic surveillance."
Communications act '34 US Code Title 47 Chapter 5 Subchapter 2 Part 1 SS 222: Of course, it is perfectly legal (for anyone) to obtain:
(3) Aggregate customer information
A telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service may use, disclose, or permit access to aggregate customer information other than for the purposes described in paragraph (1). A local exchange carrier may use, disclose, or permit access to aggregate customer information other than for purposes described in paragraph (1) only if it provides such aggregate information to other carriers or persons on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions upon reasonable request therefor.
A telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service may use, disclose, or permit access to aggregate customer information other than for the purposes described in paragraph (1). A local exchange carrier may use, disclose, or permit access to aggregate customer information other than for purposes described in paragraph (1) only if it provides such aggregate information to other carriers or persons on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions upon reasonable request therefor.
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.
Explain how the government getting lists of phone calls, voluntarily provided by phone companies, constitutes "searches and seizures."gc,
If you read further on, it says that
So nice try, but this ain't aggregate information.
And as for the 4th, I could argue the case but the courts have already spoken on the matter.
this says it's illegal. If you want to know what numbers were dialed from a phone without the owner's permission, you need a warrant.
What bugs me about the whole thing is that they know it's a waste of time AFA countering terrorism, yet they do this sort of thing anyway. They're not stupid. They just think that we are.
If you read further on, it says that
So nice try, but this ain't aggregate information.
And as for the 4th, I could argue the case but the courts have already spoken on the matter.
this says it's illegal. If you want to know what numbers were dialed from a phone without the owner's permission, you need a warrant.
What bugs me about the whole thing is that they know it's a waste of time AFA countering terrorism, yet they do this sort of thing anyway. They're not stupid. They just think that we are.
Are you privy to information that the reporters who broke the story are not?
No offense intended, Go/27, but your shouting ILLEGAL about this situation rubs me the wrong way. We can agree that the program is wrong, but its legality is uncertain pending more specific information.