[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Isn’t this NSA program dwarfed by the surveilance program enacted by president Clinton?
mmmmkay…lets keep bringing up the white trash loser that has not been in office for more than half a decade.[/quote]
I’m not trying to bring up Clinton per se, but rather mention the program authorizations enacted by the ex president as a means of comparison and debate.
Mmmmmkay?
What do you think of the echelon surveilance program and how it compares to the current NSA program?
ECHELON
ECHELON is a highly secretive world-wide signals intelligence and analysis network run by the UKUSA Community. [1] ECHELON can capture radio and satellite communications, telephone calls, faxes and e-mails nearly anywhere in the world and includes computer automated analysis and sorting of intercepts. [2] ECHELON is estimated to intercept up to 3 billion communications every day
During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.
President Bush and the NSA have indeed overstepped their bounds regarding the protection of American citizens. Compiling a data base of millions of Americans phone calls is a BLATANT violation of privacy.
I am well aware of the tired argument used to defend such actions: “if you are not a terrorist then it matters not.” Do any of you believe for a second that the NSA has compiled such an enormous data base and will only use it to go after terrorists?
Remember the RICO act? It was only going to be used to put mobsters in jail, you know the real bad guys. Fast forward a few years and they used it to prosecute abortion protestors!
What happened to the right of privacy? Do any of you “loyalists” feel just a tad betrayed?
Well I do!
While I am, and always have been, a republican, I will not trade any part of my privacy rights for this or any other President!
This is simply wrong and I will either be speaking directly to, or writing my United States Senator.
“Liberty has never come from the Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it…The history of liberty is a history of limiitations of government power not the increase of it.”
There aren’t any violations of any Constitutional rights going on. Remember, the Constitution doesn’t have an inherent “right to privacy”, except insomuch as the Supreme Court made one up w/r/t abortion.
Statutory limitations of authority are different, and there are statutory rights to privacy that go beyond the Constitution – for instance, HIPPAA with respect to your medical data.
However, I don’t even know what statutes might be applicable, much less whether collecting such seemingly innocuous information would violate any of them.
Second of all, even with the most sophisticated equipment, randomly selecting tens of millions of phone calls will take years to determine any real pattern to effectively detect terrorists. By that time, the patterns would most likely change again and your data will not be as helpful.
[/quote]
This is a great under-estimate of the government’s capabilities.
Not only can we use this to get terrorists, but to track down criminals, socialists, Black Panthers, anti-war activists, and whatever the hell else we want.
[/quote]
When it is used for anything other than tracking down terrorists, I’ll get upset. Where do you draw the line with this kind of paranoia? Every weapons system the military has could be turned on American citizens, also. Do we get rid of all of those because of the possibility of misuse?
One of the few things the federal government is specifically authorized to do is to provide for the common defense. It’s in the first sentence of the Constitution. There is nothing unconservative about supporting that. Where in Constitution do you find a right to privacy?
[quote]
Fucking creepy is what it is, because the government should never be trusted, regardless of what ‘party’ is in power. I don’t care if it’s Clinton or Bush, I don’t want them tracking my fucking phone calls.[/quote]
If you don’t trust the government to defend the nation, exactly who do you think is going to do it?
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
even with the most sophisticated equipment, randomly selecting tens of millions of phone calls will take years to determine any real pattern to effectively detect terrorists. By that time, the patterns would most likely change again and your data will not be as helpful.
[/quote]
I can think of a number of programs that could rather quickly find patterns of communication were proper computing resources alotted. This said, I doubt that it would be easy to identify any patterns that were typical of terrorist groups without first knowing what phone numbers belonged to suspected terrorists. I do agree with you that the problem is compounded by the fact that patterns of behavior do change over time, this is a constant problem in modeling dynamic behavior.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
There aren’t any violations of any Constitutional rights going on.
[/quote]
I would think that the fourth amendment would be at least somewhat applicable here as I would think one’s phone records could be considered to fall under the category of one’s papers as protected by the amendment by virtue of the fact that phone records appear on one’s phone bill.
Not only can we use this to get terrorists, but to track down criminals, socialists, Black Panthers, anti-war activists, and whatever the hell else we want.
When it is used for anything other than tracking down terrorists, I’ll get upset. Where do you draw the line with this kind of paranoia? Every weapons system the military has could be turned on American citizens, also. Do we get rid of all of those because of the possibility of misuse?
[/quote]
Nice strawman. We’re not talking about the same thing, you know that.
Either way, the military does not do things like try to keep track of who everyone is calling, and even if they did, that’s why we have an elected government. Although its nice that Congress is completely ignored anyway in regards to what Bush is allowed to authorize. He can authorize keeping phone records, he wants to keep tabs on search engines, and he can authorize torture (even though it’s “banned”).
Bullshit. The man has, and is trying to take, too much power.
I’m not going to go through it to prove you wrong, because I just don’t have the time.
If it’s not in there, than don’t ever call this a free country ever again. I already realized that freedom of speech only goes as far as the government decides to let it (see Sacho and Vanzetti, COINTELPRO, etc), but either way, I don’t want them “logging” my phone calls. Its something that can be used for political gain for individuals, therefore the government should not have it.
What the fuck is a conservative then? I thought it was us “big government liberals” that wanted Big Brother watching you and listening to your calls…I guess I was wrong.
True conservatives are closer to Libertarians than anything else; folks like you are closer to fascist . And, as a “big government liberal”, I don’t want them cataloging the books I get from the library, I don’t want them seeing what movies I rented, I don’t want them seeing what websites I go to or what I search for, and I don’t want them logging MY FUCKING PHONE CALLS. I don’t want the government in my life at all, except when it needs to be.
Call me a communist I guess. But I thought that rant sounds awfully conservative…or libertarian, or American, or whatever the fuck you people want to call yourselves nowadays.
They aren’t defending the nation, they’re overstepping their boundaries. I’m sure Hitler claimed he was “defending Germans” to when he started the Third Reich. “Defending the Nation” is a propaganda term and nothing more, and means little when used in the context of giving up freedom for some perceived nonsensical notion of “safety”.
This has been gone over many times, and I’m tired of doing it. But guys that think like you do will never stand in the government’s way when they want to shuffle through you’re shit. Or, by the time you want too, its too late. Read 1984 again.
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
There aren’t any violations of any Constitutional rights going on.
I would think that the fourth amendment would be at least somewhat applicable here as I would think one’s phone records could be considered to fall under the category of one’s papers as protected by the amendment by virtue of the fact that phone records appear on one’s phone bill.
I’m not the lawyer here though.
Fourth Amendment:
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.
[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BigPaul wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
There aren’t any violations of any Constitutional rights going on.
I would think that the fourth amendment would be at least somewhat applicable here as I would think one’s phone records could be considered to fall under the category of one’s papers as protected by the amendment by virtue of the fact that phone records appear on one’s phone bill.
I’m not the lawyer here though.
Fourth Amendment:
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.
They are corporate records are are not protected.[/quote]
Maybe they should be, being as the nature of these things are very private. Maybe the forefathers didn’t see phone companies coming, of course, but this should be changed.
either way, I hardly think that they have any probably cause to catalog the calls of regular Americans.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
There aren’t any violations of any Constitutional rights going on. Remember, the Constitution doesn’t have an inherent “right to privacy”, except insomuch as the Supreme Court made one up w/r/t abortion.
[/quote]
No offense, BB, but this is one of the reasons that lawyers shouldn’t be the go-to people on issues of this sort. This has absolutely nothing to do with what is legal according to the letter of the law, and everything to do with what’s consistent with the spirit of it.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
JeffR wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Riiiight!!! And they NEED to do this why?
Please use the cortex. If you are trying to intercept al qaeda/other bad guys, it might be a nice idea to determine who is calling their lair. Look up patterns and probabilities in the dictionary.
I know it makes you nervous. Someone might figure out that you’ve been calling 1-900-wac-ksit twice a day.
Note to bad guys: Don’t call terrorists as long as W. is President.
Hope I helped!!!
JeffR
First of all, you are an idiot. The insults were unnecessary and demonstrates once again you lack any ability to intelligently discuss any topic.
Second of all, even with the most sophisticated equipment, randomly selecting tens of millions of phone calls will take years to determine any real pattern to effectively detect terrorists. By that time, the patterns would most likely change again and your data will not be as helpful.
You would know that if you used YOUR cortex. Then again, if you did, you would stop making your daily phone calls to 1-900-blow-GOP so you can arrange to receive your oral protein injections. But I guess you are in a bulking phase and need as much protein as possible. On the upside, if you did quit, without them grabbing the back of your head as much, you might be able to grow hair on the back of your head again.
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
There aren’t any violations of any Constitutional rights going on.
I would think that the fourth amendment would be at least somewhat applicable here as I would think one’s phone records could be considered to fall under the category of one’s papers as protected by the amendment by virtue of the fact that phone records appear on one’s phone bill.
I’m not the lawyer here though.
Fourth Amendment:
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.
[/quote]
It’s not a content-based search, so the 4th Amendment isn’t implicated.
(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 [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
There aren’t any violations of any Constitutional rights going on. Remember, the Constitution doesn’t have an inherent “right to privacy”, except insomuch as the Supreme Court made one up w/r/t abortion.
nephorm wrote:
No offense, BB, but this is one of the reasons that lawyers shouldn’t be the go-to people on issues of this sort. This has absolutely nothing to do with what is legal according to the letter of the law, and everything to do with what’s consistent with the spirit of it.[/quote]
None taken. It’s just that, given the amount of information the IRS has one me, I find it hard to get worked up over whether the NSA has some phone numbers…
BostonBarrister wrote:
There aren’t any violations of any Constitutional rights going on. Remember, the Constitution doesn’t have an inherent “right to privacy”, except insomuch as the Supreme Court made one up w/r/t abortion.
nephorm wrote:
No offense, BB, but this is one of the reasons that lawyers shouldn’t be the go-to people on issues of this sort. This has absolutely nothing to do with what is legal according to the letter of the law, and everything to do with what’s consistent with the spirit of it.
None taken. It’s just that, given the amount of information the IRS has one me, I find it hard to get worked up over whether the NSA has some phone numbers…[/quote]
Boston,
I don’t find the fact that the NSA has this information particularly disturbing, either.
What I do find disturbing is that the widespread, silent cooperation of most of the telecommunications industry in releasing information to federal intelligence agencies.
It seems to me that this sort of quiet cooperation, left unopposed, could serve as the precedent–in practice if not in law–for phone companies to silently permit widescale wiretapping, or for web search engine companies to hand over records of web searches by IP address without a subpoena.
Were these activities to be upheld or tacitly endorsed in law, this would lay the groundwork for “total information awareness.”
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
I can think of a number of programs that could rather quickly find patterns of communication were proper computing resources alotted. This said, I doubt that it would be easy to identify any patterns that were typical of terrorist groups without first knowing what phone numbers belonged to suspected terrorists. I do agree with you that the problem is compounded by the fact that patterns of behavior do change over time, this is a constant problem in modeling dynamic behavior.[/quote]
My suspicion is that the reason the NSA needs and wants millions and millions of phone records on normal Americans is precisely so they can figure out exactly what a terrorist network doesn’t look like.
They want to build graphs of our normal social networks (businesses, family, friends, etc.), so that it’s easier to make the background noise drop out and find the patterns that are suggestive of terrorist behavior.
I don’t agree with what the NSA is doing but I believe they are very, very smart and know exactly what they are doing with this data. My concern is that the techniques they are using will have applicability, and thus most certainly be used and abused, well, well beyond finding and catching terrorists.
Stop and consider, just for a moment, how oppressive and tyrannical a government could be if it didn’t have to do any work to be oppressive and tyrranical…
You guys didn’t see this coming a mile away? I’ve figured this was being tracked ever since the inception of caller ID or even before.
Jeebus, you guys are jumpy. I don’t see the “right to an untracked telephone” listed either in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
If some cop busts into my house, he better have a fucking warrant. But you guys are freakin’ out over nothing here. Sorry. Personally, I’m just not the least bit scared about this.
