NSA Phone Records

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

Interesting.

Poll: Most Americans Support NSA’s Efforts

By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; 7:00 AM

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

A slightly larger majority–66 percent–said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.

Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats “even if it intrudes on privacy.” Three in 10–31 percent–said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.

Half–51 percent–approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy matters.

The survey results reflect initial public reaction to the NSA program. Those views that could change or deepen as more details about the effort become known over the next few days.

USA Today disclosed in its Thursday editions the existence of the massive domestic intelligence-gathering program. The effort began soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, the agency began collecting call records on tens of millions of personal and business telephone calls made in the United States. Agency personnel reportedly analyze those records to identify suspicious calling patterns but do not listen in on or record individual telephone conversations.

Word of the program sparked immediate criticism on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans criticized the effort as a threat to privacy and called for congressional inquiries to learn more about the operation. In the survey, big majorities of Republicans and political independents said they found the program to be acceptable while Democrats were split.

President Bush made an unscheduled appearance yesterday before White House reporters to defend his administration’s efforts to investigate terrorism and criticize public disclosure of secret intelligence operations. But he did not directly acknowledge the existence of the NSA records-gathering program or answer reporters’ questions about it.

By a 56 percent to 42 percent margin, Americans said it was appropriate for the news media to have disclosed the existence of this secret government program.

A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.

62

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
BB is about as intellectually bankrupt as any human being could possibly be.

Let it go.

It’s OK marmadogg,

I really don’t expect you to grasp the points anyway.

Many conservatives (including myself) do not agree with your defending the current administration on this…sorry.

I would tell you to grasp your ankles but you are already doing that.
[/quote]

What you don’t grasp, and what apparently vroom misses as well, is that there is a difference between “defending the administration” and pointing out the legal facts of the situation.

It’s not “defending the administration” to say that what they are doing does not violate the 4th Amendment when, in point of fact and in point of law, it does not violate the 4th Amendment.

63

[quote]ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
It happens slowly, and the rights are eroded over time. That is happening now.

That is the most insightful comment on this thread!

By the time that the defenders of this bullshit think that something is actually wrong, it will most likely be too late![/quote]

The Black Hundreds will be in the streets…

64

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Many conservatives (including myself) do not agree with your defending the current administration on this…sorry.

I would tell you to grasp your ankles but you are already doing that.
[/quote]

Seriously, conversations with some of you go approximately like this:

I - Someone posts something about the administration.

II - I point out that the sky is not in fact green, and that statement does not attack or otherwise criticize the administration.

III - The fact that I won’t agree that the sky is green, which would be negative for the administration, makes me a shill.

Come on now.

65

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
BB is about as intellectually bankrupt as any human being could possibly be.

Let it go.

It’s OK marmadogg,

I really don’t expect you to grasp the points anyway.

Many conservatives (including myself) do not agree with your defending the current administration on this…sorry.

I would tell you to grasp your ankles but you are already doing that.

What you don’t grasp, and what apparently vroom misses as well, is that there is a difference between “defending the administration” and pointing out the legal facts of the situation.

It’s not “defending the administration” to say that what they are doing does not violate the 4th Amendment when, in point of fact and in point of law, it does not violate the 4th Amendment.[/quote]

I look at this more whether it’s right or wrong, or just and unjust, ethical or unethical, not just legal or illegal.

I think that’s all most of us can do because few have a background in law.

66

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
A slightly larger majority–66 percent–said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.[/quote]

Well…here’s the problem:

Mr. Joe average calls down to the corner Pizza shop for a Pizza on a semi regular basis. The shop is not a national chain like Pizza Hut.

Mr. Joe average had no idea that the shop is in fact run by some lunatic who loves Osama Bin Laden. After all how would Mr. Joe average know this? He just likes the taste of the pizza.

Under the current administrations policy the NSA uses the call records to build what’s called a “spider web” of info that could involve extensive analysis of phone activity.

That phone activity does not simply involve calls made by the bad guy who runs the pizza shop. The “web” expands to the phone calls made by Mr. Joe average to the pizza shop!

Thus, every single call that Mr. Joe average made, and not just to the pizza man, are scrutinized as well. And one day two men in dark suits pull up to Mr. Joe averages house. They are from the government and merely want to ask him a few questions.

It may not go any further. The government may not make the mistake of including Mr. Joe average in the terrorist investigation. There may not be overzealous prosecutors simply looking for a bust at any expense. But then again…

Either way, I assure you that at the point the men finish asking Mr. Joe Average questions, he won’t think that the NSA plan is a very good one. His palms will be a sweaty mess. And while totally innocent he will will look and feel guilty somehow. His wife will want to know why this happened to them. His family and neighbors will be curious. I mean the government just doesn’t ask anyone questions for no reason…right?

His life is forever altered, make no mistake about that. This isn’t a TV show, it’s reality.

I fully understand that in the war on terror we as Americans have to make certain sacrifices. However, one of those sacrifices should not be the right of privacy. Nor, should a good man have to sacrifice his good reputation, or peace of mind.

While we hardly live in a police state. Make no mistake about it. This is turning ugly right before our eyes. That Joe Average cannot see the danger yet, is of little solace.

67

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
BB is about as intellectually bankrupt as any human being could possibly be.

Let it go.

It’s OK marmadogg,

I really don’t expect you to grasp the points anyway.

Many conservatives (including myself) do not agree with your defending the current administration on this…sorry.

I would tell you to grasp your ankles but you are already doing that.

What you don’t grasp, and what apparently vroom misses as well, is that there is a difference between “defending the administration” and pointing out the legal facts of the situation.

It’s not “defending the administration” to say that what they are doing does not violate the 4th Amendment when, in point of fact and in point of law, it does not violate the 4th Amendment.[/quote]

mmmkay…

You are using the administration’s talking points which is par for the course for you.

Please show me where I invoked the 4th amendment in this discussion.

68

Zeb,

Since we disagree so often, I wanted to chime in and say that obviously I am in agreement with you on this issue as well.

I know in the past, probably several years ago, I was saying things somewhat similar to your comments – about the slow erosion of rights – and I still feel the same way.

–

Anyway, back on topic, the danger is not particularly present today, the danger is in the future. Three administrations from now when some schmuck is in office and the war on terror isn’t on the front burner anymore, when the definition of terror becomes a bit looser, and the ability to spy on and control Americans is put to a more sinister use.

It isn’t a matter of being able to trust the government today, it is being able to trust the most power hungry idiot ever elected (and I’m not taking a swipe at anyone in the current administration, so relax) either now or in the future.

Consider all the corruption and personal gain that members (on both sides if you must) have misused their power for. What do you think will happen as government powers get expanded continously over time and the perfect storm of disaster and despot comes together? Do you honestly think people accepting millions in bribes wouldn’t make use of government power to ensure the right people get a contract… so they can earn their millions?

The war on terror is in fact quite important, today, but on the larger scale of things, it is also still a fairly small issue. Your country, per se, is not in very much danger. Your economy is not in very much danger (from terrorists anyway). Why risk the future of your nation because of a short term issue present today?

It is this lack of foresight that is so troubling. It is the blind trust that the government must always be full of honest, incorruptable, benign human beings, that is what is so troubling. Eventually, when nobody remembers the lessons of the past, the system will be challenged… and if all the cracks are allowed, it won’t be strong enough to withstand it.

Your country is only invulnerable when you continually keep a vigilant eye on the government and keep it under control… and there are signs (again, not a shot at the current administration) that things are somewhat out of control. Two crazy parties, corruption everywhere, blowjobs in the oval office, cherry picking intelligence to go to war, fear of terrorism is rampant, elections very close and hints of corruption in that process as well, uncontrolled illegal immigration, and on and on.

WTF? The government knows best? Your government (and I’m sure mine too) needs a good swift kick in the ass, not blind trust. Thing of the government as a child… what happens when you don’t keep an eye on behavior, enforce any rules or provide any discipline?

69

[quote]vroom wrote:
From the way you support everything the administration does, via legal “analysis”, one might suspect you were bucking for the job of Attorney General.

Then you’d be able to find loopholes which would let the administraton do whatever it wanted…

Oh wait, they already have guys that do that too. Sorry.

It’s the politics forum buddy, don’t imagine you get a free pass.

Anyhow, again, it is very possible that with increased technology and capability that the degree of privacy expected and the degree of privacy to be protected should change somewhat. You may not feel this is the case, and current case law may support your viewpoint, but that doesn’t change the possible viewpoints available.

Try looking forward once in a while…[/quote]

He pretty much defends everything the administration does. You absolutely attack anything the administration does.

Do you really want to know the difference between you and BB? He uses silly things like facts and laws and reason, while you rely completely on the standard liberal weapons of feelings and rhetoric.

70

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:

mmmkay…

You are using the administration’s talking points which is par for the course for you.

Please show me where I invoked the 4th amendment in this discussion.[/quote]

You didn’t – but you were responding to me, in a thread in which my only point has been on the 4th Amendment. See how that works?

BTW, which administration talking points have I covered here? I haven’t really been following their talking points, but I don’t think the likely involved linking to the controlling USSC precedent.

71

[quote]
FightinIrish26 wrote:
It happens slowly, and the rights are eroded over time. That is happening now.

ZEB wrote:
That is the most insightful comment on this thread!

By the time that the defenders of this bullshit think that something is actually wrong, it will most likely be too late![/quote]

Neither of you can name a single right that has been eroded in the last 6 years. Not one.

Even the non-Constitution based/court created “right to privacy” only applies to things in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you thought no one was already keeping track of your phone calls, how do you think you get billed?

72

[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
It happens slowly, and the rights are eroded over time. That is happening now.

That is the most insightful comment on this thread!

By the time that the defenders of this bullshit think that something is actually wrong, it will most likely be too late!

ZEB saying FightinIrish26 had an extremely insightful comment. Did hell freeze over yet?

By the way, I also agree – and have to publicly commend ZEB for sticking to his fundamental beliefs. That’s becoming something rare these days and I feel the need to cherish and celebrate it.
[/quote]

Like sticking to the belief that Iraq needed to be taken out?

73

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

What you don’t grasp, and what apparently vroom misses as well, is that there is a difference between “defending the administration” and pointing out the legal facts of the situation.

It’s not “defending the administration” to say that what they are doing does not violate the 4th Amendment when, in point of fact and in point of law, it does not violate the 4th Amendment.[/quote]

Exactly. The liberals and mis-guided ZEB start screaming about their rights being eroded or the administraion acting unconstitutionaly. Then it is pointed out to them that neither is true. Then they say understanding the law and the Constitution makes you a cheerleader. Holy shit.

74

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I look at this more whether it’s right or wrong, or just and unjust, ethical or unethical, not just legal or illegal.

I think that’s all most of us can do because few have a background in law.[/quote]

Right and wrong? Since when did ANY of you liberals believe in those concepts?

75

[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
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]

Ross,

You’d probably have more to worry about w/r/t the search engines than the wiretapping.

Here’s the thing w/r/t a lot of this stuff. There’s a built in concept in the analysis of the 4th Amendment, which is the restriction on the government’s right to search and seize our stuff, that there needs to be a rational expectation of privacy with regard to the information for it to be protected.

For instance, the government can hire a lip reader to lip read conversations you have on a pay phone without violating the 4th Amendment, because if you’re on a payphone in a public place you have no rationale expectation of privacy that someone couldn’t read your lips. Essentially, anything you put in the public arena – and what is the internet if not the public arena?

As you saw from the USSC case linked above, data provided to a private company – especially non-content data like phone numbers – is inherently unprotected.

The key factor that kept government from doing such searches in the past was the sheer impossibility of massive data searches in the pre-computer era. It wasn’t that they couldn’t because the were disempowered to do so – they just didn’t have the technology.

If we don’t like that, we can change the law – or, a solution that I like more, put specific restrictions on the uses to which such data could be put. If it were strictly limited to prosecutions for terrorism (which itself would need to be narrowly defined), I’m less bothered conceptually than I am with the government getting a broad license to use all such data for prosecution of “regular” crimes.

76

[quote]doogie wrote:
Do you really want to know the difference between you and BB? He uses silly things like facts and laws and reason, while you rely completely on the standard liberal weapons of feelings and rhetoric.
[/quote]

LOL.

Doogie, there are a fair number of issues that I agree with the government or with conservatives on. When they arise, I like to point them out, so that at times like this you might remember them.

That is what is different.

One example is sealing the border. Build a wall! Deploy the national guard! Do what it takes, but stop the flow of illegal immigrants. I don’t think that is a liberal talking point stance, but correct me if I’m wrong.

77

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Well…here’s the problem:

Mr. Joe average calls down to the corner Pizza shop for a Pizza on a semi regular basis. The shop is not a national chain like Pizza Hut.

Mr. Joe average had no idea that the shop is in fact run by some lunatic who loves Osama Bin Laden. After all how would Mr. Joe average know this? He just likes the taste of the pizza.

Under the current administrations policy the NSA uses the call records to build what’s called a “spider web” of info that could involve extensive analysis of phone activity.

That phone activity does not simply involve calls made by the bad guy who runs the pizza shop. The “web” expands to the phone calls made by Mr. Joe average to the pizza shop!

Thus, every single call that Mr. Joe average made, and not just to the pizza man, are scrutinized as well. And one day two men in dark suits pull up to Mr. Joe averages house. They are from the government and merely want to ask him a few questions.

It may not go any further. The government may not make the mistake of including Mr. Joe average in the terrorist investigation. There may not be overzealous prosecutors simply looking for a bust at any expense. But then again…

Either way, I assure you that at the point the men finish asking Mr. Joe Average questions, he won’t think that the NSA plan is a very good one. His palms will be a sweaty mess. And while totally innocent he will will look and feel guilty somehow. His wife will want to know why this happened to them. His family and neighbors will be curious. I mean the government just doesn’t ask anyone questions for no reason…right?

His life is forever altered, make no mistake about that. This isn’t a TV show, it’s reality.

I fully understand that in the war on terror we as Americans have to make certain sacrifices. However, one of those sacrifices should not be the right of privacy. Nor, should a good man have to sacrifice his good reputation, or peace of mind.

While we hardly live in a police state. Make no mistake about it. This is turning ugly right before our eyes. That Joe Average cannot see the danger yet, is of little solace.
[/quote]

So some guy gets questioned by people in dark suits? That’s the horror you see coming of this? Wow.

What about the flip side to that? Same scenario, the government identifies 30 people whose calls to the pizza place raise a suspicion. They bring them in to investigate. Turns out of the 30, 15 are here on student visas from Syria, 10 are old white males in their 50s who don’t cook, 4 are frat boys from Kansas who don’t cook, and 1 is an American of Arab descent. The 10 old white guys and the 4 frat boys are cut loose. The other 16 are questioned. Suspicion is raised and warrants are acquired.

Comparing all the calls, web searches, emails, purchases the 16 make it becomes clear that the 1 guy does not know the other 15. It is clear that his habits do not match theirs, beyond ordering pizza. Hell, it turns out he gets ham and sausage on his. The other 15 it turns out were planning to drive Uhauls full of fertilizer bombs into 7 elementary schools next week.

How in your right mind do you balance that against the one guy undergoing the hassle of being questioned. Hell, if it is so terrible to be questioned, why not argue that it would be better to allow the government to unknowingly search everything about the guy without him knowing. That way, he is cleared without the hassle of ever knowing he was a suspect.

78

[quote]
Marmadogg wrote:

mmmkay…

You are using the administration’s talking points which is par for the course for you.

Please show me where I invoked the 4th amendment in this discussion.

BostonBarrister wrote:

You didn’t – but you were responding to me, in a thread in which my only point has been on the 4th Amendment. See how that works?

BTW, which administration talking points have I covered here? I haven’t really been following their talking points, but I don’t think the likely involved linking to the controlling USSC precedent.[/quote]

Marmadogg,

You did say, “Bush’s current programs capture jack S and expose us for no reason. Nothing like paying 50% of my salary to government so they can use it to spy on me.” Why do you think the government doesn’t have the authority to do that if not because of the 4th amendment?

79

[quote]doogie wrote:
Right and wrong? Since when did ANY of you liberals believe in those concepts?[/quote]

This has to be one of the funniest things that I see coming up on the boards from time to time.

The fact that liberals and conservatives prioritize different principles doesn’t meant that either side isn’t strongly motivated to do or support what they feel is right.

How deluded do you have to be to think that the “other side” is somehow inhuman in this way.

Wait, perhaps this is a set up for an invasion… dehumanize the enemy and mobilize the troops… take out those damned liberals one way or the other. Okay, I see how it is.

80

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb,

Since we disagree so often, I wanted to chime in and say that obviously I am in agreement with you on this issue as well.

I know in the past, probably several years ago, I was saying things somewhat similar to your comments – about the slow erosion of rights – and I still feel the same way.

[/quote]

Good lord, Vroom. You live in a country where Zeb would be a felon for voicing the opinions he has expressed on T-mag about homosexuals. Why are you concerned with our rights when people can’t even voice their religious beliefs where you live?

[quote]
Anyway, back on topic, the danger is not particularly present today, the danger is in the future. Three administrations from now when some schmuck is in office and the war on terror isn’t on the front burner anymore, when the definition of terror becomes a bit looser, and the ability to spy on and control Americans is put to a more sinister use.

It isn’t a matter of being able to trust the government today, it is being able to trust the most power hungry idiot ever elected (and I’m not taking a swipe at anyone in the current administration, so relax) either now or in the future.

Consider all the corruption and personal gain that members (on both sides if you must) have misused their power for. What do you think will happen as government powers get expanded continously over time and the perfect storm of disaster and despot comes together? Do you honestly think people accepting millions in bribes wouldn’t make use of government power to ensure the right people get a contract… so they can earn their millions?[/quote]

You can have paranoid fantasies about EVERYTHING the government does. At some point, though, you have to use a little common sense. We do have a system of checks and balances. If that eventually fails us, it will be time to scrap this system and start over. Until then, to project paranoia into the future is crazy.

Even if you were correct and it was a “fairly small” problem now, how many dirty bombs would it take to change that? How many suitcase nukes? See unlike these imaginary politicians of the future that you are so afraid of, there are REAL crazy Islamo-fascists that want us wiped off the planet as soon as possible.

How small does this sound to you? (obviously, this in not compiled by me):

Add in the at least 2,986 killed on Sept. 11. Fairly small problem?

[quote]
It is this lack of foresight that is so troubling. It is the blind trust that the government must always be full of honest, incorruptable, benign human beings, that is what is so troubling. Eventually, when nobody remembers the lessons of the past, the system will be challenged… and if all the cracks are allowed, it won’t be strong enough to withstand it.[/quote]

Lack of foresight?

Like not doing everything within the limits of the law to protect us?

Like arguing against efforts to protect us from a very real PRESENT threat from people determined to kill us all, while relying on fears of what some imaginary corrupt official MAY try to do at some unknown point in the future (while making the assumption that our system of checks and balances will fail if it does occur)?

Like focusing on another country while the rights in your own country disappear?

Is that the kind of lack of foresight you speak of?