So that helecopter that has been following me around is cause of my phone records? I was wondering why all the cops know by by my first name…
Note: I just can’t help picturing a read faced stout man screaming while holding a bunch of laws in one hand and finger pointing the air with the other hand.
Can anyone guess right now how many times that doogie calls me a liar? Before you read the post just type in your guess and post it! Also for extra bonus points try to find the one liar accusation that I DID NOT point out.
The winner will get a free lecture from doogie on how government should work under a totalitarian regime.
LOL
Now keep in mind that you are on the honor system, so don’t peek before you read.
Okay…
[quote]doogie wrote:
Zeb,
I don’t have time to waste on a compulsive liar who changes his arguement each time he is proven to be ignorant of the facts.[/quote]
(note liar #1)
Oh come on, you have plenty of time. You have over 3000 posts. That shows me that you have lots and lots of time to waste.
Does that mean you’re a liar? No, you’re just trying to make a point. You are bothered by this entire matter. You are a very important person who does not get enough sleep and gets cranky a lot. And before you get on with the real weighty matters of your day you have to straighten me out.
Well gosh doogie thanks for taking the time.
THANK YOU!
Now it’s plain to see why you have such a nasty little attitude. other than that thing that happened to you in 6th grade that you don’t like to talk about…shhh.
Kidding, calm down…
On a serious note you don’t like Christians!
And you especially don’t like Christians who have an opinion that differs from your own.
Hey, why don’t you lothario, pookie and a few of your other Christian hating brehtren start a thread?
I bet you guys could have a freaking riot. You can use phrases like " mighty apparition in the sky" That would surely make you feel good about yourself. No?
Well…let me know if you do, I don’t want to miss the bashing I deserve for my faith.
Especially from one who feels so empowered to do so.
As I have tried to point out with limited success, it’s not about “privacy” as in the legal sense.
[b]Let me explain it to you (and everyone who agrees with you) this way:
If you were having a conversation with a confidant behind closed doors and someone just happened to be walking past and over heard your little talk, would that be a violation of privacy according to the law?
No, not really, but it sure “feels” like you have lost some privacy huh?[/b]
And if you recall, I also said this: [quote]“there was certainly a violation of the public trust!”[/quote]
Um…you can figure that out right?
Stop thinking like a prosecutor…This is something that’s way more important than the “letter of the law.” And what the government can legally get away with.
You either understand this or you don’t.
If I was talking out of my ass you would have smelled it brother!
High protein diets sometimes leave a trail. 
Oh and that was “dumb ass kid insult” number three for you. Hmm shall I count this as another accusation of “liar.”
Sure why not, you can’t possibly be talking out of your butt and telling the truth. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Okay, back to reality:
What you fail to realize is that this is a multi faceted argument. I can argue this on many different fronts. While all you do is rant and rave about the law not being broken.
[b]Again, according to the letter of the law there has been no legal breach of privacy. Yes I understand that. And I thank you for pointing it out over and over and over again.
However, I think that the government tracking its citizens phone calls is a bit over the edge.
Is there privacy lost?
YES!
That you don’t recognize this is not my fault.[/b]
Oh my…I hate to say this.
Did you just (gasp)LIE?.
I don’t think I ever said that “my fellow citizens are not that bright.”
Is that a lie on your part? Or, were you simply mistaken?
If we were to use your measuring stick as to what a lie is then it would be a whopper!
But I think you’re just mistaken.
Oh no…I agreed with a liberal.
SOUND THE ALARM
Irish happens to be correct (I didn’t say “right” just for you Irish) on this issue!
Unlike you, I don’t swallow the party line. I decide for myself how much government I want on my back. And doogie…I think President Bush has gone over the edge with this latest move.
And I will add that if Ronald Reagan, a true conservative, were alive today he would not have done such a thing and would most likely be very vocal in it’s opposition!
You see Ronald Reagan believed in LESS GOVERNMENT like any true conservative would.
You either have to abandon your avid and unnatural defense of this administrations NSA action, or you have to stop pretending to be a conservative.
[quote]A small leap from asking companies to voluntarily turn over lists of all the phone numbers called to completely bypassing the phone companies (who don’t have the capability to record every call made), secretely setting up a system of their own to actually record all of these calls, and then to actually recording them?
Small step? Sure.[/quote]
Yes, I call it a small step, it would be a small step for the government. They have the capacity, all the need is the desire and a loophole! But, I can go with “next step” if you like. Or the next in a series of “bad moves.” Matters not how you term it.
[b]That you infer that it’s a GIANT LEAP for government to record actual phone calls speaks once again to your naivete. Or, you work for the government and feel that you can’t be harassed.
One or the other.[/b]
How ludicrous of you to think that my opposition to this act boils down to only one point.
I have many reasons for not liking either the latest NSA move and the Patriot Act.
That I voice one concern or multiple concerns at a time is immaterial.
That you attempt to mischaracterize my views by using such a tactic speaks volumes about you, I’m sorry to say.
That would be accusation number four.
There’s nothing wrong with good debate. But I have to say you have taken it to a whole new childish level.
(And at 6:00am…you wake up mean huh? That’s a real shame…)
LOL accusation number 5.
Look I don’t mind that you called me a liar for the 6th time. But, I am not going to tolerate you calling me an “argument switcher.”
Nooo sirrrrr eeeeeeee!
You know what doogie, you are sounding like a loon to me. I’m sorry, but you are coming off as a narrow minded, hate filled Bush yes man.
“Switching arguments?”
Like I have already told you. I can have many opinions regarding this latest move by the NSA. It’s you that wants to stick to an argument regarding the interpretation of the law.
You are the single minded (red faced screaming) guy who says everything is hunky dory as long as it says so in the law.
I’m the guy that doesn’t like it for a multitude of reasons. Some of which I have voiced on this thread not in any particular order.
Ha ha “argument switcher” (shaking head).
STOP THE DEBATE FOLKS-DOOGIE HAS SHOWN HIS TRUE COLORS!
[b]You said “the Criminal’s associates.” Gee doogie how do you know that the man is a criminal? Is it because the government suspects him? And the government searched his house?
Therefore, he MUST be a criminal?
That is the very thing that people are concerned about! That is, the government jumping to conclusions regarding innocent people!
Thank you for proving my point![/b]
(You folks can stop reading now, or you can stick around to count up how many more times our blustery friend can call me a liar…Up to you.)
Is that the 7th time you called me a liar? Yep…
Congrats on number 8!
You have won the award for the most typical Internet message board post…for a teenager!
Well that’s interesting.
I think Hspder is a very bright individual. Vroom is not only smart but very tenacious in making his point. Irish is a young guy but has plenty of passion regarding his beliefs. Harris is…um…ah…well he’s…okay you win on that one.
LOL
No, actually harris has a great sense of humor.
doogie, I won’t look the other way when I think that my party is in the wrong.
It obviously matters less to me whether someone is liberal or conservative. I care more about what is right and what is obviously wrong.
For some reason what the NSA is doing doesn’t seem to be real to you at this point.
Perhaps if you had government agents reminding you of who you called at the end of each month (by phone or in person) you would get the wake up call that you need.
“Mr. doogie? Agent Smedly Felpop here. We need to know if it was 7 or 8 times that you called your brother in Chicago. Seems my partner spilled coffee on our copy of your phone records.”
Yea…it’s all more than just a bit unseemly huh?
You have reinforced many things to me on your few posts on this topic. Not the least of which is that we need a two party system, and that the democratic party is actually very good for America, if for no other reason they balance their beliefs with those of folks like you who believe that the government can do no wrong.
Let me remind you that the government is made up of people. And that people will in fact either do wrong willingly and knowingly, or by accident. It’s their nature…they’re people! It’s not “IF” something like that will happen. It’s a matter of “when.”
It appears that if you, and those like you were to have your way we would live in a very different country than we do now. You seem to think that it’s perfectly alright to track innocent individuals phone calls. I don’t think that’s how government should operate. And I dare say that true conservatives are solidly on my side.
Finally, you can continue to worship government and the precious laws that give it the right to infringe on my privacy. I will continue to worship God. After all it’s a free country…at least for the time being.
Hey doogie check out the lead story in USA Today!
Looks like Americans have had a chance to think about the NSA’s latest move and the majority are against it!
"About two-thirds say they’re concerned that the federal government might be gathering other information about the public. Such as bank records and data on Internet use or listening in on domestic phone conversations without obtaining a warrant.
Also…two thirds are concerned that the database will indentify innocent Americans as possible terrorism suspects."
Can you imagine that?
Now why don’t they put there full trust in the government?
You and I know the government NEVER makes mistakes. Right?
LOL
Now what do you make of that?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey doogie check out the lead story in USA Today!
Looks like Americans have had a chance to think about the NSA’s latest move and the majority is against it!
"About two-thirds say they’re concerned that the federal government might be gathering other information about the public. Such as bank records and data on Internet use or listening in on domestic phone conversations without obtaining a warrant.
Also…two thirds are concerned that the database will indentify innocent Americans as possible terrorism suspects."
Can you imagine that?
Now why don’t they put there full trust in the government?
You and I know the government NEVER makes mistakes. Right?
LOL
Now what do you make of that?
[/quote]
Do you happen to have the precise wording of the poll question?
[ADDENDUM] I found this interesting:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/05/looks_like_my_p.html
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Do you happen to have the precise wording of the poll question?
[ADDENDUM] I found this interesting:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/05/looks_like_my_p.html [/quote]
No, I don’t, sorry BB.
I’m sure you can read the story online.
I do agree, that wording is important.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Do you happen to have the precise wording of the poll question?
[ADDENDUM] I found this interesting:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/05/looks_like_my_p.html [/quote]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2006-05-14-nsa-poll.htm
The plot thickens.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/15/news/companies/verizon/index.htm
Two lawyer types have filed a $50 billion lawsuit against Verizon for this shit. I am pretty sure they don’t have a legal leg to stand on, but if they win, I, like 50 million other Americans, will get $1000 on account of Verizon “invading my privacy”.
LOL Can you hear me now? Ka-ching! This is why I don’t use Nextel.
Isn’t this an obselete non-issue? Not as a matter of course, but in recent history, I have purchased 2 of the ‘disposable cell phones’ w/ prepaid cards. I can’t guarantee the anonymity of purchase as, to my knowledge, I’m not under surveillance. But cash was an option, and my brother/friend/fellow terrorist could quite easily purchase phones, perform a dead-drop/swap and have completely circumvented this ‘dragnet’ for <$100 in a matter of minutes-to-hours. And that’s just a knee-jerk solution, other solutions become much easier/impossible to penetrate given the myriad possibilities of moving across borders offers.
Mine the data all they want, if the number never really connects to a person it’s a moot point. I’m no rocket scientist, and I’m sure the terrorists already know this and to drop $100/wk. on cell phones is no big deal in the Jihad. Further, the NSA boys have definitely figured this out too and while it probably still gets done to catch really stupid terrorists/criminals, it’s not the surveillance boogeyman that people make it out to be.
vroom will still be able to order his pizza w/o fear, just so long as the diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate is stashed where the Feds can’t find it, should they show up.
IMO this leak, as others have noted, was more politically motivated than civil-minded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51840-2005Feb24.html
“Reporters’ Phone Records Are Protected, Court Rules
U.S. Attorney Can’t Force N.Y. Times to Supply Documents”
"John Harrison, an expert on the First Amendment at the University of Virginia law school, said yesterday’s ruling – from a lower court judge in a separate circuit – is unlikely to influence the full D.C. Circuit next month, when it is expected to hear an appeal by Time and the Times.
In any case, he said, Sweet’s stance stressing reporters’ rights over prosecutors’ powers “is the minority position” among most judges. “The more common position is there’s nothing special about reporters,” Harrison said. "
This is a separate case from the Plame investigation, but even their Fitz got Miller and Cooper’s notes but not their phone records, no?
I guess its up to the wording of the statute to determine if the numbers and content free information is included in this decision.
Either way it looks like its not a strongly supported decision.
[quote]ExNole wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51840-2005Feb24.html
“Reporters’ Phone Records Are Protected, Court Rules
U.S. Attorney Can’t Force N.Y. Times to Supply Documents”
"John Harrison, an expert on the First Amendment at the University of Virginia law school, said yesterday’s ruling – from a lower court judge in a separate circuit – is unlikely to influence the full D.C. Circuit next month, when it is expected to hear an appeal by Time and the Times.
In any case, he said, Sweet’s stance stressing reporters’ rights over prosecutors’ powers “is the minority position” among most judges. “The more common position is there’s nothing special about reporters,” Harrison said. "
This is a separate case from the Plame investigation, but even their Fitz got Miller and Cooper’s notes but not their phone records, no?
I guess its up to the wording of the statute to determine if the numbers and content free information is included in this decision.
Either way it looks like its not a strongly supported decision.[/quote]
Definitely not a strongly supported decision.
The majority of the USSC in Branzburg concluded that there was no proof that the effect of subpoenas on reporters to reveal “confidential” information to grand juries would be significant, and thus declined to find any sort of “journalist’s privilege” with regard to First Amendment protection of their sources and such.
In addition, the majority noted the pragmatic concern that if it recognized a First Amendment privilege for journalists, it would then have to decide as a matter of constitutional law who is and who is not a “journalist.” While I’m sure vroom would argue vehemently that all bloggers are journalists, this would be a thorny issue, particularly because it would in essence involve “licensure” for the press, which would cause many more First Amendment problems than it would solve.
[quote]metalsluggx wrote:
!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13022.htm
![/quote]
Palast is a fruit loop. As is usual, his stories are long on claims and conspiracies and short on verifiable information.
I especially enjoy his reliance on his secret investigator sources who talk to unidentified persons of unknown authority, who are quoted as giving company positions, and unidentified “executives who have since left the Company.”
If you’re worried about data – and in certain aspects I think that’s a valid concern – I think the best solution is to make ownership of personal data crystal clear. If company’s are not allowed to profit by selling data they don’t own, they won’t aggregate it to begin with. BTW, I’m fairly sure the aggregation of medical data Palast is claiming would violate HIPPA, but that’s not my area of expertise.
Do write your Congressman and Senators if you want them to protect certain data – they’ve passed data privacy acts for medical data (HIPPA) and financial data by financial service providers (Gramm Leach Bliley), and there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t act to protect sensitive information if it were at risk and made a political issue.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, I’m fairly sure the aggregation of medical data Palast is claiming would violate HIPPA, but that’s not my area of expertise.[/quote]
I can chime in here, seeing as how I generate the medical data that y’all are talking about. HIPPA states emphatically that any medical data of any kind is illegal to transmit to anyone without medical reason to see it. That means nurses and doctors and support crew (like myself) who are involved with the patient’s care ONLY.
Violation of this by any one of us results in possible jail time. If that sounds gestapo-like, then tough. I am of the opinion that there should be some kind of bond and trust between folks who are vulnerable like my patients, and the folks who care for them (at high expense, I might add).
I wonder if any right wingnuts will finally stop using the talking point that everyone has been informed and had oversight… bunch of kool aid drinking administration worshippers.
Bush reverses stand on spy program oversight
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060516/ts_nm/security_nsa_dc_2
[i]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House, in an abrupt reversal, has agreed to let the full Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees review President George W. Bush’s domestic spying program, lawmakers said on Tuesday.
…
The chairmen said separately that Bush had agreed to full committee oversight of his Terrorist Surveillance Program rather than the more limited briefings allowed up to now.
The White House, under political pressure, did agree to conduct a set of briefings for the two full committees earlier this year, but those sessions did not disclose operational details about the eavesdropping.
Initiated after the September 11 attacks, the program lets the National Security Agency eavesdrop without a court warrant on international phone calls and e-mails made by U.S. citizens if one party is suspected to have links with terrorism.
It has stirred an outcry among rights groups and lawmakers who believe Bush overstepped his constitutional authority.
The White House has sought to avoid full committee oversight by limiting briefings to subcommittees from each panel. Initially, the administration shared program details only with the chairmen and vice chairmen of the committees and party leaders in the House and Senate.
“It became apparent that in order to have a fully informed confirmation hearing, all members of my committee needed to know the full width and breadth of the president’s program,” Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who heads the 15-member Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement.
…
[/i]
Emphasis mine. I can only say, no shit Sherlock!
Also, the part that is left out, is what it takes to qualify as having “links” to terrorism. Seriously, is calling the Arab owned pizza shop enough… ?
[quote]vroom provided a bunch of proof that our system of checks and balances is still working just fine.
[/quote]
[quote]doogie wrote:
vroom provided a bunch of proof that our system of checks and balances is still working just fine.
[/quote]
But it had limited oversight before and now it will have broader oversight.
This proves Bush = Hitler!
[quote]doogie wrote:
vroom provided a bunch of proof that our system of checks and balances is still working just fine.
[/quote]
No.
What has happened is that a series of leaks, which I don’t think is part of the official checks and balances, has caused enough pressure that the government finally knuckled under and agreed to abide by the system of checks and balances.
Bunch of deluded halfwits.
[quote]
ALDurr wrote:
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.
doogie wrote:
This is a great under-estimate of the government’s capabilities.
ALDurr wrote:
Given what has been going on within the last 40 years, do you really believe that the government is that competent? We are talking about the modeling of human behavior and tracking human habits. Technology is only one aspect of this. In order to do it correctly, it will take a significant amount of human interpretation to sort all the data out. It takes years to do this correctly without innocent people being caught in the crossfire. The government has never been known for its patience, and so this violation of public trust will hurt more than help.[/quote]
If not yet, soon.
Could computers transform billions of speech conversations to searchable text and make needle-in-a-haystack associations among multiple petabytes of data? Probably ? if not today, then certainly soon.
You can get hints about that capability from other technologies out there. Just this week, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced what it’s calling the Human Speechome Project. It will store 1.4 petabytes of audio data and search it to “better understand early childhood cognitive development.”
If you want to be a conspiracy theorist, you might think “early childhood cognitive development” is an NSA code phrase.
Last month, Suranga Chandratillake, the CEO of relatively tiny Blinkx, showed me how his company’s software finds every video on the Web, translates its audio into text, and then searches that text for keywords typed in by users of Blinkx’s search engine.
Another wrinkle: Last week at Google, CEO Eric Schmidt said that in five years, he expects Google to instantly translate Web pages from one language into another ? a capability that would come in quite handy when looking for terrorists. Other companies ? including Language Weaver, which is partly funded by the CIA ? are working on similar technologies.
All in all, this whole privacy thing is only going to get more intense. And since the NSA or CIA or some agency probably already knows what I’m typing, I think I’ll head home now and see if my residence still exists.
[quote]
doogie wrote:
vroom provided a bunch of proof that our system of checks and balances is still working just fine.
vroom wrote:
No.
What has happened is that a series of leaks, which I don’t think is part of the official checks and balances, has caused enough pressure that the government finally knuckled under and agreed to abide by the system of checks and balances.[/quote]
We know the appropriate Congressional committe (the select NSA panel of the Intellicence Committee)was briefed. Orin Hatch has admitted that two members of the FISA court had been briefed. That IS oversight and that is checks and balances, you deluded halfwit.
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/05/17/100wir_a3nsa001.cfm
We aren’t even getting half of this story. Everyone is so scared of being accused of leaking too much information. All of the stories are like, “If there is a program, and I’m not saying there is, then we were briefed on it, but I can’t acknowledge we were briefed on any such program that might have existed at a time when we might have been briefed.”
It only took one disgruntled NSA employee to make a phone call to USA Today to bring this to light.
This is going to turn out to be yet another irrational panic from the tin-foil hat crowd. Most likely, someone at the NSA with a personal vendetta against Gen. Hayden made the tip in order to screw the CIA confirmation hearings.
In the end, this is probably going to turn out to be tracking only calls made out of the country [from here to there]. Put all of the pieces together and you can start to see the big picture:
–The timing of the leak, days before the confirmation hearing.
–Members of the FISA court (FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE) were briefed.
–The appropriate Congressional members were briefed.
–Most likely local calls were not included in the tracking:
[quote]
“How do you explain that BellSouth and Verizon were not asked but Qwest was asked? It may be because Qwest has a long-haul network, and thus is in a different position than those two companies,” said Philip J. Weiser, a University of Colorado law professor and former Justice Department telecommunications specialist…
…New York-based Verizon said yesterday that it would not confirm or deny any relationship with the NSA, but that “one of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by the NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers’ domestic calls. This is false.”
The statement outlined the three major businesses that Verizon ran between Sept. 11, 2001, and the MCI acquisition four months ago: wireline phone, wireless phone and directory publishing. The company “also had its own Internet service provider and long-distance businesses,” the statement said. "Contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records from any of these businesses, or any call data from those records.
“None of these companies – wireless or wireline – provided customer records or call data.”
Verizon also denied published reports that information about local telephone calls is being tracked. “Phone companies do not even make records of local calls in most cases because the vast majority of customers are not billed per call for local calls,” Verizon said. But it did not mention the MCI long-distance business.[/quote]
There is no way you could pretend you thought you had a legitimate expectation of privacy once a foreign phone company gets involved.
Ex-chief doubts NSA has vast phone database
[quote]“They have no practical use for that information,” he said.
It is more likely, Inman said, that the agency would ask the phone companies to provide information about phone calls between the United States and specific terrorist havens such as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, he said. That would allow the agency to target calls to those specific numbers.
[/quote]