LOL

This will be standard proceedings in the whole world shortly. And even the US Americans have to realize reality by now...

LMAO

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done."

And I am Caesar." (Julius Caesar)

Live Free Or Die !!

Freedom ......it cannot be given to anyone and must be found and built on from within !!

As much a fan of Bush as I am, I have to say I am sorely disappointed in this tactic. While I commend them for trying to weed out terrorists, I hope they didn't bully these companies into complying. You just don't do something like this to the American people, it will come out sooner or later. I don't believe there is any question of legality here. This is illegal and unconstitutional.

I am not condemning or Supporting Bush in this writing. This is just an idea to ponder be it correct or wrong is up to you.
People seem to want to point out the actions of other presidents, which I think is great. It proves that history does repeat itself and some do not learn from history. When accepting the presidency, A person is accepting responsibility for what is going on in the nation. Even if it means correcting and/or finishing what the previous has started. Given that, Bush is responsible. Everyone who has run for president runs on platform to fix the state of the nation. Just because a previous president has done something doesn't make it OK for the current president to do the same thing. I think that what has to be examined is what is currently happening. Having to taek responsibilty for what others have done is not always a good or bad thing, but it comes with accepting a position of leadership

"Another example of George Bush not being held acountable. With out a soecific warrant this practice is a total invasion of privacy"

Oh my goodness. Your hate blinds you enough that you don't look to see that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did the exact same thing. You blame George Bush for everything, including natural disasters.

You believe you hold the keys on the locked door of compassion and fairness. The only thing you have to worry about with the NSA wire tapping is associating with a known terrorist and calling overseas to a terrorist stronghold.

The harsh reality is that a strong majority of Americans agree with NSA Wire Tapping. If you are not one of them, you have a serious choice to make. One, you can get your numbers up (probably based on lies and the type of folks who believe policy is a litany of complaints) to win an election. Two, you do what you are doing in this forum (now this forum can make dramatic change). Three, Canada is accepting applicants!

Bill Clinton did NOT wiretap everyone's phone calls. Where did you hear about this from?

"Those who are willing to sacrifice essential freedom for security deserve neither."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Incredible! That's so original! It also has nothing to do with this article!

!!!

(P.S. You might want to read through the previous comments before you state something already posted. Apparently, the trained parrots can't even repeat the same quote accurately)

And how does this have nothing to do with the article? The whole issue being argued about is whether and how much right the government has to violate our freedoms, in order to protect us. Yes someone else posted it before, but you have yet to rebutt it with anything relevant.

Please! You are just plain wrong. The issue is whether the President has the authority to authorize the NSA to intercept phone calls from those who contact terrorists OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES! It pays to read! It really does. You should try it sometime. As an American, you have nothing to worry about unless you are having a friendly chat with your favorite terrorist in another country. Are you calling a terrorist in another country? Is there something you'd like to tell us?

"The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."

John F. Kennedy

This is what i read: "According to the EFF's complaint, "AT&T has given the government unfettered access to its over 300 terabyte 'Daytona' database of caller information -- one of the largest databases in the world." The group also alleges that AT&T opened its network to "wholesale surveillance by the NSA" and has broken privacy laws."
To me, that sure doesn't sond like tapping a few specific lines dialing out to a few specific people. It sounds like they are fishing for random hits amoung all the records in the database. Got something that proves this wrong other than a ssurances of a politician or two? I'd like to see it.

No. That's not what this article is about. This article is about EFF suing AT&T because they believe AT&T violated the law.

I see nothing debating freedom vs. security.

I saw this this on EFF's website, and was amazed that this was even going on.

Another example of George Bush not being held acountable. With out a soecific warrant this practice is a total invasion of privacy. It equates to the police coming into your home and searching it just because they can. Unfortunately the American people need to take it up with the senators and congressmen. I don tlike George Bush, but in his defense Congress new what the Patriot act was and voted for it, giving George and the NSA just this kind of power. It is wrong but legal under the Patriot Act. It is amazing that people wanted to Impeach Clinton for not telling the truth about who he was sleeping with and we allow this President to lie about Iraq and trample our constitiutional rights.

It is NOT legal under the Patriot Act. Where does it say that in the Patriot Act? OOOhhh...you mean the President's interpretation of the Patriot Act. Well that's just wrong...see the long post below that states THE ONLY LAW specific to warrentless wiretapping of US Citizens.

You're an idiot just for giving in to the almighty Patriot Act argument...

Actually you're an idiot. The President never said the Patriot Act gave him the authority to have the NSA intercept calls to terrorists OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY. Section 2 of the CONSTITUTION and the 2001 congressional authorization (that's CONGRESS folks!) to use whatever means to capture/kill terrorists after September 11 gives the President the authority to conduct warantless domestic surveillance. I'm kindly asking the terrorist appeasers, rumor mongers, and Bush-haters to please read and get your facts straight! Thank you!

OK since you are a moron, I'll sound it out for you:

"President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and other intelligence experts claim the USA Patriot Act gives them the authority to listen in on domestic conversations, as does the 2002 congressional authorization to use military force against terrorism."

"Gonzales told the NewsHour that as a part of the post-Sept. 11, 2001 authorization to use military action against terrorism, "the Congress intended for the president to engage in all of those activities that are fundamentally incidental to waging war, including electronic surveillance."

Now this electronic surveillance applies to everywhere EXCEPT WITHIN the United States because there is a law that EXPRESSLY FORBIDS it without a FISA warrant.

You should read the law: http://en.wikipedia.org/...igence_Surveillance_Act

Its amazing how many "doors" you can open when you just keep shouting "terrorist" over and over again.

Having glaced at the thread of comments it never ceases to amaze me that those who have nothing substantive to say attack the messager not the message for example Psycros posts: "Yet again those three little words: "broke the law". Sorry, pinkos. There are similar posts. That tactic along with the concept that if you repeat a lie enough times people will believe are becoming far to prevalent. Arguing about the application of the law or the facts is interesting and educational but expressing uniformed views and personal attacts are immature and waste bandwidth.

Not to pick on you Pycros but the comment "Sorry, pinkos, all the laws on the books clearly grant the executive and legislative branches exactly these kinds of powers." makes my point. Do some research before you pop off with that sort of propaganda.

If you are one of those who sees nothing invasive (or inhibitting of free speach for that matter) in this type of activity there are plenty of police states around the world where the government has the power to do what it wants without accountability. If that makes you more comfortable or feel safer then those would be a good places to relocate while we get this democracy back on track. But please do not trample my rights in the process.

I will side with the EFF and anyone else on this issue based on the words of the Fourth Ammendment - "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."

So, those of you like Pycrcos, take a deep breath, educate yourselves and consider the lack of substance in the following statement "all the laws on the books clearly grant the executive and legislative branches exactly these kinds of powers." Who do you think the Fourth Amendment was intened to apply to?

Please do not use the "so and so" did it argument either. Hold them accountable as well instead.

We are supposed to be a free country It is unregrettable that are freedom's allow terrorists and other deviants to commit crimes against us. and we should fight them with all our mite. However we need to do it in a manor that protects our freedom and our rights! And if we allow them to take away just the simplest freedom I.E. seeing you loved one board a plane and fly away we have truly became a no better then a communist country.

Your rights are safe. If you call grandma in South Dakota, you have nothing to worry about. If you call a terrorist in Syria, you know who you're speaking to and your call will most likely be intercepted. Period.

...and if your grandmother is a US citizen visiting Iraq and you call her wanting a cookie recipe look out! *laughs

If there are more terrorists in the US, what are they doing? I cannot imagine them working at Starbucks serving coffee. They would be plotting and then they would light thier shoes on fire when trying to get on planes; wait, no, that didn't work. My point is, any terrorist worth his salt would have done something between 2001 and now. Its not that they aren't out there, don't get me wronge, but you can't be very smart if you think lighting explosives will set them off (very few actualy explode when lit on fire, most have much higher activation engery requirements).

How many terrorists are out there? Considering the last 5 years have been about as quiet as the previous 5 years. It's a safe bet the number is low. Can you imagine an army of terrorists sitting around serving coffee biding their time? The NSA is looking for a very small minority, probably less then 1000 people in the country, a country with 295,734,134 residents or 0.00034%. The odds of getting cancer and dieing are greater then stopping a random person on the street and them turning out to be a terrorist. Perverbeal needle in a hay stack.

The USA has a special court for wiretaps. If you don't know how it works you should read about it. If the NSA cannot follow protocall, hang them out to dry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ence_Surveillance_Court

There are so many things wrong with what you said that there really isn't enough time (or space) to rebut them all. However, let me try to educate you: Section 2 gives our President authority to use warantless domestic surveillance, NSA must comply with an executive order, AT&T must comply with an NSA request by giving NSA access to those who contact terrorists OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, people who call terrorists outside the country know who they are speaking to, people who call terrorists outside the country should be scrutinized.

The EFF should sue the NSA if they believe the law was violated. AT&T was just complying with the government of the nation in which they operate. They did nothing wrong.

That's all I'm gonna say.

AT&T was not subpoenaed to provide them access, they just complied with a request. Just like how a cop can come in your house if you say it's okay, but they need a warrant otherwise.

Yeah, I got that before. I still say AT&T did nothing wrong. And I am in no way an AT&T fan...

Why? No law has been broken.

I said: "IF they believe the law was violated." I did not say whether or not I agreed with that assessment. I did that on purpose. My statement still holds whether or not I think the law has been broken. The NSA is responsible IF it was.

See that "IF" again?

Reading is your friend.

Thank you wincemeat, please be still, you ain't very sharp are you?

I guess not. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." ~Benjamin Franklin

"[insert random quote from some old dead guy]" ~old dead guy.

Fantastic contribution. I swear, I haven't heard that quote 8 trillion times this month yet, so you posted that just in the nick of time.

"The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."

John F. Kennedy

Yeah...

Again: "[insert random quote from some old dead guy]" ~old dead guy.

AT&T complied with a government request. Therefore, they did the right thing. The NSA program is, currently, done within the law whether many of you like it or not.

Therefore, if you want to complain... complain that the laws need to change to prevent this in the future.

This is my only comment on this thread, because I'm not wasting another moment on the whole "I *think* the government *might be/could be* spying on me" paranoid delusion.

First of all you don't know what the NSA program is so you don't know whether it is legal or not.

Tonight the President stated before Congress that the NSA surveillance program only involves international communications involving known terrorists. Now we find that the NSA is openly accessing the databases containing information about communications between citzens in the USA. Are we now to believe that 300 million different users of AT&T services are communicating with terrorists?

Rather than blindly following perhaps it isn't unreasonable to allow scrutiny of some of these government activities. If these governmental factions are right in their actions then so be it. However, assuming that the government can't be wrong could be a grave error considering the number of abuses on record.

The idea that just because AT&T owns lines that carry confidential commumunications and that fact nulifies any privacy rights is bogus. If that were the case then sensitive govenment communications would be a free for all since the government also leases lines from AT&T. This makes no more sense than you renting a house and the landlord allowing the government to search through your home without consent or a warrant.

A fundamental element of our democracy is that persons have the right to be protected from unwarranted intrusions and we provide a system which allows people to involk those fundamental rights and seek relief. There are no laws that require U.S. Citizens to be bound, gagged silenced or shouted down when they believe their rights have been trampled upon.... Oh, except for provisions of the Patriot Act. You know, the ones which would attempt to make it a felony for a citizen to consult his own lawyer when the government conducts secret activities that could adversely effect that citizen. Gee what a concept - making it a crime to seek legal counsel. H E L L O???? I am anxious to see how this pans out in the courts....assuming the PA is someday renewed.

When the government takes a course that has it dodging judicial review or scrutiny and getting away with it then we are in danger of having no rights left to defend. I suggest we watch what the courts decide on these issues.

Yeah, that wasn't what really happened. You're such a drama queen! AT&T and other telecoms complied with an NSA request to access databases (for specific names) in order to intercept (future) communications to terrorists OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY! Facts...they'll get you every time!

You know what "really" happens eh?

So when AT&T says that NSA has "open" access to their major databases, containing personal communications information on millions of US Citizens, they are incorrect?

Providing this data to the NSA was not based on a court order. AT&T was not forced to dump their customers data on the NSA. There was no legal requirement to disclose customer information. It is not just EFF that is suing either.

If I am a drama queen for objecting to the idea that megs of megs of personal communications data, created by civilian citizens, should be accesible to some Army Private or Specialist at the NSA then I hope I get worse.

Isn't it a bit of a paradox to protect freedoms through the process of chiping away at them? Who gets to decide which freedoms should be sacraficed, some government agent?

Perhaps all the sheep should just close their eyes and blindly trust that whatever a government agency does or says is just fine. Lets just live the fable of "The Emporer's New Clothes".

The FISA court has openly criticised the government for providing misleading information to justify surveillance and siezure of communications - Not once, but scores of times. So instead of cleaning up their act a few zealots rationalize a decision to completely sidestep the courts. At least one judge has resigned in protest over government circumvention of the balance of power provided by the judicial process. Read the history people - go take an objective look at what has been going on. If you still think the intrusions are just fine and dandy then good luck to you when some other government entity decides there is no need for due process, probable cause or judicial scrutiny.

Yet again those three little words: "broke the law". Sorry, pinkos, all the laws on the books clearly grant the executive and legislative branches exactly these kinds of powers. And, I might add, they didn't have to ask for AT&T's cooperation, nor would they even need it. If the NSA wants to hack AT&T, they can and they will. Perhaps they should've done exactly that - then all the hippies would be still be sipping their $5 Starbucks swill in blissful ignorance.

So, I guess that you don't actually have a right against unreasonable search and seizure as outlined in the Bill of Rights??

Ahmen. This is akin to the NSA opening and reading every letter mailed in the US.

Apparently, we no longer do. I was given an example of that yesterday. We were mailing a copy of my wife's genealogy book to her sister in NY. We placed it in a large manila envelope and took it to the post office for mailing. Answering the postal clerk's question regarding "hazardous material," my wife stated that it was only printed material...a genealogy book. The postal clerk then advised us that anything sent as "Printed Matter" will be opened and scanned for content by the post office, prior to delivery. We retrieved the parcel and sent it by more expensive UPS. Will continue to do so with any parcel in the future.

For All of you Morons who are just spouting information you hear from the President/TV/Your Mom:

We are all aware that they have the right for domestic spying, as long as they follow the procedures that are set in law. The laws are laws for a reason, we just can't ignore the ones we don't like...if the laws are bad, then there are ways to change them. There are checks and balances for this very reason...the administration knows that all domestic spying is dependant on judicial review, and they didn't like it so they just tried to keep it to themselves. Now they just want to make up laws based on VERY LIBERAL interpretations of the Patriot Act.

It's abundantly clear to me that Mr. Pres didn't obtain his required, retroactive warrants because the administration know they're wrong.

First, you should read this WHITEHOUSE press release:

http://www.whitehouse.go...2004/04/20040420-2.html

President Bush:
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York (2004)

"... Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

I guess he can just change his mind if he doesn't like the rules...

http://en.wikipedia.org/...igence_Surveillance_Act

Scope and limits
For most purposes, including electronic surveillance and physical searches, "foreign powers" means a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. §§1801(a)(1)-(3) The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations. §§1801(a)(4) and (5). However, the sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism. See §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2) and (3)).
The statute limits its application to US persons. A US person includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the US.
The code defines "foreign intelligence information" means information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.[2]

Provisions of FISA
Electronic surveillance

Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios.

Without a court order
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is: only for foreign intelligence information[2] targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [3] or their agents; and there is NO SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD THAT THE SURVEILLANCE WILL ACQUIRE THE CONTENTS OF ANY COMMUNICATION TO WHICH A UNITED STATES PERSON IS A PARTY.[4]

Authorization during times of war

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress. declaration of war by the Congress. [13].

(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—

(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or

If the administration somehow comes up with the many thousands of warrants, then I'd say no problem to the whole thing. It stinks to high heaven, otherwise trying to keep it super-secret wouldn't be necessary, now would it...

How about doing a little research of your own, psycros. Quit being a fascist...

Another drama queen! You guys are out in force tonight! Your rights are safe, buddy! Okay, once again, if you're calling grandma in South Dakota, you have nothing to worry about. If you are having a friendly chit-chat with your favorite terrorist in Syria, you know who you are speaking to and your phone calls may be monitored without you knowing about it. WHEW! Educating the rumor mongers and Bush-haters is tough work!

Wow! You just sound silly. Btw, I didn't think you rumor mongers prayed! I'm impressed!

and of course us drama queens are less informed than you? You are sure that no one has anything to worry about 'cause you said so, right? I feel a lot better now *laughs

One thing for sure. With NSA having open access to over 1.88 trillion records (in just one of AT&T's many databases) they ought to be able to find a terrorist or two. I have to wonder just how many terrorist apprehensions have resulted from milking this data. It would seem to me that if these government intrusions were justifiable the government would be naming terrorists that have been apprehended, convicted or eliminated as a direct result of monitoring US Citizens communications records. Can you name one?

So just who is paranoid here?

The End does not justify the means!!!

truth is the phone companies OWN the lines, i sure as hell didnt put em up. Therefore, we are just paying rent every month. they have every right to listen in on our conversations. if it wasnt for them we wouldnt be HAVING those convo's in the first place. People dont really realize that you cant have privacy over an electronic communications medium. it all goes thru a central server somewhere (different for different mediums of course) so the telecom and internet co's reserve the right to listen in any time they want. check your cable, phone, or internet contracts, i'm SURE its in there somewhere. O hey, how do you think they know what tv stations you're watching? Oops i guess theyre spying on us again. Better sue........... PUH-****ING-LEASE. Get off your high horses people. youre NOT important enough to worry about having the details of a phone convo used against you. they dont give two s***s about you babbling to your girlfriend, or having phone sex at 2 in the morning. Just accept that, in this time of war and terrorism, certain freedoms will be tweaked for the "good of the country" just shut up about it and move on. youre not gonna make any money off it if u sue. you have absolutely no rights when it comes to telecom and all other communications mediums.

Agreed 100%.

"truth is the phone companies OWN the lines, i sure as hell didnt put em up. Therefore, we are just paying rent every month. they have every right to listen in on our conversations. if it wasnt for them we wouldnt be HAVING those convo's in the first place."

So you are saying there is no similar clause like the landlord tenants act that stops the people you rent a home from entering your residence at will?

They may own it, but the definition of RENT is to transfer ownership temporarily to another person for a given period of time, usually bound by a legal agreement.

Read your AT&T ToS, I am pretty certain they don't specify that, without a specific court order against you: "they can monitor/eavesdrop on your use of their service unless you are damaging it in some way."

Nice tmesis. =)

Actually the definition is "right to occupy" or "use the property of another." Renting never will relinquish ownership from the rentor to the rentee. If you don't want the NSA listening to your phone calls, don't call associate with known terrorists. It is truly that simple. I sure don't want another attach on our country because the government could not listen to someone calling Afghanistan and we receive no or an insignificant portion of information that could prevent an attack.

Canadians and EU, before you begin to criticize... The NSA activities and "The Bells" cooperation is encouranging to most Americans. So before your speak, please reflect on your own country's problems. There are many.

EFF is yet again the Jesse Jackson of the internet.

If this had merit, the ACLU would have been on it a long time ago.

OMG. I'm leaving this forum before someone blames it all on Bush again--if it's his fault why sue AT&T anyway? Electronic Frontier Foundation is full of @#$%! Government makes the laws so how can they hold AT&T responsible for collaborating with a GOVERNMENT agency?

Funny...New York Times reported this. Need I say more?

Going...going...gone (for real this time)

Whatever government agents do or demand others to do isn't de facto lawful. We don't live in an authoritarian state--yet.

Um, the "Government" isn't a mysterious entity deciding things. It is made up of citizens of the United States. Those same citizens have the same rights as everyone else and also want to uphold those rights. Thus, the people making the laws are just normal people and they will fight to protect themselves along with everyone else if power is being abused.

Well I don't necessarily disagree... but your comments basically about government making laws and so being allowed to break them or at least not being held accountable for possibly breaking their own laws (essentially what you said) is not very well said :)

The Govt. does not care about the average person talking about everyday drama. They are looking for the criminals. I'd rather have our Govt. doing it to catch criminals over some terrorist that got access. Govt. doesn't want credit card numbers, sex secrets, or whatever else you're "Worried" about other people knowing about you, like criminals and terrorist do.
You don't think AT&T, Earthlink, or any other switching/ ISP Company log "key words" or anything like that? Why aren't you people complaining about that?
The govt. is not perfect, but there are times to step in. Honestly, how many people have been a "victim" of this "tapping" so far? Were you accused of being a terrorist? If you were directly affected by this "tapping", please let me know. If you people were worried so much about all this, you would have educated yourself enough to know that this has been going on for a LONG while and has not affected you. I understand what the potential of “tapping” our switches could mean for the future. (Allowing the Govt. free access to all information at all times is not a good thing.) The Govt. has too much to deal with to worry about watching EVERYONE and all their worries.

Don't fret! There are many of us who believe the President had the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to authorize the NSA to intercept communications to terrorists OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES and to do what is necessary to keep AMERICANS safe. We could really care less what other countries think of us or our President. There are a lot of naive, uneducated, and silly people out there. And check out all of the drama queens on this page! SHEESH!