NSA Monitoring Net Communications

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

December 24, 2005, 1:37 AM

The National Security Agency has been spying on Internet and telephone communications in and out of the United States in an immense program implemented in cooperation with major telecommunications companies, the New York Times reported late Friday.

The news comes just a week after the Bush administration acknowledged the existence of a domestic spying program, while claiming the executive order was limited to those individuals with known terrorist ties. But the Times cites sources who say the surveillance was much broader than admitted.

By working directly with the backbone networks in the United States, the NSA was able to tap directly into switches and monitor any traffic moving across the networks. This included e-mail, instant messages and even phone calls, as most traditional phone communication is routed using voice over IP these days.

"What has not been publicly acknowledged is that NSA technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects," the Times reported.

Sources say the NSA largely looks at the transaction data, namely the destination and source as well as the amount of traffic moving back and forth. These patterns can help establish known lines of communication that can be more closely tracked.

The Times says that the American government has been pushing the telecommunications industry to urge international phone companies to route calls through U.S. networks. That way, the NSA can eavesdrop on conversations by simply capturing packets on a switch.

Rumors of such a program began surfacing earlier this year, but backbone companies have remained tight-lipped. BetaNews learned in June that the Washington Post was investigating a highly classified government project called "Wormhole," which involved NSA systems being placed in front of switches at major ISPs to capture and analyze traffic.

Legality of such intelligence gathering methods remains murky at best. The Bush administration has already been heavily criticized for authorizing domestic wire taps without court order, and by targeting switches the NSA would be spying on countless Americans while fishing for suspicious behavior.

In addition, with foreign calls being routed through American soil, the Times reports that some judges and law enforcement officials regard eavesdropping on those calls as a possible violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for domestic surveillance.

Add a Comment (205 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By lsandersjr

edited Sep 21, 2007 - 11:58 PM

NSA's USA when you destroy private information you become a pirate government against your own people. I am not a terrorist but your destruction of simple internet content shows your not the government you say you are.

That's the problem right there and the reason for your wire tapping, abusing our use of the telephone connections, internet and meddling in private opinions held different than yours.

The world doesn't know you put radios in human beings and do anything to gain that greater hand over the minds and actions of your citizens. Hitler committed such crimes against the Jews and you do it too.

You control the mass media. Those allied to you fear you and there are those that can afford not to be your allies are yet no better than you. Wrongs don't make right, you and the rest of nations can fool many but not everyone is as dumb as the lot of you. That is your failure, you have destroyed your intellect. Everyone that follows along with your dialog is a liar to themselves and can not create anything new and through that ignorance the social system of that called civilization destroys it's self. The fact of the truth is your insane and bullies and nothing more. Your liars, governments of every nation and every religion on this Earth. Your crimes against humanity is the reason for it's destruction.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Dec 28, 2005 - 10:40 AM

At this point in the game, if you honestly think you are not in a computer database somewhere along with thousands of others then you are just simply living in the past.

I like the NSA for kids site, it has cartoon chars. talking about wiretaps and data mining. Kinda like the old 50's war propaganda.

Score: 0

By zhatka

posted Dec 27, 2005 - 8:46 PM

http://cryptome.org/nsa-ussid18.htm

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

posted Dec 27, 2005 - 6:27 PM

? - is this really something new to you - ?

Ever heard of "Echelon"?

Come on guys and girls - this is going on since the 60s of the last century . . . (smothering a yawn)

Score: 0

By BIL

edited Dec 27, 2005 - 6:25 PM

Extremely Well, if you believe that torture is OK, you really need to move to another country. Our founding fathers based this country in the belief that things like that were entirely wrong. John McCain and even many government agencies will tell you that torture has little intelligence value. If you have never been a prisoner of war, or some similar situation you are looking from the outside as a mere observer without any real understanding of the situation. If you don't understand the importance of civil liberties, then you have no concept of what this nation is or why it was formed in the first place. As some one that gave many years to the defending this country and having been in two wars I would like to think that those principles are worth dieing for. If you are so afraid of dieing that you would give up these rights you do not know just how precious they truely are.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 28, 2005 - 8:12 AM

First, I don't particularly care about what our founding fathers have said, since when they said "all men are created equal", they really meant "all white men, women excluded". What I care about is how this country is functioning right this moment and where it is headed in the next few years (I don't care what'll happen in 200 years).

As for moving to another country, hit ctrl+f and type: why should I -- to see my address to this point.

As for the usefulness of torture - neither you or I are privy to that information. Moral individuals would not use torture if it was not effective, unless they are sadistic (and I already stated numerous times I believe the NSA is ran by Federal/Army/Supreme judges and purple-heart-honorees).

However, even the holiest of men, the Pope himself, if faced with the option of torturing a suspect-terrorist or risking an entire city to be wiped off the face of the planet - would tell you that he would HAVE TO use torture.

So frankly, it doesn't matter whether international law allows torture or not. The assumption for that law is that by torturing one man you may possibly save a few individuals, not thousands of people. Torturing a simple El-Qaida soldier is not the same as torturing Bin Laden/deputies, you see...

Personally I would probably take the law into my own hands and be willing to sit in jail/executed for torturing someone that I KNOW is going to cause massive damage. It's the same thing I'd do if I were Ron Goldman's dad seeing that the criminal system has failed him - I would take the law in my hands, kill OJ Simpson, and happily pay the price for doing so. Anything else to me seems IMMORAL.

Civil liberties are indeed important which is why if the NSA/FBI/president cross the line I'll be the first to resist, if needed forcefully (this country already had a civil war). I simply DO NOT see any liberties hindered by someone knowing who I talk to and about what, but keeping it PRIVATE. When I start seeing people being afraid to discuss these delicate matters on public forums such as this, that's when I'll start fearing my government. At this time they get my 110% support.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 10:28 PM

This issue has already been beaten to death with 185+ comments, but if you haven't seen it, all of you should go watch the movie Good Night, and Good Luck. It's an amazing take on Edward R. Murrow's coverage of McCarthy's red scare and it is disturbingly appropriate to this subject.

In the 1950s we discovered how important our civil liberties are and how quickly they can disappear if we are not careful. Secret judgements and hidden evidence, lack of trials, verdicts based on hearsay and rumor -- these are all things that are upon us once again. No matter what your beliefs or what you think of Bush, you must agree that in order to promote freedom elsewhere, we cannot sacrifice our own freedoms at home (even if you personally feel you have nothng to hide). We need to learn from our history books and the McCarthy era, or else terrorism will become the next communism in the United States.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Dec 27, 2005 - 12:49 PM

Amen, Nate. I think Terrorism has already become the "new Communism". We just need to remind everyone the danger of allowing it to continue to spread.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 27, 2005 - 5:31 AM

This boils down to what I termed earlier in my comments THE STATISTICS OF FAIRNESS AND MORALITY. There is NOTHING we can do to avoid INNOCENT people getting hurt, whichever system you choose. We can, however, minimize the amount of innocent people getting hurt IN the LONG RUN and that would be the MOST FAIR AND MORAL behavior.

How many innocent Americans do you think were SERIOUSLY hurt by the McCarthy witch-hunts? Not talking about them being watched (and as some liberal here said "being surprised to see their names on a watchlist" - being 'surprised' means you WERE NOT HURT ONE BIT), but actually put in jail/killed...

Now if this number is less than ohh 2 million people, who I claim, and fully believe could easily have died in a war with Russia based on the knowledge we had at the time AND HAVE NOW - well then it was WORTH DOING.

Likewise Vietnam - that war WAS WON simply because just like the war in Iraq it accomplished one main point: deterrence. Even if it did not completely stop, it certainly has (in my belief) significantly reduced the expansion of communism in certain areas of the world, and has proved ONCE AGAIN that the USA is not going to be afraid to SACRIFICE ITS BEST in order to be SAFE for their families back home.

So I will repeat my stance although it may annoy you to no end: torturing suspect-terrorists is a MUST (and IS being used since the NSA is beyond criminal+known_federal+military law) even though it may yield to SOME innocents getting tortured. If, let's say, in the 20-year history of using that method its proven to be USELESS and NOT to have saved the same amount of lives as those innocent suspects being tortured, then FINE STOP USING THE TECHNIQUE.

That means, my friend, that I am for the usage of torture in extreme cases where you actually have a pretty good knowledge that this guy in front of you is not "innocent" and by torturing him you will SAVE THOUSANDS OF LIVES.

I am comfortable in my belief that at the apex of the NSA pyramid sit some highly moral individuals - even more than you and me whose morality has not been tested as much as those army/judicial individuals. If they use torture - it's justified. If not - then it's not.

Now go on and continue talking about poor people being "watched" by our government as being the greatest tragedy in mankind's existence...

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Dec 27, 2005 - 12:47 PM

If you're willing to live in a country that forsakes its own rules to keep order and safety, and then you suggest we beat communism in Vietnam by containing it, I think your penchant for safety overshadows what the point was and is. While well written ;) you're glazing over McCarthyism as "not so bad". While there is certainly the idea of safety as a premise for expansion of state powers, the retention of those investigative powers is a hallmark of a police state. In fact, your logic fails specifically on that point. You are saying that it is effectively ok by you to use police-state tactics to prevent danger by another police-state, since police-states are evil.

"Now if this number is less than ohh 2 million people, who I claim, and fully believe could easily have died in a war with Russia based on the knowledge we had at the time AND HAVE NOW - well then it was WORTH DOING."

I think casualties would have been closer to 150 million Americans - like all of us. But that's not the point. Do you act like the Soviets to protect yourself from them? If you think so, I will respectfully disagree with you. But minimizing what our government does when spying on its own citizens is itself tragic. It's not that they shouldn't survey bad guys -- it's that they should GET A F***ING WARRANT. If bad guys are doing the least bit of bad stuff, it cannot be that hard to get a warrant by a court that is built for just the occasion.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 28, 2005 - 10:10 AM

I don't think the NSA is breaking the law. Their laws are (probably) simply higher than the usual civil/criminal laws. Nobody knows how they operate, but my assumption (and hope) is that if they act contradictory to the constitution, it is still within their own ultimate law, dictated to them directly by some kind of a fair mechanism (majority rules in favor of torturing high-profile prisoner X, killing American citizen Y, etc).

If that governing body is composed of high-ranking judges and military personnel (or other loyal experts), it needs NOT get any approval from ANYONE - not the president, not congress, not the constitution, certainly not UN resolutions.

It is perfectly fine to use police-state tactics when necessary, as necessary, for as long as necessary. I'm sure the NSA can prove to whomever is privy to this information that without access to X they would have not prevented would-be attack Y. They can probably also prove had they had access to Z (which they asked for but were denied so to protect privacy of ABC or not to cause public panic/uproar) they could have prevented 9/11. I don't think too many rational folks believe 9/11 could have been prevented by simply "working harder" "being more alert" and the other catchy phrases that mean nothing really in practical terms.

Police-state tactics have worked great in NYC, and cameras mounted on poles in crime-stricken hellholes elsewhere in this country continuously save lives. Myself - after seeing some individuals performing (for all intents and purposes) attempted murders/bike-suicides on the roads, and hearing some (black) persons claiming police brutality (which I never experienced), well I have seriously considered installing a permanent camcorder in my car and pressing charges against some anonymous drivers WITH EVIDENCE (and being prepared for that bad cop). It's called SAVING LIVES. Now my methods may seem radical today, but in 50 years or so would be everyday behavior which would reduce accidents and crime to the closest it could ever get to zero without resorting to capital punishment for shoplifting. ;)

As far as getting warrants - again, you are speaking with the assumption it doesn't get done. Nobody knows what is done and what is not. If the NSA is composed of judges, then clearly you can see that warrants are not needed. And you can't tell how they select who needs to be watched closer. Perhaps those judges pre-approved certain criteria for folks who deserve special monitoring, based on your communications patterns. Say a guy who uses very strong encryption, calling certain cities/businesses, buying certain stuff, donating to certain causes, expressing certain opinions in PRIVATE, etc. You think they shouldn't watch this guy carefully even if 9 out of 10 times he will turn out to be as innocent as a newborn baby? Well I think they SHOULD.

Score: 0

By Dayzed

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 11:36 PM

Nate,
You are absolutely right. Unfortunately, we have no where to stand and be heard anymore. Broadcast news is filled with events favoring the right or left... radio is owned by one or two conglomerates, the internet was bought by media execs. How can we be heard in the age of "free" information?

Score: 0

By Dayzed

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 6:38 PM

Plain and simple... that muppet is nuts, and should be impeached out before he sends someone in to take our cookies or rubber duckies to fight "The War on Terrorism".

Score: 0

By Dayzed

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 6:39 PM

Before you condemn me for the comment.... realize I voted for him. Never in my life have I been more ashamed...

Score: 0

By mike970

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 11:45 AM

I did a quick scan through the replies to this article and saw no reference to a the excesses of the Nixon administration (forgive me if I overlooked such a reference). Back then the enemy was Communism, Vietnam was underway, and frameworks such as FISA did not exist. I remember hearing people saying that wiretaps were okay, that the FBI, et al, had to do whatever was required to keep America safe.

Little did they know that a paranoid administration was watching not only "valid" spies, but also anti-war demonstrators, dissident columnists, and even average citizens. Based in part on these surveillance activities enemies lists were drawn up. Average people were shocked to find their names on those lists for having done nothing more than exercising their rights as Americans.

It would be naive to think that no other administration has engaged in illegal spying. But, did those administrations turn those resources upon its own citizens? We may never know. Given the Bush administration's obsession with secrecy, and its "get even" mentality (see the Plame affair), I'm very concerned that we are seeing a repeat of Nixonian tactics.

As I post this, I'll probably get a knock on my front door... ;-)

Score: 0

By drumcat

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 6:53 AM

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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.'

'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2 (holding that a warrant was not required in part because 'in light of the standardized nature of the tests and the minimal discretion vested in those charged with administering the program, there are virtually no facts for a neutral magistrate to evaluate'). The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed and expanded the principle first enunciated in Skinner, stating that, in some contexts, 'testing based on `suspicion' of [wrongful activity] would not be better, but worse' than suspicionless testing. Acton, 1995 WL 373274, at *8.

Score: 0

By BIL

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 10:31 AM

Yes, this confirms what I have said. They require a court order or warrant, albiet ex parte (only the government appears before the court). They must take it before a judge/magistrate/panel who will make a decision despite the limited data upon which that decision must be made. It does not give permission for the NSA or other federal, state, or local agency to act independantly without due process. Thank you, Drumcat.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 2:08 PM

Yep, and that's what the FISA court is for.

Score: 0

By BIL

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 9:51 PM

Rijp, why do you think that monitoring communications is at the discretion of the government? Legally it is not. This excerpt from SecurityFocus will explain the seriouness of the problem.
"The real problem here is that the cell phone providers have the ability to collect, store, collate and aggregate location data on hundreds of millions of people. These records then become a commodity: subject to use, sale, transfer, subpoena or other discovery. In past cases, the government (with a warrant) has turned on people's On*Star GPS tracking and telephones to track them and listen in on their conversations. Technically, the government isn't "installing" a tracking device on you - it is merely retrieving the records of a tracking device you didn't know you already had. What this means is that Congress needs to step in and establish guidelines for both private, public, law enforcement and intelligence acquisition and use of this passive tracking information."

Mark D. Rasch, J.D., is a former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit, and now serves as Senior Vice President and Chief
Security Counsel at Solutionary Inc.

Article Three of the Constitution defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. At this time cell records are not concidered "witnesses".

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 10:07 PM

I love how you people argue with me. Its not only at the discretion of the government, its written into the constitution. Why do you think you can't sue the government? Because they have everyones best interest at heart?

A cell phone provider is a publicly held company, but they aren't the government, which has the right to do whatever to protect the citizens.

As someone else said "look it up". I am not giving my opinion, its a fact. The government has and will use whatever discretion at their will to protect the country. Its not only the empowerment to do so, it MUST be given to the government to continue to protect the country.

Score: 0

By mehvii

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 1:37 PM

you can sue the govt
ever hear of a "person vs united states" supreme court case? yeh, there's been a few...

Score: 0

By tannman1

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 8:17 AM

So you really think that they have our best interests in heart?? What bridge can I sell you?? They manipulate facts and twist them to justify illegal actions againist it's citizen. Hey look at what Bush did with Iraq and 9/11, no connection but now when people think Iraq they equate 9/11

Score: 0

By BIL

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 11:07 PM

It is easy to say that the government has it at it's discretion and that it is written into the Constitution, but I personally have not seen that and doubt that you can tell us exactly what part of the Constitution specifically permits this. Even the President's legal advisors have been unable to explain what part of the Constitution, it's ammendments, or statutes allowed him to bypass the need for a court order. Without checks and balances you have a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise. Oh yeah, you actually can sue the government and it has been done many times. Just two examples.
http://www.customscorruption.com/potcar.htm http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr072004.html

Score: 0

By rijp

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 9:19 PM

I can see there are a lot of comments, but one thing everyone should be aware of, the CIA, FBI, and Several Federal Organizations have been monitoring communications for YEARS! They are making an announcement in hopes that terrorists will be disuaded from causing trouble or making it easy for them to organize terror.

Communications are NEVER private with respect to the Goverment, it has, will, and ALWAYS will be the discretion of the USA government to monitor our communications, regardless of whatever everyone thinks. They are not looking to spy on your personal or private conversations, they are trying to prevent treason and conspiracy against this country.

They aren't interested in your bank card, SSN, or your mother's bowel movements. They are only interested in preventing crime. Keep in mind, its not YOUR phone. Its only private from OTHER citizens, its never private when you use Public telephone lines. And your HOME phone IS public. Its regulated and controlled by the Fed's.

Score: 0

By tannman1

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 8:24 AM

Thats bull I personaly know 3 people who have had visits from the feds for nothing more then opinions stated in a chat room that was neither a threat to any person nor to this country.,...It's outta control and you neocons who support trampling our constitution spew the battlecry..in the name of freedom...what a croc

Score: 0

By BIL

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 9:17 PM

Bourgeoisdude,
It doesn't matter who did it in the past and got away with it. It is a matter of not ignoring it when the government (or others) breaks the law. We have not heard of any instances when others failed to get the necessary court order. They had the time and the opportunity to get that court order, but apparently did not have enough facts or evidenciary material to make a case for it. They (NSA) simply put themselves above the law and the President condoned them breaking the law by giving the approval. If you have all the time to track down the President, going through his advisors and staff, get his review of it with the and get a signed document, you have time to get a court approval. I don;t believe the court has ever turned down a request yet.

Score: 0

By extremely well

edited Dec 26, 2005 - 5:04 AM

The NSA _IS_ above the law. Have you ever heard of military law? Why is it so difficult for people to comprehend the NSA is ABOVE both criminal/civil and military legal systems. They can KILL citizens anywhere in the world, hopefully even certain Americans (if they need to prove some point, manipulate circumstances, you know spy games, so A will believe B did it so B goes and does it to C).

Score: 0

By The MAZZTer

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 4:50 PM

It's a good thing the NSA is doing this, because clearly any terrorist with half a brain won't bother to encrypt his traffic using special proxy servers. Clearly. </sarcasm>

It's the same story no matter what they try to do. The innocent people lose out and the terrorists, ASSUMING they're worth caring about (car accidents cause far more deaths a year than terrorism), find some way around the new safeguards or just choose another target (we keep our airports locked down, and yet you've all heard the stories about people who've easily bypassed them. Thinking as a terrorist might, I've come up with a couple of ideas that a theoretical group could implement to bypass airport security. As for other targets, many people frequently walk through my local Boston subway station with luggage (and there's no security stuff).

The point I'm trying to make is, we can't stop anyone who is determined enough, and if we try we only hurt ourselves. We need an alternate strategy.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 26, 2005 - 4:55 AM

You are wrong. We can stop over 95% of attempted/planned attacks with very little inconvenience to the average citizen. A person who one day "out of the blue" decides he's gonna do something nasty has to perform many steps first: associate with people, buy materials, make some calls, send some emails...

Even if he is the most careful person in the world he will never be able to truly know if the religious leader he trusts (or whomever) is not on the FBI/NSA's payroll, or just being followed by them. IMing friends in special countries? Seeking information and location to certain materials on google (perhaps in Arabic)? Using very strong encryption that only 0.05% of ordinary folks use (and apparently not to evade taxes or hiding your fetishes)? Tsk tsk.. Raising big red flags and being put on personal surveillance.

There is absolutely no doubt that with more cash spent on security, the higher the chances are for catching this guy before he does any damage.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 1:10 PM

I got here late--and I'm glad. I'm not going to read all the comments in this forum, so don't expect me to. I will say this (having mread the article):

1. NY Times news reports are "murky at best" on good days. No offense to them but they're so full of themselves they could not make a story that wasn't bias if they got a billion dollars for it.

2. Should that be correct, the Clinton Administration did the same thing, and even broadened the surveilence. Don't ask me details--look it up yourself.

3. If you think Bush would willfully start all this "illegal" surveilence, you need to reconsider. This started during the Cold War. Again look it up yourself.

Disagree with me all you want. You're wrong. I ain't no Bush lover either--used to be, but recently not so much. This is not Bush though. I'm outta here. Don't expect replies.

Score: 0

By Progmaker

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 11:27 AM

Wow! :/ Well, I live in the EU, so it's not very important and dangerous for me, but for those, who live in the USA... :/ Well guys, not a very good thing :/

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 1:37 PM

Funny guy. The NSA is designed to primarily spy on YOU!

Score: 0

By BIL

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 9:14 AM

Extremely Well, what hat did you pull the 3/4 of generals or judges out of? The NSA does not ask for a 3/4 majority of anything. You are relying on the judgement of a few top members and information that is slanted which ever way the boss wants it. (They compete for promotions too.) The fact that you don't mind a few people being killed is very sad and I might add very un-American. Have you concidered moving to, say China. where they don't mind breaking laws or killing people to keep the status quo?

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 10:35 AM

Pay no attention to the war pigs who believes illegal spying and torture are okie-dokie as long as it is done in the name of fighting "turra" (aka the War for Haliburton). Most fortunately their facist ideas are not shared by most Americans and there will be investigations into all the crimes that have gone on. Personally I'm very much looking forward to the impeachment.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 10:51 AM

Oh you are going to be so surprised when we find ourselves at war with Iran under a Democrat president within the next few years. Sadly, it is inevitable.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 11:11 AM

No I'm not going to be surprised because if we do go to war it's going to be Bush's doing. Even if a Democrat was elected they'd be dealing with the last 8 years of disaster, and unless you have a crystal ball you don't know who's going to be elected. Besides enough with the stupid party BS. That's one of the things destroying this country. The stupid mouth breathers don't care who they vote for as long as it's their "party".

Score: 0

By Floodland

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 2:34 PM

Boys, unfortunately, Republics and Democrats are the same now. Exactly the same corporations corrupt, erh, sorry, sponsor them. It's doesn't matter who wins, the entities behind them are allways the same. People have to find other alternatives to protect their souls.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 1:46 PM

Well, I for one will be very surprised if the NSA will allow their most favorite president ever (trigger happy, signs off on whatever he's told to, has no clue, extremely hateful of foreigners, loves to spend, still an alcoholic which can be used against him) to get impeached.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 9:39 AM

I was just guestimating of course, based on similar rules for passing laws or amending the constitution. Killing an American would probably similarly require an across-the-border total agreement that it is NECESSARY. And no, I don't mind at all if a few suspect-spies and suspect-terrorists get killed even though they are American. That is what national security means. This is not different one iota from war. These individuals are WORST than the average enemy soldier in your average war... The damage they can do is far greater than what a simple enemy soldier could ever do.

But I'm not that worried. Even if the NSA is FORCED to stop using certain anti-terrorism activities, in NO TIME another HUGE ATTACK will occur that'll sway public opinion to give the NSA even MORE power than what they have today. If people are dumb, well people will have to learn the hard way now won't they?

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 10:01 AM

You're not worried because there will be a huge attack that will scare everyone into giving up their rights? You're not worried? You're looking forward to us being attacked so your government can resume spying on us? That has to be the most retarded statement ever posted in the history of this site. If we all chip in and buy you a one way ticket to China will you please take it and go? That way the government can spy on you and kill citizens all you like; I'm sure you'll be very happy there.

By the way do you really believe this war on terror garbage? If so explain what the h8ll invading Iraq had to do with anything? Why did Bush say he doesn't care where Osama is, that he's not important? How about all the lying that went on to justify invading Iraq and all the flip flopping when those reasons were revealed to be BS. Saddam has WMD's! No wait, we didn't mean that. We are there to deliver democracy! We've always been at war with eurasia!

You're such a sheep.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 10:02 AM

I'm not looking forward for an attack, but rather expecting an attack if the liberals have their way. Hopefully it'll be a relatively minor attack with only a few thousand people dead rather than an entire city wiped out.

Understand one thing, we were very lucky that Bin Ladin was so stupid and didn't wait a few years to buy some juicy WMD from Iraq/Iran/Syria/Libia. Note that 3 of the 4 these days are trembling from US wrath, with one (Libia) admitting full-mouth they've deserted their nuclear ambitions because of Bush's trigger happiness...

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 10:11 AM

Tell me again why we stopped going after Bin Ladin and invaded Iraq again? Why there are thousands of dead American soldiers and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians? What has all that accomplished again? Besides making us the laughing stock of most of the world and making the rest of the world hate us? If we are attacked it will be because of the warmongers going around like we are the world police torturing people and invading soverign nations, not because of any liberals. You admit that Bush is trigger happy yet you seem to support that as any good warmonger would. Let's just bring back the Gestapo while were at it, keep those citizens in line. This is my last reply, spew forth whatever garbage you will.

Seig Heil!

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 10:45 AM

What was accomplished is making sure no sane country in the world would dare finance or otherwise support terrorists. They can hate all they want but EVERYONE loves themselves and their family more than they hate their worst enemy. If we get attacked again you can be certain the solution a vast majority of the population would ask for is going to ANOTHER WAR and MORE WORLD POLICING and MORE SPYING ON "AMERICANS", not opening dialogue with terrorists/deserting military bases.

PS Bin Ladin is dead or being tortured for intel as we speak. He hadn't been making his usual quarter-yearly appearances in quite a while.

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 12:15 PM

"What was accomplished is making sure no sane country in the world would dare finance or otherwise support terrorists."

*cough bullsh*t cough*

"PS Bin Ladin is dead or being tortured for intel as we speak."

Right, because you know all about it. Also there you go with the torture crap again. You should have lived in the middle ages, you would have loved it. Anyway you think if we had Bin Laden that Bush wouldn't be all over the news strutting like a rooster? Try living in reality for a while, you may like it.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 1:13 PM

I cannot disclose my sources, but Usama says hi.

Or was it AAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

hahahahahaha

Score: 0

By kilgore trout

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 10:25 AM

Paraphrasing Ben Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"

Thank God this has been leaked, King George's power grab may be stopped

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 9:19 AM

Ben Franklin also said "fear not death for the sooner we die the longer shall we be immortal."

We should stop all airport security checks and procedures for they hinder our liberty and destroy our privacy by checking the content of our bags. Let us all just pray to the Lord that we die in a suicide attack on that flight so that way we'll get to heaven real-quick.

Luckily, most Americans understand the essential need to monitor those few bad apples in our midst which is why with/without Bush, the spy game will carry on...

Score: 0

By bpm

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 2:57 AM

The problem with "if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is that what the .gov defines as wrong is mutable. Licit acts today become the crimes of tomorrow.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 9:22 AM

I've never heard of a shoplifter who claimed the NSA contributed to his capture...

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 9:56 AM

Do you actually think you would hear about it, or that the shoplifter would know? Besides you seem to have missed his point entirely, but then you're so blinded by unquestioning loyalty it's no wonder.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 10:06 AM

It's called patriotism. Give the guns to the right people and trust them fully to use it AS THEY SEE FIT.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 12:44 AM

I'm reading the comments here and I find it amusing that much debate is about the legality of NSA's activities. Nobody even knows who stands at the very top of the NSA. It could be army generals, it could be Supreme Court judges, but as long as it's not POLITICIANS - I'll be happy.

I don't care if they have their own laws which contradict the constitution at times (say - times of war). My opinion is very clear - if 3/4th of Supre Court judges, or 3/4th of army generals debate among themselves [relying on massive collected evidence] then say that a specific American needs to DIE (not just spied upon) because he is a threat to national security - I have enough trust in them that this guy really does need to die.

No need to hear his "counsel".

Score: 0

By nate

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 2:30 AM

You should just move to Iran then. That's how things work there. A couple of guys decide someone should die, and bullets fly. In fact, that's how Iraq worked, too, and North Korea.

But in the United States we have this thing called the Bill of Rights and freedom. Sorry to disappoint.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 4:09 AM

Why should I move from a country where I TRUST the government to KILL THOSE WHO DESERVES TO DIE to a country where I PERSONALLY COULD BE KILLED FOR NO JUST CAUSE?

Yes, we have slightly more freedom than we need to protect ourselves right now. It's a very known fact to every schoolkid that a GOOD BIG BROTHER is a wonderful thing.

Hopefully the NSA keeps a realll close eye on every frequent mosque "visitor". They'll know that because the exact location of cellphones today is readily available. I bet they have a huge red X on mosques. Mind you, nearly all terrorists were very religious Muslims who did just what I just said (visited mosques MUCH MORE than the average visitor).

Hopefully a few feds wearing some wires and minicameras will take real good shots of all the usual prime suspects for the next would-be attack.

Welcome to reality, my friend. The "little" freedom you have is there because there are folks out there who know the difference between those who deserve to be left alone (folks like you and me) and those "Americans" that MUST be very closely monitored.

BTW Iran is next to be "conquered into democracy". This time it'll be done slightly differently - some "drug dealers" or "mafia figures" or "student terrorists" will start pouring money into that country in order to arm to the teeth those who oppose the Ahmadinejad regime. The Iranian government will know who is the sponsor, who will deny, thus Iran will be the one to strike us first. Naturally, they'll lose very quickly.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 9:00 AM

If you trust any government that decides to kill any of it's own citizens you need serious help. So if they came and told you that someone in your family must die you'd just say ok then and be all fine with it right. You're the very definition of a sheep, the very reason our rights are being trampled on because people like you are so gullible and trusting. The founding fathers would have been SO proud of you...yeah right.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 9:52 AM

Newsflash, my freedom-loving friend... Our government kills every year roughly 60 Americans. Yeah, most of them succeeded in killing one or two folks before they actually got caught, but I guess they're much bigger threat to society in your opinion than, say, an American pilot who is 98% complete with his plan to kill 50,000 people during the Superbowl.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 3:04 AM

Here in Australia we have a constitution (sp?)... I believe America has one to... that governs how the country it run. And Guess what? Spying is illegal.

If you can prove that I'm involved in criminal activities, then sure, monitor all you like. If you can't, you have no right to monitor me.

And if the government can do it, how many hackers can do it? ten, twenty... a hundred? Thousand? In otherwords... my personal information could be all over the net... and the world... by the end of the year.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 9:33 PM

The internet is public. Your ISP is public. The telephone lines between the countries is public. Your home phone is public. You don't own the communications, only the phone that its attached to. Australia, England, France, USA, Canada, they ALL have standing to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect the country. You have NO legal standing with respect to communications, to converse with anyone outside of your home using PUBLIC communications electronics. Its public, because its government controlled, and its not owned by private citizens, its public information. I can get information about you from your phone, very easily.

And if you have nothing to hide, what difference does it make if they listen in or not? We don't have to prove you are criminal, you should conduct yourself in a manner that's consistent with a good little citizen. They aren't listening for EVERY word, or listen in on EVERY communication, they are looking for key phrases and information, and should they have a NEED to further investigate someone, they have WARNED everyone that its going on. That's all this is. They have been monitoring your phone, yes even in Australia, for years. ITs extremely easy to listen in on your call, visit your local Telcom someday. I can walk into any switch room, pick up a receiver, choose the line to listen to, and listen, and that's without high level equipment to record and trigger events.

You can argue all you want, but your phone is not YOURS. Never has been. So you may as well get over it and deal with it.

They have a right to monitor you all they want, and if you are not conducting criminal activities, don't worry about it. What is it doing to you? Nothing, so quit stressing about it.

Hackers are not the government. Hackers are private citizens, but if they did work for an ISP that is unscrupulous, then I suppose they could do the same thing, but they can go to jail for doing it.. The government can and will monitor as they see fit, and until you form your own private phone company, you are subject to monitoring. If you don't want to be watched, monitored, or subject to surveillance, don't leave your house. They have a right to watch you, tape you, record you, follow you.. if they dont' interefere or manipulate you, who cares?

If you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to worry about. Those that have a problem with it have something to hide, its as simple as that.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 2:17 PM

If you read the article, the NSA had to work with backbone networks in order to place the taps at the switch level.

A hacker won't be able to exploit it...

Score: 0

By cryptokrak1

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 10:58 PM

People seriously wake up. If your argument is "I've done nothing wrong...Spy all you want" That's a great attitude to have and I agree so let's just bring everybody back from Iraq and everywhere else, and let's go spray paint the tombstones of every American that has ever died in the name of "freedom" with the words vain cause that's exactly what they died in. Your doing nothing wrong that's terrific good for you, but here's the thing who decides that for you. America is not a dictatorship and being the president or any other person in government does not give you the right to trample on anyone's rights. Most everyone here I'm sure is non-arab-american, probably middle to upper class, majority probably white with some education if of age...And your right the government doesn't want you so have your movie talk, but it's up to you as an American to stand up for those who are the minority because one day they may be searching for someone that fits your profile and I hope their is someone out there that cares enough about calling themselves American and singing "Let freedom ring" that stands up for your rights.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
-Abraham Lincoln

Score: 0

By rijp

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 9:40 PM

Exactly what freedom are they taking away? The freedom from spying? I have news for you, this "spying" is EXACTLY how they afforded you the freedom in the first place. They are protecting your so called freedom by making sure EVERYONE complies with proper conduct, and instead of arguing with the rules of whether or not they have the right to do this or not, you should be volunteering to help to catch terrorists.

They aren't preventing you from walking down the street, going anyplace you like, eating whatever you like, coming and going whenver you want, then exactly what freedom are you losing? What exactly are they doing to YOU?

I don't want to hear "spying is wrong".. Tell me what intereference its causing to your life? Tell me what its keeping you from doing that is so bad? How exactly is listening to a few conversations by monitoring equipment to ensure you aren't plotting an attack on the USA government is taking away your freedom?

They can only use it against you, if you give them something to use. If this is not the case, then don't worry about.

Score: 0

By cryptokrak1

posted Dec 27, 2005 - 1:28 AM

Please tell me your kidding. What freedoms are they taking away? Gee I don't know how about you go back and read the Bill of Rights particularly # 3 and # 6 (Just minimize this window and check google). The government is not your mommy, and instead of sitting at the dinner table eating another huge helping of propaganda pie try thinking for yourself. If you think for one second the governemnt is open and honest about the info they collect, MLK and Malcolm X said they would like to have a word with you. The "freedoms" they are taking away are deciding what you can and cannot say, cause I would think Bin Laden calls his boys on his cell so he can give this weeks orders, yeah the Talaban has the new RAZR.

But seriously go back to google and find one government in history that wasn't given an inch by it's citizens like you that just follow, and ended up taking a mile.

Now go back to bed, and sleep well cause the NSA and your government are on the case nothing to worry about, matter of fact they just got a call from some guy in Pakistan looking for a low grade nuclear weapon, whew cingular they really are raising the bar.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 12:58 AM

Even Albert Einstein admitted he was wrong on some key issues, so I'm definitely not gonna go by slogans/quotes of ANYONE.

9/11 proved that there's no need to worry about things until you need to start worry about them AND THEN WORRY ABOUT THEM UNTIL YOU CAN STOP WORRYING ABOUT THEM. Freedom was fun while it lasted, now it's time to make sure LIFE is preserved by ALL MEANS POSSIBLE. I wish the NSA the best of luck in monitoring every fart of every American.

Only once I PERSONALLY feel they've crossed the line and ABUSED their power by putting "petty-criminals" behind bars will I be against their methods. Not to say you/I can do much if you're against them. A change in president or senate is probably not sufficient... They're most likely as a-political as possible in order to prevent inside abuse, and every major action they take has to be agreed upon by multiple very smart, PROVABLY HONEST (judges, generals), & fair individuals.

Score: 0

By kenjite

edited Dec 27, 2005 - 12:15 PM

Freedom was fun while it lasted, now it's time to make sure LIFE is preserved by ALL MEANS POSSIBLE.
-----------------------
Makes you a sniveling little PUNK.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 3:14 AM

Violance that is delt with violence is not a solution at all.

Earth is at peace, and at peace it should remain.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 4:16 AM

All the sensible nations in the world are actively spending more than HALF of their budget on army/intelligence. The next world war is just around the corner unless the WHOLE WORLD sees that the USA ain't shy about using its power to the max when just one Saudi millionaire thinks he can make them "go away" from "his country" so that he could continue to abuse women, children, and plan on expanding that wonderful way of life to his neighbors.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 9:03 AM

Ah, I see now. You're a Bush War Monger. You really think they have made the world more safe? BS, they've made the world hate us and put us at more risk than any time in history. They can't even catch one man hiding in a cave, but they're going to protect me from turr. Give me a break. I'll keep my civil liberties instead thanks.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 10:17 AM

Well ya know criminals too hate cops, judges, and even ordinary citizens who carry concealed weapons.

Those countries who hate us would continue to hate us REGARDLESS until we all speak Arabic...or send them just a lil' more foreign aid...

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Dec 28, 2005 - 10:44 AM

The whole "agree with us or you are the enemy" thing is pathetic. I hate when I get into a good conversation with someone and they throw that crap in your face.

I wonder if Bush supports ID :P

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Dec 28, 2005 - 12:50 PM

Not sure why this was addressed to me. I don't think liberals are the enemy - I think they are just a naive bunch who live in la la land.

Yeah, it's extremely important for gays to be able to legally have intercourse (major Supreme Court decision of recent years), and hopefully get married (but NOT to adopt children - raise their own biologicals only through insemination of a lesbian couple or something).

But I think it's slightly more important to prevent AS MANY future terrorist attacks as possible while PHYSICALLY hurting as few individuals as possible. Unfortunately, people get used to not being blown up at work, so they feel we can let go on some security measures. And maybe you can! (not enough data to decide.) But I'm not willing to give THAT a try, especially if the NSA can prove (to whomever they need to) that you CANNOT. That means that those hated domestic spying methods can actually be proven as essential for averting attacks. Essential means that without them you would experience an attack.

The alternative of course would be outlawing encryption and forcing every citizen to carry a GPS-enabled device bolted to their ankle. I think I'll go with the NSA compromise...

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 10:40 PM

"The Times says that the American government has been pushing the telecommunications industry to urge international phone companies to route calls through U.S. networks. That way, the NSA can eavesdrop on conversations by simply capturing packets on a switch."

"In addition, with foreign calls being routed through American soil, the Times reports that some judges and law enforcement officials regard eavesdropping on those calls as a possible violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for domestic surveillance."

This is Bush and AMerica trying to rule the world. I vote, NO.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 6:21 PM

OK, I've said all I'm saying on this thread, because it's time to put politics aside and enjoy the holidays.

Merry Christmas to everyone! And if you don't celebrate it, too bad... have a great day anyway! :)

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 7:13 PM

Happy Holidays everyone :-)

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 9:43 PM

Its not a "Holiday" its Christmas!

Christmas, people, Christmas. 77% of this Country (USA) is Christian. Therefore the majority wants Christmas.

Whether you believe in religion or not, Jesus is the reason for the season. Without Christianity there is no "Holiday"

Its Christmas!

Score: 0

By fewt

edited Dec 25, 2005 - 10:27 PM

Who cares if 77% of the country is Christian, that doesn't give them the right to step on anyone elses beliefs.

Happy Holidays rijp. Hope your holiday was as enjoyable as mine. :-)

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 6:12 PM

Well, it's about time someone spied on everyone! Maybe this will get all you flaky dope-smoking file-sharing people to see the light and start being good little citizens, now that you know they are watching. Now go have a glass of flouride and relax.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 7:04 PM

You might have a point, but the information gathered is only being used for one very specific purpose: to uncover terrorist plots.

You'll notice no one has been prosecuted for minor crimes that were discovered from this information.

Score: 0

By Dirrty_Harry

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 5:38 PM

Does anyone care?!?!
unless its some stupid paranoid american that cares if the NSA can hear his "AMAZINGLY PRIVATE" conversations ...

for anyone who just uses these things because they are cheaper than real telephones...
it wont change ur life

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 6:00 PM

Yes, people care. At least those few who are not brain dead idiots. Though I see you're one of those people who type "ur" instead of "your" so I'm not surprised by your lack of support for the rights our founders fought and died for. What are you 12 or something? As for your comment about real telephones as opposed to "these things" I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. This does affect real telephones too by the way, whatever "real" is supposed to mean.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Dec 25, 2005 - 9:47 PM

People only care because they are paranoid. It would have been better if the NSA would have simply done it, and not told you they were doing it, because this is only 1 more step in a situation they have been spying on your conversations for years.

So what does it matter if they listen? What impact does it have on your conversations? You going to quit using the phone? You think they care about your piddly family or problems with your personal life? NO! Are you plotting an attack on American soil? NOW you are getting their attention, you are not a terrorist, get over it.

I think you are brain dead if you think this is new. Its only a method to warn those that think the USA is complacent.

Score: 0

By -Viper-

posted Dec 24, 2005 - 7:03 PM

What do you have to hide? If your doing something illegal then yes this may step on your toes but if your not involved in illegal activity then what's your problem? The court systems today have become slow and clogged. I think the way that the current Administration is proceding while it may not be the best way with our current setting I'd like to see you do something better. I personally would rather the government spy on me and my family then have more attacks kill american citizens. Now if you'd like to base your argument on how a person spells 'ur' or 'your' then obviously you dont have a clue of what your talking about and your just trying to bash someone you dont agree with, my suggestion is you find out why you dont agree. Dont resort to bashing and have an intelligent conversation which it seems alot of people on this site have moved away from.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 7:38 PM

Just because one has nothing to hide doesn't make it ok.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin.

Score: 0

By fewt

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 7:42 PM

By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.
- Benjamin Franklin

Distrust and caution are the parents of security.
- Benjamin Franklin

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 8:10 PM

Difference being my quote was actually in context unless you think illegally spying on US citizens is somehow related to either of those two quotes. If it makes you feel all warm, cozy and protected though by all means enjoy yourself. Say hi to Big Brother for me at the next sheep meeting.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Score: 0

By fewt

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 8:13 PM

Your quote was absolutely out of context. If you are not a terrorist or otherwise a criminal then you have nothing to worry with.

You have lost no liberty unless you intend to harm Americans in which case you deserve none.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Dec 28, 2005 - 10:47 AM

Alright, let's say that everyone is a straight edge and not breaking any laws...

What about that feeling of someone breathing down your neck? That fear of someone watching your every move like a pawn on a chess board...the fear that if you **** up they are going to be there waiting for you and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Dec 24, 2005 - 8:32 PM

No it wasn't out of context at all. To say that it is ok for our civil liberties to be violated and for illegal spying and other activities that violate the constitution are fine and dandy as long as they are protecting us from them scary terrorists is exactly what the quote was talking about. The whole "if you not a criminal you don't need to worry