We brought this on ourselves when we let that damn Patriot Act pass the first and second time. Back in 2001 some told us crap like this would happen if we did'nt apply check's and balances to this amendent.

Were to blame.

Well, who could oppose something called the Patriot act and not be demonized for being "Unpatriotic"?

Who could stand up when being accused of sacrificing our innocent and defenseless women and children upon the altar of some high-minded ideals that were obsolete anyway?

Who, if they cared about their reputation, could tie the hands of our fearless and noble defenders while they fight the hordes of evil terrorists upon our very shores.

We find ourselves to be hoist on our own petard as it were. Our ideals and compassion used against us to further establish the government's authority over us. Ruby Ridge and Waco (yes I know those folks were a bit nutty) have not taught us much it seems.

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live – did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”

-- George Orwell, 1984

Good book.

Is there a reason you're posting excerpts of it here? (God, I hope you have the author's permission) ;)

What are you? The book police?

Nope. Just here to out flamers and morons. Why, you a flamer or a moron?

So, to everyone on here that disapproves of the NSA "spying" on PUBLIC phone records, answer 1 question.

Just 1.

If you want to comment on this, and you deem it a violation, then you MUST answer this question:

What violation did you get? What freedom did you lose? What liberty have you given up?

Just give me *ONE* freedom that has been violated. I am hearing a lot of b****ing, but I don't have 1 shred of proof.

The way I see it, you can still use your phone, you can call who you want, when you want. So how exactly did you lose your freedom? Help me understand.

{Devil's Advocate}

If a government wants, it can make *anything* legal.

I don't want anyone responding with various laws. They come and go. rijp is looking for specific violationf of freedoms and right granted to you by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

There also seems to be an off-shoot discussion about

any power not specifically granted in those documents is to be deemed *not* granted.

While this is debateable, we're not in a 'normal' system right now. We're at war. No, not the "War on Terrorism" as mentioned below. but the war in Iraq.

Now... The NSA thing, and the Iraq thing have little, if anything to do with eachother, so I suppose we could look at it from both perspectives (we're at war / not at war).

I'll be the first to admit, this is a sticky issue and everyone here is right to question it.

I've stated my feelings regard the legality of the NSA's actions. I believe they are legal under the countries current circumstances. I will *not* entertain "what if" statements about how this information may or may not be used as such things are mere speculation.

This isn't blind support of the Gov. I, and I hope you as well, will keep a close eye on how this plays out. If the information begins to "leak" or be used against this countries legal citizens, I will be, as I am sure you will be, outraged.

But voicing that outrage now, IMO, is putting the cart before the horse.

I MUST answer nothing. You impose an artificial and overly simplistic standard to stating an opinion, and so doing reveal the standards by which you judge public policy - that of "how does it affect me personally...right now". That is a very shortsighted view. The same thinking says that if I have have driven drunk 3 times with no ill effects...it must therefore be perfectly safe and anyone who disagrees with me is just a scaremonger asking what if questions. Any stories about what has happened to people in the past when driving drunk must be pulled out of context and largely irrelevant (maybe they were bad drivers, etc...)and so can be ignored (just like those who ignore how these events mirror others in history that preceded tyranny).

I used a simplistic example to suit your simplistic ultimatim and only respond becuase of your last sentence. I do want to help you understand that just because nothing bad has happened does not mean it will not. That does not mean it will but it is at least an open question worthy of discussion.

When one can point to a specific harm in a case like this, it is far, far too late to do anything about it peacefully.

Fine then I dont' want to hear about ANY violation of your privacy, since you MUST not answer anything. Then you MUST not have a damn problem, and you MUST not have a valid point to arguing over the NSA decision.

So, we won't hear from you any more on this subject.

Is the whole post DA or just the opening?

Not sure if I am discussing this with myself.

I disagree that a war footing changes anything in relation to the rights of free Americans. If we have rights they are Absolute and not subject to any outside condition. Otherwise a government can manufacture any conditions necessary to set aside those rights.

As for the timing of voicing outrage. I think the time to voice it is when we find out that the government is ignoring the law, not just when the consequences become more dire...as i mentioned to another poster...it is far to late at that point.

I am trying but I don't see any coherent point there.

Your turn to help me. Just what is it you are saying. Feel free to use small words as I am a bit slow today.

About the DA thing...it starts off that way...and then kinda trails into my personal little rant...

Otherwise a government can manufacture any conditions necessary to set aside those rights.

What if? We'll deal with it then. (Cart before the horse issue again)

I think the time to voice it is when we find out that the government is ignoring the law

...as you and I have both agreed upon, the *law* can change like the wind. It's our rights and freedoms that do not.

..and I continue to assert that none of our rights or freedoms were violated by the actions of the NSA *in this instance*.

When one can point to a specific harm in a case like this, it is far, far too late to do anything about it peacefully.

That's where I disagree. That is *exactly* where the Courts step in. It's the whole idea behind Checks and Balances.

The Gov tests their boundaries, someone takes a step, it goes to the SC, and they affirm where, exactly, the boundaries lie.

The "Harm" in this case, would likely be someone tried using information gathered by the NSA, or by information gathered being leaked to the public.

History is rife (that means packed) with examples of governments manufacturing crises in order to grab power it could not ordinarily get away with. By the time it becomes obvious that it is a problem (the deal with it then mindset) it is much too late.

The fact that the law changes does not in any way release the government from the duty to obey it. Currently the law does limit what the government can do. In many cases this lines up with our inherent rights.

If the government can sieze access to private records with no warrant or justification other than some overall threat of terrorism than why can't they seize all of our other records as well? If you are OK with these records, are there any that you would have a problem with? If so, why? And why could they not just sieze those with the same justification as these? After all, they are just records, if you have done nothing wrong, why worry? The need to show direct harm before insisting that our rights be respected is s***ing the burden to the people and not the government. They can always find a way to lawyer away any harm we can show. It devolves into an emotional argument of harm and not a black and white analysis of whether the government has in fact broken the law. You don't see criminals getting off (well not all that much) because the state did not prove that their crime met some threshold of harm. They are convicted because they broke the law. The only burden that is there is to prove that it has in fact occurred.

I say this to keep the topic centered where it should be. Not, am I personally injured because of this but rather has my government broken the law or violated the constitution is the question.

History is rife (that means packed)

Thanks. I'm not an idiot.

with examples of governments manufacturing crises in order to grab power it could not ordinarily get away with. By the time it becomes obvious that it is a problem (the deal with it then mindset) it is much too late.

Governements...not the USA. At least, not in recent memory. Some of us like to think we improve with age. ;)

If the government can sieze access to private records

Not private. You keep saying that. Your conversations are private. They aren't gathering those. Just the numbers.

They can always find a way to lawyer away any harm we can show. It devolves into an emotional argument of harm and not a black and white analysis of whether the government has in fact broken the law.

Has it? You ask us not to speak of laws, but of rights and freedoms, but even you come back to this...

Not, am I personally injured because of this but rather has my government broken the law or violated the constitution is the question.

I've never claimed to support this simply due to lack of personal effect. I think you are confusing me with rijp.

You also seem to be jumping between wether or not you want to dscuss right/freedoms, or laws.

Comes down to a simple point:

No articles of the constitution have been violated.

No Amendments to the Constitution have been violated.

No laws have been broken.

All that's left is emotion. Unless you *are* arguing that specific rights, freedoms, or laws have been broken here. If so, lemme see 'em. Because if it's true, I am sorely mistaken and *need* to be corrected.

I;m not trying to harass you, I am simply trying to understand you logic. Though I fear we are devolving into the same dance we got into last time.

Freedom is Slavery

War is Peace

That is a VERY dangerous argument - it's equivalent to saying "lets wait until the bridge collapses and people have died and THEN we'll look into bridge safety". Sadly this is something that happens far too much in the United States.

--->What if? We'll deal with it then. (Cart before the horse issue again)

I will deal with the points in order so we can stay on the same page:
1. Your welcome - thought you would like that.
2. If you think that just because we live in the US it can't happen to us, you are in a fantasy world - humans have not changed at all.
3. They are private because they are not public - I know this sounds like a circular argument but we all know that certain documents and information are public. For example, if you are arrested, that is a public record. Public records are the only ones about me that the government has access to without a warrant or a specific law otherwise. A record of my phone calls maintained by the phone company is a private record. It belongs to that company and there is an expectation of privacy in the agreement between me and that company. I know that they should not sell it to advertisers (the call records) just as I know that they should not turn it over to the government without a warrant. Another poster in a previous thread posted a good link to the appropriate law protecting us from the govmt grabbing private records and telecommunications info. I don't remember it, but i don't need to. The fact is that since no authority has given the government that right...they lack it. And lacking it, if they act anyway, they are over-reaching their authority and extending the power of the government without law. That is not only unconstitutional it is dangerous. It is unconstitutional because it is prohibited specifically. It is dangerous because where does it stop?

4. I talk of laws and rights and constitution. I apologize if I hop around a bit. I get to write in short snatches of time so I do get disorganized. I don't know of any specific statute that is broken in particulars. There most likely is, but I cannot quote it to you other than that mentioned in 3, of which i lack the link (one of the Telecommunications acts). The lack of a law preventing an action really has no bearing on whether that action violates the constitution however. If no-one has envisioned the possibility of the government doing wholesale data mining on telecom databases and so have made no law does not make it right. I have an expectation of privacy in terms of the information I exchange with private companies (this between me and them). Whether this is the medication I buy at the pharmacy, the books I read, my purchases at Walmart, the checks I write (bank statement), the IP addresses I visit, or my phone records. It is a violation of the due process provision of the bill or rights for the government to access my private (as opposed to public) records unless I am an object in a criminal investigation and have obtained a warrant. That does not mean that they can have it as long as they dont' come in my house. We all leave behind us records as we lawfully conduct our lives. The government is only permitted to collect that information which is considered public record. Any other info requires a warrant. That is pretty clear is it not. The fact that abuse of this is rampant and unpunished makes it no less true.

5. Sorry for the confusion.

The Rest:
Yes, been jumping around, sorry.

Articles broken: don't see it.
Ammendments Broken: Yes, due process (4th I think)
Laws: Not sure, but there should be.

Yes you are sorely mistaken...and need to be corrected...you have been a very naughty Tool and need a spanking...
Wait, wrong forum, sorry.

As for dance, I am a lousy dancer so you may be disappointed there.

If you think that just because we live in the US it can't happen to us, you are in a fantasy world - humans have not changed at all.

It is your low opinion of humans then that steers your arguments, rather than basis of fact(evolution). Understood. Helps to know where you're coming from. ;)

They are private because they are not public

They are still private, in the sense that you mean it. (POTS is a public, government regulated network, but that's beside the point). None of the info is disclosed to the public. (Thus, not being made public, is still private)

Articles broken: don't see it.
Ammendments Broken: Yes, due process (4th I think)
Laws: Not sure, but there should be.

Due Process?

You have been mislead, or are slightly off in your interpretation. let me explain:

The 4th Amendment protects those under Criminal Investigation *ONLY* from unreasonable Search and Seizure. It does *not* prevent any government agency from doing so in the name of National Security.

As a matter of fact, it actually *PREVENTS* them from using said information, once gathered, against you.

In other words, it is still protecting you in *exactly* the way it was intended, but is useless as an argument against teh NSA simply gathering it. It only prevents them from using it to convict you.

The two aren't comparable.

The NSA having records of phone numbers is not even close in terms of safety risk. We're talking data, not public works, here.

Bad analogy.

So, to everyone who approves of the NSA watching your phone calls for suspicious activity, just answer 1 question.

Just 1.

Where do you draw the line? When do you say enough is enough? What happens when they start listening to the actual call, instead of just looking at the numbers? Have you ever dialed a wrong number? Have you ever received a call from someone who misdialed? Do you know who it was, or who might be watching that person, who might now think you are somehow connected to them? Do you want everything you say on the phone, in every email and text message, dumped into a database to be scrutinized for possible illegal activity? Would that really give you a sense of safety, knowing the government is watching for any and all potentially subversive behavior?

That really is just one question. :)

What happens when they start listening to the actual call, instead of just looking at the numbers?

Hmmm....

One is illegal.

One is not.

Well, I draw the line at illegal. Apparently you, among others, draw it well before then.

Do you know who it was, or who might be watching that person, who might now think you are somehow connected to them?

No, but then, I'm also not a paranoid schizo. :)

Do you want everything you say on the phone, in every email and text message, dumped into a database to be scrutinized for possible illegal activity?

No, because our 4th Amendment rights protects us from them being able to use any data gathered to criminally prosecute me. Knowledge of the law is power. I'm not afraid of them because I know what keeps them in check. You, apparently, do not.

Would that really give you a sense of safety, knowing the government is watching for any and all potentially subversive behavior?

No. But what does give me a sense of safety is that they are using all possible avenues within the scope of the law to track down and hopefully prevent terrorism within our borders.

I suppose that's more than one answer, but then, you asked. ;)

Actually I have a fairly high opinion of humans value. I never said anything other than they have not changed. We all have the nature of the tyrant in us if allowed enough unfettered power. It is just a fact and being in the US does not change that. You read too much into things sometimes.

As for POTS (plain old telephone system). I think you refer to the PSTN (public switched telephone network). This is the collective term that refers to the worlds telecommunication networks. Much like the Internet is the worlds IP networks. In this country the PSTN consists of all of the carriers networks. These networks are owned by companies which are in turn owned by the stockholders of those companies. It can be said that I own a piece of the PSTN if I own AT&T stock (sorry bad joke that). That the government regulates these industries confers no rights to the information traveling on them or information about my use of them. The government regulates the construction industry yet they cannot search my house without a warrant.

I stand by my due process statments. I was not misled. I read the text and I understand english.
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.

There are no limitations to this in the Constitution and no law is valid that would abridge constitutionally protected rights. There is nothing in there that discusses the motive or purpose of the search. There is no out clause for national security. Indeed it can be said that the National security interest is served by preventing the government from violating this. There is also no mention of prosecution. It is the act of gathering the information that violates my rights.

As for interpretation, you must beware of interpreting the constitution in such a way as to limit its application to narrow circumstances. There lies incrementalism into slavery to a tyrant.

Many would say that the word unreasonable gives the government license to do as they please if they enter into some legal gymnastics with the word, but there is no way that a sane person can consider trolling for terrorist in my phone bill reasonable. There is no hint that I am involved in that. There is no reason.

The 4th amendment is intended to protect people and not property, so my rights under it are not limited to specific locations or propterty. It is rather anything in which I have an interest in maintaining my privacy and a right and expectation of that privacy. A personal transaction with a company falls under that even if the records about me are held by the third party. That is how your hospital records are currently protected...or are they?

Edit: I thought of something else frightening. With the billing data from my cell phone you can track my activities (physical location) anywhere in this country. This would really be useful to the government in fighting terror but I don't want them to have it unless they have a warrant.

Perhaps you are interpreting something else to get this Criminal investigation only angle.

Perhaps you are interpreting something else to get this Criminal investigation only angle.

It is the only situation in which case law has seen fit to apply it. I cannot honestly name one case where it has been seen to apply outside of criminal proceedings.

The only time it's ever been used, to my knowledge, is to prevent prosecution based on information obtained without proper warrants.

I've never seen it used to stop data collection, only to prevent said information from incriminating folsks. I suppose that doesn't mean it cannot be used outside of that 'narrow interpretaition', but I think we'd be hamstringing our government.

I truely believe the only protection we need of our data is in the denial of their ability to use it to incriminate us or to diseminate the data to the public.

We limit what they can do with it, and use thier expertise to protect our interests within our borders. I don't honestly see our limiting of their access as being productive in any way. I also don't see how it benefits us *not* to allow it to be gathered...so long as those protections in the 4th Amendment remain in place.

"One is illegal."

Right now.

"One is not."

Right now.

You do understand, being as intelligent as you are, that the purpose of the Patriot Act is to change the status of certain surveillance techniques from illegal to legal. You, among others, seem to willfully forget that our laws are written on paper, not etched in stone. After the next terrorist attack, when Congress grants the Executive Branch the power to monitor our actual phone calls without warrant, will you come back here and say you think it's okay because it's legal? Saying you "draw the line at illegal" is essentially the same as saying you draw the line wherever the line has already been drawn. Bold stance indeed. How about you answer the actual question and say what surveillance techniques you are uncomfortable with, if any.

If you believe in the idea behind the 4th Amendment, the idea that the government can't investigate someone without a specific reason to believe that that particular person or organization is involved in something illegal, anything that runs contrary to that idea should give you cause for concern. That's IF you really believe that idea.

"No, because our 4th Amendment rights protects us from them being able to use any data gathered to criminally prosecute me. Knowledge of the law is power. I'm not afraid of them because I know what keeps them in check. You, apparently, do not."

You, apparently, do not understand the purpose of the 4th Amendment. The purpose of the 4th Amendment is not just to give you legal standing in case the government violates your privacy and tries to put you in jail afterward. That's like saying the purpose of the 1st Amendment is to protect you after the police have arrested you for speaking your mind on a public street corner. No, the purpose is to PREVENT the police from arresting you at all. The 1st Amendment protects you ON THE STREET CORNER. If the police could arrest anyone for speaking out, even if they are immediately released the moment they say "1st Amendment" at the police station, how many people would speak out? Just like the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to give you the right to get your guns back after the government takes them away. The purpose is to keep them from taking your guns.

The purpose of the 4th Amendment is, and I'll say this in big letters not to yell but just to make it clear,

TO PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM VIOLATING YOUR PRIVACY.

The 1st Amendment was written to give citizens the SENSE that they could say and believe what they wish without fear of government reprisal. This sense allows our society, full of crazy people and ideas, to flourish. This thread is a perfect example: If the government were to take any action that would instill even the slightest fear that we could face consequences for anything we write here, the 1st Amendment will have been violated.

Likewise, the purpose of the 4th Amendment is to give us the sense that our privacy is being respected. Once your privacy has been violated, the damage is done. In this case, the damage is slight. So what if the government has a list of every number I dial and everyone that dials me? All I have to do is make sure that nobody involved in anything shady ever calls me or anyone I have regular conversations with. ;)

Knowledge of the law is power? How about knowledge of why a law even exists. Google "Writ of Assistance" if you want some background on the 4th Amendment.

Do you think the founding fathers wrote these amendments thinking it was okay for the government to violate them when they deem it necessary, so long as you don't go to jail as a result? Are you that simple? Those brilliantly courageous men and women who fought the Revolution gave their lives to give us the chance to construct a government that DOES NOT VIOLATE OUR RIGHTS. In your quest for supreme and ultimate safety from terrorists, you're essentially taking the position that the violation is okay, as long as it makes your death less likely.

Supreme and ultimate irony.

The unwillingness to consider and analyse the consequences of such things is perhaps the most dangerous position to take. Too many bad things have happened simply through inaction on the part of individuals.

--->I will *not* entertain "what if" statements about how this information may or may not be used as such things are mere speculation.

The analogy was not specifically about safety risk - the analogy was about the notion of waiting until something bad happens BEFORE doing anything about it. "Bad" means anything that has undesirable consequences, whether it be physical safety or invasion of privacy, etc.

Well put.

I will actually take it a bit further. The Bill of rights was not intended to be an actual definition of our rights. If that were the case then anything not prohibited by the government by these ammendments was therefore ok. They were actually put there as a dummy check. A further bulwark against a government taking powers for itself that it has no constitutional mandate for. So they must be interpreted broadly and by all means in the context in which they were written. That the framers did not orginally include it means that they thought it was so obvious that any thinking person would know that of course the government could not do these things. The second ammendment almost was not written because it was so obvious to them all that of course all should be armed. After all, how could they follow the other portions of the constitution and maintain a militia (consisting of all free men between approximately 16-60 unless exempted) that was intended to protect us. The army and navy are actually referred to in the sense of being formed as needed, not as permanent fixtures of government. We have indeed strayed far.

The framers invested power in the people not in the government. Unless specifically delegated and for a purpose all power is denied the government. We have indeed lost sight of that and are selling our birthright in exchange for a false sense of security.

How dangerous are these terrorists? Really...If we pulled out troops out from all of the world and focused just on our own defense (after all the Constitution makes no mention of the common Offense does it?). In generations of attacks they could not significantly harm this country. Do you see them biting off a chunk of the east coast anytime soon. Are they loading troopships and sabotaging our infrastructure. Even during WW2 when there actually were sabatuers from Germany and Japan in this country did we give up our rights (well except for rounding up americans that looked Japanese - real brilliant that eh?) and those nations actually had invasion plans for us if they had gotten that far. Really all they are is gangs of criminals with access to modern weapons. They can be dealt with as such. It does not require us to give up our liberty just to be protected from a handful of maniacs (handful compared to the US). The constitution gives only Congress the power to wage (declare) war and that on a country. That has not happened in this case. I find my position on this issue s***ing the more I learn.

Even the war on terror is a falacy. Terrorism is a behavior not a country. We are at war with a behavior. What is next, the war on over-eating? The war on Smoking? After all, those things kill more Americans than terrorists.

Here is a link for further reading:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin28.htm

I think I understand your thinking. You are seeking balance between security and liberty by letting the government have more power than they are allowed so long as they don't misuse it. Unfortunately, you leave to them to define what that misuse is, because the government is the one that interprets the law (see Judicial Supremacy).

Perhaps you would change your mind if you were arrested and questioned and held without charge (after all, they cannot use this against you) while they look for something that they can use. Possibly they find nothing, but in the name of terrorism under the new laws they can hold you for quite some time. What happens to your family, your job, your reputation, your friends as they come under scrutiny. They do not have to convict you to do real and permanent harm to you and your family. Even the threat of such treatment will have a chilling effect on dissenters and law abiding men. Remember what happened to the security guard who was initially suspect in the Olympics bombing. His life will never be the same. It is not in the nature of people not to use the information they have. Perhaps you relish the chance to defend yourself in court. I do not, I would rather not be there at all.

The 4th Amendment protects those under Criminal Investigation *ONLY* from unreasonable Search and Seizure. It does *not* prevent any government agency from doing so in the name of National Security.

As a matter of fact, it actually *PREVENTS* them from using said information, once gathered, against you.

In other words, it is still protecting you in *exactly* the way it was intended, but is useless as an argument against teh NSA simply gathering it. It only prevents them from using it to convict you.

This thread is probably dead, but I want to get this on the record: You have a grossly distorted view of the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment protects EVERYONE, not just the targets of investigations.

If you're walking down the street and a cop wants to search your pockets, he needs probable cause to do so. Why? The 4th Amendment. You, the random citizen, are protected from this unreasonable search. This protection is intended to give you a sense of freedom as you go about your day. It makes life better; people are happier knowing they can't be searched without cause. The minute the cops can scream "National Security" to justify any particular search, those good feelings go away, and we live under just a little more tyranny than before.

Freedom means freedom FROM tyranny, not freedom to get out of jail once tyranny has affected you personally.

Just saw this on a CNN article:
The government argued in briefs that the courts cannot decide the constitutionality of the president's asserted wartime powers to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants.

This about sums up what our current administration thinks of our rights. They hold that the courts have no power to stop them. The ignore the law, so they hold that the Congress has no power over them. In that case, they must consider themselves to be the sole arbiter of what is right. Not sure about you, but that sounds a bit scary.

Here is the article:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/...s.wiretap.ap/index.html

More proof...

President Bush thinks he's King.

Elections are inconveniences. Trifles to be ignored when not in his favor.

He's started a war with no end. This "War on Terror" will now be his excuse to gain any powers he feels he needs, to trample and rights, and curtail any freedoms he feels might get in his way.

The Courts can no longer stop him. The checks and balances put in place by the founding fathers have been removed. There is no oversight, no accountability. No-one can stop him.

Mark my words, this will end in blood. He will not step down. He will not relinquish his power. Our "democratic" elections are history. This country is no longer the representative democracy it was intended to be.

It is now firmly under the thumb of King Bush.

Kiss Lady Liberty good-bye. We took her for granted for far too long, and now she's gone for good.

I read this and think to myself, "Is it a little over-the-top?"

I wish it were, my friends. I wish it were...

*President Bush thinks he's King. *

Appointed BY the people, to BE the LEADER of the FREE world.

Appointed BY the people

Not to play DA, again, but..

...what people? It's highly debateable wether or not he actually won popular support in *either* election.

As far as Bush, goes, I gotta side againt him. I hate the guy. I think he's a complete nincompoop, and cannot *wait* until he's booted out of office.

Never voted for him, never would. I don't disagree with some of the things he has done, but I vehemently disagree with the *way* in which he has gone about it.

There's no republican / democrat slant here. My feelings about Bush do not concern agenda or affiliation. He's simply a horribly *Human*, in my opinion, regardless of party.

My first thought about this was, WTF is wrong with people? Why would you care if the NSA is listening to your phone calls unless you really ARE a terrorist or hooligan of some sort otherwise? THEN I thought to myself....hmm....if God forbid I get tied up in something some day (I mean, you never know, life is unpredictable) and I'm someplace at the wrong time and I see something that I shouldn't have and I go under some witness protection program - that hey, if someone crooked got the right amount of money I'd be as dead as a mouse under the wheel of an Escalade. So now I'm really torn.
On one hand I like that steps are taken by agencies to protect America and her freedom and safety.....on the other hand, SO many out there are crooked and evil that the same tools used to protect us can just as easily be used to hurt us. In other words, I'm totally on the fence on this one.
(Maybe I watch too much Alias and 24?)

Very thoughtful post.

It is true that the group who's rights are trampled today may not be you or may not affect you. There will most likely come a time when You are in that group. If you have stood by and let it happen.

I risk Godwins law by mentioning this but in the 1930's in Germany, many people were distressed by what occurred there. The "night of Broken Glass" pogrom was disturbing, but it was not them that were being chased into the street and herded up so they stood by. It was another goup of people so they remained silent. Pretty soon though it was their group, when the list expanded to include many others that had stood by and watched. I know that this is not a direct parallel, but the principal is valid. What is now done to others may eventually be done to you if you sit idly by and allow it.

You are taking a long view here and that is commendable. Even your doubt is commendable. I am much too jaded and cynical to fencesit on this one.

On a lighter note...

Alias Series Finale sucked.

Way to put the final stone on the grave of a series that *started* out great and then just sucked more and more each season.

Jerks.

The basic problem here is a slippery-slope argument. What we (and by we I mean people opposed to the collection of numbers) are afraid of is the government mis-using the information they allocate. No, I don't regularly chat with Al-Queda members... but today's reason for this data mining is terrorism. One author in this forum indentified 9/11 as a "probable cause" for the NSA to conduct this data collection. Not really. 9/11 was a tragic event - but it's time for America to move on. We cannot continue to blame terrorism, and use terrorism as an excuse to encroach upon civil liberties.

What about tomorrow? How about when the issue isn't terrorism, but something else? I think a fair number of us have seen V for Vendetta; a classic example of what happens when the government starts controlling its people. And that's what of myself and others are afraid: President Bush and his supporters using 9/11 and terrorism as an excuse to gather personal information to later exploit people, whether in the name of terrorism or not.

The solution here isn't to collect tons of IP addresses and phone numbers, and then spend hundreds of thousands of man hours sifting through calls and websites. In fact, I'm not sure what the solution is - or even if there is one. A bit off-topic, but I think this whole terrorism thing is over factors (religion, personal egos and agendas, history, etc) we as individuals, and perhaps individual nations, cannot control.

Whatever the solution may be, I don't agree with my phone records being provided with the government. When it comes right down to it, I don't like the idea that I have to watch what I say or do every minute of the day.

I work for a company that makes products for the purpose of collecting data from VLAN to MPLS traffic across the board. Each packet is recorded, with all information intact, including host and destination sources. I can in fact find out when, where, and who you have spoken to, chatted with, or even what webpage’s you have visited and all information implied, and what you have done with them. This technology is not cheap, and that’s for a reason because it is employed by most major telecoms, and companies that like to record all network traffic in the most verbose way possible.

I tell this forum this information because coming from my perspective, that information is deadly. From the first instant you connected to the internet, to the last second has likely been recorded, logged, and archived by those companies that control the major pipelines of the internet. You cannot type one word in anonymity on the web, and that is the information that may or may not have been shared with the NSA. Most telecommunications are done over VoIP and other protocols, the same protocols used to deliver the web, and all data transfer; this is your information.

One person posted that if you don’t like it move to China. You may not need to soon.

Ok quit it, now you are scaring me.

I will say this. That if all traffic is being recorded and not just trending and pattern data, this database(s) will be growing by Terabytes per day. It will be unmanageable and useless in days. That said, there is nothing that says they cannot focus in a little closer and capture useful data or just set low retention times and flush it as it comes in with a delay so they can grab some when they want.

An example of why this stuff is too big to store is in VOIP. A typical voip packet is about 60bytes (RTP G.729, 20ms payload). Out of that, 40bytes is header info and only 20 is actual voice. You can see how just storing the header data is going to get HUGE. If you clip it to just the VLAN to MPLS layer stuff then you can cut it down but that is still a bunch of data. Data is expensive to store. Companies will typically only store large amounts of data if it useful. I just don't see them taking that kind of effort outside of dedicated trending, forecasting, or troubleshooting activities.

Those of us who live in fear of the black helicopters know that unfortunately, the telco's don't have to store it. They pass it directly to the NSA in those secret rooms that were installed in the POPs for the TIA project. There it is fed to comatose autistic children who can predict future crimes...oh sorry, that was a movie, wrong forum.

Seriously though, you have a good point. There is a next logical (for the govermnent) step and that is to start combing through all of this data on who is doing what.

Do I hear a helicopter outside my window?

Ever hear of frame slicing?

Nope, that is a new one on me. I believe you, I just don't know that it is practical to store all that data for very long. Not to say that there is not a HUGE potential for abuse here however. The feds would love to have this data, and most of them would have good motives. Let's be honest, the people in the NSA, HS, CIA, etc... are for the most part good folks. They want to stop the bad guys before they blow up more people. The problem is that they are too close to the situation to understand the long term implications of them pushing the envelope. Those that come behind them may not be so high minded.

There are two things I find common in just about every "forum" I visit:

1. People who complain the loudest are the quietest when it comes to providing a solution

2. People in "forums" have a serious mistrust of our government

Regarding #1 - My dad had an analogy about a dog who sits on a thistle and whines and yelps until somebody comes by and gets him off of it. I think that applies here as well.

Regarding #2 - There are things about every administration that I don't like. It is impossible to please everybody. I greatly respect the office of the president, even if the man is not my favorite. I just so happen to be impressed with Bush, and I admire him greatly. That said, even if Clinton or somebody like him were president now, I would still feel the same way about this issue. The government needs freedom too!

We demand the government to protect us, yet we give them no authority or ability to do it. We blame them for failing to properly respond to disaster, and we demand them to tell us why, yet we do not accept the answer when it comes back - "Well, to answer your question, we could not get to the proper intelligence because, quite frankly, you don't allow us to gather it. Sorry."

There are people in this country who would kill us for no other reason than they hate everything we stand for and we demand the government to protect us, yet when we find out that they are keeping records of which phone numbers called which other phone numbers, we cry "Illegal Wire Tapping!"

But I suppose I should not be surprised. We live in an age where it is OK to put a Crucifix in a jar of urine and call it "art" and tell women that the only reason they have any power in society is because they can choose to kill their children. It's no wonder that when somebody tries to look at patterns of calls to see if somebody is trying to kill us, we scream "INVASION OF PRIVACY" - we have given the inmates the keys to the prison!

I wonder what the outcry would be if somebody planned to kill your family and they could have been stopped but the proper paper trail was blocked because of "rights to privacy". You'd better believe AT&T would get sued for that too.

And speaking of suing, I need another $150K - does anybody know if Burger King is paying out for spilling scalding coffee on myself? Oh, I forgot, everybody is making coffee at 60 degrees now so we CAN'T burn ourselves. Maybe I should click on one of the sidebar ads on this page right now - they'll be different from what you see, but tey are:

"Ripped Off? Take Action."
"Trasylol Lawsuit Needs?"
"Identity Theft Pritection"
"Law Suit"
"Class Action Law Suit"

America...what a country!

Jeff.

Absolutely right. I mean, what's the big deal about the government knowing who I call? I'm not a terrorist, so I have nothing to worry about. And most people who cry about this don't think about the fact that this information can and probably is being used to stop normal everyday crime as well.

I'll do you one further - let's record the actual calls. Create a new agency; let's call it the Department of Communications Security. Combine a bank of a couple hundred thousand government "operators" with a massive supercomputer that sifts through each and every call in the country while feeding suspicious ones to the operators. The operators listen in, and if they need to call the cops, great, if not, that's great too. Just think about how much crime would be stopped. Sure, the VAST majority of calls will be perfectly benign, but those people have nothing to worry about, just like me.

Think about it - at least 200,000 new jobs and nearly total phone security. What's that you say? Criminals will use other means to communicate? No problem, this model works fine for email, IM, TM, and whatever M we come up with. The only thing it wouldn't work for is snail mail, but that's on it's way out anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem to quietly outlaw personal snail mail and just allow business related mail from now on.

That would take care of the communications aspect of criminal activity, but what about the activity itself? Pretty simple if you ask me - cameras! This will take another new agency with quite a bit more manpower than the Communications one, but I'm sure it's doable. Here's how it works: Everyone in the country has multiple security cameras installed in their homes (the place where most crimes occur). No, it's not possible to watch everyone all the time, but we can watch a few hundred thousand. Nobody knows which cameras are active (they're all checked periodically to make sure they haven't been tampered with), so nobody knows whether it's safe to commit a crime. Violla! Crime rates plummet!

Of course, nothing can stop crime altogether. That's just a dream, so I would propose that, for those who remain intent on committing crimes, penalties be increased by at least a factor of 10. For instance, embezzlement that might have gotten you 10 years will now get you 100. I say that's fair; you get food, water, and shelter, and that's more than a lot of people have these days. The Death Penalty should be applied to many more crimes than just murder and treason. Child molestation, rape of all forms, and pretty much anything that results in someone's death, be it accidental or whatever. We could even experiment with applying it to petty crimes. Think of how many people would stop jaywalking if the penalty was death!

I know what the hippie bleeding hearts are saying:

"THE PEOPLE WHO FOUNDED THIS COUNTRY GAVE THEIR LIVES SO THAT WE COULD LIVE OURS FREE FROM AN ALL-POWERFUL GOVERNMENT!!! EVERY TIME YOU ACCEPT AN INCREMENTAL STEP TOWARD TOTALITARIANISM, YOU SPIT ON THEIR GRAVES. THEY GOT SHOT, HANGED, BEHEADED, AND OTHERWISE TORTURED TO DEATH BECAUSE THEY SAW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY IS GIVEN TOO MUCH POWER. SO THEY DECIDED TO FIGHT AGAINST IT, TO GIVE THEIR LIVES, AND TO GIVE US SOMETHING, AN INCREDIBLE GIFT WE DON'T DESERVE, SOMETHING WE BLITHELY CALL LIBERTY."

To that I say:

Whatever. Cya at Camp Patriot.

I agree with some of what you say, but the cynicism does not help. I think I provided enough of that earlier. I also outlined a clear (I thought) and compelling (convinced me) set of arguments why this is not just a case of crying wolf and is indeed an improper and dangerous precedent to set and also what a good alternative would be that provides the tools needed without handing the keys to our freedom away.

That there are lawsuit-happy people and greedy unscrupulous lawyers out there is no reason to fear doing the right thing (questioning the government ans asking that they prove the need for and the right to look at this info).

I do demand some protection from the government from foreign states. I also served to provide it. It would be nice if they started at the borders...at least we are making progress there.

From what I have seen and heard it is seldom not having the intelligence that gets us...it is not understanding or acting on that which we do have. I just don't understand how having access to one of the largest databases in the world is going to help much when they ignore/botch what we have. That is not to say that progress is not being made. They are getting better and communicating and acting but there is far to go. Sowing distrust among the very ones you are charged to protect is not a real smooth play though.

I too admire Bush. He is villified and does the right thing anyway...most of the time. I am even with him on that whole Iraq thing, bummer he is getting burned by it because Syria and Iran decided to run covert guerrilla war against Iraq and the Great Satan. I am not pleased with him allowing his folks to spy on us. I don't like the warrantless wiretaps on international calls and I don't like them having my phone bill. They don't need it and should not have it. Especially when it is for a "war on terror" that has no foreseeable end and can fight domestic "terror" as well. How thin the line between those who would talk about removing the government and those that act. The defense of freedom has always been difficult. It is a balancing act between control and liberty. It is imperative that we all be able to discuss it. In order to discuss it we need to know about it that is difficult when things are conducted in secret. There are times for secrecy and issues for which it is vital. This is not one of those.

You are too kind. Jaywalking should most definitely be punished by having your toes gnaw'd off by hungry rats, your eyes burned out and then impalement on a dull stake.

Yeah whenever I like to rob someone with a gun sure, I call my mom first, she tells me it is wrong, but I do it anyway. Sometimes I wait for the police to show up in a quite dark corner just to see them scramble around looking like tards. Jrizznit, how can you type that many stupid ideas into a computer, read them, and post?

Problem with human beings taking things away from each other is that they rarely give them back, who gives power back to someone these days or ever in history with out an internal struggle that results in many people losing their life. Do you think 50 years from now you would want to live with the result of what has happened in the last 15 years?

Do you actually think that this is all new and that they have been playing by the rules this whole time? 911 just made easier knowing that they had the power to push anything through at this time, they gave themselves a window to remove all the rights they wanted, and we sit by and take it. You want a solution for this; stop using everything related to technology, not practical?

Let us invent something that stops the violation of civil liberties we have plenty of eager young programmers out in the world, what if the encrypted data was filled with words that slowed down the filtering rate? Then every email would look like a terrorist email, maybe with enough noise it would take years for them to sift through it all, maybe I or we should say a terrorist word every time we talk to someone on a cell phone waiting with a television crew around 24/7 so they can watch us get dragged into a bottomless black hole, I am under estimating, let's hope, what if 50,000 people were arrested on suspected terrorist activities mostly 12 year old kids that downloaded this terror spam maker? It would at least give us a taste of the future.

Some context for my opinions, I make video games for a living no college education, self-taught, and very lucky to have a dream job that I love. This last eight years have left me with the feeling that the dream of what this country stood for is gone, and I sure hate the idea that France has more freedom than the good old USA. I know if wanted our rights back we could do it. They did it before you can beat "the man" if we put our collective thoughts / efforts together, I am sick of sitting by, and just taking it. I watch almost 50% of my paycheck every two weeks go to the Uncle Fed, and State taxes so that I can pay for them to take away my rights, enough is enough already.

If you never hear from me again, they probally read this post, and did me in.

"We demand the government to protect us"

who will protect us from the government tho?

The people who founded this country gave their lives so that we could live ours free from an all-powerful government!!! Every time you accept an incremental step toward totalitarianism, you spit on their graves. They got shot, hanged, beheaded, and otherwise tortured to death because they saw what happens when any government entity is given too much power. So they decided to fight against it, to give their lives, and to give us something, an incredible gift we don't deserve, something we blithely call liberty.

Please read this again.

Did you write this or copy it?

I like it and all but I was just wondering. It is interesting to look at history and see what happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I think they knew it would happen and did it anyway.

As it was designed by the founding fathers, that would be the Supreme Court, and the People (via Representative Election).

But you knew this, right?

Phil Zimmerman with Zfone and PGP, and me with my 2nd amendment rights.

I wrote it. It's what I really think. The garbage I wrote before it was to illustrate how easily people can get into a destructive thought pattern. I'm sure there are many who read that garbage and thought hell yes. But they think that because they don't understand what it is to live in a police state. I don't understand either, but I know I don't want to.

Hmm

Possibility of Nuclear Winter in the US, *OR* a list of phone calls in a data warehouse indexed and cross referenced.

Sorry y'all, I gotta side with the government on this one.

Anyone that thinks this is a violation of privacy can move to China.

Nuclear winter?

Do you even know what that is? Perhaps you simply retreat to hyperbole when facts and reason are inconvenient.

The threat of a nuclear terrorist attack on the US is real (the threat of a nuclear exchange so large as to cause nuclear winter is quite small however). So is the threat of throwing away our liberties. One of those is a certainty of disaster, the other is merely a risk.

Yeah yeah, it was an exaggeration. So what, the point is still valid.

The fact is that we lost how many thousands of people when the planes hit? Oh right it's not possible for it to happen again LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA.

'nuff said

I have asked this before with no good answer. What is the threshold of risk that makes it ok to lay aside our rights?

Is it to protect 1 person, maybe 10? Perhaps it has to be in order to protect thousands. Maybe Millions have to be at risk of violent death in order to make it ok to let the govermnent do whatever it wants in order to protect us.

Of course it is possible...that is not even close to the point. The point is that I and some other feel that the cure an be worse than the disease. The goverment has not laid out a clear case for the need and benefit for this data. They just did it...secretly. Yes, yes, I know we can't warn them and all, but really, you think they are just calling each other here? YOu think they are stupid? They are already using high encryption. They are already using electronic means to pass messages. They are way beyond calling Abib on the phone and telling him the bomb is ready, come on by and pick it up.

I just don't see the need/benefit here for Anti-terror when they are botching the job with all the other stuff they already have.

"What is the threshold of risk that makes it ok to lay aside our rights?"

I've asked this before:

What right is being violated here?

My right not to be subject to illegal search and seizure. By obtaining records about who I am communicating with without a warrant, they are violating the law. Why this is not universally accepted and acted upon just baffles me (well ok baffling me is not ALL that hard).

What is the difference between this and a warrantless grab of all the websites I visit from my home PC? You can imagine that this is next if they have not already got it.

""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.""

A telephone list of calls is not unreasonable.

Well now we seem to have a disagreement about whether telephone records are protected.

I say they are, becuase they are records of my free exercise of my rights. They are records about me. That is the key there. If nothing in Law or Constitution gives the government a specific power they do not have it. That is the way it works. It always fails safe to the side of the people and not to the government. Just becuase the law or constitution make no specific mention of it does not mean that the right does not exist. The same is not true of Government powers. They hold no power over us except that which is explicitly held forth in law or constitution.

The framers did not find a constitution. They did not just make this stuff up. They simply recognized that which is and did their best to codify it. They understood that when they wrote down certain rights on a peice of paper they did not cause these things to come into being suddenly and completely. Just the same, if they failed to write one down it did not cease to exist. It is the fundamental thinking upon which our law is based. The people need show no law or writing to prove that they have a right...it simply is. So I do not have to prove that I have a right to privacy even including my phone bill (which is a private contract for services between me and phone company, not a public document at all). It is the government that has to prove that I don't...they have not done that.

Now if only I can convice others to agree with me about the Right to Free Beer!

Right to Free Beer!

Now you're talking about something I can get behind and support.

Openly, Loudly, and Drunkenly!

Wired rules.

FOR THE PEOPLE!

BY THE PEOPLE!

Now what?

You've got it backwards...

It's, "By the People, For the People".

Sheesh...

You go Wired, I am so reffering to your story on my blog!!!

It's true that you cannot yell "fire" in a theatre. You also cannot publish troop movements, or broadcast them. You cannot use your freedom of speech or press to endanger individuals. But in this case, it's different. Publishing this doesn't endanger anyone. The Bush Administration just throws out "national security" and "9/11" every chance they get to protect their own misdeeds. the media has the right, and some say the duty, to expose criminal activities in the government. this NSA deal looks criminal. of course to prove its criminality, it takes investigating. the NSA is against being investigated at all. the justice department had to stop their investigation into the domestic spying programs because the investigators (government workers for the judicial branch of the government) were denied access based on secuirty.

it's out of control. there is a seperation of powers so that one branch can police the others, and one branch is denying the powers of both legislative and judicial branches. by deduction you see the executive branch is doing this.

the world thinks there are two religious extremists in the world more dangerous than all the others. One is the President of Iran. The other is the President of the USA. One is looking for nuclear power, and the other is threating use of nuclear bombs if the first proceeds with their pursuit. it's ridiculously scary to see your own country terrorizing the world in the name of fighting terror.

Wow!!! You really need to travel the world and experience more. Reading your post gives me the impression that you are living in the bubble (aka Truman Show). While I do not agree with many of the Bush Administration policies, I find it histarical that you would refer to the President of Iran and the President of the USA as terrorist. Per my suggestion above... travel the world... please.... go to Iran.... I think your eyes will open and your views will change.

Correction: One is apparently seeking nuclear weapons and threatening another state, and one has declined to remove any option from the table should diplomatic options fail. It's the old Teddy Roosevelt method of speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.

In any case, far more work is going into conventional options, however; the Massive Ordinance Penetrator is envisioned as a family of weapons delivered by the B-2 and capable of delivering a powerful explosive charge through as much as 60m of reinforced concrete barrier. Work on this began in earnest a couple of years ago, while the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (the nuclear 'bunker buster') has been essentially scrapped since the Air Force didn't believe it would perform its intended role and Congress cut all DoD funding for the project.

Looks like I better get out the good old two soup cans and a string.

Those were the days...

He added that the government would track calls made by reporters as part of any investigation, noting that the First Amendment right of a free press is not absolute when it comes to national security.

This is exactly that is wrong with this picture. The databases of the telco's have become just another crime fighting tool in the govermnents arsenal. How ironic, that they threaten to use the information questionably obtained in chasing those who would bring word of that happening to the public. It seems that we question the government at our own risk.

Edit: Here is a link to an article that sums up what is wrong with this. It is put far more eloquently than I can (privacy is inherent in liberty).
http://www.wired.com/new...6-0.html?tw=wn_index_23
and another that defines privacy (at least what our state department thinks of it):
http://usinfo.state.gov/...bs/rightsof/privacy.htm

Out of morbid curiosity:

Who guaranteed your phone would be private? Where is it written? What laws were specifically put in place to protect your privacy over POTS lines?

...or is it just that you feel entitled to something you never really had simply because it seems to be the latest thing to winge on about?

Not trying to flame. I'd really like to know where people got this idea. Seems to me like a social assumption based on nothing but fear of Big Borther™.

"Who guaranteed your phone would be private?"

The United States Congress

"Where is it written? What laws were specifically put in place to protect your privacy over POTS lines?"

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 119. Specifically, see Section 2511:
http://www4.law.cornell....8_00002511----000-.html

The origins of current caselaw stem from the Due process provisions in the Bill of Rights. It was beleived that because a conversation between two persons (especially if one is in their home but not exclusively) was considered private if they had an expectation of privacy (The copper lines for phones are owned by private companies and are obtained for use by paying the phone companies) that interception of recording of that conversation constituted an illegal search. Of course there are provisions to allow these to happen with warrants but then...oh my gosh...the government actually has to present a reason. Right now the quickest way to get a tap approved is to put Terrorism in the justification. They are not turning these down.

Most importantly (and your strict constructionist underwear are showing) the 9th amendment says:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This combined with the fact that it has been demonstrated that Due Process (of which a "right" to privacy is part) is essential to the maintenance of most other Liberties. Privacy is about drawing limits to what the government can know or what parts of your life upon which they can impose their will. You should never feel that just because you are not currently a criminal, you are safe to allow the government carte blanche to whatever data they want.

I have heard it said that 9/11 gives the govermnent more reason to intrude in our lives. I disagree. I think that what happened is a tragedy, but we are under no less or no more threat as Americans that we were before then. Unless that constitutes probable cause to suspect ALL Americans of a crime. I would say that is casting the net a bit far and strays from what the law is. The patriot act was a bad piece of law and needs to be repealed. It has already been proven that the government already had all the data they needed to stop this but they were incompetant. Why do we think that it will help to give them more?

Decisions about fundamental rights should not be made emotionally. As much as we hurt of fear we should be dispassionate when it comes to the discussion of Rights. They exist independent of any specific event. The world changes quickly. We may find out that soon we have burned down the house to keep the termites away.

I hold (in my person both collectively and individually) the right to be free of govermnent intrusion into my life except as narrowly defined in the Constitution and Law of the US. Rights are held by the people and the government exists at our sufferage. No right, however inconsequential should gbe given up in order to protect a political entity (which is what the US is). Yes I know that we are protecting women and children, but if that were our only concern we have bigger fish to fry. Car accidents kill more than terrorism. Perhaps our energy is better spent there.

Which of your rights does a list of numbers you've called violate?

Here's a reference point incase you haven't read it lately. - http://usinfo.state.gov/...ts/funddocs/billeng.htm

Oh, and looky looky (from your link)

"(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as authorized by that Act."

Did some reading on this stuff and got a little smarter. The reason that the Bill of Rights was added later is that the framers of the Constitution did not even think it was needed at first. They thought that any reasonable person should know what the rights of man were and would (when in power) protect these rights.

Thomas Jefferson (then ambassador to France) knew humans a bit better and told them in so many words that they had better write them down in order for them to be protected. Because it was not possible at the time to listen to a conversation without being in the house with them (or at the window) it would not occur to discuss much about privacy. They had already covered that...right?

all in all I think these are good discussions and I do learn much through them. I may not sound like it but I do keep my mind open enough to accept new input as I post.

What is foreign about my phone bill?

Seems harmless doesn't it. Just a list of everyone you talk to using a phone. This is just about like a list of IP addresses of sites you visit. Now they will know you like midgets...not a crime...yet (don't worry if you don't understand, midgets aren't for everyone).

Perhaps you don't mind if they have a peek at your medical insurance billing records while they are at it. After all, you have nothing to hide. And they are looking for radiation injuries that someone making a bomb would have. Hmmm a quick look at your DNA genome shows a propensity for violence...probably should be locked up for your own protection.

Boy, I sure see how your phone record compares to your geonome.

Actually it is a good comparison. Both are records about you held by private companies. Both should be protected and currently are by law...or should be. And both could be said to be quite useful in ferreting out criminals/terrorists (not sure how the phone bills would help, but there you go).

Tell me how you can identify a terrorist from DNA patterns and / where the data is currently being held by "private companies" and I *may* consider your point as valid.

Until then it's just another attempt to make something out of nothing.

OH s***> CHECKMATE!!!

as for making something out of nothing...nope. I am not the first to think of how useful DNA data is. The insurance companies are already salivating.

Valid point that they don't currently hold your complete genome (too expensive at present to decode and hold the whole thing so they hold very few and those just for specific parts). As for how it could be useful, once they have enough of them they can cross reference them with criminal records and terrorist files to identify patterns that make it more likely for you to become associated with extremest or fringe organizations. The information is there, it just has to be refined enough. Now they can catch that ecoterrorist becuase they are looking at Vegans a little closer or something like that.

What gets me is how they can find a terrorist by looking at my phone bills. IF they are looking for specific numbers why don't they just get the bills for those numbers, and then all the numbers they called or were called by and so on. And no crap about time. The providers can give them a database login so they can get it the same way. They would just have to get the judge to ok it every time they jump to a new phone bill. Maybe slow it down a fraction and it keeps them in the law.

I'd be more worried about the local Walmart's data collection or the companies that "save" your credit card number than a list of phone numbers.

Seriously.

I am with you on that, but by doing business with them you give them some implied permission to do this. The government gets none and should not. They hold far more power than Wallmart, or microsoft (ok maybe not MS).

I don't do business with Walmart.

Doing business with any company does not grant permission for my personal information to be stored unless I explicitly permit it.

The key term is "reasonable". Searching your house for your phone bill is unreasonable. Getting a list of numbers that millions of people called, that's reasonable.

In my opinion.

Well then we have distilled this down to where we part ways. At least you are civil, thanks for that.

:-)

all we need is 1 or two scientists that profess, "we believe that in theroy, after we have succeeded in mapping the human genome, that certain aspects of that genome can, possibly be attributed to violent and irrational behaviour. it is because of this that we are currently working on the technology that will idfentify these possible markers and give the potential parents the choice to abort if they are found"... that will open the door to the people to say, well, if they can id those then lets test suspected terrorists for the markers and see whats what.... i see mass internment of people who are suspected of being a terrorist, due to the massive lines and wait times to run the test... executions etc... then several tyears go by and those same scientists say, "wow, we were slightly in error, it was actually this other genome.... the one we been identifying is the one that is responsible for free thinkers. LOL

that interception of recording of that conversation constituted an illegal search

They are not intercepted or recorded.

:)

just sayin'.

Interesting.

So perhaps a case *could* be made against the *recording* of conversations over POTS lines.

But this *only* has to do with the contents of the discussion taking place, not the numbers or times associated with them.

Sorry. No good. Still no proof the NSA has violated any rights here.

Both should be protected and currently are by law...or should be.

Point!

One is. And one isn't.

If we're getting into "should" or "shouldn't", then we're off topic.

Many folks want it to be illegal. It isn't.

I understand the reasoning behind why folks would *like* it to be illegal, but they need to face the reality that it is not, nor has it ever been.

-sigh-

Here we go again.

People, just let it go! NSA, government. They have your info, if they need it, they aren't looking to sell it.

I'm sure my "info" is really safe. If our Government has spies within it stealing and selling classified documents about nuclear weapons and advanced weapon systems to China, why shouldn't I be concerned about someone trying to make a quick buck selling our info?

NSA and the gov. may have our info, but it's a question of how they use that info and who they give it to that im worried about. even if im not too worried about the gov. knowing who i call personally, the basic information of who called who and when is enough for the gov. to assume they know stuff they dont and tap random people on the mere suspition of who they've called in the past month.

This is called "missing the point." Why are people so utterly ignorant of the Bill of Rights, which are a fundamental part of the U.S. Constitution?

The Fourth Amendment states: "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."

Obviously there is considerable case law where the courts have interpreted the implications of the Fourth Amendment in the nuances of real life contexts, but it's extremely sad to see that U.S. citizens are so ignorant of the Fourth Amendment, and take our rights so lightly that they see nothing wrong with the people in government doing whatever they feel like doing against the rights of citizens.

The idiots are on the loose again!!! They will never see the light and let it go!

Yeah, come on guys, you should trust the government. They would never do anything wrong...

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.

I don't see phone lines listed there. Nor do I see public utilities.

And what the hell does "search and seizure" have to do with privacy?

For that matter, what does this NSA bit have to do with privacy??

Obviously, you can cut and paste...it's reading and comprehending you seem to have trouble with.

maybe that is because we trust our government

LOL! That just made my day...

Not to mention the part that says "...against unreasonable searches and seizures...". Who decides what is "reasonable" and what isn't? Oh yeah--that would be the government, no?

"maybe that is because we trust our government"

That is the worst thing anyone can do is to stop questioning the government.

The Gov?

Nope. I'll leave that to the Court, thanks.

:)

They're there to keep the Feds in line, after all....kinda their job. It's that whole "Checks and Balances" thing.

To stop questioning: Bad.

To distrust and malign without proof or just cause: Equally bad, if not worse.

Nobody can ever be perfect. (well, I heard about this one guy...*way* back in the day...)

Aside from being human, and prone to errors of judgement, what Mighty Wrongs have been done to you to make you so dis-trustful?

If you were President, although I am sure you'd *never* lie to get your way, you'd be perfect, no?

I am *not* a fan of Bush. But I'm not about to condemn the entire United States of America for one president.

I think a dog sniffing your crotch would make your day, bud.

Yeah, you missed a part in there:

*but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation*

9/11 was probable cause! Or did you forget what happened almost 5 years ago?

They aren't singling you out. They are SEARCHING ALL *PUBLIC*, LET me make that clear, a phone is *NOT* Private, its a *PUBLIC* utility, did you read that little disclaimer when you AGREE to phone service there? Maybe you should quote that on here...

They are searching *PUBLIC* phone records for incongruencies.

If you aren't calling the al-quaida, what's the damn problem?

WE aren't ignorant, *YOU* obviously aren't comprehending. They are trying to find more terrorists, or is that too difficult to understand?

You can question your boss at work? Can you question every time they want to pass a law you don't agree with? This is why we don't get stuff done. People are appointed (which is why you vote) to positions to make the decisions for you, on your behalf in your BEST interest. You are paranoid.

You can question your boss and everyone around you everytime, I'd like to see just how long you would last in a job. Questioning is just like not trusting their judgement, you got a problem with it, there are plenty of other places you can visit and become a citizen of.

Why is it unreasonable? What was unreasonable that 2500 + people died in a chicken s*** event, that knocked 2 buildings down, that was unreasonable. I suppose its ok to just pretend it was a 1 time even, huh? It can never happen again? Is that what I am reading?

seizure: 1 a : the act, action, or process of seizing : the state of being seized b : the taking possession of person or property by legal process.

what EXACTLY did they take of YOURS? Are you prohobited from using the phone? Are you prohibited from contacting people on your address book? Are you in prison or jail? are you prevented from coming and going?

Then, what exactly did they SEIZE?

Why are you lashing at me? Did you read my post? I emphasized the word unreasonable to point out that even if the Amendment did specifically include phone records, it cannot be stated that this "clearly violates" the Fourth Amendment. The question is: IS it reasonable for the Government to collect this data? I believe it is personally, but some do not--hence the argument. If the argument was truly about facts, there would be no argument. The problem here is that "reason" uses point of view--and everyone seems to have a different point of view on this issue.

OMFG LOL

"9/11 was probable cause! Or did you forget what happened almost 5 years ago?"

9/11 is NOT probable cause... to use that ius to imply that every single person living in the usa is responsible for what our governemnt themselves did... I am so freaking tired of the party line terrorist bs... wake up people... our own governemtn did 9/11... several of the "terrorists" who were on those planes have since been seen years later alive and well... there is proof out there showing how bush and the government actually instigated this terrible thing in an effort to do exactly what happened, tyo give themselves total power to do anything they want... flag me if you want you blind as bats but there will be more to replace me as the evidence is all over the net free for anyone who cares to look for answers rather than buying the lies they are told.... do a search on your favorite search engine, in quotes, "the truth about 9/11"

I couldn't agree more. I too think it is a reasonable idea to look for terrorists by any means necessary. The government can assume an aweful lot based on very minimal data, and to have them bust down your door in your neighborhood or come to your work to talk to you could be devistating. What happens to the data after it is sifted through?

The problem is that you give an inch and they take a mile. Look at what Gonzalez told the press core the other day regarding the fact that it is within the legal right of the gov't to wiretap and trace phonecalls of reporters who write stories about leaks. I believe the quote went something like "the right to privacy is not absolute when it comes to national security". Seems to me we'd be better served by rooting out and eliminating the source of leaks and not the reporters of the leaks. Or maybe if there weren't absolutely shady practices and policies to leak, there wouldn't be a problem.

First they, the government, said it was only looking at international call. Then we find out they are mining domestic calls. "they" say they are only looking at phone numbers and duration of some 10mil records. How long will it be before we find out they are looking at content.

Sure, I'm no terrorist, so I have nothing to fear. It's just the fact that 'they' can use the war on terror blanket to go ahead and do what they want, when they want, and to whom they want and not heed the checks and balance system that is in place.

So the government is mining some 10mil+ phone records of law abiding Americans looking for someone talking to some of the 50k al-queda terrorists worldwide. With the data the government has said they are using from these records, how can they use it to fight terrorism? Sure, 'X' phone number called 'X' phone number for 10 minutes. And one of them is a suspected terrorist number. Keep in mind they are not looking at cell numbers. Do they think we are stupid? Do they think the terrorists are? Sure, they are not looking at content, BS!

How long will it be before they start using that data to find criminals. Domestic criminals. Drug dealers, child molesters, drunk drivers, insurance scammers, and bank robbers. Big Brother is watching and he is now listening.

The question is not if you are paranoid, but if you are paranoid enough.

We cannot allow the government to trample our rights, ANY rights, by using fear to intimidate the public.

Maybe it's entirely irrelevant, what they're doing to 'us'. Maybe that's not it at all. Maybe what in fact is happening is that all the wiretapping is only a cover for surveillance on Congress. Maybe W is getting the dirt on every Senator and Representative he can in order to control both houses, as he has by staffing the judiciary. He (or the NSA, or Secret Service) uses the information obtained to blackmail the results he wants from Congress, or prosecute anyone who disagrees. Pretty scary huh? Well, here's the point. NO ONE CAN PROVE THAT'S NOT HAPPENING BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS SECRET! Surveillance like that could be used for any number of nefarious reasons, which is why it isn't allowed.

Ignorance is Strength