Domestic Wiretapping on an unprecedented scale

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ May 11 2006, 09:17 AM) [snapback]253517[/snapback]</div>

I don't think the title of this thread correctly reflects what that article is saying. Phone records are being recorded...not the coversations. A wiretap records the call...the NSA is doing number crunching on phone numbers. Big difference. Not that I'm condoning that btw...just to clarify.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ May 11 2006, 12:17 PM) [snapback]253517[/snapback]</div>

I've been reading about this all morning, and while I am totally appalled at this administration for MOST of what they've done in the past six years, this is one that, frankly, doesn't bother me much.

I know, I know...it's a slippery slope from here to other infringements on privacy, etc. I guess I just don't feel I have anything to hide.

Anyone taps my phone, they're going to be bored stiff. And appalled by the amount of take-out I order.

(Except, of course, for those four hour long wet and sweaty calls to the "Studmuffin Hotline.")

 

Aren't you aware that this is no longer true under the Patriot Act? You do read newspapers, don't you?

 

And of course, here's that interpretation thing again. I personally don't consider a tapped phone to be a search. I know--it's subject to interpretation, and others will have a different view.

If someone comes into my house and looks through all my stuff without an invitation, they'd better have a warrant, though.

Thanks for having the Constitution in two threads! You're boosting everyone's knowledge!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ May 11 2006, 12:46 PM) [snapback]253546[/snapback]</div>

I think we should create a NEW document as powerful as the Constitution itself and call it something amongst the lines of:

"The Articles of Interpretation"

Let's DEFINE how exactly items are interpreted in the first place....

 

This is a good reason to carry a prepaid cell phone. Pre-paid with cash.

Nate

 

Sorry Naterprius, but cell phones create even more data on useage. Even when not in use, they can be used to track your location and the route you used to get there. Just cause you used a pre-paid w/ cash means absolutley nothing when you sit in the same location each night. You aren't anonymous, you are being watched!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(unruhly @ May 11 2006, 01:13 PM) [snapback]253569[/snapback]</div>

That's right. That's why I follow Bin Laden's tactics and communicate only by trusted messenger and never use electronic devices --wait a minute!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ May 11 2006, 12:46 PM) [snapback]253546[/snapback]</div>

As was pointed out, this is not about wiretapping, but phone records. AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth turned records of tens of millions of phone calls over to the NSA so that they could build a database of every phone call made in the US. This is different than the warrantless wiretapping conducted by the NSA under authorization of Pres. Bush- this was done without authorization of the FISA courts, and has been shown by legal experts to be a felony. Wiretapping is legal under certain circumstances, but you must have a warrant. If anyone wishes to give the government authorization in advance to tap their own phone, I'm sure there is a provision to do that. I do not give them permission to tap mine.

The legality of the collection of phone records may be subject to debate (the Senate Judiciary Committee is attempting to determine that), but it is certainly troubling, especially since once again, Bush did this with no Congressional oversight. And again, this administration shows no concern for the civil liberties of the American people.

At the least, I am looking for an alternative to Verizon for my phone service.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 11 2006, 02:21 PM) [snapback]253604[/snapback]</div>

Yep. I knew that it was just about the records, but I was offering a pre-emptive opinion about telephones/warrants/etc. I'm really not bothered by this, obviously, either.

And yes, I still personally think the administration is atrocious...this, to me, is just so much the lesser of all their other evils...

Ever try Vonage? I love it. And no, I don't work for them.

 

Many years ago I received a funny/strange phone call;

Patrick?
Yes.
This is Detective ???? of the Fairfield Police. Did you use your credit card to purchase gas in Fairfield [about 45 miles from home] last Tuesday – once in the early morning and then again late in the evening?
Yes.
Do you own an orange VW bug?
Um, yes.
May I ask the purpose of your visit to Fairfield.
Passing through . . . and buying gas. I fly for the Navy Reserve out of Alameda and had a mission that day.
And they can corroborate your story?
Sure . . . and I can also tell you it was butt-freezing cold in Omaha too. Why do you ask?

We are investigating a string of robberies. The station you purchase gas was held up a half-hour after you purchased gas. They then held up a convenience store in Vacaville about an hour later. An orange VW bug was identified as the getaway car in both instances. Coincidently, fifteen minutes after you purchased gas later that evening, the restaurant next door was robbed – but they didn't identify a getaway car.

Am I a suspect?
Noooooo. We are just calling to see if you noticed anything.
Like my orange Bug?
OK, the thought did cross our mind . . . but if your alibi checks, you have nothing to worry about.

[GULP! Glad I had a solid alibi and couldn't be in those two places at the same time. :mellow: ]

Every time you make a purchase with your credit card or ATM, who-what-where-when is recorded. Is that any different than logging phone calls?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ May 11 2006, 02:45 PM) [snapback]253622[/snapback]</div>

I would say that it isn't. In this case, the police were investigating a crime, they had a legitimate reason to examine credit card transactions, and they used (presumably) legal means to obtain them. If the NSA collected all of our credit card transactions, I would say also say that it is wrong.

 

It is not just phones. It is the internet too. And libraries. Did you know that under the Patriot Act, government officials can demand to see patron's library records and if a librarian even tells the patron about it he/she can go to jail? Check out this report by the American Civil Liberties Union.

http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 11 2006, 12:51 PM) [snapback]253552[/snapback]</div>

How do you propose we defend ourselves - or are we entitled to defend ourselves? Do you think that it has been by luck that we have not been attacked since 9/11?

The revelation/publicaiton of the NSA INTERNATIONAL eavesdropping by the NY Times against the expressed spoken wishes of the President should be prosecuted.

Yes, I want the government to do all it can to protect me. I have nothing to hide or fear. I wish Bush was given as much leeway as FDR was granted and other Presidents too - even though FDR expressly broke Supreme Court rulings.

Read the constitution guys and the provisions granted the President during war time or times of threat to our national security - or I guess you guys think we are just ok and would be better off burying our heads in the sand like Clinton did.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 11 2006, 02:53 PM) [snapback]253629[/snapback]</div>

You know, if you're going to quote something like this, get it from the source, like the Patriot Act itself and the appropriate citation. Not some seriously biased vast conspiratorial diatribe... I got like 2 pages into it when the use of the emoticon became warranted....


:mellow:


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 11 2006, 03:02 PM) [snapback]253639[/snapback]</div>

Whoa! Hold your horses there! No one said anything about not be entitled to defend ourselves, Wth???! I'm the one that's GRIPING about the whole gun law and how that amendment has been effectively abolished... What I'm saying is we need some sort of interpretational framework so legal manuevering crap DOESN'T neuter us....

 

/<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 11 2006, 03:02 PM) [snapback]253639[/snapback]</div>

I feel the same way as you about having nothing personally to hide or fear. That's why this story doesn't bother me.

That said, hell yes, I do think it's luck that has prevented a major terrorist attack on our land in the past five years. Before 9/11, the last terrorist attack on American soil was done by an American six years earlier. (McVey). And the one before that was the '93 WTO bombing. I'm not counting the Cole incident...not on American soil. (Even though his lack of response to the Cole bombing was the ONLY thing I think Clinton did incorrectly during his two terms as President.)

So, let's see...eight years between attacks...yeah, Clinton sure did an awful job of protecting us...(tongue in cheek)

We are totally entitled to defend ourselves. And to be offensive if the situation calls for it. And yes, I agree that I want the government to do all it can to protect me, too. I just think you and I have different opinion of what that protection looks like. I think attacking a country that poses no threat is not the way to protect ourselves.

 

"You know, if you're going to quote something like this, get it from the source, like the Patriot Act itself and the appropriate citation. Not some seriously biased vast conspiratorial diatribe.."

I used to like the word diatribe, but it has become seriously shopworn in this forum.
Instead of airing some vague accusations perhaps you could tell me just what part of the report is inaccurate?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 11 2006, 03:25 PM) [snapback]253657[/snapback]</div>

Fine, you win, the report is completely accurate, 9/11 was a massive conspiracy.



Hey, btw Jared, has there been a poll regarding whether or not people believe 9/11 was a conspiracy????

I don't seem to recall one...
h34r: