NSA keeping track of every phone call Americans make

[IglooDame]

From this story today in forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/11/nsa-wiretap-bush_cx_jh_0511NSA.html

Sounds like there may be a national security based exemption to this somewhere doesnt it?

Good article, thanks.

But you'd think that if there was a national security based exemption to this, the NSA or our prospective Director of Central Intelligence would point to it?

Also, you'd think that the NSA would have pointed to it when Qwest had questions about the legality of transferring over all the call records?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

First of all have the decency to not call me a fool.

You're absolutely right, I should have said your argument was foolish; because it is extremely so...

Secondly, phone booths are designed as much to eliminate background noise as provide privacy, but to allege you have a right to privacy simply because the phone company made a phone booth instead of a pedestal is just silly.

Looks like you still haven't got the point!

A phone call is a private conversation between two people. The only difference is distance. The phone company exists to route that call through, not to keep records of calls. The service they provide is routing; that certainly does not give them the right to the knowledge of the content of the call, or that there was a call.

I believe that the expectation of privacy covers the actual content of the call, not necessarily who was called or when. This isnt a medical record. The phone company can turn that stuff over to whoever they wish, its their data, over their network.

They should not be able to. Any more than the Post Office should be able to sell advertisers the names of people and companies you've sent letters to.

PP, you do acknowledge that this current "hot issue" is simply about contact phone numbers and not the content/conversations of the actual phone calls involved?

I certainly do NOT acknowledge any such thing. Bush has lied his ass off about this whole issue. First we were only spying on calls to Saudi Arabia. Then it was only calls by terrorists. Then we find out he's keeping records on 25 million Americans for no reason.

The speech which he gave a couple days ago in which he listed four counterpoints to the story, I take to be only four more lies that he will eventually backpedal on.

Watch the news in the coming months and see if I'm wrong. Here are those four points -

First, our intelligence activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy and we want to know their plans.

Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval.

Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat.

Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates.

The more likely reality is that the NSA is engaged in roaming wiretaps on the calls of millions of ordinary Americans.

I have nothing to back that up. But if I'd told you the content of the USA Today story five days ago, you would have denied that it was possible. What's more, you probably would have said that it would have been illegal.

Of course, now that your President has been caught doing it, you defend it. That's really the character of all you diehard Republicans - you're willing to retroactively defend virtually anything Bush does, no matter how terrible.

 

[CaptainF]

I find this disturbing, and troubling to say the least.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

According to the article, you are incorrect:

Man... the days when a liberal and a moderate conservative/libertarian have to agree to defend civil rights from a Bushie... endtimes are upon us, no doubt

 

[malclave]

Do you really think a sufficiently ruthless incumbent would refrain from culling some really sweet oppo research from that? "Hey Senator Thretomy Relexion! How good was the prostitute you had on the night of the 9th July?"

Whether you're Republican or Democrat, as long as you're not a total fool you've got to be worried about the potential for abuse of power there.

Honestly, I don't think many of the people worried about this really care about the abuse of power. I don't recall this much play when the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee illegally accessed Michael Steele's credit records... which is, IMO, a more serious threat than a database of phone calls.

 

[The Yankee]

Hmmm, I saw a state senator (I forget which) talking about this last night. His take on it was that the actual content of the phone conversations was not recorded or being tracked, but only the phone numbers called by the traced phone in question. Like the itemized statement portion of your phone bill.

So, if all this is, is the government identifying a possible terrorist and tracing all his phone calls to other numbers and then identifying those numbers without monitoring the actual content of the call why is that a big issue? That sort of thing has been done for years and years already.

How exactly would you find out if al-Qaeda is calling you (as the President likes to put it) if all you have are numbers? Without knowing what was in the call, then how does one tell if the person were calling Osama's best friend, or a relative in that country, or looking up cheap places to stay on a business trip?

So in addition to its possible violations of privacy and the FISA law, this would seem to be utterly useless as a defense tool anyway.

 

[Birdjaguar]

National security has always been a shield to hide illegal, unnecessary or corrupt governemnt activity. When they can't or won't tell the truth governments hide behind National Security. This is nothing new.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

In a related story, the fourth amendment surrenders.

 

[Red Stranger]

What's the big deal? It's not like they're listening to your conversations. Does it really bother you to know that the government knows you made a call to grandma on Mother's Day?

 

[eyrei]

What's the big deal? It's not like they're listening to your conversations. Does it really bother you to know that the government knows you made a call to grandma on Mother's Day?

Yes, yes it does. It is quite simply none of their business. If the current executive branch can't 'fight terrorists' without breaching the laws of this country, then we need to find someone who can.

 

[Red Stranger]

How does the government knowing who you called infringe on any of your rights. They're not going to listen to conversation unless your calls look suspicious. The government isn't going to waste any time listening to your chat with your grandma, unless your grandma is a known terrorist leader. But in that case, I (as an American citizen) would be glad they listen in on you.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Red Stranger, what does "right to privacy" mean to you?

 

[Rad Chris]

I laugh everytime someone uses the old "If you've got nothing to hide" argument. Its completly irrelevant because we live in a country based the idea of innocent until proven guilt, habeus corpus, etc. To ask why I'm bothered if I've nothing to hide is to ask the wrong question. The real question is "If I havn't done anything wrong why should I have to prove it".

 

[Xanikk999]

I laugh everytime someone uses the old "If you've got nothing to hide" argument. Its completly irrelevant because we live in a country based the idea of innocent until proven guilt, habeus corpus, etc. To ask why I'm bothered if I've nothing to hide is to ask the wrong question. The real question is "If I havn't done anything wrong why should I have to prove it".

Still it doesnt bother me if they are listening to my calls.

Wether the government has the right to or not i think you people are making a bigger deal out of it then it really is. They arent going to go after you so why do you care?

Privacy is important but if they arent ever going to use any information they get from listening to me to hurt me in anyway what does it matter?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

We care because even if you don't see the need for privacy, we want to keep the right to ours.

 

[CamBot]

Still it doesnt bother me if they are listening to my calls.

Wether the government has the right to or not i think you people are making a bigger deal out of it then it really is. They arent going to go after you so why do you care?

Privacy is important but if they arent ever going to use any information they get from listening to me to hurt me in anyway what does it matter?

Because the fact that you are doing nothing wrong is exactly the time when you should be most vigilant about protecting your civil liberties. Because, when they're eroded to the point that you're powerless over your freedom and inherent right to privacy, then what do you do?

The problem is, the bar keeps getting lowered gradually. And at some point the government's power and intrusiveness, vis a vis the NSA, needs to be reined in, and that time is now, I think.

You can't keeping beating the dead horse of terrorism and fear to justify the gradual infringement of rights and liberties that are guaranteed and codified in the Constitution.

 

[warpus]

How does the government knowing who you called infringe on any of your rights. They're not going to listen to conversation unless your calls look suspicious.

Or unless you look suspicious - ie. are of the wrong ethnic minority.

 

[blackheart]

How does the government knowing who you called infringe on any of your rights. They're not going to listen to conversation unless your calls look suspicious. The government isn't going to waste any time listening to your chat with your grandma, unless your grandma is a known terrorist leader. But in that case, I (as an American citizen) would be glad they listen in on you.

Then you wouldn't mind to give me a full list of everyone you called within the last month. I'm an America citizen and am paranoid and suspect you to be capable of malicious activities against the United States of America. Hand over the information and while we're at it, I think I will set up a camera system to watch your house 24/7.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think everyone who talks on the phone should say "Al quaeda" and "bomb" at least twice in every call. By saying something like "I think al quaeda is based in asia and wants to bomb Americans." we can give the NSA hundreds of millions of new leads to track down and justification for listening to everyday chatter among citizens and a reason to ask for even more money next year.

 

[MobBoss]

A phone call is a private conversation between two people. The only difference is distance. The phone company exists to route that call through, not to keep records of calls. The service they provide is routing; that certainly does not give them the right to the knowledge of the content of the call, or that there was a call.

And once more PP, no one in this situation no one is listening in on your conversation. Of course the phone company exists to keep records - how else would they bill you? They charge for the service they provide and depending on the pattern of how you call you get charged differently. We are not arguing here about the CONTENT of the call...only the number that the call was connected to.

I certainly do NOT acknowledge any such thing

Then perhaps you should read the news a bit more carefully. This data mining operation has NOTHING to do with the actual conversations/content of the calls in question. In fact, no names or addresses were disclosed by the phone companies in question. Sounds to me like you are in denial.

Bush has lied his ass off about this whole issue. First we were only spying on calls to Saudi Arabia. Then it was only calls by terrorists. Then we find out he's keeping records on 25 million Americans for no reason.

The government keeps records on just about every american. In its tax recoreds and social security program....so what if they were data mining for phone patterns? No content, no names and no addresses were given. It would seem you oppose any action by the government to combat terrorism.

I have nothing to back that up.

Bingo.

But if I'd told you the content of the USA Today story five days ago, you would have denied that it was possible. What's more, you probably would have said that it would have been illegal.

Not at all. Its only common sense that phone companies would have this sort of info archived. Heck it comes to me in my bill every month.

Of course, now that your President has been caught doing it, you defend it.

And a good majority of americans support it as well.

That's really the character of all you diehard Republicans - you're willing to retroactively defend virtually anything Bush does, no matter how terrible.

If polls show that a majority of americans support such actions are they all republicans? Nope. Get your head out of the sand - trying to figure out who and where the terrorists are is actually a good thing and something supported by most americans. Opposing each and every action the administration does simply because you dont like Bush isnt making any progress toward that.