Domestic Surveilance Part 2
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2006-05-16 7:24 AM |
Giver 18427 | Subject: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 USA Today article last week detailed an enormous NSA database of the domestic call records tens of millions of US citizens, assembled with the help of some major telecom companies. In January, when the first domestic spying program was revealed, the Bush administration attemted to placate us by saying the program only involved calls placed from international locals or to international locals. It vehemently denied that it involved calls placed within the US to locations within the US. So now there's this. First of all, this is also probably illegal. But also, and to me more importantly, it's just another example how Mr. Bush and his administration will just flat out lie to us at the drop of a hat. Obvisously, I'm not surprised. But what else is out there that we don't know about? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-12-data-gathering_x.htm |
|
2006-05-16 7:35 AM in reply to: #424839 |
Master 2946 Centennial, CO | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 That's good Jim stir the pot... I've got nothing to say here. While I doubt it's illegal, I'm very disappointed in the administration. I will make it harder to elect a Rep. Pres in the next election. Maybe this time there will be a worthwhile Dem. candidate. Doubt it though. I doubt there will be any worthwhile candidates. |
2006-05-16 7:46 AM in reply to: #424839 |
Elite 2777 In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats. | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 |
2006-05-16 7:47 AM in reply to: #424847 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 velocomp - 2006-05-16 8:35 AM That's good Jim stir the pot... I've got nothing to say here. While I doubt it's illegal, I'm very disappointed in the administration. I will make it harder to elect a Rep. Pres in the next election. Maybe this time there will be a worthwhile Dem. candidate. Doubt it though. I doubt there will be any worthwhile candidates. Stir the pot: it's what I do. Probably 2016, when Barack Obama will most likely run, is when I can start being a little optomistic. |
2006-05-16 7:56 AM in reply to: #424858 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 I love hijacking my own threads. Anyone see SNL this week, opening with Al Gore addressing the nation as if he were President? Funny stuff: Announcer: |
2006-05-16 8:30 AM in reply to: #424871 |
Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 run4yrlif - 2006-05-16 7:56 AM I love hijacking my own threads. Anyone see SNL this week, opening with Al Gore addressing the nation as if he were President? Funny stuff: Announcer: That's hilarious, nicely done SNL. |
|
2006-05-16 8:42 AM in reply to: #424839 |
Champion 5183 Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 HA! |
2006-05-16 9:56 AM in reply to: #424839 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 I don't thikn getting the phone records is illegal per se, although it sounds like they may have threatened some of the phone companies to get them, which would be. The problem I have is that when the sdmin says its not a trolling expedidition and they aren't peeking into Americans private lives or using the info improperly I don't believe them for a second. Every time they say something like that we find out otherwise. And what other programs are there that we don't know about? Newsweek has a story about a AT&T tech who saw the NSA building a room at an AT&T facility and tapping into their computer lines, presumably to get into peoples email. A reporter for ABC says a governement official told him to watch who he calls because they were using the phone # database to try & figure out his sources. |
2006-05-16 10:27 AM in reply to: #424839 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 run4yrlif - 2006-05-16 8:24 AM USA Today article last week detailed an enormous NSA database of the domestic call records tens of millions of US citizens, assembled with the help of some major telecom companies. In January, when the first domestic spying program was revealed, the Bush administration attemted to placate us by saying the program only involved calls placed from international locals or to international locals. It vehemently denied that it involved calls placed within the US to locations within the US. So now there's this. First of all, this is also probably illegal. But also, and to me more importantly, it's just another example how Mr. Bush and his administration will just flat out lie to us at the drop of a hat. Obvisously, I'm not surprised. But what else is out there that we don't know about? I read the linked article. Where's the problem? I didn't see anything about calls that are within the country mentioned. Beyond that, how is what the NSA collected any different than what the police can get from a phone company? Hell, if they wanted to be less efficient, they could probably dig them out of the trash from some of these people, and that would be completely legal. |
2006-05-16 10:35 AM in reply to: #424839 |
Master 1468 Tampa, Fl | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 On the Al gore Hijack, I went to see Art School Confidential sunday afternoon and one of the previews was Al Gores new movie. I got a nice elbow in the ribs when I said in my best Al Gore Voice, "ManBearPig" most guys in the theater laughed. I clutched my side. |
2006-05-16 10:37 AM in reply to: #424839 |
Member 64 | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 This really is not a new story. The government has been engaged in similar activities long before Bush was pres. Try googling ECHELON. |
|
2006-05-16 10:46 AM in reply to: #425064 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 cnm - 2006-05-16 11:37 AM This really is not a new story. The government has been engaged in similar activities long before Bush was pres. Try googling ECHELON. Or Carnivore. Or Magic Lantern. Same or similar program, some related to email, some are phone / voice. These stories are so funny to me. The fact is that how many phone calls are made in a week? A day? An hour, even? All this does is get numbers, puts them in a really big database, and the computers run an analysis over those numbers to look for patterns. IF the computers find a pattern, then it gets handed over to a person. IF that person agrees, then said number(s) get flagged for more monitoring. Woo. They got my cell phone #?!?! OMG, it's 1984 come true!!!! As I've said before, I'm so much more concerned about what the PHONE COMPANY does with my information than the government. Who do you think sells those list of numbers to the telemarketers? |
2006-05-16 10:52 AM in reply to: #425076 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 Scout7 - 2006-05-16 9:46 AM cnm - 2006-05-16 11:37 AM This really is not a new story. The government has been engaged in similar activities long before Bush was pres. Try googling ECHELON. Or Carnivore. Or Magic Lantern. Same or similar program, some related to email, some are phone / voice. These stories are so funny to me. The fact is that how many phone calls are made in a week? A day? An hour, even? All this does is get numbers, puts them in a really big database, and the computers run an analysis over those numbers to look for patterns. IF the computers find a pattern, then it gets handed over to a person. IF that person agrees, then said number(s) get flagged for more monitoring. Woo. They got my cell phone #?!?! OMG, it's 1984 come true!!!! As I've said before, I'm so much more concerned about what the PHONE COMPANY does with my information than the government. Who do you think sells those list of numbers to the telemarketers? Then they give your # to the guy down the hall who nowadays doesn't need a warrant or probable cause to listen in on your conversations... |
2006-05-16 11:05 AM in reply to: #425087 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 drewb8 - 2006-05-16 11:52 AM Then they give your # to the guy down the hall who nowadays doesn't need a warrant or probable cause to listen in on your conversations... Ok.....how is this different than my coworker who could easily listen in on my cell phone calls? Or me when I have to hear someone talk about their colonoscopy while I'm standing in line somewhere? Again.....so they record my phone calls. Do you really think the NSA has enough people and time to listen to every conversation they tape? No. Guarantee it. So why worry about it? Your privacy is being invaded? Again, look to my initial questions. Beyond that, I'm also fairly comfortable in the fact that they couldn't possibly listen to all my conversations. Besides, no one seems to be up in arms about hackers using Google to get your private information because some private corporation didn't properly secure their databases. That worries me a heck of alot more than some government weenie listening to my boring conversations. |
2006-05-16 11:43 AM in reply to: #425108 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 Mmmm hmm.... I'm not really sure if you had your sarcasm font on or not. Scout7 - 2006-05-16 10:05 AM drewb8 - 2006-05-16 11:52 AM Then they give your # to the guy down the hall who nowadays doesn't need a warrant or probable cause to listen in on your conversations... Ok.....how is this different than my coworker who could easily listen in on my cell phone calls? Or me when I have to hear someone talk about their colonoscopy while I'm standing in line somewhere? Again.....so they record my phone calls. Do you really think the NSA has enough people and time to listen to every conversation they tape? No. Guarantee it. So why worry about it? Your privacy is being invaded? Again, look to my initial questions. Beyond that, I'm also fairly comfortable in the fact that they couldn't possibly listen to all my conversations. Besides, no one seems to be up in arms about hackers using Google to get your private information because some private corporation didn't properly secure their databases. That worries me a heck of alot more than some government weenie listening to my boring conversations. trhe difference with your coworker or standing in line is that there is no expectation of privacy if you are in a store or at work. Whether the NSA has enough people to listen to your conversation is beside the point. They shouldn't be doing it without a warrant in the first place. I don't thikn there is an expectation of privacy on #'s called, so it probably isn't illegal for the phone companies to give this info to the NSA. But the admin hs repeatedly told us one thing and we find out another is true. First they say we aren't listening without warrants, then it turns out they are. Then they say they aren't trawling for info, now we find out they are. If you trust the government not to abuse these powers than you are more trusting than I am. |
2006-05-16 11:59 AM in reply to: #425108 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 Scout7 - 2006-05-16 11:05 AM Besides, no one seems to be up in arms about hackers using Google to get your private information because some private corporation didn't properly secure their databases. That worries me a heck of alot more than some government weenie listening to my boring conversations. The guy who hacks computer databases gets sent to prison. Oh and the problem is this: Our country is founded on some very simple premises that the governement shouldn't be allowed to infringe upon your everyday life. They shouldn't make it so you're afraid to say the wrong thing or afraid to befriend certain people. But if they're listening and you say the wrong thing or call the wrong person then you're automatically guilty by association and your life will be turned upside down. So let's say you have a friend from college or a friend who happens to be of Middle Eastern descent -- you think the DHS isn't concerned about him or her? Think again. Or what about a friend who checks out some books on American militias from the library. You can bet his name's been red-flagged. He calls you and you call him and pretty soon you're on the terrorist watch list and they're rummaging through your bank records and phone records and listening to your calls. All because someone checked out a book at the library or because your college roommate was from Pakistan. And if they were to arrest you and your friend do you think they'd give you a fair trial? Ask the detainees at Gitmo. They've been there for how many years without so much as legal representation. That's about as unAmerican as you can get. The fabric on which this country was built is being eroded by the Bush Administration's imposition on every American's civil rights. And it angers me to see people saying "If you didn't do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about." People seem to forget why being an American is so great. |
|
2006-05-16 12:12 PM in reply to: #424839 |
Got Wahoo? 5423 San Antonio | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 |
2006-05-16 12:43 PM in reply to: #425166 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 Yeah, computer criminals go to jail, about as often as presidents get impeached. The arrest rate is extremely low, the conviction rate even lower. Government has been infringing on your everyday life for as long as we've been a country. I do believe that law states your SSN will not be used as a means of tracking you. Huh.....then why does the government constantly ask for it? Taxes are an infringement on my everyday. So is Social Security. Taxes I can live with paying, but SS does nothing for me now, and will do nothing for me later. But that's a separate issue. In terms of this specific case: Having read, and then gone back to re-read the article to see if I missed anything, I don't see how this is any different than the local police force conducting any other routine investigation. As for right to privacy, there is nowhere that says the numbers you dial are private. And nowhere in that article did they mention recording of conversations. All they talked about was gathering numbers called. If there is a specific article that addresses this issue, please put a link in so that others can read that one as well. Understand, I'm not attacking your credibility, but I would like to see all the information available. As for being more trusting than others, maybe I am. I view it as just being much less concerned about it than others. Call it cynicism, call it lack of concern, call it whatever. Fact is that no, I do not worry about the government tracking my phone usage. I worry about someone other than the government doing so. |
2006-05-16 1:16 PM in reply to: #424839 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 I've been saying all along that I don't think that gathering the phone numbers is illegal, just worrying. Today we get used to the government gathering all of our phone call records, tomorrow they are gathering everyones bank records, credit card purchases, email subject lines... Today there is an algorithm to identify terrorists, tomorrow there is another one to find illegal aliens or people who talk on their cell phone while driving. I'm not saying that the program is unnecessary, but without any oversight the potential for the government to abuse its powers will just grow and grow. The admin keeps saying "trust us, we know whats best" and then gives us every reason not to. |
2006-05-16 1:47 PM in reply to: #425287 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 drewb8 - 2006-05-16 2:16 PM I've been saying all along that I don't think that gathering the phone numbers is illegal, just worrying. Today we get used to the government gathering all of our phone call records, tomorrow they are gathering everyones bank records, credit card purchases, email subject lines... Today there is an algorithm to identify terrorists, tomorrow there is another one to find illegal aliens or people who talk on their cell phone while driving. I'm not saying that the program is unnecessary, but without any oversight the potential for the government to abuse its powers will just grow and grow. The admin keeps saying "trust us, we know whats best" and then gives us every reason not to. Ok, so, it's not illegal. Then why is there such a big deal over it? In my mind, substitute where you used "government" with "prospective employeer" or "credit agency", and you see that there can be greater issues than the gov't doing something it's allowed to do anyways. Oh, wait.....companies already DO that. Often when you don't think they are. Go read your company's computer use rules and regs some time. I wouldn't be surprised if over 50% found that their companies subject them to intermittent monitoring. That means someone is recording all your keystrokes, noting every website you view, every document you open, every password or pin you enter. That's your employer. Who's monitoring the monitors at your workplace? That person has tremendous capabilities, knowledge, and might just be pissed off enough to decide to ruin your credit / name / get you fired. THAT scares the crap outta me way more than having my cell logs on some supercomputer in Ft. Meade. |
2006-05-16 1:58 PM in reply to: #424839 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 You choose to work for your employer not the other way around. And your employer cannot do any of these outside of your work environment, ie. your personal life. Your emloyer also doesn't have the ability to lock you up, take away your freedoms, forfeit your property, etc. Only the government has those powers and that is why vigorous oversight is needed to make sure those powers are not abused. Gathering phone call records by itself doesn't bother me that much. but couple that warrantless surveillance, lack of due process for US citizens, torture, etc. and I begin to wonder what other rights my government thinks its ok to do away with in the name of security. |
|
2006-05-16 2:00 PM in reply to: #425287 |
Member 64 | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 drewb8 - 2006-05-16 11:16 AM Today we get used to the government gathering all of our phone call records, tomorrow they are gathering everyones bank records, credit card purchases they already do this Banks and other financial institutions are required to report "suspicious activities" such as large cash transactions or transactions that are out of the ordinary for your account. Edited by cnm 2006-05-16 2:01 PM |
2006-05-16 2:08 PM in reply to: #425349 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 Yes, you do choose your employer. You also choose to open up your life to said employer when you accept their offer to work. As for being outside your work environment, that is becoming fuzzier every day. Laptops at home.....cell phones..... If someone telecommutes, his internet connection (if his company pays for even part of it), could be considered his "work environment". Your employer may not have the ability to lock you up. However, they can fire you, put a black mark on your name, and make it difficult to get more work. Additionally, beyond the employer, is the unscrupulous employee who has gotten access to your information, and can then use that info against you. Warrantless surveillance, meaning what? If you mean these call logs, you've just said it's not illegal. Define "surveillance". As for the torture issue, where? Gitmo? Abu Ghraib? Define "torture". You still have all the same rights you had before. They are still on the books. No one is standing here telling you that you cannot do things. Merely that you be expected to possibly explain your words and / or actions. Is that wrong? Is that bad? |
2006-05-16 2:10 PM in reply to: #425355 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 cnm - 2006-05-16 1:00 PM drewb8 - 2006-05-16 11:16 AM Today we get used to the government gathering all of our phone call records, tomorrow they are gathering everyones bank records, credit card purchases they already do this Banks and other financial institutions are required to report "suspicious activities" such as large cash transactions or transactions that are out of the ordinary for your account. Yeah, I guess that's true isn't it. But that's different from the government going over every transaction where they conceivably say "ok, there's a donation to the ACLU, lets have a closer look", or "She gave to the NRA, that's a red flag" |
2006-05-16 2:34 PM in reply to: #425235 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2 Scout7 - 2006-05-16 12:43 PM In terms of this specific case: Having read, and then gone back to re-read the article to see if I missed anything, I don't see how this is any different than the local police force conducting any other routine investigation. Exactly. Except the police need a warrant to do that. And I'm not a criminal so why am I being treated like one? At least with the police they need a reason and a warrant to lock you up. The administration doesn't even need that, and that's what I have a problem with. |
|