| What do you think of this? |
| Scary |
|
46% |
[ 7 ] |
| Necessary |
|
26% |
[ 4 ] |
| Undecided |
|
26% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 15 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Thu May 11, 2006 5:17 pm NSA Has Massive Database of Americans' Phone Calls |
|
| Quote: | NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET
By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans � most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: The NSA record collection program
"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.
For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made � across town or across the country � to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.
The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.
The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop � without warrants � on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.
In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."
As a result, domestic call records � those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders � were believed to be private.
Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.
Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide," he said. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."
The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.
She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."
The government is collecting "external" data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting "internals," a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for "social network analysis," the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together.
Carriers uniquely positioned
AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.
The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans.
Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.
Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services � primarily long-distance and wireless � to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.
Created by President Truman in 1952, during the Korean War, the NSA is charged with protecting the United States from foreign security threats. The agency was considered so secret that for years the government refused to even confirm its existence. Government insiders used to joke that NSA stood for "No Such Agency."
In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named "Shamrock," led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping.
Enacted in 1978, FISA lays out procedures that the U.S. government must follow to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches of people believed to be engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States. A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA.
Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of "data mining" � sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications.
Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining," said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.
The caveat, he said, is that "personal identifiers" � such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses � can't be included as part of the search. "That requires an additional level of probable cause," he said.
The usefulness of the NSA's domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.
The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.
Ma Bell's bedrock principle � protection of the customer � guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. "No court order, no customer information � period. That's how it was for decades," he said.
The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.
The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million.
In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree.
Companies approached
The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.
The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.
The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.
With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.
AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: "We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law."
In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority."
Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: "We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy."
Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: "We can't talk about this. It's a classified situation."
In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers.
Last month, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alluded to that possibility. Appearing at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales was asked whether he thought the White House has the legal authority to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant. Gonzales' reply: "I wouldn't rule it out." His comment marked the first time a Bush appointee publicly asserted that the White House might have that authority.
Similarities in programs
The domestic and international call-tracking programs have things in common, according to the sources. Both are being conducted without warrants and without the approval of the FISA court. The Bush administration has argued that FISA's procedures are too slow in some cases. Officials, including Gonzales, also make the case that the USA Patriot Act gives them broad authority to protect the safety of the nation's citizens.
The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would not confirm the existence of the program. In a statement, he said, "I can say generally, however, that our subcommittee has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. ... I remain convinced that the program authorized by the president is lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks."
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., declined to comment.
One company differs
One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.
According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order � or approval under FISA � to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.
Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.
The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information � known as "product" in intelligence circles � with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.
The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.
In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest's financial health. But Qwest's legal questions about the NSA request remained.
Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio's successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.
Contributing: John Diamond
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm |
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 6:03 pm |
|
it IS against FISA though.... according to FISA "the president may order the warrantless surveilience for a period NOT TO EXCEDE 15 CALANDER DAYS."
It violates the 4th ammendment to..... "you have the right to be secure in your home and in your affects..." how are you supposed to feel secure if the government is keep records of every call you make?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 6:24 pm |
|
The phone taps are completely within the President's juristiction. He did nothing wrong, and I would do the same were I in his position.
Now, as to these databanks of phone numbers...I'm undecided at this current time. I'm not sure about the justification for it and whatnot.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 7:05 pm |
|
Actually, I'm learning more about this from O'Reilly right now, and I think there's nothing wrong with it. I can't say it's necessary, but I don't disagree with it. Consider the undecided vote not made, and, I suppose, replace it into the Necessary column.
Not to mention, btw, there IS Congressional oversight of this program.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 7:09 pm |
|
.... great place to get your information.....
congress ruled that executive authority is NOT absolute....
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 7:12 pm |
|
Yeah, it happens to be a great place to get information, thank you very much 
And of course executive authority is not absolute. But this is not the case here, not by a long shot. This is entirely within his power and juristiction.
I agree with Dick Morris, though. The more this issue is brought up, the better it is for Bush.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 7:18 pm |
|
IDK, sounds fishy, I'm sure they have good intentions, but they could just as easily be listining in on phone convos and not saying they are
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 7:22 pm |
|
Yes, but is there any evidence to prove such a theoretical hypothesis? No, there isn't. I'll go where the facts take me on such a serious issue, not where the theoretical world does.
Everything points to this domestic thing having NOTHING to do with tapping phone calls, but rather a database compilation. Unless something mischievious comes out, I'm inclined to believe that, especially considering that there is Congressional oversight on all this.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 10:08 pm |
|
Even they were listening to your conversation you won't be introuble. The government won't go after you for telling your girlfriend to come by your house for a party.
They are only interested in finding out who the terrorist are plain and simple.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 10:12 pm |
|
Exactly. There's no reason to eavesdrop upon anything else, especially when it won't get you anywhere.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a little tapping of my phone conversations, if it would protect our country. I have nothing to hide.
Not that I would like it, but it's not a big deal to me, especially when I know that that's not what they're doing.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 10:16 pm |
|
Don't blame the President for this, if you don't like it, blame the phone company. They weren't ordered to turn over records, they did it voluntarily.
Plus, this isn't wiretapping, it's call records. They're simply scanning the lists for strange international calling patterns.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 10:17 pm |
|
That is true. Good work.
Blame the phone companies for willingly handing over this information, not Bush for his good policy (though we don't even know if it WAS his idea in the first place).
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 11:16 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Exactly. There's no reason to eavesdrop upon anything else, especially when it won't get you anywhere.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a little tapping of my phone conversations, if it would protect our country. I have nothing to hide.
Not that I would like it, but it's not a big deal to me, especially when I know that that's not what they're doing. |
I would really mind. I don't care if they look at who's calling who, but I don't WANT my phone tapped. And considering the tone of my conversations regarding the government, I wouldn't be surprised if they were vaguely interested.  I don't have anything to hide, either, but the day I hear the government is tapping phonecalls of normal people is the day I pick up and leave for somewhere else.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 11:19 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | Exactly. There's no reason to eavesdrop upon anything else, especially when it won't get you anywhere.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a little tapping of my phone conversations, if it would protect our country. I have nothing to hide.
Not that I would like it, but it's not a big deal to me, especially when I know that that's not what they're doing. |
I would really mind. I don't care if they look at who's calling who, but I don't WANT my phone tapped. And considering the tone of my conversations regarding the government, I wouldn't be surprised if they were vaguely interested. I don't have anything to hide, either, but the day I hear the government is tapping phonecalls of normal people is the day I pick up and leave for somewhere else. |
Agreed. I guess if they wanna say "Chris called shannon on may 10th at 2PM" fine, but if they knew my convo? that is NONE of thier business, and I would leave to
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 11:25 pm |
|
Oh, no, I do agree that it's wrong, but I wouldn't be incredibly upset about it is what I mean.
But we don't have anything to worry about here, as they are only doing one of two things:
1. Listening to the international phone calls of suspected terrorists
2. Getting the records of locations, or something like that--NOT names or addresses--of teleophone calls and storing them in a database for future reference, NOT wiretapping anyone, giving addresses, or giving names, as was implied in the USA Today article.
Although you both do raise good points. I wouldn't like the eavesdropping of my personal conversations, but my point is that if they suspect that I'm a terrorist and tap my phone calls a few times, mistakingly, I wouldn't be overly mad at them.
But if they did it consistently, and without the feelings of a national security threat, I would be staunchly opposed to it.
Unless I'm mistaken, this puts it really into perspective--the logic of this new aspect, that is. I now think it's not necessary, per se, yet believe it to be, knowing what I know as of now, sound policy.
| Quote: | NSA Call-Record Data Mining No Surprise to Security Experts
BOSTON � If the National Security Agency is indeed amassing a colossal database of Americans' phone records, one way to use all that information is in "social network analysis," a data-mining method that aims to expose previously invisible connections among people.
Social network analysis has gained prominence in business and intelligence circles under the belief that it can yield extraordinary insights, such as the fact that people in disparate organizations have common acquaintances. Companies can buy social networking software to help determine who has the best connections for a particular sales pitch.
So it did not surprise many security analysts to learn Thursday from USA Today that the NSA is applying the technology to billions of phone records.
"Who you're talking to often matters much more than what you're saying," said Bruce Schneier, a computer security expert and author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World."
The NSA declined to comment. But several experts said it seemed likely the agency would want to assemble a picture from more than just landline phone records. Other forms of communication, including cell phone calls, e-mails and instant messages, likely are trackable targets as well, at least on international networks if not inside the U.S.
To be sure, monitoring newer communications services is probably harder than getting billing records from landline phones. USA Today reported that the NSA has collected call logs from the three largest U.S. phone companies, BellSouth Corp. (BLS), AT&T Inc. (T) and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ).
That level of cooperation confirmed the fears of many privacy analysts, who pointed out that AT&T is already being sued in federal court in San Francisco for allegedly giving the NSA access to contents of its phone and Internet networks. The charges are based on documents from a former AT&T technician.
It remains unclear whether other communications providers have been asked for their call logs or billing records.
Verizon Wireless spokesman Jeffrey Nelson definitively said his company � a joint venture between Verizon and Britain's Vodafone (VOD) � was "not involved in this situation." His counterparts at Cingular � an AT&T/BellSouth joint venture � and Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) were less explicit and did not deny any participation.
Even without cell phone carriers' help, of course, calls between wireless subscribers and Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth landlines presumably would be captured.
Among Internet service providers, representatives for AOL LLC, a division of Time Warner Inc. (TWX), said the company complies with individual government subpoenas and court orders but does not have a blanket program for broader sharing of customer data.
In a statement, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) said it had "never engaged in the type of activity referenced in these articles." Google Inc. (GOOG) spokesman Steve Langdon said his company does not participate, either.
Yahoo Inc. (YHOO) officials say they comply with subpoenas, but refused to elaborate, saying they cannot comment on specific government interactions.
Even without full inside help, the NSA has proven itself adept at capturing communications or at least analyzing traffic information. The Echelon program, for example, is known to have tapped into satellite, microwave and fiber-optic phone links and even undersea cables in order to gain insights into what the rest of the world was talking about.
The Internet does present new challenges for snoops, which has led federal authorities to seek an expansion of a key surveillance law so that it applies to new kinds of Web services.
But even now authorities can tap into data feeds. There is a relatively small number of major Internet backbones and data junctions where networks hand information off to each other.
And while e-mail, Internet calls and other data packets splinter and take varying routes across networks, each packet has a header identifying its source and destination. It's not obvious what the packet is part of � whether an e-mail, a Web page or an Internet phone call � but it still contains the equivalent of a phone billing record: who's talking to whom.
"It's not trivial to analyze all the material, but it's trivial to get to the material," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Even Skype, the popular Internet phone service, owned by eBay (EBAY), that encrypts its calls � which presumably prevents sweeping monitoring of their content � is believed to be vulnerable to who's-calling-whom traffic analysis.
Still, while the government clearly can parlay industry cooperation and technical firepower to grab lots of communications, there's bound to be a limit.
For example, tiny, free voice-over-Internet services likely don't bother to maintain the kinds of call logs that Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T apparently handed over, said Jeff Pulver, an authority on the technology.
Also, social network analysis would appear to be powerless against criminals and terrorists who rely on a multitude of cell phones, payphones, calling cards and Internet cafes.
Then there are more creative ways of getting off the grid. The Madrid train bombings case has revealed that the plotters communicated by sharing one e-mail account and saving messages to each other as drafts that, since they were never sent, didn't traverse the Internet as regular e-mail messages would.
Privacy activists worry that the government is likely to try to overcome these surveillance gaps by making more use of the information it does have � by cross-referencing phone or other records with commercially harvested data.
One effort in that direction, the Pentagon's infamous Total Information Awareness program, was technically shuttered by Congress, but the government still can access copious data from the private sector.
Even if the NSA's surveillance went no further than the NSA's access to phone billing records, it clearly would raise hackles.
The time and destination of dialed phone calls has long been available to authorities through "pen registers" and "trap and trace" devices � but with a court order.
USA Today noted that concerns about the legality of the NSA's phone-call database led Qwest Communications International Inc. (Q), which operates in a large part of the Rockies and the Pacific Northwest, to refuse to participate.
"A court order couldn't be obtained to just wholesale surveil," said Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing AT&T in San Francisco. "The legal standard requires something more specific. You can't get everybody's data unless you have some suspicion."
Source |
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 11:30 pm |
|
What I'm most vehemently against is random or unnecessary phone tapping. Maybe if I'm a suspected terrorist, okay, so I guess I deserve that. I'm still not sure there. Giving the government the okay to do any phone tapping is pretty... unnerving. I don't really trust them with it. If I trusted them, I'd be okay, and I see the security reasons for it. But not trusting them is... conflicting.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 11:32 pm |
|
Yeah, Trust, and the fact... quiet frankly it's NONE of thieeri busniess what I've got to say to people. If it was, I'd say it to them
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 11:37 pm |
|
But the good thing is that they're not doing roving wiretaps. All they're doing is, in terms of the monitoring of phone calls, monitoring the international phone calls of suspected terrorists, not the average Joe on the street. The other stuff requires a warrant. This does not, and that's why people are agreeing with the President on this--because of the national security implications of it, and what the program is actually used for, despite the misleadings of the Democrats and liberal media.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 11:48 pm |
|
I'm trying to say I'm not talking specifically about what's happening now. What's happening now is okay, if they're telling the truth, and I'll assume they are. I'm worried about what they might do.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 11:55 pm |
|
I don't think the president could get by at all by doing what they "might do," though. It would be suicide for him to do so. Very few Americans would be willing to compromise personal privacy to such an extent. They'd more than likely develop into some sort of revolution if that happens, and Bush would face impeachment proceedings in a week.
So, yeah. I don't expect that to happen
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 11:57 pm |
|
And how could you tell if it did? That's the clincher.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Thu May 11, 2006 11:58 pm |
|
It'd be increadibly easy for them to do this, and no one know  Thats what's so scary...
In Star trek, the Obsidan order has said to be so powerful that they can catalouge the dish one eats each morning.
With that said.... they could actually do something similar (Just not that real) and dont bother telling me they couldnt, becuse I know they have the technology to
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 12, 2006 12:01 am |
|
The Congress wouldn't allow it, and believe it or not, the Intelligence Committee does have full knowledge of these programs. Many of them worked to blow the whistle on this NSA thing from the beginning. I don't think they would permit anything further in the future, and I'm quite sure that it wouldn't happen.
As of now we're all thinking in the hypothetical, which can be a dangerous thing to do.
Judging from what we know now, though, I'm entirely fine with this.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri May 12, 2006 12:05 am |
|
Well... now you're trusting congress. I can't argue with a guy who trusts congress. I'm mostly kidding, but truth be told, I can't think of a senator I really trust, or who I think is anywhere qualified for the job. We don't have our best people in the government. Who says the NSA has to do anything? I'm not being paranoid, I have no reason to believe they're doing anything now, but in all reality, they could. Anyone who has the will and the smarts to do something, practically, can achieve anything. Never underestimate the genius of a single individual.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 12, 2006 12:10 am |
|
Well, I wouldn't say that I'm trusting Congress, but rather stating that many members of the Legislative Body wouldn't allow such a thing to take place, especially considering the whisteblowing over these small, necessary things.
I'm going to trust the government enough to say that they're not doing anything extraneous and innapropriate, and I'll maintain that until evidence shows otherwise.
I think we should be careful, though, not to be paranoid. Trust me. I know a kid who's so paranoid about the FBI and NSA and all that that it's actually kind-of funny, though not funny at the same time. For instance, a major prank was pulled on him--and I mean MAJOR--involving him operating under the impression that the FBI was after him--literally.
Let's not become anywhere near that paranoid, if at all, shall we?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
