NSA and YOUR phone calls

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Question: why do they need everyones phone records? How about narrowing it down to possible terrorists?

It seems they are wasting their time and our money. And what about wrong numbers that you might dial?

Zipp0

OK I give up. You guys are right. Bush is the reincarnation of Hitler. He wants to know every intimate detail of your private lives, who you hang out with, who you know. He is willing to spend $ Billions to find out so he can drag you out of your beds in the middle of the night and put you in prison. Bush's goal is to rule the world by enslaving America. First it was 9/11 now it's you're phone numbers, then it's you're IP address, then it's wiretapping your call to Auntie Martha.

There, now do I sound rational?

-

How about answering the question instead of ranting?

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 3,132]

>Are you so naive as to believe the govt. has the time, money or
> inclination to look up tens of million of phone calls made every day?

We could do that with zero effort on our part back when we made cellphone base stations. Heck, we could pinpoint where someone made the call, too - and do it with a few keystrokes. You really think the government doesn't have anyone like us?

One of us is naive, I guess.

>Do you think they are interested in someone who calls their Aunt
>Martha to discuss Uncle Barts Birthday.

They would be extremely interested if Uncle Bart had a roommate with an arab name who was taking flying lessons. And if that meant Uncle Bart's phone calls were listened to, as a purely precautionary measure? "He's got nothing to fear if he's innocent! What, do you want another 9/11?"

[Zipp0 1]

From an article on the lawsuit against the phone companies:

Mayer said the information, only collected from landline subscribers, would not provide the government any information to help national security. "The terrorists are on the pay phones or using the prepaid phones," he said. "They are not on landlines so this entire exercise is another one of the administration arguments that we have to protect national security by doing something which doesn't have any protection for national security."


Like I said, they are wasting their time and our money.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[penniless 0]

From the Chicago Tribune (a paper that endorsed Bush in 2000 and 2004)

A nation of suspects in land of the free

Bush White House has invaded your personal zone with total disregard

Published May 14, 2006


The Bush administration has managed to cross George Orwell with Sting. Every step you take, every move you make, Big Brother will be watching you.

No one is exempt from the National Security Agency's program to amass a record of every phone call ever made, with the help of major telecommunications providers. As one insider told USA Today, "It's the largest database ever assembled in the world."

And have no doubt: You're in it.

President Bush insisted, "We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans." In fact, that's exactly what his administration is doing--24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It is no longer possible (unless you're a customer of Qwest, which has refused to cooperate) to make a telephone call without the government knowing about it and keeping a record of it. We are all suspects now.

An administration official told The New York Times the average person shouldn't worry. The records, he said, were used only to keep tabs on "known bad guys." But the government can easily get a court order to find out who a particular bad guy is talking to--or even to listen in. To target only known bad guys, it doesn't need a record of every call ever made.

Why should law-abiding citizens care about this surveillance? To begin with, even the best of us sometimes make calls we wouldn't want everyone to know about. Another reason is that we could be implicated in terrorism through no fault of our own. Suppose you call your friend Bob, who later calls his friend Rashid, who later calls his cousin in Kabul. The government may conclude you're consorting with associates of Al Qaeda.

It's not just the NSA that will know whom you call. According to USA Today, the NSA told Qwest that "other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database." What's next? The IRS? The Office of Child Support Enforcement? Your local police?

But privacy is valuable even if you have nothing to hide. Each of us benefits from having a zone in which we can do as we please without fear of exposure. Thanks to this program, there is no longer an impermeable barrier around your personal zone. It's more like a screen door on a submarine.

Investigative powers often have been used by unscrupulous people in government to intimidate, coerce or embarrass their enemies. Even if the administration has the noblest intentions, this database is vulnerable to abuse. And not everyone is convinced the administration has the noblest intentions. Valerie Plame, for one.

Law enforcement officers have ample experience with gadgets that monitor who's calling whom. But those require police to convince a judge they will yield information relevant to an investigation. In this program, here's what the government has to show: nothing.

His latest extralegal initiative furnishes more evidence that George W. Bush regards himself as an elected dictator, free to do anything he wants in the name of national security. Never mind what the U.S. Supreme Court said two years ago: "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

In December, it emerged that the NSA was eavesdropping on the contents of phone calls and e-mail messages between Americans on U.S. soil and people abroad. That program was of doubtful legality, and so is this one. As a rule, federal law forbids phone companies from turning over calling records to anyone, and it forbids the government from getting call records without a court order or a national security letter.

So it's cold comfort to hear Bush say that "the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful." He said the same thing about the other NSA program. But when the Justice Department undertook an investigation, the White House refused to grant its attorneys the security clearances they needed to proceed. The Bush administration doesn't trust even Bush administration lawyers to agree the program is kosher.

Even if you don't care about the privacy of your phone records, you might care that we have a president who feels no obligation to obey the law. You might care that if the government was secretly doing this, it may be doing other things that are even more worrisome. And you might care that one day, we may find that the free society we claim to cherish has become a police state.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

How about answering the question instead of ranting?

Only ranting because I've answered it twice already. Here, one more time.

If someone in Ohio calls someone who is a known terrorist in Pakistan and that terrorist then calls someone in Los Angeles, don't you think the government ought to at least investigate the person in Los Angeles and see if they are up to anything? I'd be OK with it as long as they got a warrant to check out the person in LA.


-

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Are you so naive as to believe the govt. has the time, money or
> inclination to look up tens of million of phone calls made every day?

Quote

We could do that with zero effort on our part back when we made cellphone base stations. Heck, we could pinpoint where someone made the call, too - and do it with a few keystrokes. You really think the government doesn't have anyone like us?

One of us is naive, I guess.

Or has a problem with the word "inclination".


>Do you think they are interested in someone who calls their Aunt
>Martha to discuss Uncle Barts Birthday.

Quote

They would be extremely interested if Uncle Bart had a roommate with an arab name who was taking flying lessons. And if that meant Uncle Bart's phone calls were listened to, as a purely precautionary measure? "He's got nothing to fear if he's innocent! What, do you want another 9/11?"

I have no problem with them investigating Uncle Barts roomate if calls had been made from Uncle Barts phone to a terrorists phone number in Pakistan. I'd rather they check him out and find out everything is OK than to ignore it and have a catastrophe.

-

• Quote

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

How about answering the question instead of ranting?

Only ranting because I've answered it twice already. Here, one more time.

If someone in Ohio calls someone who is a known terrorist in Pakistan and that terrorist then calls someone in Los Angeles, don't you think the government ought to at least investigate the person in Los Angeles and see if they are up to anything? I'd be OK with it as long as they got a warrant to check out the person in LA.


-

Are you familiar with the concept of "six degrees of separation"?

My -guess- is that you (Gravitymaster) are -much- closer to a terrorist tie than you probably think you are.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,132]

>I have no problem with them investigating Uncle Barts roomate if
> calls had been made from Uncle Barts phone to a terrorists phone
> number in Pakistan. I'd rather they check him out and find out
> everything is OK than to ignore it and have a catastrophe.

That reasoning can be applied to anything. Would you rather lose a few minor gun rights, or have another few 9/11's? Things get very simple (and misleading) when couched in such phrases.

We have a constitution that was written shortly after a devastating war. The people who wrote it knew the value of personal liberty vs safety, and worded it carefully as a result of that knowledge. Following it would be a good idea.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I have no problem with them investigating Uncle Barts roomate if
> calls had been made from Uncle Barts phone to a terrorists phone
> number in Pakistan. I'd rather they check him out and find out
> everything is OK than to ignore it and have a catastrophe.

That reasoning can be applied to anything. Would you rather lose a few minor gun rights, or have another few 9/11's? Things get very simple (and misleading) when couched in such phrases.

We have a constitution that was written shortly after a devastating war. The people who wrote it knew the value of personal liberty vs safety, and worded it carefully as a result of that knowledge. Following it would be a good idea.

I see nothing wrong with checking someone out who has had contact with a terrorist. Heck, the police pull you over and check you out for having a tailight out at 3am. If you aren't drunk, then no problem. If you are, I'm glad they got you.

As far as the Constitutionality, I agree, that's why I posted the 1979 SCOTUS decision.

-

[billvon 3,132]

>I see nothing wrong with checking someone out who has had contact with a terrorist.

Ah, but that's the issue - there's no evidence that they DID have contact with a terrorist. Unless, of course, you search their phone records without a warrant.

Would you see anything wrong about the government checking the financial records of anyone who wanted to buy a gun, just to make sure they weren't getting money from a terrorist, or was in debt and was about to rob a bank? The government could promise to never abuse that power, and to only keep guns from people who were real, potential threats. And they would only get a warrant to search their house if they saw something awry on the financial search. Usually.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I see nothing wrong with checking someone out who has had contact with a terrorist.

Quote

Ah, but that's the issue - there's no evidence that they DID have contact with a terrorist. Unless, of course, you search their phone records without a warrant.

If the NSA has phone numbers of terrorists, then it's pretty easy to see who has has had contact with them. I can't understand why you keep insisting they are checking phone records without a warrant. They don't need a warrant according to the SCOTUS.

Quote

Would you see anything wrong about the government checking the financial records of anyone who wanted to buy a gun, just to make sure they weren't getting money from a terrorist, or was in debt and was about to rob a bank?

Apparently you have me confused with someone who doesn't like the idea of background checks for gun ownership. If the govt had reason to believe a person was consorting with a terrorist, I wouldn't have a problem with them checking their financial records. Heck, the IRS can do that now without a warrant.

Quote

The government could promise to never abuse that power, and to only keep guns from people who were real, potential threats. And they would only get a warrant to search their house if they saw something awry on the financial search. Usually.

I'd be fine with that. This isn't a dictatorship and we have many checks and balances in place like Judges, Juries, the Civil rights Attorneys etc. despite what some of the more paranoid say.

-

• Quote

[billvon 3,132]

>Apparently you have me confused . . .

No, it was an honest question. A background check of someone buying a gun, to determine if they are a felon, isn't (IMO) an onerous imposition on one's freedom. However, obtaining their financial records would be, since someone who is merely poor should not have his rights curtailed in such a fashion. (Again, IMO.) I see a similar issue with phone records.

If they have been arrested previously for associating with terrorists? By all means get a court order and tap their phone. But until that happens, they should enjoy the same protections from illegal search as anyone else in the US.

> This isn't a dictatorship and we have many checks and balances
>in place like Judges, Juries, the Civil rights Attorneys etc.

Right. The problem is that that system is being shut down. The administration is using loopholes to get court cases invalidated and investigations shut down. In one recent court case involving a phone customer suing the phone company for illegally divulging customer records, the government claimed that it could not go forward because it involved sensitive information. In another recent example, the administration refused to give investigators clearance to view the material they were investigating (even thought the investigators were part of the justice department.)

The courts can work, but not when they are actively interfered with by the administration.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

If the NSA has phone numbers of terrorists, then it's pretty easy to see who has has had contact with them. I can't understand why you keep insisting they are checking phone records without a warrant. They don't need a warrant according to the SCOTUS.

If we have their phone numbers, and they are terrorists, why are they not living it up at club GITMO?

Ahhh, wait..... Maybe the NSA hasn't heard about this high-tech resource:

http://www.reversephonedirectory.com

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

If the NSA has phone numbers of terrorists, then it's pretty easy to see who has has had contact with them. I can't understand why you keep insisting they are checking phone records without a warrant. They don't need a warrant according to the SCOTUS.

If we have their phone numbers, and they are terrorists, why are they not living it up at club GITMO?

Ahhh, wait..... Maybe the NSA hasn't heard about this high-tech resource:

http://www.reversephonedirectory.com

Zipp0

yeah that works with cellphones, and prepaid cellphones, and phone cards right?

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If the NSA has phone numbers of terrorists, then it's pretty easy to see who has has had contact with them. I can't understand why you keep insisting they are checking phone records without a warrant. They don't need a warrant according to the SCOTUS.

If we have their phone numbers, and they are terrorists, why are they not living it up at club GITMO?

Ahhh, wait..... Maybe the NSA hasn't heard about this high-tech resource:

http://www.reversephonedirectory.com

Zipp0

yeah that works with cellphones, and prepaid cellphones, and phone cards right?

Thank you. You fell right into my trap.

So, if the terrorists are using cell phones, prepaid cellular, pay phones, why all the interest in the landline phone calling habits of every American?

Oh, and if you want to do a reverse lookup of a cell phone, you can:

http://www.reversegenie.com/?hop=cellphones

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If the NSA has phone numbers of terrorists, then it's pretty easy to see who has has had contact with them. I can't understand why you keep insisting they are checking phone records without a warrant. They don't need a warrant according to the SCOTUS.

If we have their phone numbers, and they are terrorists, why are they not living it up at club GITMO?

Ahhh, wait..... Maybe the NSA hasn't heard about this high-tech resource:

http://www.reversephonedirectory.com

Zipp0

yeah that works with cellphones, and prepaid cellphones, and phone cards right?

Thank you. You fell right into my trap.

So, if the terrorists are using cell phones, prepaid cellular, pay phones, why all the interest in the landline phone calling habits of every American?

Oh, and if you want to do a reverse lookup of a cell phone, you can:

http://www.reversegenie.com/?hop=cellphones

Zipp0

That does not work in all circumstances

and no I did not FALL into any trap (well maybe in your mind) I was pointing out why actaully far more needs to be done...oh yeah thats right I forgot you think we should not check anyones call patterns.

I will give you this scenario, a woman has a new bf and she works in a large investment firm.

Her bf has her transferring funds into many accounts with a small amount of funds in each one so that they may be used with debit cards by terrorists.

Her bf also likes to use the phone in her office to call his uncle Omar back in Iran, because the calls will be paid for by her firm.

Omar seems to have a nice cushy job and is really happy working for the PASADRAN.

Do you really think we should not monitor them?

[warpedskydiver 0]

BTW what do you do as work for the goverment?

wax Al Frankens flying saucer?

Pick up dogshit in the park?

Mayor of Harrisburg?

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

BTW what do you do as work for the goverment?

wax Al Frankens flying saucer?

Pick up dogshit in the park?

Mayor of Harrisburg?

The second one - the dog shit.

Zipp0

edited to add: seriously, if you REALLY want to know PM me.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

If the NSA has phone numbers of terrorists, then it's pretty easy to see who has has had contact with them. I can't understand why you keep insisting they are checking phone records without a warrant. They don't need a warrant according to the SCOTUS.

If we have their phone numbers, and they are terrorists, why are they not living it up at club GITMO?

Ahhh, wait..... Maybe the NSA hasn't heard about this high-tech resource:

http://www.reversephonedirectory.com

Zipp0

They aren't trying to find out who owns the phone. Never mind...sheesh.. I give up.

-

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I'd be fine with that. This isn't a dictatorship and we have many checks and balances in place like Judges, Juries, the Civil rights Attorneys etc. despite what some of the more paranoid say.

Right.......

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller
Martin Niemöller (1892—1984), Protestant pastor and social activist

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.







Translation: When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.


So how long are YOU going to wait????

[narcimund 0]

Quote

So how long are YOU going to wait????

He thinks he's safe.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Gravitymaster 0]

I'll wait until they start arresting the Communists.

Are they building any barbed wire fences up you way yet?

-

[Amazon 7]

Usually the GOOD little party members are somewhat safe since they are the ones making all the rules. At least until someone from an opposing force hangs the fuckers for their crimes.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Usually the GOOD little party members are somewhat safe since they are the ones making all the rules.

What party is that?
-

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Are they building any barbed wire fences up you way yet?

With all the secrecy and the offshore torture camps that you guys seem to love... its hard to tell.. I am sure you would know better than I would where they are.