Um..so like...

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 13, 2006, 2:31 pm

Don't you guys give a shit that the Government is like spying on you all now via phone records?

You do realise you're letting your government totally erode the foundations of justice, law and privacy in your own land, with no intention of holding them to account? You do see this, yeah?

No one?

Sumdaor · Post by **Sumdaor** » May 13, 2006, 2:42 pm

It just shows how pathetic intelligence is in the US. We have to resort to dataming all the phone calls in our country.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » May 13, 2006, 2:56 pm

I fully support this practice.

It's the opposite of pathetic... to actually gather intelligence.

Oh, and it's been going on for many years... just now some people leaked it.

Sumdaor · Post by **Sumdaor** » May 13, 2006, 3:09 pm

It's the opposite of pathetic... to actually gather intelligence.

My point is that our intelligence community is so retarded. They can't locate suspected terrorist, get a WARRANT, and then tap thier phone lines. Instead, the NSA records everyone's phone calls looking for the needle in the haystack.

Oh, and it's been going on for many years... just now some people leaked it.

Because its been going for years makes it acceptable?

Neroon · Post by **Neroon** » May 13, 2006, 3:23 pm

The fact that they are currently doing it doesn't really bother me. What bothers me, is what a truly diabolical person like McCarthy would do with it, if someone like that were to gain power in the future.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 13, 2006, 3:44 pm

I'm patiently waiting for the goverment to let me know which amendments in the Bill of Rights are still applicable to citizens of the United States. Surely there's no reason why our government should actually have to follow the laws that have been set up. That's not important at all.

Nick, I feel helpless and incensed. I don't care if the gov't wants to look at me with whatever level of scrutiny they like, but they goddamn well better have a warrant. This type of behavior unchecked is setting a horrible precedent. It's amazing to me that no one in our gov't has the balls to defend our constitution.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » May 13, 2006, 5:13 pm

from what I read the NSA didn't give the communication companies any sort of formal request, they just asked them to hand over the records after 9/11. It's nice to know at least one company has the balls to say, "well is this legal or not?".

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » May 13, 2006, 5:38 pm

I love the fact that I paid the phone companies to let the government spy on me.

Your tax dollars hard at work!

laneela · Post by **laneela** » May 13, 2006, 6:39 pm

They have no method of tapping VoIP conversations, do they?

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » May 13, 2006, 6:55 pm

laneela wrote:They have no method of tapping VoIP conversations, do they?

Not easily without co-operation of the voip provider.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 13, 2006, 8:35 pm

Unless encrypted on both ends, tapping a VoIP conversation is trivial given proper access to specific resources. I guarantee that the NSA has such access.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » May 13, 2006, 8:37 pm

The best part is that there's one phone company that wouldn't cooperate. Yes, that means every other phone company in the county, when faced with the question of "Can we keep track of everything that happens over your services? Oh, and could you maybe keep quiet that we're doing it?", said "Sure, go ahead."

So that means that not only is it being done, it's also completely fucking pointless since anyone with something to hide knows what to do to avoid it. Durrrrrr.

The privacy thing is "meh, whatever" to me. I don't give a rat's ass if Ashcroft is listening to me talk dirty to my fiancee while she's in the states. The guy needs a fucking hobby anyway, and maybe this'll scratch that itch. But when you combine the privacy invasion with the utter worthlessness of the escapade, you have to take the big red rubber "F" stamp and start going to town on that shit. What a laughing-stock.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 13, 2006, 10:18 pm

Niffoni wrote:The privacy thing is "meh, whatever" to me. I don't give a rat's ass if Ashcroft is listening to me talk dirty to my fiancee while she's in the states. The guy needs a fucking hobby anyway, and maybe this'll scratch that itch. But when you combine the privacy invasion with the utter worthlessness of the escapade, you have to take the big red rubber "F" stamp and start going to town on that shit. What a laughing-stock.

Ashcroft is no longer the Attorney General. Ashcroft also (I was told this but have not confirmed it myself) said no when asked to provide a court order for these companies to turn over their records. Instead, the records were turned over by some NSA request being issued.

Here's a nice bio on the current Attorney General...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 13, 2006, 11:19 pm

big corporations didn't just readily agree to this. they just know what would happen to them if they pissed off the NSA.

I think it's fine that every phone conversation is recorded. In fact it's probably a good thing. what isn't fine is how easy it is to pull the recordings and listen to them under the patriot act. you should have to have a warrant issued before you are allowed access to phone records.

a terrorist or decent criminal would use pay phones and prepaid cell phones anyway. totally untraceable unless you know the phone number for the pre-paid. so really its a gigantic waste of money and resources.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » May 14, 2006, 12:02 am

noel wrote:Ashcroft is no longer the Attorney General.

FUCK! I have to update my fantasy team.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 14, 2006, 9:56 pm

Poor Noel

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 15, 2006, 1:56 am

Kyoukan speaks to the real kernel of truth here.

While it is a good idea from a liability standpoitn for the private carriers (Cingular, T-Mobile, etc) to record phone calls. The government should ALWAYS have to get a warrant to pull that.

Terrorists are using the prepaid shit anyway. You have to have a credit check to have a 'real' account so i'm thinking not too many guys from Afghani terror camps are going to score well on those. I havent sat in on any high level briefings at Quantico so maybe i'm wrong...

Rabid conservative Bob Barr wrote an editorial in the Atlanta Journal & Constitution this morning about this very subject. He worked for 8 years in the CIA as well, if that means anything. But his bottom line was that George Orwell was an optimist.

What will be lost on all the sycophants of this administration who post here, is that an ACTUAL conservative would completely oppose measures like these. But every single poster on this board that i've seen supporting the administration except maybe two wouldnt know how to define conservatism no matter how they define themselves.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 15, 2006, 2:29 am

Unless someone can explain in a way that makes sense why the warrant process is too slow or too encumbering, this seems like too much to me.

It seems to me that blindly searching millions of phone records is a colossal waste of time.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 15, 2006, 3:35 am

I doubt they blindly search phone records, but numbers can be pulled by the database and tracked that way. If every conversation is recorded (I'm still not sure that is even technically possible unless they hae some compression techniques that the industry isn't aware of), then they would have a starting point with the number they are tracing and cross reference with every number called/received from that device. it would be a valuable crime fighting tool, I think. it only takes a person to slip up once and call the wrong number from their cell and the fizzuzz could trace you all the way back. I bet this shit will show up on next season's 24.

it's not hard to go through proper judicial procedure to get a warrant to investigate. there are judges standing by 24 hours a day for this type of thing. it's just a neocon excuse to say 'well it takes forever to get a warrant so we need to be able to do this stuff clandestine' and all the fuckheads like winnow and metanis and midnyte nods their heads wisely and agree. it's not like a fucking federal judge is going to tell the fbi or nsa to call back during regular business hours and make a appointment. if law enforcement can prove just cause to trace phone calls or tap the lines they will fucking well get it.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 15, 2006, 9:38 am

The government doesnt even have to show evidence to get the FISA court to issue a warrent (the 24 hr National Security Court).

They just need to present evidence within 72 hrs of receiving the warrant.

I think it isnt too much to ask for the federal government to have 100 people on the payroll to process the warrant requests on the side of intelligence agencies. Modest expense to preserve the 4th amendment in my opinion.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » May 15, 2006, 10:04 am

laneela wrote:They have no method of tapping VoIP conversations, do they?

It's no different than a wireline call if you're using a VoIP provider, they have to follow the same rules as everyone else as far as having the capabilities for lawful intercept goes. Person to person skype for instance is different, since you aren't using the providers facilities they don't have to provide a lawful intercept capability.

There is a rather entertaining rule in place that essentially says: If you're doing anything naughty on the phone you have to give us access to your conversation.

So it's possible you could be prosecuted for not incriminating yourself.

*Edit - This is nothing new, it's been going on forever. What has changed is the availalbilty and use of the data they're collecting. If the NSA's mission only included people outside the US or non-US citizens calls transiting our systems I wouldn't have any problem with it.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » May 15, 2006, 11:19 am

All I know is that so far they have prevented several attacks in recent months, here and abroad. I say do what you need to do to minimize those threats. The only people who need to worry about their conversations are those who are either doing something illegal or those who are looking for an excuse to bitch about something.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 15, 2006, 12:08 pm

Even Skype type conversations can easily be captured and rebuilt, provided you're in a place to capture them. It's unlikely that ISPs are keeping track of this information, or doing the necessary capturing to rebuild these conversations, but as I said before, given proper access, it's rather trivial.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 15, 2006, 12:36 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:All I know is that so far they have prevented several attacks in recent months, here and abroad. I say do what you need to do to minimize those threats. The only people who need to worry about their conversations are those who are either doing something illegal or those who are looking for an excuse to bitch about something.

way to ignore the uncountable times the nsa and other federal agencies have used the patriot act to break up business deals and put pressure on people who are innocent of everything but having the wrong person as an enemy. because safety is so important that it's worth handing your freedom over for, and it's impossible to only have one without the other am i rite guyz?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 15, 2006, 2:09 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:All I know is that so far they have prevented several attacks in recent months, here and abroad. I say do what you need to do to minimize those threats. The only people who need to worry about their conversations are those who are either doing something illegal or those who are looking for an excuse to bitch about something.
way to ignore the uncountable times the nsa and other federal agencies have used the patriot act to break up business deals and put pressure on people who are innocent of everything but having the wrong person as an enemy. because safety is so important that it's worth handing your freedom over for, and it's impossible to only have one without the other am i rite guyz?

Show us the big injustices that have occured since the induction of the Patriot Act. I know all the horror stories and acusations of things that could happen. I've even heard of the occassional innocent guy accused. But, where are the gross injustices and major freedoms being oppressed by the Patriot Act? Seriously, without name calling and your typical bullshit, tell me where they are? I haven't had any problems, nor have any of my friends, or friends friends, or their friends had any problems.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 15, 2006, 2:47 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Show us the big injustices that have occured since the induction of the Patriot Act. I know all the horror stories and acusations of things that could happen. I've even heard of the occassional innocent guy accused. But, where are the gross injustices and major freedoms being oppressed by the Patriot Act? Seriously, without name calling and your typical bullshit, tell me where they are? I haven't had any problems, nor have any of my friends, or friends friends, or their friends had any problems.

Here's a big injustice for you... My father, my grandfathers, and all the other Americans that have gone to war for this country risked their lives to defend the Constitution of the United States of America have basically been fucked over by a group of people that thinks the Constitution... the law... the HIGHEST law in the land doesn't apply to them.

I'll say it again... The US Constitution is not a static document. It can be changed if necessary, and has been changed in the past. There is simple, legal procedure our government is supposed to be following, and they're not. If the laws need to change, then so be it, but the law is not something you make up as you go along. If any of these actions ever see the light of day in the Supreme Court, the executive branch is fucked.

This isn't about who has or has not been hurt by their actions. This is about our government following the law, and all of our rights to privacy. I don't understand why this is such a tough concept for some of you to understand.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 15, 2006, 2:50 pm

noel wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Show us the big injustices that have occured since the induction of the Patriot Act. I know all the horror stories and acusations of things that could happen. I've even heard of the occassional innocent guy accused. But, where are the gross injustices and major freedoms being oppressed by the Patriot Act? Seriously, without name calling and your typical bullshit, tell me where they are? I haven't had any problems, nor have any of my friends, or friends friends, or their friends had any problems.
Here's a big injustice for you... My father, my grandfathers, and all the other Americans that have gone to war for this country risked their lives to defend the Constitution of the United States of America have basically been fucked over by a group of people that thinks the Constitution... the law... the HIGHEST law in the land doesn't apply to them.

I'll say it again... The US Constitution is not a static document. It can be changed if necessary, and has been changed in the past. There is simple, legal procedure our government is supposed to be following, and they're not. This isn't about who has or has not been hurt by their actions. This is about our government following the law, and all of our rights to privacy.

I don't understand why this is such a tough concept for some of you to understand.

So you don't have an example of what this renewable or non-renewable act has done that is so horrible and catastrophic. Okay, thanks.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 15, 2006, 3:20 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:So you don't have an example of what this renewable or non-renewable act has done that is so horrible and catastrophic. Okay, thanks.

Can you read?

Does violating the law sound horrible to you?

Does throwing out an amendment in the Bill of Rights sound catastrophic to you?

What country do you live in?

What country do you pledge your allegiance to?

What freedoms would you be willing to fight to defend?

What freedoms would you be willing to die to defend?

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » May 15, 2006, 3:43 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 15, 2006, 3:47 pm

noel wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:So you don't have an example of what this renewable or non-renewable act has done that is so horrible and catastrophic. Okay, thanks.
Can you read?

Does violating the law sound horrible to you?

Does throwing out an amendment in the Bill of Rights sound catastrophic to you?

What country do you live in?

What country do you pledge your allegiance to?

What freedoms would you be willing to fight to defend?

What freedoms would you be willing to die to defend?

OMG. Well, I wasn't aware that as part of the Patriot Act, they would be throwing out the 4th Amendment, as shown below. Geez, I thought this was a temporary thing that had no permanency at all. hmmm

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I just don't know. When I glance at the Patriot Act, I see the many good things this thing does and try not to focus on the small things.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

noel · Post by **noel** » May 15, 2006, 3:52 pm

The Patriot Act does not supercede the 4th Amendment. You quoted it... now try reading it.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 15, 2006, 4:08 pm

noel wrote:The Patriot Act does not supercede the 4th Amendment. You quoted it... now try reading it.

I thought you said they were throwing it out? I'm just quoting you sweetheart.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 15, 2006, 4:18 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
noel wrote:The Patriot Act does not supercede the 4th Amendment. You quoted it... now try reading it.
I thought you said they were throwing it out? I'm just quoting you sweetheart.

It's pretty clear that by 'throwing out', I meant 'not following' or 'not making use of'.

In other news:
You don't deserve to live in this country.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » May 15, 2006, 4:55 pm

Well the big key argument you have contains the word "unreasonable" as its basis. Apaprently not everyone agrees that taping a phone call is unreasonable.

I don't work for the NSA and I have the ability to tape phone messages.....especially from someone's cell phone that they are talking on in public. Should them being in a public place give them freedom from anyone listening to them? Maybe they should outlaw cameras and video phones because someone might snap pictures of me doing something and store it at the NSA.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 15, 2006, 5:02 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Well the big key argument you have contains the word "unreasonable" as its basis. Apaprently not everyone agrees that taping a phone call is unreasonable.

I don't work for the NSA and I have the ability to tape phone messages.....especially from someone's cell phone that they are talking on in public. Should them being in a public place give them freedom from anyone listening to them? Maybe they should outlaw cameras and video phones because someone might snap pictures of me doing something and store it at the NSA.

Lets try and stay on topic here... This isn't about you personally, this is about the law, and what applies to everyone. This also isn't about whether or not our government can or should collect this data. I fully support them collecting this data, or whatever other data they feel is necessary to keep our country safe. What is at issue here, is whether or not our government followed the law in order to collect this data, and clearly they did not.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 15, 2006, 5:51 pm

noel wrote:Lets try and stay on topic here... This isn't about you personally, this is about the law, and what applies to everyone. This also isn't about whether or not our government can or should collect this data. I fully support them collecting this data, or whatever other data they feel is necessary to keep our country safe. What is at issue here, is whether or not our government followed the law in order to collect this data, and clearly they did not.

I'm on break at work, so I don't have time to look this up but...

I have been hearing that this might not be as illegal as it's being made out to be. There apparently was a law signed for by Clinton in 1994 (might have been 1996) which would allow the request without a warrant being required.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 15, 2006, 5:54 pm

I just saw that elsewhere as well, though I haven't had an opportunity to confirm the wording of the law. If that's the case, the current administration and the media at large needs to do a better job of publicizing this information.

In other news, McCarthy is alive and well:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/200 ... urce_.html

Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling

May 15, 2006 10:33 AM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.

Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.

People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.

Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.

The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.

A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.

May 15, 2006

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » May 15, 2006, 6:52 pm

What I'm especially curious about is that I have heard from multiple sources (including the original USA Today article) that the NSA entered into government contracts with AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth. So did the 3 just fess up the data or were they paid to fess up the data?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... -nsa_x.htm

USA TODAY wrote: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.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » May 16, 2006, 11:44 am

If they can figure out how to send encrypted sekrit messages in GIF files to a ship in the Earth's core, they can figure out how to hide phone calls from the government.

I have no worries.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 16, 2006, 6:54 pm

Ok, so now BellSouth and Verizon both deny giving any information*. That leaves us with who? AT&T who was already involved in the case. Where is the news in this?

*this does not mean I believe what BellSouth or Verizon are saying

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 17, 2006, 12:19 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicat ... cement_Act

That's a link to information on the Act I have been hearing referred to on this subject.

After reading through that and the act (located at http://www.askcalea.net/calea.html), it appears that there is a more direct impact from this Act on the issues regarding the alleged "secret room" at AT&T than with the surrender of phone records. There really isn't anything there about having or getting authorization for the information. It is more about what would be required in order to make the carriers install or upgrade equipment. Basically, they can say that the carrier should have the capability of "recording" events, but this does not mention much about what is needed to actually obtain the records from them.

*this is just my rambling about something being mentioned on talk radio and apparently in at least one print editorial.