A Slippery Slope

[anEinherjer]

So Uppy and Sukie think sifting through every phone call made by Americans is cool. They claim, "No big deal, they're just looking for terr'rists", and "they're not actually spying on anyone".

Cato, not surprisingly, disagrees, and offers up this excellent commentary:

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=267

It is sometimes an exaggeration to talk about Big Brother. In this case, it is not.

The NSA's phone surveillance database is concerning for a variety of reasons:

* It flies in the face of Fourth Amendment principles that call for reasonableness or probable cause. It is not reasonable to monitor every American’s phone calling in a search for terrorists.
* The program was not authorized by Congress and it flies in the face of Congress' intent when it defunded the Total Information Awareness program because of concerns about the privacy consequences of "data mining."
* "Data mining" for terrorism — the idea that searching through masses of data can find terrorist patterns or suspicious anomalies — is provably flawed. Probability theory shows that searching for extremely rare events or conditions using even slightly flawed formulae will return mostly false positives. In other words, investigators searching through data about millions of Americans for the very few terrorists will send themselves on wild goose chases after innocent law-abiding citizens, with only the slimmest chance of stumbling onto terrorists or terrorism planning.
* It is no defense of the program to say that it only includes information about calls, and not the content of calls themselves. Traffic information is very revealing — it includes the times and frequency of Americans' calls to their doctors, psychologists, paramours, and priests. And there is no way to know whether this surveillance is limited only to telephone traffic information.
* It is unlikely that authorities could restrict their use of a database of all Americans' phone calls. If it hasn't been put to new purposes yet, before long this database will be used for general investigative purposes. As we've seen in the past, surveillance powers given to government officials are ultimately used even for political purposes.



You right wing defenders need to realize something, best defined through the use of a cliche: Rome wasn't build in a day.

A police state isn't going to just pop up overnight. We're not going to wake up one morning and go "Holy shit! Honey, get my gun!" It's all about a slippery slope. It's all about a slow erosion of personal liberty, usually masked in the guise of some sort of "higher purpose".

Please, right wing boys, consider that. Seriously.

[uppy]

"Data mining" for terrorism — the idea that searching through masses of data can find terrorist patterns or suspicious anomalies — is provably flawed. Probability theory shows that searching for extremely rare events or conditions using even slightly flawed formulae will return mostly false positives"


I just happen to have personal knowledge of a "secret" program in which government operatives have access to records of everyone's personal phone numbers, home and business, along with addresses and business contacts that might be involved with those private citizens.

It's called the YELLOW PAGES.

Really, you numbnuts think its a crime for someone to check a list of phone numbers to see if someone in America is talking to terrorist networks overseas.

Are we allowed to defend this country,or should we just give up now?

[anEinherjer]

Defend this country against its own people?

Don't post such nonsense, and don't start calling names in the 2nd post of a thread. Don't tell me you've lost the argument already.

[sukie]

4th amendment my ass. The phone company has all your recorddss... probably sprawled out acrosss a board room table with donut jelly and coffee rings. You do not own the records. This is not a public privacy issue.

[nehemiah]

:popcorn:

[uppy]

I did start calling names "numbnuts"....for that I'm sorry.


"Defend this country against its own people?"


Is that what the we are doing.... I thought we were,trying to see if someone in America is talking to terrorist networks overseas.

should we just give up?

[sukie]

Numb or wing.... damn it's a tough choice. I guess I prefer wing with my nuts.

[Stealth01]

* It flies in the face of Fourth Amendment principles that call for reasonableness or probable cause. It is not reasonable to monitor every American’s phone calling in a search for terrorists.

Not according to most legal analysts. It is NON-CONTENT, so it is not covered by the fourth amendment.

* The program was not authorized by Congress and it flies in the face of Congress' intent when it defunded the Total Information Awareness program because of concerns about the privacy consequences of "data mining."


The "required" members of Congress were apparently briefed, but the problem with that is that they're all in the Republican Party. Or most of them, anyway. There should have been a broader effort to brief this, with a care to those likely to leak information for their own benefit...oh wait...that's EVERY politician.

* "Data mining" for terrorism — the idea that searching through masses of data can find terrorist patterns or suspicious anomalies — is provably flawed. Probability theory shows that searching for extremely rare events or conditions using even slightly flawed formulae will return mostly false positives. In other words, investigators searching through data about millions of Americans for the very few terrorists will send themselves on wild goose chases after innocent law-abiding citizens, with only the slimmest chance of stumbling onto terrorists or terrorism planning.


WHile this statement is correct, that's not what I understand the program to be. They are not actively analyzing the data, only keeping it in an automated form in order to analyze specific phone numbers if they become associated with a suspected terrorist. That is a much more targeted approach, and while still problematic if handled wrong, has a much higher likelihood of success.

* It is no defense of the program to say that it only includes information about calls, and not the content of calls themselves. Traffic information is very revealing — it includes the times and frequency of Americans' calls to their doctors, psychologists, paramours, and priests. And there is no way to know whether this surveillance is limited only to telephone traffic information.

Also true, but from what I've read that doesn't change the fourth amendment information here. And yes, there are plenty of ways to know if it was limited to traffic info--I'm POSITIVE the phone companies have records of exactly what they provided. Their way of covering their collective asses.

* It is unlikely that authorities could restrict their use of a database of all Americans' phone calls. If it hasn't been put to new purposes yet, before long this database will be used for general investigative purposes. As we've seen in the past, surveillance powers given to government officials are ultimately used even for political purposes.

That's probably the most valid argument here, but is easily countered with the fact that the information is available to everyone else and their uncle for a few bucks, so what diff is it if the government has it.

[anEinherjer]

"so what diff is it if the government has it."

1. Two wrongs don't make a right.
2. We do have a choice when we use a service. We don't have a choice about out gov't.
3. Gov't can make us disappear. Gov't can decide one day to track you for any other purpose (and they will.).

I'm surprised all you guys are okay with your executive branch just doing shit without laws to allow it. That's actually the most surprising thing.

I'll remind you of this thread when there's a Dem pres doing something you don't like....

[Stealth01]

"so what diff is it if the government has it."

1. Two wrongs don't make a right.
2. We do have a choice when we use a service. We don't have a choice about out gov't.
3. Gov't can make us disappear. Gov't can decide one day to track you for any other purpose (and they will.).

I'm surprised all you guys are okay with your executive branch just doing shit without laws to allow it. That's actually the most surprising thing.

I'll remind you of this thread when there's a Dem pres doing something you don't like....

First off, don't clump me with "you guys," assuming I am a conservative (as your last sentence implies). I'm an independent.

Second, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 authorizes this, and in fact REQUIRES phone companies to cooperate with it.

[anEinherjer]

First off, I don't mean to lump you in with the red-state hicks :D. My apologies for that.

Second off, just because the Telecom Act authorized something doesn't make it right, nor does it mean we should just be happy (thankful?) about it. However, I was not aware that the Telecom Act contradicted our entire history by allowing secret snooping on all domestic communication. I could certainly be wrong though, and if so, **** the Republicans even harder.

Considering the FACT that there are no terror cells running amock in America, why the hell do they even need to do this? Considering the fact that they had advance knowledge of all attacks carried out on Americans so far (or so we always seem to hear well after the fact), yet screwed up each time, why do they need to try to collect more info on Americans? Don't you think their efforts would be better placed in simply fixing their bureaucratic ****ups first?

[uppy]

anE,do you think the fact that Gen.Hayden is up for the job at the CIA
has any thing to do with the hit by CNN,ABC,NBC,PBS,CBS the USA today.

[35Pete]

First off, I don't mean to lump you in with the red-state hicks :D. My apologies for that.

Second off, just because the Telecom Act authorized something doesn't make it right, nor does it mean we should just be happy (thankful?) about it. However, I was not aware that the Telecom Act contradicted our entire history by allowing secret snooping on all domestic communication. I could certainly be wrong though, and if so, **** the Republicans even harder.

Considering the FACT that there are no terror cells running amock in America, why the hell do they even need to do this? Considering the fact that they had advance knowledge of all attacks carried out on Americans so far (or so we always seem to hear well after the fact), yet screwed up each time, why do they need to try to collect more info on Americans? Don't you think their efforts would be better placed in simply fixing their bureaucratic ****ups first?


Hey these were "legal" too. Does that make them moral?

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/nurmberg.html

THE NUREMBERG LAWS

The Congress of the National Socialist Workers' Party (NAZI) convened in Nuremburg, Germany on September 10, 1935. Among the many items of business on the Nazi agenda was the passage of a series of laws designed (a) to clarify the requirements of citizenship in the Third Reich, (b) to assure the purity of German blood and German honor and (b) to clarify the position of Jews in the Reich. These three laws, passed on September 15, 1935, and the numerous auxillary laws which followed them are called the Nuremberg Laws. They are reprinted here in their entirety. Please take special note of the similarity between these laws and the Jim Crow Laws which were passed in the United States following the Compromise of 1877, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) and remained in effect until the court reversed the "separate but equal doctrine in Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka (1954). It is clear that Hitler used the Jim Crow segregation statutes as his model for defining Jews in the Third Reich.

[nehemiah]

Hey these were "legal" too. Does that make them moral?

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/nurmberg.html

THE NUREMBERG LAWS

The Congress of the National Socialist Workers' Party (NAZI) convened in Nuremburg, Germany on September 10, 1935. Among the many items of business on the Nazi agenda was the passage of a series of laws designed (a) to clarify the requirements of citizenship in the Third Reich, (b) to assure the purity of German blood and German honor and (b) to clarify the position of Jews in the Reich. These three laws, passed on September 15, 1935, and the numerous auxillary laws which followed them are called the Nuremberg Laws. They are reprinted here in their entirety. Please take special note of the similarity between these laws and the Jim Crow Laws which were passed in the United States following the Compromise of 1877, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) and remained in effect until the court reversed the "separate but equal doctrine in Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka (1954). It is clear that Hitler used the Jim Crow segregation statutes as his model for defining Jews in the Third Reich.whoa.... talk about upping the ante.

:popcorn:

[sukie]

Now this is a morality issue? BTW I read the Jim Crow laws... Yikes

[rob on the job]

Defend this country against its own people? ...

This is one point that I may disagree with, anEin.

You can reasonably assume that the majority of the phone calls scrutinized are from Americans -- but maybe a good chunk of them are from non-Americans (visitors, travelers, diplomats, "persons of interest", etc.)

Let's say 50 million phone calls were tracked, and of these 10 million were from the non-Americans mentioned above. Does that mitigate the distastefulness of this, or are non-Americans afforded Constitutional protections?

[Fortunesmith]

Can somebody please give a specific scenario where this would hurt law abiding citizens?

[sukie]

There isn't one.

[Ru]

Can somebody please give a specific scenario where this would hurt law abiding citizens?

Well, random, warrantless searches of private residences wouldn't hurt law abiding citizens either. Why not start that practice in the name of "fighting terr'ism"?

[rob on the job]

Well, random, warrantless searches of private residences wouldn't hurt law abiding citizens either. Why not start that practice in the name of "fighting terr'ism"?

As long as the agents remove their shoes at the front door.

If they get the carpet dirty and piss off the wife, they'd rather be in a firefight with Hezbollah.

[35Pete]

Well, random, warrantless searches of private residences wouldn't hurt law abiding citizens either. Why not start that practice in the name of "fighting terr'ism"?
"Just got off the plane, huh? Well if you say you have nothing hidden up your rectum then as a law abiding citizen there is no harm done by having this customs officer with the glove on check, right?"

Or are you hiding something?????

[sukie]

Well, random, warrantless searches of private residences wouldn't hurt law abiding citizens either. Why not start that practice in the name of "fighting terr'ism"?
The slippery slope you are fearing would have to be pretty freaking steep to get to that point. "8:27PM (954)555-1212 outgoing to (954)555-1616 duration 2 minutes" If my last pizza order worries the feds... we DO have problems.

[Ru]

The slippery slope you are fearing would have to be pretty freaking steep to get to that point. "8:27PM (954)555-1212 outgoing to (954)555-1616 duration 2 minutes" If my last pizza order worries the feds... we DO have problems.

Why? Maybe not random searches, but if your argument against the phone records is that "law abiding citizens won't be hurt", then would you be against warrantless searches of people's homes if they are suspected of having terr'ist ties? After all, it's better to be safe than sorry if there is suspicion and if the person happens to be a law abiding citizen, then no harm no foul.

[sukie]

RU...First off phone#'s on a piece of paper and home searches are two different things. the searches would be an assault on the 4th amendment that cannot be misinterpreted. The paper is not an individuals property so i cannot correlate the two

[Ru]

RU...First off phone#'s on a piece of paper and home searches are two different things. the searches would be an assault on the 4th amendment that cannot be misinterpreted. The paper is not an individuals property so i cannot correlate the two

So why does law enforcement need to get a warrant to obtain phone records if it cannot be correlated to a home search which also requires a warrant?

[Fortunesmith]

Stating that the government looking at phone call logs is somehow the beginning of warrantless home searches, or to even relate the two is borderline paranoia.

[35Pete]

Hey sukie!

Blanket Searches.

Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.

Fourth Amendment protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even though the intrusion undoubtedly would result in an enormous boon to the public if the efficient apprehension of criminals were the sole criterion to be considered. 'The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take.' Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm

[Ru]

Stating that the government looking at phone call logs is somehow the beginning of warrantless home searches, or to even relate the two is borderline paranoia.

To not be fearful of the precedent that this practice sets is borderline ignorant.

[sukie]

So why does law enforcement need to get a warrant to obtain phone records if it cannot be correlated to a home search which also requires a warrant?

They need the warrant to get the records from the company... not the individual.

[sukie]

Pete, I miss where you are going with that.i am opposed to searches without cause. (by cause I mean the type of cause that give a police officer a reason to search you.)

[Ru]

They need the warrant to get the records from the company... not the individual.

What's the relevance of the distinction? They still need to show evidence to justify the seizure of the records. The individual doesn't possess the desired information in this instance as he would in a search of his/her home.

[sukie]

They could ask the company for the records and they could get them that way if the company agreed. No pussy footin around when a warrant is in tow.

[35Pete]

Someone explain to me how these actions meet this litmus test for "reasonable". Give it your best shot.

the Fourth Amendment
and the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Despite their clarity, the Fourth Amendment's protections against "unreasonable searches and seizures" have in fact been drastically weakened since they became the law of the land in 1791. As it stands today, unless there exists a "reasonable" expectation of privacy -- that is, a "reasonable" expectation that what one does or says will not be seen or heard by someone else -- neither local police nor federal law enforcement authorities are required to get a warrant or other court order before they start a surveillance operation.

How does one establish whether, in a given instance, one's expectation of privacy is "reasonable"? The criteria are as follows: 1) general legal principles; 2) the vantage point from which the surveillance is carried out; 3) the degree of privacy afforded by certain buildings and/or places; and 4) the sophistication and invasiveness of the surveillance technology employed.

1. General legal principles. The expectation of privacy is not reasonable if the behaviors or communications in question were knowingly exposed to public view. Neither the simple desire for privacy, nor the fact that one took steps to obtain it, entitles one to reasonably expect it. For example, even if one set up roadblocks, hung "no trespassing" signs and moved one's house back into the woods, one might still be surveilled from the air without one's Fourth Amendment rights being violated. And yet, as the court stated in People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4 th 824, 835, "we cannot accept the proposition that [the] defendant forfeited the expectation his property would remain private simply because he did not erect an impregnable barrier to access."

2. Vantage point. The expectation of privacy is not reasonable if there exists a vantage point from which anyone, not just a police officer, can see or hear what was going on and if this vantage point is or should be known or "reasonably foreseen" by the person being surveilled. If such a vantage point exists in theory, the police can actually use another vantage point from which to conduct their surveillance, because what matters is the expectation of privacy, which becomes "unreasonable" if any vantage point exists (!). But the police cannot use a vantage point if they have no legal right to take or occupy it. The police cannot commit trespassing; they haven't if they have taken up a vantage point along a normal access route, an "open field," or a common area.

3. Certain buildings and/or pieces of land. The expectation of privacy is not reasonable at such public places as automobile thoroughfares (United States v. Knotts [1983] 460 US 276, 281), and national forests (United States v. McIver [9 th Cir. 1999] 186 F.3d 1119, 1125, but is reasonable at public phone booths (Katz v. the United States, 389 U.S. 347 [1967]), rock concerts (Jacobsen v. Seattle, 658 P. 2d 653 [Wash. 1983]), and sports arenas (Collier v. Miller, 414 F. Supp. 1357 [S.D. Tex. 1976]).

4. Technological sophistication. It's easy to forget that, at the time the Fourth Amendment was written and adopted, the photographic camera had not yet been invented; it wasn't until 1826 that Daguerre patented the first photographic process. Because of the rapid development and increasing technological sophistication of televisual surveillance -- first, photography, then, close-circuit televison, and, finally, digital imagery -- "Judicial implementations of the Fourth Amendment need constant accommodation to the ever-intensifying technology of surveillance" (Dean v. Superior Court [1973] 35 Cal.App.3d 112, 116); "the Fourth Amendment must likewise grow in response" (United States v. Kim [1976] 415 F. Supp. 1252, 1257). This is especially true when it comes to "acquisition technology," that is, devices that, in effect, create vantage points that weren't previously there: audio bugs, wiretaps, and "video bugs" (covert wireless cameras), the use of which requires that the police must get warrants or other court orders.

http://www.notbored.org/privacy.html

[sukie]

using your reference material, Pete... Ask a question in your own words

[anEinherjer]

The slippery slope you are fearing would have to be pretty freaking steep to get to that point. "8:27PM (954)555-1212 outgoing to (954)555-1616 duration 2 minutes" If my last pizza order worries the feds... we DO have problems.

Really? You don't think they'd cross reference all your calls against where you were calling in order to find out if you MIGHT be laundering money? You don't think one mistake in a software algorithm won't sent the Feds barging through your entire life?

You guys seem awfully cool about the expansion of gov't power and questionable uses of intel gathering. What were your positions on the Clintons' questionable uses of FBI files or certain suspicious IRS audits?

You don't think, Sukie, that if you made a few too many calls to your broker, or banks, or whatever, that the police state won't come a-knocking?

And you think it requires a warrant? Are you nuts? Bush has claimed absolute search powers, already blowing off the FISA warrant requirement.

You are far too trusting of your Republican rulers, my man.

[sukie]

Really? You don't think they'd cross reference all your calls against where you were calling in order to find out if you MIGHT be laundering money? You don't think one mistake in a software algorithm won't sent the Feds barging through your entire life?

No. I think liberties are far more infringed upon when people are terrified to fly, travel abroad, open parcels, etc. That is a liberty breach.

[TRIPLE P]

Really? You don't think they'd cross reference all your calls against where you were calling in order to find out if you MIGHT be laundering money? You don't think one mistake in a software algorithm won't sent the Feds barging through your entire life?

You guys seem awfully cool about the expansion of gov't power and questionable uses of intel gathering. What were your positions on the Clintons' questionable uses of FBI files or certain suspicious IRS audits?

You don't think, Sukie, that if you made a few too many calls to your broker, or banks, or whatever, that the police state won't come a-knocking?

And you think it requires a warrant? Are you nuts? Bush has claimed absolute search powers, already blowing off the FISA warrant requirement.

You are far too trusting of your Republican rulers, my man.

Its not trust...its being a big ****ing pussy.... alQueda is aparently terrifying (hmmm....weird word) and so terrifying that privacy isn't a priority....

Every next step like this is just the terrorists winning....... and upstart and sukie are rooting them on....

[sukie]

people terrified to fly, travel abroad, open parcels, etc. That is a liberty breach. That is terror winning

[Fortunesmith]

To not be fearful of the precedent that this practice sets is borderline ignorant.

It only sets a precedent with the paranoid and people wanting to pile on the administration with anything they can get their hands on. The only ignorant thing about this is not actually thinking the government had the capability to do this anyway and used this as a tool before. We are talking phone logs, not warrantless cavity searches.

[35Pete]

Really? You don't think they'd cross reference all your calls against where you were calling in order to find out if you MIGHT be laundering money? You don't think one mistake in a software algorithm won't sent the Feds barging through your entire life?

You guys seem awfully cool about the expansion of gov't power and questionable uses of intel gathering. What were your positions on the Clintons' questionable uses of FBI files or certain suspicious IRS audits?

You don't think, Sukie, that if you made a few too many calls to your broker, or banks, or whatever, that the police state won't come a-knocking?

And you think it requires a warrant? Are you nuts? Bush has claimed absolute search powers, already blowing off the FISA warrant requirement.

You are far too trusting of your Republican rulers, my man.

That's the problem. Loyalty to a party, rather than a principle. Too much on both sides here.

[TRIPLE P]

people terrified to fly, travel abroad, open parcels, etc. That is a liberty breach. That is terror winning


I'm not scared of any of that.... are you?

Are you so scared of flying, going to france, or a duffle bag that you are willing to keep giving a little privacy away at a time? Wheres the line?

What if, in the name of stopping terrorism you needed to scan an ID card whenever you entered a building....is that OK.....would that make an unattended backpack less scary?

[Ru]

I am really just shocked that anyone calling themselves a "conservative" would be okay with this. To me, it is a complete violation of true conservative principles. But hey, I'm a crazy paranoid so what do I know?

[35Pete]

I am really just shocked that anyone calling themselves a "conservative" would be okay with this. To me, it is a complete violation of true conservative principles. But hey, I'm a crazy paranoid so what do I know?
"Stunned" would be a better word to use.

Don't confuse party loyalty and personal ideology with conservatism.

[sukie]

WXP....Did I say "I"... Mr Big American I said "people". You telling me there wasn't a tourism/travel drought post 9/11? You don't think there is less european travel? Okey dokes.

[TRIPLE P]

WXP....Did I say "I"... Mr Big American I said "people". You telling me there wasn't a tourism/travel drought post 9/11? You don't think there is less european travel? Okey dokes.


And buying millions of phone record is gonna fix that.... tracing telephone patterns is gonna cause you to fly to Amsterdam?

Did you ever think that people aren't traveling as much because EVERYONE ****ING HATES US!!!!!


Oh i forgot, we're at war....a war we're losing, a war we can't win.

So very pathetic.

[sukie]

"Stunned" would be a better word to use.

Don't confuse party loyalty and personal ideology with conservatism.
Why stunned? Mr Bubba F150 (Hee Hee)

This doesn't make government bigger this doesn't infringe on the (oh so many ways interpretted) constitution... Unless you are concerned with the rights of the phone providers to keep the records.

[TRIPLE P]

This doesn't make government bigger this doesn't infringe on the (oh so many ways interpretted) constitution... Unless you are concerned with the rights of the phone providers to keep the records.


This is total Bullshit Sukie....just because you keep typing it doesn't make it true....


Would you mind telling me exactly the extent of the wiretapping, the phone record tracing, and any other domestic spying the NSA undertakes? Step by step, specific cases, and limits.....

...also, please include the names and departments that are providing the checks on the NSA, and who are reviewing the processes to make sure they are contitutional......


you can ask Upstart for help....he's the expert.

[sukie]

That pissing match is between you and uppy. this is about PHONE RECORDS not content R E C O R D S. Don't tap dance by including tapping into this.

How are WXP's rights violated by the government by ATT et al handing over paper records? then (if you come up with an answer to that one) who do you sue for the violation?

[anEinherjer]

No. I think liberties are far more infringed upon when people are terrified to fly, travel abroad, open parcels, etc. That is a liberty breach.

Who in America is honestly terrified by any of the stuff you mentioned? I don't know anyone, and if they are, they're fools.

[TRIPLE P]

That pissing match is between you and uppy. this is about PHONE RECORDS not content R E C O R D S. Don't tap dance by including tapping into this.

How are WXP's rights violated by the government by ATT et al handing over paper records? then (if you come up with an answer to that one) who do you sue for the violation?


This isn't about a pile of paper....its what is done with that paper....


How do you know what they are and are not looking at? You don't....

I don't either, and thats what scares me.

[sukie]

Were you in a comma right after 9/11? Stop it.

[35Pete]

Why stunned? Mr Bubba F150 (Hee Hee)

This doesn't make government bigger this doesn't infringe on the (oh so many ways interpretted) constitution... Unless you are concerned with the rights of the phone providers to keep the records.
You are on crack!!!

Doesn't make the gov't bigger????????????

What is "bigger"? More money? More employees?

How about something a little more general? MORE POWER & INFLUENCE!!!!!!!!!

[anEinherjer]

And if you seriously don't think they could link your phone records to your ENTIRE LIFE you're a fool. Or clueless.

The only ignorant thing about this is not actually thinking the government had the capability to do this anyway and used this as a tool before.

And once again, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because they COULD have been doing this for decades, doesn't mean they SHOULD.

[sukie]

This isn't about a pile of paper....its what is done with that paper....


How do you know what they are and are not looking at? You don't....

I don't either, and thats what scares me.

So now the assumptions start. That is no different than racial stereotyping.
If the Government has data.... they are infringing on our rights by using it.
Short hispanics from Ecuador are great at riding horses.

[TRIPLE P]

So now the assumptions start. That is no different than racial stereotyping.
If the Government has data.... they are infringing on our rights by using it.
Short hispanics from Ecuador are great at riding horses.


Questioning why the government need phone record, and what they are doing with them equates to racism to you?

Holy ****ing shit!

:rofl:

[sukie]

No assuming we will all be violated is the stereotype

[shiva2999]

You'll still find Germans making excuses for Hitler 60 years later.

Face it, lots of people would be quite happy in a fascist dictatorship.

[TRIPLE P]

No assuming we will all be violated is the stereotype


No....wondering WTF is going on, why its necessary and whos making sure we're NOT getting violated is a legitimate concern......


Sukie....heres the truth...... you're scred of being blown up so you're willing to give away some privacy.....how much....you don't know.

I'm not.

[35Pete]

Brave, principled, freedom loving Americans will risk security for their liberties.

Cowards consent to cavity checks if it means that others will have to also.

[shiva2999]

Brave, principled, freedom loving Americans will risk security for their liberties.

Cowards consent to cavity checks if it means that others will have to also.

Bravo!

[sukie]

You guys are missing this point. What privacey do you have if the phone company keeps the records. They are not beholden to you for anything.

[shiva2999]

The government is.

[sukie]

The government is.
They are not supplying the records. And... this effects you how?

[shiva2999]

They are not supplying the records. And... this effects you how?

They are receiving the records.

I know you're a law of the jungle guy sukie but here in civilization we understand that doing the right thing isn't the same as doing what you can get away with.

[sukie]

The records are not illegal and belong to a company. No civilian liberties were breached by the government. Wanna class action the companies. Go at it.

[35Pete]

Suki. These people are not party loyalists, come from ALL political persuasions, yet NOT ONE AGREES WITH YOU.

Gilchristfan
anEinherjer
Me
Rabid
Phantom
Mouldsrocks

Doesn't that say something? Anything?

[shiva2999]

Suki. These people are not party loyalists, come from ALL political persuasions, yet NOT ONE AGREES WITH YOU.

Gilchristfan
anEinherjer
Me
Rabid
Phantom
Mouldsrocks

Doesn't that say something? Anything?

It just means sukie's a real patriot willing to take a good ass****ing for his country and you guys aren't.

[35Pete]

I am looking for motive here sukie. I always look to see what motivates someone to a certain position. I can only think of two. Which is it?

A. Fear.
B. Blind Party Loyalty.

[Fortunesmith]

I agree with Suki, 100% The rest of you sound rather naive. These are phone numbers fairly easily obtained by just about anyone! Are you afraid that some other entity besides the government can use these numbers for no good? If you are, then I can see your point, but it doesn't make you any less paranoid.

[TRIPLE P]

I am looking for motive here sukie. I always look to see what motivates someone to a certain position. I can only think of two. Which is it?

A. Fear.
B. Blind Party Loyalty.


My guess (and no offense intended Sukie) is indifference.

[TRIPLE P]

I agree with Suki, 100% The rest of you sound rather naive. These are phone numbers fairly easily obtained by just about anyone! Are you afraid that some other entity besides the government can use these numbers for no good? If you are, then I can see your point, but it doesn't make you any less paranoid.


The Government is not "any other entity"


Who's naive?

[sukie]

Who's afraid?

[TRIPLE P]

Who's afraid?

I'm alot more afriad of the government than I am alQueda

[sukie]

Cool. Kinda sucks with that cconstant left neck swing to peer over your shoulder all the time.

[shiva2999]

I am looking for motive here sukie. I always look to see what motivates someone to a certain position. I can only think of two. Which is it?

A. Fear.
B. Blind Party Loyalty.

What? You're not going to allow sukie to use The Stupidity Defense?

Why is he held to a higher standard than the Bush administration?

[Ru]

I agree with Suki, 100% The rest of you sound rather naive. These are phone numbers fairly easily obtained by just about anyone! Are you afraid that some other entity besides the government can use these numbers for no good? If you are, then I can see your point, but it doesn't make you any less paranoid.

These aren't just "phone numbers"!!! This is calling activity. Can't you see the difference?

[TRIPLE P]

I'm telling you....Sukie probably just doesn't care.....

[Fortunesmith]

The Government is not "any other entity"


Who's naive?

In my example it is. An outside "entity" can legally obtain the same records almost as easy the the government can.

[TRIPLE P]

In my example it is. An outside "entity" can legally obtain the same records almost as easy the the government can.


So what.

Can an "outside entity" use these record to obtain a warrent to search your house, or arrest you?

[sukie]

What? You're not going to allow sukie to use The Stupidity Defense?

Why is he held to a higher standard than the Bush administration?
There is alot of crap flying myway.... Okay.

1. I cannot fear something that doesn't exsist. ie, Hell, and the government's so called privacy breach since they received the data that belonged to a host of companies willing to give.

2. the Blind Faith is kinda funny from anyone that believes in a god.

[TRIPLE P]

Sukie its not the data, its what the data is used for.

[sukie]

Uh.... the issue at hand is the US gaining the data. People wouldn't be focking to Qwest if you were correct. Sorry but your angle of argument has slid off target just abit.

If you want to go there.. then you are purely speculating just like Global Warming... Pete knows about causality and corellation.

I'll coin a new phrase... "Junk Speculation"

[anEinherjer]

Sorry suk if it seems like we're piling on. :D You can't fear something that doesn't exist, like al Qaeda as a powerful force for evil in America?

If you don't think our gov't is doing things, can do things, and will do things that are just plain brutal with regards to civil rights, say hi to Joe McCarthy when you see him.

And Fortunesmith, you got a lot to learn about police states. WXP already anihilated your "what can they do with it" premise so I don't have to bother.

Has nothing to do with left vs. right boys - I mean, even Pete's on the side of Good on this one. :D

[TRIPLE P]

Uh.... the issue at hand is the US gaining the data. "


Not for me.....

Gaining the data is at the forfront....

...but if you're implying that the NSA just wanted it to have it and doesn't plan on using it than I don't know what to tell you......

[anEinherjer]

Yeah, the issue is the US gaining the data not just because they have the data, but because of what they're going to do with it!!

EXACTLY right. The issue is them getting the data because they cannot be trusted.

[Fortunesmith]

Is there anything else the governament shouldn't use that other parties can legally obtain?

[sukie]

I'm saying you are speculating worst case scenerios... at best. They could very welll have a paper airplane making contest at the NSA and it would be as credible an action to your fears.

Cause: lotsa paper andpeople in an office correlates to paper airplane creation. (look through the silly example and find what I am saying)

[TRIPLE P]

Yeah, the issue is the US gaining the data not just because they have the data, but because of what they're going to do with it!!

EXACTLY right. The issue is them getting the data because they cannot be trusted.


The issue for me is that they are seemingly unchecked......

They have a short press conference and say "everythings cool" and so it is?

The defense of the secrecy is that "we are at war" and its a " matter of security'"....

The circle always comes back to fear.

Guess what guys....9/11 could have been prevented based on the info we were getting the old way......and guess what:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/01810r.jpg

[TRIPLE P]

I'm saying you are speculating worst case scenerios...


Exactly.

I'm questioning the government...thier rationale, and thier reaasoning....

So far all we've got is some protection racket BS.....

[Fortunesmith]

EXACTLY right. The issue is them getting the data because they cannot be trusted.

Now your complaints are clear.

[sukie]

Yeah, the issue is the US gaining the data not just because they have the data, but because of what they're going to do with it!!

EXACTLY right. The issue is them getting the data because they cannot be trusted.
I thought the Librarian would be the voice of reason. Well okay. anEin why is the headline NOT ATT et al screw with american's privacy? Phone companies give away phone records. I guess it wouldn't be an entertaining thread.

What has the government done that is illegal in this case?

[TRIPLE P]

Now your complaints are clear.


Why do you trust the government FS?

[Fortunesmith]

Why do you trust the government FS?

Because it has done nothing for me to lose it's trust. What happened in your life that made you lose the trust of the government?

[sukie]

All my liberties are intact... especially the one's afforded to me that I use.

[shiva2999]

Well okay. anEin why is the headline NOT ATT et al screw with american's privacy?

How about this headline?

NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL CONVICTS CATTLE CAR COMPANY FOR DEATH OF SIX MILLION JEWS. HITLER ACQUITTED.

[sukie]

Don't you have any more retarded children's jpegs to post?

[shiva2999]

No. You got some?

[TRIPLE P]

Because it has done nothing for me to lose it's trust. What happened in your life that made you lose the trust of the government?

I don't trust people in general.

People DO NOT have other best interests in mind...ever. To think otherwise is naive.

Rarely does anyone do ANYTHING to break even and make friends.

Governments throughout history has been corrupt, have used methods of control and clever scare tactics to exploit thier citizens.....

Power corrupts, and history repeats itself.

Our country is ran buy businessmen......


I take all these things into account....there has to be a certain amount of distrust citizens have in thier government......at least scrutiny.

When you assume they are doing whats best for you you are easily exploited.

[anEinherjer]

All my liberties are intact... especially the one's afforded to me that I use.

Really? Truly? You can go smoke a joint if you want and not worry about mandatory minimum sentences?


Fortunesmith: Gov't has a long and sordid history that leads to many people not trusting it (including your founding fathers!). I really don't care about the legality or illegality of them collecting every call record for every person in the country. I DO care about them taking one more step on the long and winding road to a police state. And I hate using that phrase because that just ends up sounding shrill and paranoid.

What are you guys going to say when the next breach comes along? And the next, the next, and the next? What are you going to say when they're at the borders between states saying "Your papers, please."?

Don't you guys think it's worth fighting for the right to remain anonymous from our glorious leaders? Do you really want your nanny state federal gov't having even more information on you? What if they find out you, Sukie, have been calling every Indian nation around the country buying cigarettes? Or oooo horror, "Doctor shopping" because the pain on your right side :D is so bad you need more pills, but you've become too tolerant of those wimpy ones your primary doc gave you?

It's not that far a stretch from having those call records to using them in creative and putrid ways. I can't believe you "conservatives" are saying this is cool, just to defend your boy Bush. It's the kind of hypocrisy that you usually see on the left!

[sukie]

Really? Truly? You can go smoke a joint if you want and not worry about mandatory minimum sentences?

That's not a liberty afforded me.

I never pictured you as a imaginative alarmist. Very enlightening.

[anEinherjer]

Regardless of what some lefties will think about bringing up Andrew Napolitano's name, he has made a good point on this:

No one--no lawyer, judge, or historian--can point to a single incident in American history where national security was impaired because someone insisted on their right to free speech or their right to privacy or their right to due process.

[anEinherjer]

Sukie, I'm not imaginative. History is replete with examples.

[shiva2999]

Regardless of what some lefties will think about bringing up Andrew Napolitano's name, he has made a good point on this:

That's so pre-9/11 thinking.

The founding fathers never could have imagined Osama!

[sukie]

If I was so concerned about the privacy of my (not often enough) calls to mom (and not the actual conversation might add) and my Chicken wing take out... I'd use a calling card.

[TRIPLE P]

Sukie, what if I'm concerned with calls I make to my drug dealer, or with prostitutes?

[sukie]

Caling card. not sure if walkie talkie based Nextel is recorded the same way.
But anyway what about it? You wouldn't actually use phrases like ecstacy, weed, GHB, COCAINE on a phone would you?

[TRIPLE P]

But anyway what about it? You wouldn't actually use phrases like ecstacy, weed, GHB, COCAINE on a phone would you?


Why not?
Whos listening, and what can they do even if they heard.

But seriously, thats the point of my argument....

are you telling me that in the persuit of terrorism (if thats really the reason anyway) that if they run across something else not related that they aren't gonna check it out?

[sukie]

I wouldn't worry about it. Not at all. i was just fishing for your code speak if you had any (Hee Hee)

[TRIPLE P]

I wouldn't worry about it. Not at all. i was just fishing for your code speak if you had any (Hee Hee)


You mean you couldn't help me find some flowers?

[sukie]

Beans maybe and some apple juice perhaps...Hee Hee

[35Pete]

That's so pre-9/11 thinking.

The founding fathers never could have imagined Osama!
Not true. They thought about the redcoats coming back and they were baddass back then.

[sukie]

The founders (if you like that 1914 coined phrase) couldn't have phathomed the Mexican mass influx since there was no Texas yet. Had they, the born here citizen crap wouldn't have been included.

[Fortunesmith]

I don't trust people in general.

People DO NOT have other best interests in mind...ever. To think otherwise is naive.

Rarely does anyone do ANYTHING to break even and make friends.

Governments throughout history has been corrupt, have used methods of control and clever scare tactics to exploit thier citizens.....

Power corrupts, and history repeats itself.

Our country is ran buy businessmen......


I take all these things into account....there has to be a certain amount of distrust citizens have in thier government......at least scrutiny.

When you assume they are doing whats best for you you are easily exploited.

I don't share the same views. I am cynical, but not overly cynical. To me it would seem such a waste of energy to get all worked up about every worse-case scenario when the government has never has mistreated me or anyone I know personally. For the most part, I consider the life I have lead so far to have been very enjoyable. My government hasn't failed me yet, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

Much like my employer. I have seen many co-workers come and go in the last 8 years I have worked there, and a lot of them say they have been treated unfairly. I continue to prosper within the company regardless of their gripes, and I will continue to give my employer the benefit of the doubt as it stands.

[K-Gun]

Can somebody please give a specific scenario where this would hurt law abiding citizens?
There isn't one.

A bomb goes off in a US city. A big bomb.

Neo-cons are in power.

Liberals start to go by by.

could happen, and these are the types of laws in place that would allow it to happen.

[35Pete]

The founders (if you like that 1914 coined phrase) couldn't have phathomed the Mexican mass influx since there was no Texas yet. Had they, the born here citizen crap wouldn't have been included.
The founders were brilliant. That's why they put in a provision called "amending the constitution".

[Fortunesmith]

A bomb goes off in a US city. A big bomb.

Neo-cons are in power.

Liberals start to go by by.

could happen, and these are the types of laws in place that would allow it to happen.

Well that is a believable scenario. Thread over.

[sukie]

A bomb goes off in a US city. A big bomb.

Neo-cons are in power.

Liberals start to go by by.

could happen, and these are the types of laws in place that would allow it to happen.
So your pizza phone order record would hurt you? JKiG, you failed at creating a scenerio. Thanks for playing and have a nice day.

ps don't use the phone. They are listening.

[K-Gun]

So your pizza phone order record would hurt you? JKiG, you failed at creating a scenerio. Thanks for playing and have a nice day.

ps don't use the phone. They are listening.

You’re clueless.

The Straussians in power want a police state.

But you wouldn’t know anything about that, because you’re naïve.

[Fortunesmith]

You’re clueless.

The Straussians in power want a police state.

But you wouldn’t know anything about that, because you’re naïve.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/bellyitcher/panic.jpg

[sukie]

You’re clueless.

The Straussians in power want a police state.

But you wouldn’t know anything about that, because you’re naïve.
I'M clueless? You're the one emoting baseless and void of proof accusation.
Enjoy whilst I get another beer.

[K-Gun]

I'M clueless? You're the one emoting baseless and void of proof accusation.
Enjoy whilst I get another beer.

tee hee

[sukie]

Tee hee is a Islamic Jihadian code... you are toast.

[uppy]

No names are attached to phone numbers here. There aren't enough NSA or Service members in the world to listen to the content of the billions of daily calls. Hell it would take 3 full time snoopers just to monitor my Kid's daily cellphone activity. Get a grip people, take a pill. Paranoia is not good for your blood pressure

[K-Gun]

Tee hee is a Islamic Jihadian code... you are toast.

define Straussian without useing google.

[Fortunesmith]

No names are attached to phone numbers here. There aren't enough NSA or Service members in the world to listen to the content of the billions of daily calls. Hell it would take 3 full time snoopers just to monitor my Kid's daily cellphone activity. Get a grip people, take a pill. Paranoia is not good for your blood pressure

It's hard not to be paranoid when everyone is out to get ya!

http://mirecc.stanford.edu/images/paranoia_man.gif

[shiva2999]

I don't share the same views. I am cynical, but not overly cynical. To me it would seem such a waste of energy to get all worked up about every worse-case scenario when the government has never has mistreated me or anyone I know personally. For the most part, I consider the life I have lead so far to have been very enjoyable. My government hasn't failed me yet, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

Much like my employer. I have seen many co-workers come and go in the last 8 years I have worked there, and a lot of them say they have been treated unfairly. I continue to prosper within the company regardless of their gripes, and I will continue to give my employer the benefit of the doubt as it stands.

The Mafia has never affected my life negatively and paid me promptly and in full for the work I did for them.

Should I give organized crime the benefit of the doubt?

[uppy]

It's hard not to be paranoid when everyone is out to get ya!

http://mirecc.stanford.edu/images/paranoia_man.gif

I have never seen such paranioa about nothing

[K-Gun]

I have never seen such paranioa about nothing

yeah, this coming from a guy who praises Curtis LeMay...

:headscratcher:

[uppy]

Jk,LeMay was a realist about the cold war

[K-Gun]

Jk,LeMay was a realist about the cold war

He was a psychotic about the Cold War. He wanted to nuke Russia with everything we had. Talk about paranoid.

Now hide under your desk, AIRRADE!

[gilchristfan]

No names are attached to phone numbers here. There aren't enough NSA or Service members in the world to listen to the content of the billions of daily calls. Hell it would take 3 full time snoopers just to monitor my Kid's daily cellphone activity. Get a grip people, take a pill. Paranoia is not good for your blood pressure

And yet, when its publicly disclosed that the NSA is amassing this information, but not doing anything with it, we've somehow made the country less safe. (Ask Kit Bond).

Paranoia know no political bounds, apparently.

[uppy]

I don't know who Kit Bond is ?

[gilchristfan]

senator from missouri

http://bond.senate.gov/

[shiva2999]

senator from missouri

http://bond.senate.gov/

I thought Missouri was the "Show Me" state, not the "Believe Us or You're a Traitor" state.

[Fortunesmith]

The Mafia has never affected my life negatively and paid me promptly and in full for the work I did for them.

Should I give organized crime the benefit of the doubt?

Seems like you did since you worked for them.

[gilchristfan]

I thought Missouri was the "Show Me" state, not the "Believe Us or You're a Traitor" state.

Show me your not a terrorist.

He is a little whacked, but then, with the inbreeding in Mizzou..

On the other hand, the Lake of the Ozarks is nice.

[gilchristfan]

I thought Missouri was the "Show Me" state, not the "Believe Us or You're a Traitor" state.

OH, PS, you may or may not know..

The Telecommunications Act that stealth cited last night? The one that gives the phone companies authority to sell information to 3rd parties "with the approval" of the customer? The same law that the 10th Circuit permitted to basically allow tacit approval by the customer?

In 2002, Paul Wellstone tried amending the act to make sure that customers signed a written consent for their information to be released. It never got very far.

Thought you might like to know.

[Stealth01]

First off, I don't mean to lump you in with the red-state hicks :D. My apologies for that.

NP.

Second off, just because the Telecom Act authorized something doesn't make it right, nor does it mean we should just be happy (thankful?) about it. However, I was not aware that the Telecom Act contradicted our entire history by allowing secret snooping on all domestic communication. I could certainly be wrong though, and if so, **** the Republicans even harder.

The act allows for distribution of non-content, non-identifying information and specifically mentions phone number and calling info as being NOT an intrusion on privacy. As I have explained before, that's why companies can sell you phone number and even who you call without your permission. It specifically PROTECTS anything beyond that. And it was enacted in 1996....NOT during a Republican presidency.

Considering the FACT that there are no terror cells running amock in America, why the hell do they even need to do this? Considering the fact that they had advance knowledge of all attacks carried out on Americans so far (or so we always seem to hear well after the fact), yet screwed up each time, why do they need to try to collect more info on Americans? Don't you think their efforts would be better placed in simply fixing their bureaucratic ****ups first?

You know for a FACT that there are no terror cells in America? You're kidding, right? If not, pass your intel on to the FBI...you can save them a TON of money and time.

Just domestic terrorists alone are on the rise. And if you believe not a SINGLE group of our immigrant Muslim friends are involved in anti-US planning here in the states, I'm afraid you're a bit naieve.

Even if you're right, what happens when Ali Al-Bomber slips into the US and starts calling his associates who are here, waiting? Or starts to ORGANIZE cells here in the US?

[35Pete]

All my liberties are intact... especially the one's afforded to me that I use.
"Afforded" to you? Liberties are INHERENT rights. No one "affords" them to you.

Bro. You need to do some reading. Start with The Declaration of Independance.

af·ford ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-fôrd, -frd)
tr.v. af·ford·ed, af·ford·ing, af·fords
To have the financial means for; bear the cost of: not able to afford a new car.
To manage to spare or give up: can't afford an hour for lunch.
To manage or bear without disadvantage or risk to oneself: can afford to be tolerant.
To make available; provide: a sport affording good exercise; a tree that affords ample shade.

[sukie]

So if I don't read I lose my liberties?