Falcon84 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 15040 posts, RR: 82 Posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1674 times:
Well, seems we were misled again by the Bush Administration. They said that the only phone tapping, evesdropping and monitoring was being done on those who were suspected of being involved with terrorism.
Maury From United States, joined May 2005, 532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1673 times:
He didn't mean to; someone else did it without his knowledge; it's all necessary when you're fighting Global World Terroristas; God said he had to; um...Ted Kennedy.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1663 times:
Falcon, you are really getting paranoid.
They are collecting a database which will provide patterns. Those patterns will help improve our ability to profile suspicious calls and to better choose what calls to actually monitor.
In what way does this in the SLIGHTEST way intrude on your liberties to live your life as an honest citizen?
Greyhound From United States, joined Mar 2005, 1026 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1658 times:
Quoting Maury (Reply 1): He didn't mean to; someone else did it without his knowledge; it's all necessary when you're fighting Global World Terroristas; God said he had to; um...Ted Kennedy.
That should cover the basics.
In traditional a.net fashion.... at least it's not the same old recycled stuff Airbus uses
Personally.... and I read that report on CNN... they've gone overboard with that one. I think the part that worries me the most is:
Quote: Meanwhile, the Justice Department has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the NSA refused to grant its lawyers the necessary security clearance.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers security clearance.
The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax Wednesday to Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York saying it was closing its inquiry because without clearance it could not examine department lawyers' role in the program.
"We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program," OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey. Hinchey's office shared the letter with The Associated Press.
---------------
In other words the government doesn't trust itself. For that matter, I'm having trouble lately. Isin't that sad?
KROC From United States, joined May 2000, 19737 posts, RR: 99 Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1658 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2): In what way does this in the SLIGHTEST way intrude on your liberties to live your life as an honest citizen?
I have to agree. I have nothing to worry about because I am not a terrorist nor do I take part in any suspicious activities. If I get monitored playing softball, running a 6K, going out to dinner with the ole lady, getting pissed off because the Mets blew a game etc. fine. I'll be watched for about 5 minutes in whatever means they would do it in and press on. All these wiretaps, and monitoring haven't even been noticed by 99.9% of Americans. Time to let it go. Another year and a half and he will be gone.
"Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking again"
AeroWesty From United States, joined Oct 2004, 15634 posts, RR: 66 Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1645 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2): In what way does this in the SLIGHTEST way intrude on your liberties to live your life as an honest citizen?
My life wasn't effected one bit by the kids down the street who were selling grass and got their door kicked in the other night by the cops, my life wasn't effected one bit by a child molester, my life wasn't effected one bit by the guy on the other side of town whose fingerprints were incorrectly said to be found in Madrid and then jailed and had his house secretly swept under the guise of the Patriot Act, yet at the same time, I expect that those who break the law to be apprehended and brought to justice.
Anyone who believes criminal acts should go unfettered simply because they see no direct effect from it in their lives, will eventually be caught kidding themselves.
Falcon84 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 15040 posts, RR: 82 Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 1632 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2): Falcon, you are really getting paranoid.
Uh, I think you have me confused with the President, Charles. He's the paranoid one, not me.
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2): They are collecting a database which will provide patterns. Those patterns will help improve our ability to profile suspicious calls and to better choose what calls to actually monitor.
Bull cookies. The president did say only those who were suspected of being involved in terrorism were being collected. Well, he lied, and you're defending that lie. They're not looking for "patterns". That's utter crap. They're paranoid, and they don't trust anyone.
Quoting KROC (Reply 5): I have to agree. I have nothing to worry about because I am not a terrorist nor do I take part in any suspicious activities.
Then why monitor you in the first place, KROC? This is an infringement of the privacy of Americans, and it directly contradicts what this president said earlier.
I don't have anything to hide, but I don't like the government, without cause, without a warrent, and without suspicion, thinking they have the right to monitor me.
It's Big Brother, circa 2006.
It didn't take long, Charles, for someone to kiss this president's ass-again, I see. And from a usual suspect, no less. Thanks for validating what I said.
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 4768 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 1624 times:
I thought the NSA were monitoring everyone they possibly could.... emails, phone calls, etc, etc, etc.
There are valid arguments both ways.... if you've done nothing wrong then where's the problem vs why monitor everyone? I suppose there is the issue of what's OK now may become wrong in the future and then you're in a database somewhere with some unsavoury background because the goalposts moved. Added to that the issue of who decides what's right and what's wrong anyway?
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2): They are collecting a database which will provide patterns. Those patterns will help improve our ability to profile suspicious calls and to better choose what calls to actually monitor.
And who defines suspicious?
Man City p3 w3 d0 l0 f4 a0 P9 - hey it may never happen again!
KROC From United States, joined May 2000, 19737 posts, RR: 99 Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 1602 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 8): Then why monitor you in the first place, KROC? This is an infringement of the privacy of Americans, and it directly contradicts what this president said earlier.
I don't have anything to hide, but I don't like the government, without cause, without a warrent, and without suspicion, thinking they have the right to monitor me.
1.) I have nothing to worry about.
2.) If monitoring peoples helps to keep some wack job terrorist from blowing up part oif my city or any other city, then it was worth it.
"Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking again"
YeahitsK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1580 times:
Quoting Maury (Reply 3): ...if you have nothing to hide, then the government's close scrutiny shouldn't concern you.
That sounds like something you would hear in North Korea. I trust(ed) my government to stay out of my life unless I break a law or stop paying taxes.
Quoting Saloth Sar (Reply 10): Quoting Oly720man (Reply 9):
And who defines suspicious?
That would be The Decider.
On the Daily Show they are now running installments of "The Decider," featuring Bush in his very own comic strip. Between Cheney shooting his buddy in the face and this they keep supplying the juicy fodder for late night comedy.
WellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1558 times:
How is Bush supposed to know the details of these agencies and their activities? They probably only include all the information in his intelligence briefings.
Maury From United States, joined May 2005, 532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1547 times:
Quoting YeahitsK (Reply 14): That sounds like something you would hear in North Korea. I trust(ed) my government to stay out of my life unless I break a law or stop paying taxes.
Exactly right. And it's our friends of the radical right who suggest the line I was sort of parodying there...and who are apparently OK with a little domestic info-gathering (it would be "spying," but they're doing it so it's renamed) and other rights-limiting actions.
I wonder if we'll find out who started this program? Did the phone companies just voluntarily start sending info to the NSA, as a sort of warm gesture of support? Were they asked to? By whom? Here's a summary of the White House's comments on the matter: " ."
Johnboy From United States, joined Aug 1999, 2244 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1524 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2): In what way does this in the SLIGHTEST way intrude on your liberties to live your life as an honest citizen?
Quoting Maury (Reply 3): ...if you have nothing to hide, then the government's close scrutiny shouldn't concern you
I expected nothing but lies from this administration, as it's become part of the SOP from Bushie and his pack of moral reprobates.
To me the most disappointment comes in hearing throwaway lines like this from (i'm assuming) conservatives, who at one time were fiercely protective of keeping government out of our collective lives.
MD80fanatic From United States, joined Apr 2004, 2432 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1522 times:
There are a multitude of private conversations that are held via phone each and every day.....none of which have anything to do with terrorism...business deals, research and development, etc. The government has no right to listen in to these calls without a very specific warrant, period (4th amendment).
"If you have nothing to hide...." is a major cop out brothers. We all have things that we are guaranteed a right to privacy on.....regardless of ANY activity by terrorists. It is your responsibility to protect yourself against terror threats, not the government's. If you lay down and make them the ultimate protectors of your freedom....they will fail as they always have, and you will lose the rights given to you by God and a multitude of men greater than you and I.
Greasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 2784 posts, RR: 29 Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1522 times:
Would you be upset if you neighbour was bugging your calls? Even if it was in the interest of national security? Why are you not upset when your gov't does it? That is what happening. This is not against terrorists or suspected terrorists. It is against ordinary Americans. Just like you.
With the warrantless wiretap you will never know if your under surveliance. Someone could deem you a threat and put you under watch. So you can live in your bubble and say it does not affect you when in fact you do not know. Because someone out there be it for some personal agenda or abuse could put you under watch.
People say it doesn ot affect them but they do not know.
What is a terrorist? Is it a sutdent group that is against the war in Iraq that was spied upon by the defense department? Is it a GLBT group that was spied upon because they are against the don't ask, Don't Tell?
Because someone doe not like your view or dissagree's does not make them a terroist.
Please tell me how collecting info on millions of phone calls makes the USA safer from terrorists?
Rember these programs only come to light when they are leaked. While i am far from a conspiracy theorist it kind of makes me go hmmm What else is out there.
GS
Sometimes life leaves a $100 on your dresser, and you don't realize until later that it's because it f..ked you
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1511 times:
Quoting Saloth Sar (Reply 7): Why have the 4th Amendment? Or the Bill of Rights; To some it's just political correctness.
I suggest you do a little research regarding the matter. There is absolutely no 4th amendment protection for telephone numbers. This matter has already been litigated in the courts with respect to criminal prosecutions and the courts have always held that there is no constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in the numbers that you dial. I don't have the case citation in front of me, but I'll find them tonight and post them.
You waive your expectation of privacy by using a third party (the telephone company) to process the call. That's not the Bush Adminstration saying so, that's the US judiciary including the Supreme Court.
Jcs17 From United States, joined Jun 2001, 7595 posts, RR: 52 Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1503 times:
Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 18): There are a multitude of private conversations that are held via phone each and every day.....none of which have anything to do with terrorism...business deals, research and development, etc. The government has no right to listen in to these calls without a very specific warrant, period (4th amendment).
Why don't you read what this program was actually about before whining about your rights being violated? This has nothing to do with eavesdropping, it has to do with monitoring call patterns.
This all comes down to partisan politics. Assume no terrorist attacks happen, Bush is going to be blamed for violating peoples rights because "he" was tracking your call patterns to 900 sex lines. If a terrorist attack occurs, Bush is going to be blamed for not doing enough.
Then again, the terrorist threat isn't too serious...
LTBEWR From United States, joined Jan 2004, 9380 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1495 times:
We are going down a very bad path and in serious jepordy of our Constitution in the War on Terror when acts like this NSA monitoring or review of phone call information. President Bush is quickly becoming a despot in violation of our Constitution with this and many other policies. The Air Force guy that has been nominated for CIA head was involved with the NSA and this program, so I don't think he will approved for that role, and indeed he may on his own or be withdrawn from consideration for that post.
It is important to note that Quest and some other phone service providers refused to cooperate with the government with their requests for information due to their lawyers questioning the legality vs. privacy rights of their customers, perhaps also due to certain state privacy laws. Also don't forget that Verizon and the other companies that did give this info had applications to the FCC, and other filings with the FTC and so on to take over other communication companies, or expand into other areas of broadband services. Maybe they gave this info believing if they cooperated they would win on their applications.
I would also question the real benefit of these programs to analyse or do 'data mining' of these phone calls. The terrorists are probably already a step ahead of us using encripted messages, mail, pre-paid cell phones and cards which don't require registration of a phone number.
JCS17 From United States, joined Jun 2001, 7595 posts, RR: 52 Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1486 times:
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23): I would also question the real benefit of these programs to analyse or do 'data mining' of these phone calls. The terrorists are probably already a step ahead of us using encripted messages, mail, pre-paid cell phones and cards which don't require registration of a phone number.
That is true, that terrorists wouldn't use land-lines or subscription based cell phone services. However, the people who would provide material support to terrorists might not.
MD80fanatic From United States, joined Apr 2004, 2432 posts, RR: 11 Reply 25, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1485 times:
Quoting Jcs17 (Reply 22): Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 18):
There are a multitude of private conversations that are held via phone each and every day.....none of which have anything to do with terrorism...business deals, research and development, etc. The government has no right to listen in to these calls without a very specific warrant, period (4th amendment).
Why don't you read what this program was actually about before whining about your rights being violated? This has nothing to do with eavesdropping, it has to do with monitoring call patterns.
I have read it and I do not believe the scope of the issue is being properly touched upon.
In 1998, I was sent to repair the pool filtration equipment at a small west Austin (Texas) apartment complex. I looked everywhere for the pumps and they were nowhere within sight (or sound). I proceeded to search for a equipment room somewhere nearby the pool. None of the apartments were marked with a number, just plain jane doors. Then I happened across one unit on the lower level with a push-button keypad on the door. Listening closely it sounded like pumps on the inside so I went ahead and used the well-known (amongst pool guys) default code for that particular lock and it worked. When I went inside you would simply not believe what I saw. It was an entire "white room" with massive computer systems (no terminals or keyboards) and had many removable HD's and old style reel to reel tape drives (I know these from my DP duties on IBM System 3's in the early 80's).
On the next few visits to that complex I took the opportunity to scan around the outside of this room while enjoying a cigarette. There were massive cablings going to and from this room...some spanning out to other buildings in the complex and some going to the mainline poles in the street. Also there were 4 air conditioning units with hi and lo pressure lines emanating from this room. I guess I need to mention that this converted apartment was no more than 500 sq ft....and the equipment was stacked efficiently.
On my last visit I was tempted to have one more look inside that room.....when I tried the lock it had obviously had the combination changed.
What the hell was this place? I know it wasn't a telephone switching unit that is for sure. Someone was recording something on a massive scale, long before 9-11. And it would not be necessary to have such massive storage to write call "records" only.
edit: When I opened the door on the first visit, I was too freaked out to enter. What I saw was what could be seen from the doorway only. Who knows, there may have been something inside that could have shed some light on what that place really was. I could have been a SWB internet network junction of some kind....supplying services to the complex. Who knows.
So yes.....why don't YOU read the story again. Do you honestly believe that what you are reading is the ENTIRE whole truth? Think again.
[Edited 2006-05-11 21:34:09]
26 Falcon84: I see your fear and paranoia remains, Jcs. This isn't about terrorism: it's about big government, something you usually detest as a tried and true mo
27 Mdsh00: It's a simple strategy Falcon. When it's done by Republicans, it's okay. And when there is no good response available against a critisim, they will i
28 CPDC10-30: I've got mixed opinions on this one. Living in the UK now, I think you are on average monitored by at least 300 CCTV cameras per day, so I think the d
29 NIKV69: Like your telephone conversations are so important. Give me a break, it's not a lie. He probably figured the left would just use that as more crap to
30 Maury: Oh my yes. '08 is turning into a bit of a challenge for our radical right leaders, ain't it? Jeb's too crafty to take the gig, or is about to play th
31 Bushpilot: Well another Bush lie, I was wondering when the next one would be, how can anyone trust this guy, if the federal US government was a human and your ne
32 Maury: I know it's bull--I was restating some of our right-wing friends' line of reasoning. I gotta find a good "parody!" smilie. Just to clear things up, I
33 Falcon84: A cop-out, nothing else. You justify a government intrusion into the lives of everyday Americans by saying "well, your call isn't importhant." Well,
34 AsstChiefMark: This'll really screw up Mike Hayden's appointment. I'll bet he withdraws. Mark[Edited 2006-05-12 00:18:28]
35 11Bravo: You can probably also subtract another 2 points from Bush's approval rating, and maybe a few more seats lost to the Dems this fall. I'm thinking the
36 Scbriml: But how about if it was you or someone in your family that was incorrectly accused?
37 Mir: I'd rather not have my phone calls monitored, but if it's necessary than so be it. But could this administration at least be honest about it? First i
38 MD80fanatic: Even if the NSA is doing absolutely nothing wrong, they cannot and will not tell you so. They have a ticket to lie in their very charter. They are top
39 Pope: The case I'm referring to here is US v. New York Telephone Co. (1977). In that case the US Supreme Court held that "the language of the statute [refe
40 AeroWesty: My apologies if I wasn't more clear. Just because I'm not directly affected by various acts of lawlessness or intrusions beyond the scope/intent of t
41 Cwapilot: That, my friends, is the real story line here. That is why this information has come to light at such a coincidental time. The likes of CNN have been
42 Diamond: The law is the law. If I don't break it, the President shouldn't either. No I am not a terrorist threat. I'm not even a minor traffic violation threat
43 AeroWesty: Heh, the first thing I thought was, "would I trust Nixon with this?"
44 777236ER: The government should really installed CCTV cameras in everyone's house. An honest citizen doesn't have anything to hide, and so won't mind. If it hel
45 Oly720man: You want cctv in the bathroom? Toilet? Bedroom?
46 777236ER: Yup, everywhere. If it stops an attack, no measure is too extreme.
47 Bushpilot: If you want to talk about reading comprehension impaired, why are you bashing CNN when USA today broke the story and all the major networks are cover
48 AsstChiefMark: This a good night to rent a copy of "Enemy of the State." Mark
49 777236ER: Yup, and everyone can be perfectly free to do whatever they want within the law with people watching your every move! In fact, as well as the CCTV, t
50 Bushpilot: Then we can repeal the Stalking laws in this country and have the Dept. of Homeland Security set up a website and have people subcribe to it, spy on
51 LAS757300: Law enforcement still needs a court order if they want to use pen registers or trap and trace devices for surveillance. Bush could have gone to the F
52 AeroWesty: For those who didn't read the USAToday article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm "Unable to get comfortable with what NSA
53 Pope: What law was broken? I cited for you a specific statute authorizing this use and a specific Supreme Court decision yet you seem to ignore that and st
54 AndesSMF: Listen, if the democrats are so concerned about these programs, HAVE THEM BANNED!! This smacks of political opportunism.
55 Bushpilot: I think you and I both know the dems dont have the votes to get them overturned just yet. Lets give it 7 or so months and see what happens. But the d
56 MD80fanatic: If you can accept that what has been said by the authorities is the whole truth, that they are not mining information on innocent Americans via phone
57 JCS17: Actually Falcon, I'm strongly considering not voting Republican this year. I agree with their steps for Homeland Security and the war in Iraq (althou
58 MDorBust: Some of us read legal english which, according to US v. New York Telephone Co. (1977), states that this is not a violation of the fourth amendment no
59 Jalto27R: Why are you guys so freaked out? They aren't wire tapping you, that's not what it is they have a database of. It's basically a collection of phone bil
60 L-188: You have to admit that the timing of this "Release" is pretty suspicous. Since the person that was behind it is up for the CIA job. As far as the gove
61 Falcon84: First, it should be called the Department of Homeland Fear and Paranoia, because that's what it reeks of. Secondly, Bush doesn't have any goals in Ir
62 AsstChiefMark: Yep. No matter what Bush says, people won't believe him. It seems like two things happen everytime he opens his mouth: 1. He drops another percentage
63 Falcon84: He can't help it. He's built the prestige and the history of what his Administration will be judge as, on the war in Iraq, and the wider war on Terro
64 11Bravo: I disagree. His goal, at this point, is to not get blamed for it. I think it's painfully obvious he's just going to maintain the status quo so that h
65 AsstChiefMark: Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 63): His entire Presidency is built on that one message. So that means he'll rank somewhere between Warren Harding and Andrew
66 Maury: Now *there's* a sandwich Burger King won't sell!
67 Kevi747: Un, F-ing, believable!!! And absolutely terrifying. I can not believe that you are defending this. I, for one, trust this president and his cronies a
68 JamesAg96: So they are recording our conversations? Because to read this board you would think that is exactly what is happening. And it wasn't USA Today that "b
69 MD80fanatic: Perhaps it is geared towards the sinking of this nominee, and if so then all the better. He is not the right man for the job. He says that probable ca
70 MD80fanatic: So what's that in your pocket MDorBust? Is that a lighter or a well disguised weapon? But seriously..... Phones are not always kept in their holsters
71 Gilligan: "It is our government, it's not one party's government. It's America's government. Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans
72 Scbriml: 300 sounds a bit on the high side, but, regardless of the number, those are all in public places - your High Street, the bank, supermarket, etc. It's
73 Dragon-wings: Whats next collecting/looking through our medical records? Monitoring our credit card transactions?
74 Oly720man: That happens anyway..... in corporate country..... so they can "better serve your needs" Only when they know suspicious numbers. Otherwise it's a mat
75 Diamond: Actually they are slightly different stories. The story that broke in December was about 'several thousand' U.S. citizens whose phone calls were bein
76 Flynlr: i wish I had the amount of hard drives it takes to store that amount of data. me thinks some folks need to upgrade thier tinfoil hats every time someo
77 Pope: I'm sorry but the 4th amendment is only invoked when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now, whether you agree with the notion that by
78 MD80fanatic: Pope, what you are saying makes sense. Although I am very perturbed about what NSA says they are doing and what they are really doing, I am pretty sur
79 Falcon84: I can. The mindset amon many is that if it give them the illusion of being safe-and it's only an illusion, they're for it. As Sen. Lehey stated-and t
80 DeltaDC9: All phone records for all Americans are kept by the phone companies and are accessibly and always have been. No one is actually looking at them, they
81 Mt99: I think its weird. I dont like it. But om the other hand - whats the difference between this and being searched the airport? Everyone goes thru the me
82 AeroWesty: Well isn't this a hoot: http://www.gop.gov/Committeecentral/bills/hr4943.asp
83 MaverickM11: Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2006/05/12/AR2006051200375.html "The new survey found that 63 per
84 DeltaDC9: Welcome to my respected users list, as a long time lurker, I have enjoyed your posts, whether or not I agree with them. This time I definitely think
85 Boeing757/767: Yet ANOTHER reason to move to Canada.
86 Gilligan: Yep, Leahy was all over the press demanding that President Clinton do something about OBL and Al Queda. I vividly remember all the times he hit the t
87 Pope: For the record, I too am very concerned about the steady errosion of our rights. Clearly the US Constitution does not offer a citizen in 2006 the prot
88 DeltaDC9: Now there is a can of worms. Personally, I don't believe the President's party makes a whole lot of difference considering that they are almost alway
89 Mrmeangenes: Interesting topic, but about 87 % emotion , 10% politics,3% facts.
90 Gilligan: What rights, enumarated in the Constitution, has any citizen lost? Only one amendment ever took anything away, prohibition, and that was repealed a s
91 MDorBust: Why is it that everytime a liberal poster whips out this quote it is wrong? I swear, this thing pops up almost every time the government does somethi
92 UALPHLCS: Yeah by you Falcon. The program in question started in 1999 the CLINTON administration. The Program in question merely looks at what phone numbers ca
93 ANCFlyer: I read through the whole thread. Same arguments by the same people . . . good thread too . . . Bottom Line: If the US Gov't wants to know how many tim
94 JamesAg96: To me that is the real problem...why was this info released in the first place? It's a leak, and that is illegal. The media should know better than t
95 Saloth Sar: Kudos to Qwest Communications for refusing to participate in the program despite the threat of losing future classifed contracts. “Unable to get com
96 Joness0154: wrong Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm "The concern for the customer was also bas
97 MDorBust: Section 222 of the Communications Act is a restriction on the sale or marketing use of proprietary information. The CALEA is the law governing the us
98 DeltaDC9: Cound not have said it better, I was with you all the way until After that, you lost me.....why must people defile the best food on earth with fungus?
99 Dragon-wings: Would you feel the same way if you found out the goverment wanted to know how many times you called your attorney or doctor? With this parinod goverm
100 ANCFlyer: Sure, I don't give a hoot in hell who knows who I called . . . .why should I? Haven't broken any laws, I'm not in to kiddie porn, I don't do phone se
101 Mrmeangenes: Are we talking about a paranoid government,or a paranoid "anti-government" ? I'm still unconvinced by either side;but haven't really seen anything con
102 AeroWesty: I read this as anywhere anymore, and did a double-take on who made the post.
104 AirCop: The word of the wise.. For those in the Rocky Mountain States, according to several reports Qwest did not provide the information requested.
105 Mrmeangenes: Incidentally,as I was accessing this website,an unknown computer accessed data about me:suggesting the name of a limousine service located in my geogr
106 Bushpilot: Um to establish patterns, one has to look at them, I mean I barely hit the genius level on IQ tests and I cant quite manages to see patterns without
107 Mrmeangenes: What you are really saying is you don't like the present administration,and just about anything they do-legal or not-will result in your disapproval.
108 Bushpilot: I have been largely against this administration, but I am one who gives credit where it is due, and throws shit where it is deserved, I have no probl
109 LAS757300: Pope- http://www.cybercrime.gov/ECPA2701_2712.htm § 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records (b) Exceptions for disclosure of
110 MDorBust: Okay legal eagle, tell me where you screwed up. It's time for some critical self review. Find it yet? Okay... hint time: It's in line 2 of your main
111 LAS757300: Also read § 2703 I do agree records related only to numbers dialed are not afforded fourth amendment protection, btw.
112 MDorBust: Even with your new adition... that same pesky word is there
113 Bushpilot: Ok it goes on to say: only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jur
114 Pope: I followed the link to what you posted and have no idea what you're trying to say. The rules you are citing involve the contents of the conversation.
115 Pope: Read the first word.... CONTENT. The section doesn't apply to just the information about the call if the CONTENTS aren't disclosed.
116 MDorBust: I really could care less what it goes on to say since that section is in concern to contents of communications. Meaning in short, it has no bearing o
117 Mrmeangenes: (For Falcon) : Just so you know, I've probably voted Democrat about twice as much as I've voted Republican . I didn't like Bush or Gore, but voted for
118 LAS757300: I did quote the incorrect part. The relevant portion is Section 2703(c). Sorry. MDorBust please produce the statute granting the NSA adminstraive subp
119 MDorBust: Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, signed by then sitting President Bill Clinton. http://www.askcalea.net/ There you have it,
120 LAS757300: Does the NSA have the lawful authority to issue administrative subpoenas? You're not answering the question. Please explain how CALEA grants the NSA
121 MDorBust: Look.. you've gone so hog wild in your determination to be right you can't even see that answer right in front of your face. Title 18, section 121, s
122 Cfalk: I still have not heard a satisfactory explaination of how the knowledge that phone number XXX called phone number YYY overseas is a violation of any f
123 LAS757300: Congress has granted the NSA the right to use pen register device if done with permission of the FISA court. According to the USA Today story referen
124 LAS757300: According to USA Today, the goal of this program is to create a database of ALL calls made from and within the US, not just international calling. Pe
125 MDorBust: Yeah, to bad the author of that link didn't read 2702(c)(1) entitled "Exceptions for disclosure of customer records." Notice he puts in 2702(c)(2),270
126 Cfalk: Why don't you ban having a police force, because it COULD be used to intimidate innocent people or (insert your pet peave here)... Sheesh. You guys r
127 LAS757300: You're still wrong. CALEA doesn't grant the NSA subpoena power. The part you quoted above simply requires the telcoms to produce the information if pr
128 MDorBust: Oh good lord not again... The subpoena is a permanent fixture created by congress in the form of CALEA. CALEA is a federally created subpoena in the
129 GuitrThree: Funny how quiet the thread starter got when he found out that his old buddy Clinton actually signed into law the ability to do what he finds so utterl
130 Pope: Proving yet again that the fastest way to shut a liberal up is to confront him with facts.
131 AeroWesty: Any amateur can pull out a law or two that works for them. The professionals at Qwest looked at this and determined providing information was illegal
132 GuitrThree: What is it with you people? Have a digital satilite/cable box or even better, a DVR? "Big Cable" is recording every move, from what you watch, to how
133 YeahitsK: Or Falcon has a life that doesn't consist of sitting in front of his computer 24/7.
134 KyleLosAngeles: Not to split hairs, but: The "U.S." did not believe what you claim. The President and a few of his appointees (recycled from the 70's and 80's) neede
135 AeroWesty: When the Attorney General stops lying before Congress.
136 Confuscius: On a related note... Experts say phone firms at law's edge Verizon hit with $5 billion lawsuit By Bob Secter and Jon Van, Tribune staff reporters. And
137 Diamond: Excerpts from the 1986 Stored Communications Act mentioned above by Confuscious: 100 STAT. 1861 PUBLIC LAW 99-508--OCT. 21, 1986 "(1)a person or entit
138 Gilligan: Let's see the documentation. Presidents Bush 43 and Clinton both believed the threat was real. Senators and Congressmen from both sides of the aisle
139 SlamClick: I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so clanked up over this when they should understand that they have been under similar surveillanc
140 AsstChiefMark: A lawyer on Fox said the hundreds of impending lawsuits will kill those three phone companies.
141 KyleLosAngeles: On the subject of intelligence, the Bush Administration ignored data on both sides of the terrorism issue. They were advised that there were no WMD's
142 CurtisMan: I think your little American President has been watching too many Hollywood films. Do you really believe that there are enough people in the governmen
143 Falcon84: Actually, friend, I sustained a pretty bad eye injury which is keeping me off the forum for the most part, and will till at least monday. I just fini
144 AeroWesty: This is an oft-quoted argument. Where it falls down is that in the legally-required privacy statements provided by your bank, grocery store, etc., yo
145 Confuscius: "A lawyer on Fox said the hundreds of impending lawsuits will kill those three phone companies." For an administration that don't care much for trial
146 Diamond: Yes, they must do that to calculate the bills for the services they provide. That has nothing to do with releasing that data to a 3rd party. Please p
147 GuitrThree: Sorry about that... I never like to hear that a fellow A.netter has any kind of accident. I recant my prior statement. Get well soon.
148 L-188: Course not, that is why they are doing this, looking for patterns in phone calls. Since you are only dealing with numbers it can easily be done by co
149 Maury: Boy, that phrase gave me the willies. I'm waiting for the headline that reads "Bush administration has challenges with intelligence."
150 SlamClick: Hello! Do you think there is such a link? Do you think there is a credible 'source' out there that would prove this? If anyone had such hard, provabl
151 Bushpilot: Speaking for myself, this issue is just another deception, in a very long line of other deceptions and half truths etc. and I am tired of it. I think
152 MDorBust: Why did you cut off section 2703(c) It's not even in violation of the law as you ammended it. 2703(C)(2) doesn't appear in your post. It just happens
153 JamesAg96: So...just to get back on track here...are they listening in, recording, and providing? It seems to me that the answers are no, no, and no. So why does
154 Confuscius: Will the NSA be the first to know the results of American Idol?
155 JamesAg96: Good point confuscius. Then when someone like Elliot wins they can go to the courts and get the green light to back check all of the numbers that vote
156 DeltaDC9: There are not, but you don't seem to understand what they are doing. They are simply importing all the phone numbers dialed into a common database an
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Sep 2004, 15040 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 4768 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 2784 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
