NSA building massive database of US domestic phone records

[Pekka]

No, you should just legislate some better and comprehensive privacy laws. Privacy is a social good. And a meter for individual freedom, which is fundamentally a good thing.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
I have a question concerning "wiretaps."

Assume for the moment that the government has a legal wiretap on a citizen and you make a call so that citizen. If the government records your phone call, have your constitutional rights been violated?

No. The Constitution protects you from unreasonable "searches" (including eavesdropping). The fact that the government got a legal warrant shows that it is acting reasonably, albeit against someone else. But the tap would be on the other person's phone. You're just a poor shlub who was in the wrong place and the wrong time.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
should we burn down our democracy, lynch all our leaders, and start over again?

Such an approach would probably be viewed by later generations as being overly enthusiastic.

BTW: Do you have something better to offer...or are you just suggesting chaos and anarchy?

[chequita guevara]

It's **** like this that makes me seriously consider running for Congress. My local Rep. is quite liberal, but she's a Sr. Whip in the DP (though a freshman). I like the quite liberal, but anyone who's part of the DP machinery has got to go.

But the fact that I'm a commie can't be hidden and would become an issue.

[-Jrabbit]

Ya think????

[Dinner]

It seems that the illegal wire taps which, last November, Bush claimed were just a few wire taps without search warrents is actually tens of millions of people and is the single largest data base on Earth.

[Kuciwalker]

Google or the Wayback Machine is probably the largest single database on Earth.

[Drake Tungsten]

Elok

[Rufus T. Firefly]

And if you're looking for a business to patronize...

Qwest passes on NSA spying
By Staff and Wire Reports
May 11, 2006

WASHINGTON — Qwest Communications was the only major telecommunications company to refuse a National Security Agency request to secretly turn over phone records of Americans, the USA Today reported today, citing multiple sources.

Congressional Republicans and Democrats demanded answers from the Bush administration about the report that the government spy agency secretly collected records of ordinary Americans' phone calls to build a database of every call made within the country.

AT&T Corp., Verizon Communications Inc, and BellSouth Corp. telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers' phone calls to the NSA shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said the newspaper, citing anonymous sources it said had direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The newspaper said that Qwest's chief executive at the time, Joe Nacchio, refused to cooperate because he "was deeply troubled" by the NSA's assertion that court orders weren't necessary to collect the phone records. The Denver telco also was said to be uncertain about how the information might be used.

U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar in a statement praised Qwest for refusing to share the information, and called for Senate hearings on the NSA program.

"I have long been concerned about the NSA's domestic spying program and today's media reports only reinforce that concern," Salazar said. "I also laud Denver-based Qwest Communications for its decision not to share private information with the NSA."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_4691037,00.html

[-Jrabbit]

Qwest

[Odin]

F*ck. If the US become a police state then the terrorists have truely one, America won't be America anymore. DAMN THOSE NEOCON BASTARDS, DAMN THEM ALL!

[Odin]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
And if you're looking for a business to patronize...

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_4691037,00.html

That God thats my phone company.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It seems that the illegal wire taps which, last November, Bush claimed were just a few wire taps without search warrents is actually tens of millions of people and is the single largest data base on Earth.

Read the thread again and then tell me how billing records are illegal wiretaps.


Elok,

Re: Data mining

Data mining can work when its rules are written with the benefit of the hindsight often developed from other information sources. For instance the FBI could bust up an AQ cell, analyse their communications patterns after the fact to build a model of what an AQ cell / safe house / financier looks like in terms of phone traffic. They could then set their computers to look for that sort of pattern and investigate any which resemble that pattern.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


No. The Constitution protects you from unreasonable "searches" (including eavesdropping). The fact that the government got a legal warrant shows that it is acting reasonably, albeit against someone else. But the tap would be on the other person's phone. You're just a poor shlub who was in the wrong place and the wrong time.

Good. I think this is the right answer. When the wire tap is "legal," a person who is calling the wiretaped person or the person who is called by the wiretaped person has no constitutional complaint.

Not all of you who answer this question appropriately assumed that the "legal" wiretaped was placed upon the person pursuant to a court order. However, there is another class of legal wiretaps and that is where wiretaps are placed on foreigners outside United States, particularly on enemies of the United States.

I assume that your answer would remain the same under these circumstances:

A person calling the wiretaped person or person called by the wiretaped person would have no constitutional complaint because the wiretap in the first instance was legal.

[Pekka]

Funny thing is that I'm actually studying and at some point hope to become an expert bordering these issues.

Data mining for example, and other means of surveillance. So unless I'm challenged by someone who is an expert, both academic and work life, I have to regard all claims BS. Data mining works, yes, that's not the problem. The problem is, in order for it to work, the means for collecting data to get the patterns, RELIABLE patterns or at least close enough to suspect someone (or sell someone stuff) means outright .. I don't even know the term. Fascist? Police state? .. anyway, those measures. It is done already.

THere's nothing new to this. Do you guys think data mining and finding patterns is a new thing, or that it hasn't been used up until now?

All the glitters is not gold. Hey, we can even have neural networks and what not, to predict future behaviour. All find and good, if you want to live in worse state than China. Even those guys are relaxing a bit with these things.

The idea that you are safer because extraordinary measures are taken to observe and conduct surveillance is not only not proven, but is extremely dangerous assumption.

Or what about homosexuals in Germany in say.. some decades ago? Things that weren't crime before, might become in the future in the hands of rogue leadership, and thanks to the measures, no one is safe anymore.

Or the fact that the information can be sold (or you think there's not a single corrupted official/worker in there), or it can be stolen.

When there's technology, when there's the ability, it will be used for things it wasn't supposed to be used, and to assume otherwise is to let yourself get raped by a homeless man for free and the accumulated stupidity will lead to random self combustion.

Recording all of your stuff won't make you any safer. But it will reduce your privacy, it will put your information on a risk of being sold, stolen and abused.

The idea, that the government needs to observe its citizens this deep should be a cause for concern. THe people who pass these laws and rules are not simply trained with these issues. They do not understand the technology, they do not understand the risks of it, they do not understand what the implications of them will be.

It's not a question of IF.. it's a question of WHEN. Please, do not let yourself be decepted into trusting these entities. If you do, thne no one will feel sorry for you when the **** goes down and quite frankly a nation that does not defend itself by acting within the set laws to object this, will not deserve to be protected.

Individual security and surveillance are not overlapping issues most of the times, meaning the more people are observed the more you are safe. That's simply just not true.

And just because you don't have anything to hide doesn't mean it's OK. It just makes you a traitor of freedom and privacy.

And I don't see how US is not a police state if this in fact becomes legal and widely used. The surveillance is beyond the limits for needed definition, so.. I mean.. it's not hippie crap, it's a fact. I hope the false sense of security provides good night sleep, because that's what it is.. false sense of security. Trade off - privacy of everyone.

Government that says they use these measures to protect you is a government that is not up to date with just about anything.

And the fact that I'm not a hippie and almost despise leftist scum should make you right wingers wake up. This is for individual freedom adn against surveillance society. That **** is communist. It provides NO results. The positives are not outweighed by the negatives. This is not activist liberal bull****, this is freedom stuff, this is protecting the individual. Do not give your rights away, even if htey are not written anywhere. There is no turning back when that slippery road is walked on, and I'm telling you guys, that you can cloes your eyes and believe all you want, but most of this acceptance is because some guys want to stick their noses up to the presidents butt. You woud follow him to hell if he said it was a good idea and one of them smart comments like 'hell is heaven' or some other thoughts that make perfect sense if you're on acid.

Wake up, be aware that there are absoloutely no grounds on this thing, this will not help you fight terrorism, this will not make you safer. This will make you the opposite. At least don't support it. You would betray everyone who did want their freedom and privacy, just because of ignorance to the issue.