From the Liberal Media: Ben Franklin rolls over in grave.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed


So, in other words, if I don't back this sort of scheme, I'm for terrorists in the US?

No quite that. More like this:

If one opposes a tool that is useful in detecting terrorists operating in the US on the grounds that it "could" be abused and even though the tool is under scrutiny by Congress to prevent such abuse, then I would say that such a person actually favors the terrorists as opposed to its victims or potential victims.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ned


No quite that. More like this:

If one opposes a tool that is useful in detecting terrorists operating in the US on the grounds that it "could" be abused and even though the tool is under scrutiny by Congress to prevent such abuse, then I would say that such a person actually favors the terrorists as opposed to its victims or potential victims.

... and that's the crux of the matter! With the other (now exposed) NSA operation, there was an attempt to focus the surveillance beginning with phone numbers where there is reason to suspect terrorist ties. That doesnt seem to be what's happening in this case. In addition, there does not appear to be an argument for why this could not have been done within the law i.e. there is no time sensitivity to this data.

The simple fact is that that no judge could allow such an unfocussed 'wiretap'. Congress would therefore need to be convinced to write a new law allowing this kind of sweeping surveillance - and I dont think that would've happened . If the spooks cant convince congress that such surveillance is critical to their ability to fight terrorism, then it shouldnt be done whether one personally agrees or disagrees with such a refusal/result.

I suspect that the NSA knew that they would never get such a law enacted and performed a workaround.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You mean people will invade his privacy? At least if he gets a new number the crank calls end, but not the supercomputer watching him.

Assuming that privacy is a constitutional right to begin with (which I don't buy personally, but let's assume it for the sake of argument since nobody here will ever be convinced otherwise), how is my phone number and my girlfriends' number passing instantaneously through a simple computer algorithm and being instantaneously pruned as irrelevant a flagrant invasion of this privacy?

[Ned]

Spencer, I assume you misunderstand the facts. But, be assured that when Carter was president, the Supremes already ruled that people have no privacy interest in these phone records. Others have posted how these very same records are used by businesses for profit. These records are in the public domain. No court order is required for the government to use the very same records to track terrorists.

Does that change your views at all?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ned
Spencer, I assume you misunderstand the facts. But, be assured that when Carter was president, the Supremes already ruled that people have no privacy interest in these phone records. Others have posted how these very same records are used by businesses for profit. These records are in the public domain. No court order is required for the government to use the very same records to track terrorists.

Does that change your views at all?

Not really.

As I said in my first post, I was waiting for the details to emerge. While I'm now a little less concerned, I still consider this to be a slippery-slope that needs to be monitored.

1) The supremes ruled against the FCC (who were trying to require that the phone companies ask our permission before selling off our phone records) saying that what the phone company was doing was a form of 'commercial free speech'. I totally disagree with that ruling. But even so, I do not accept that this is precedent for the government to acquire such records (especially for the purposes for which they will be used here) given the differences in what private individuals may do (to each other) and what the government may do (to us).


2) The NSA has no writ to perform surveillance on individuals in the USA. This operation clearly violates that concept, in principle, if not in absolute truth (given that it may be dubiously argued that such records are public). One may also argue that times have changed and only the NSA has the resources to carry out the complex ELINT surveillance that needs to be done in the USA. My point is, that if that's the case (and I agree that it is), then the laws need to be changed to clearly define what the NSA may and may not do during operations in the USA ie new lines need to be drawn. Aside from a special situation that may be time-sensitive, for example, "workarounds" by US INTEL agencies such as this example or allowing the Brits to conduct surveillance ops in the USA (for us) are not how this democracy should function IMO.

[Q Classic]

If one opposes a tool that is useful in detecting terrorists operating in the US on the grounds that it "could" be abused and even though the tool is under scrutiny by Congress to prevent such abuse, then I would say that such a person actually favors the terrorists as opposed to its victims or potential victims.

Here's where you and I differ. I have no faith that this is the right tool for such a job. I have no faith in Congress to do the right thing--hell, with the way they've dealt with technology in the past, of any nature, it's folly to expect them to actually "get it" and judge wisely. I have no faith in the programmers who developed such a system; one errant semicolon dropped on one sleepless night, and you've got a warrant on an innocent man.
So, do I favor the terrorists? No, not really. I just cherish my liberty over my safety.

Assuming that privacy is a constitutional right to begin with (which I don't buy personally, but let's assume it for the sake of argument since nobody here will ever be convinced otherwise), how is my phone number and my girlfriends' number passing instantaneously through a simple computer algorithm and being instantaneously pruned as irrelevant a flagrant invasion of this privacy?

Computers are only as smart as those who program them. What with so many programming bugs coming to light in the past few years, and the general incompetence of the government, I have no faith that my phone call to my mother would be "instantly pruned" at all.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned
Victor, Let's put that to a vote. Have New Yorkers go first. See if they want us to cut back on anti-terrorist activities knowing that they are the prime target.

I'd actually be rather surprised if New Yorkers (as in City, not upstaters) wouldn't overwhelmingly vote this down.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned
Victor, Let's put that to a vote. Have New Yorkers go first. See if they want us to cut back on anti-terrorist activities knowing that they are the prime target.

I didn't think you give a **** about New Yorkers, considering another comment you have made about New Yorkers recently you ****er.

[Ramo]

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

May 15, 2006 10:33 AM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells us the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

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

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

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

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html

Right. Absolutely no chance that this program could be abused.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html

Right. Absolutely no chance that this program could be abused.

ZOMFG!!!111!!

Feds are using a multibillion dollar agency in the NSA when they could be paying only $160 to get teh same info from Locatecell.com


teh horror.

[Q Classic]

Actually, yes, Ogie, it is teh horror. If it's not privacy, then it's simply vast overspending.

[Ramo]

I'm not sure why this is supposed to comfort you, but alright...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Actually, yes, Ogie, it is teh horror. If it's not privacy, then it's simply vast overspending.

Exactly my point the freakin morons spending money like its going out of style.

[Ned]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Not really.

As I said in my first post, I was waiting for the details to emerge. While I'm now a little less concerned, I still consider this to be a slippery-slope that needs to be monitored.

1) The supremes ruled against the FCC (who were trying to require that the phone companies ask our permission before selling off our phone records) saying that what the phone company was doing was a form of 'commercial free speech'. I totally disagree with that ruling. But even so, I do not accept that this is precedent for the government to acquire such records (especially for the purposes for which they will be used here) given the differences in what private individuals may do (to each other) and what the government may do (to us).


2) The NSA has no writ to perform surveillance on individuals in the USA. This operation clearly violates that concept, in principle, if not in absolute truth (given that it may be dubiously argued that such records are public). One may also argue that times have changed and only the NSA has the resources to carry out the complex ELINT surveillance that needs to be done in the USA. My point is, that if that's the case (and I agree that it is), then the laws need to be changed to clearly define what the NSA may and may not do during operations in the USA ie new lines need to be drawn. Aside from a special situation that may be time-sensitive, for example, "workarounds" by US INTEL agencies such as this example or allowing the Brits to conduct surveillance ops in the USA (for us) are not how this democracy should function IMO.

Perhaps.

But we do have an Attorney General who is entitled to give an opinion on whether an activity is legal. The president is entitled to rely on that opinion. Ditto the NSA.

The problem would arise if the AG gave an opinion that the matter was in a "grey" area or illegal and the president went forward anyway without consulting congress.

But, it is my understanding that the Congress was informed and approved. It is my further understanding that the NSA activity was cleared by the AG.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



I didn't think you give a **** about New Yorkers, considering another comment you have made about New Yorkers recently you ****er.

I only wish I knew how to use those smiley faces with the quick post feature as some of you guys have a hard time recognizing a joke.