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

[SpencerH]

While I'm willing to wait for the details to emerge, I'm 'a little' annoyed about this recent NSA dragnet through phone calls etc. Terrorist threat, bedamned, as it stands in the news now (which I suppose means very little given the incompetence and slanted opinions of the news orgs) it's clearly a violation of our rights (and I have no problem with the previous exposure of NSA tapping of calls that originate overseas BTW). Who the **** is leaking this stuff about the NSA anyway? It's time for a treason-trial IMO.

[Drake Tungsten]

George Bush is monitoring the every day conversations of huge numbers of Americans dispite the fact that there is a legally enacted law which says he cannot do so.

No, he's not. As Ned pointed out...

the records have no information at all about the content of the phone calls. Just what number called what number. Not even the owner of the number is in the data.

Kudos for another textbook example of truthiness in action, though.

[Bosh]

Yeah, except without the concentration camps and Doublespeak, let alone MiniPax, MiniLov, and all those other wonderful contraptions. But otherwise you're absolutely right--this is 1984.

Hmmmmm

concentration camps

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

doublespeak

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php

MiniPax

http://www.slate.com/id/2081042/

MiniLov

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

[Q Classic]

According to the Supremes, people have no privacy interest in their phone records.

I'm sure many an astray spouse might disagree here. Indeed, why should the government know that phone number (312) 415.xxxx called number (773) 626.xxxx at all, or even know what's happened?

the records have no information at all about the content of the phone calls. Just what number called what number. Not even the owner of the number is in the data.

Splitting hairs, are we? Because it's impossible to find the owner of a phone number these days, what with anonymizing software...

Not even the owner of the number is in the data. That is a in a separate DB which was not shared with the government -- at least, not yet.

So, really, what we're talking about here is a completely useless and worthless system? There's no data on the content of the phone calls, no data on the people behind the phone calls, just when the phone call was made and between whom.

Yeah, that's a brilliant ****ing use of money right there.

Now, as you suggest, there's another database with that information, then your point is moot--it means that yes, the administration does have all that information, precisely something which I do not feel falls under the purview of "need to know".

[Ned]

Q, et al., I am sure your are in favor of detecting terrorist activity in the US.

At least, I was sure once upon a time.

[Victor Galis]

I don't really believe there is much terrorist activity in the US at this current moment in time. I believe the ammount of time and effort spent on finding those terrorists is far out of proportion to the benefits. More lives could be saved by attacking far more conventional means of getting killed.

[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.

[Victor Galis]

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.

Bush already successfully instilled everyone with an unhealthy paranoia, as evidenced by the reaction to the ports deal. And look it bit him in the ass.

[Ned]

You may have a point there. The peoples' reaction to UAE taking over some port operations was nothing short of mindless fear.

[Q Classic]

Q, et al., I am sure your are in favor of detecting terrorist activity in the US.

At least, I was sure once upon a time.

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

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I saw a debate on CNN with a woman named Randi Rhodes (not a porn star) and Dennis Prager and he was defending the NSA and said we have no right to keep our phone number/records private so she asked him for his home telephone number on air and all he could do was stammer about 5 secs before changing the subject.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
pwn3d!!!

Doesn't sound like pwnage to me... the NSA program means my number and the number of who I call may or may not pass through a supercomputer at some point and be ignored thereafter, while Dennis Prager saying his phone number on national television means he gets dozens if not hundreds of crank calls from random nutcases until he breaks down and gets a new one. That doesn't make any sense, even if she was just being facetious. Simply asinine.

Originally posted by Donegeal
No, it wouldn't.

What is there, something like 300,000,000 Americans? You'd need at least 500,000 - 1,000,000 people to catch everything.

I was led to believe this datamining was/is entirely computerized. There's no limit to how many calls could be analyzed if you have a CPU the size of a damn RV. It's only a matter of money.

[Kuciwalker]

I was led to believe this datamining was/is entirely computerized. There's no limit to how many calls could be analyzed if you have a CPU the size of a damn RV. It's only a matter of money.

Well, actually, a CPU the size of an RV wouldn't be too powerful. The NSA measures computer power in acres.

[Drake Tungsten]

So, really, what we're talking about here is a completely useless and worthless system? There's no data on the content of the phone calls, no data on the people behind the phone calls, just when the phone call was made and between whom.

I fail to see how such information would be worthless...

[Sikander]

The NSA is building / has built a huge database of who talks to whom so that it can compare real numbers gathered in other ways to the database to see who these people under suspicion talk to. They are also likely to build statistical models of certain types of interesting activities so that those can be scanned for, though that sort of thing is likely to raise the ire of people who are against the program.

I don't really see a problem with the program as described. I expect any intelligence agency foreign or domestic to do similar things in places that interest them. What's different this time is that we are worried that the war will be brought home to us, so we are seeing more operations on our own soil.

Is the "terrorist threat" overdone? Certainly, like all threats the press reports on. While I agree about the "War on a Concept" crap, I disagree with Rufus to the extent that I believe that there are groups who are de facto at war with the U.S. There are some very good legal and political reasons why it's important for us to acknowledge that and respond accordingly.

[Berzerker]

Doesn't sound like pwnage to me... the NSA program means my number and the number of who I call may or may not pass through a supercomputer at some point and be ignored thereafter, while Dennis Prager saying his phone number on national television means he gets dozens if not hundreds of crank calls from random nutcases until he breaks down and gets a new one. That doesn't make any sense, even if she was just being facetious. Simply asinine.

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.