Government spying and the AT&T whistleblowing case (1 Viewer)

[cascadian]

Here's the article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060414...d57lpGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

I normally feel that comparisons to big brother are unwarranted, but I can't think of a weaker metaphor that would be appropriate should the allegations prove true. For it's part, the Bush administration is not denying the charges.

It was one thing to listen to conversation with overseas suspects and a completely different thing to listen to everyone's calls indiscriminately. This sort of power is unprecedented and isn't even held in check by the other branches of government.

Am I alone in my outrage? Would anyone support this should it turn out to be true?

 

[Captain America]

Most folks, that seem to have no qualms relinquishing their right to privacy, usually take the "if you have nothing to hide, why should you care?" approach.

I have nothing to hide. But I still care.
That must be the liberal side of me.

Go figure.:roll:

 

[jfuh]

President Bush confirmed in December that the NSA has been conducting the surveillance when calls and e-mails, in which at least one party is outside the United States, are thought to involve al-Qaida terrorists. In congressional hearings last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales suggested the president could order the NSA to listen in on purely domestic calls without first obtaining a warrant from a secret court established nearly 30 years ago to consider such issues.
He said the administration, assuming the conversation related to al-Qaida, would have to determine if the surveillance were crucial to the nation's fight against terrorism, as authorized by Congress following the Sept. 11 attacks.

Nothing new here. Except knowing how now begs the question. How does the NSA detect calls from Al Qaeda without first listening in on ALL communications. The ultra-right wing likes to say well only calls to al-qaeda are monitored. Which is just bogus because you need to listen in on all the data streams in order to determine which is and which is not Al qaeda. These ultra-right wingers are the same ones that want small government with no governmental oversight. Talk about irony.

 

[AndrewC]

Few will care until they inadvertently get caught in the dragnet. Keep in mind that most communication is digital. Computers do the listening. Data of all kinds, is filtered by computers and then prioritized (or so I've read). Humans get the near finished list of potential important communication.

I assume that debatepolitics.com is setup by an individual. If that is the case, its days may be numbered. Governments and corporations don't want you to store, process or transmit your own data. Each have their own reasons for this, but it is a common goal. Some day, if things don't change, individuals will no longer be able host or provide services on the internet. We will all become clients only. Meaning all our data and information will be controlled by someone else. See you in the MSN politics forum with moderator NSAJoe!


EndOfTimes!!!

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/01/feds_want_a_wir.html

 

[jfuh]

Few will care until they inadvertently get caught in the dragnet. Keep in mind that most communication is digital. Computers do the listening. Data of all kinds, is filtered by computers and then prioritized (or so I've read). Humans get the near finished list of potential important communication.

I assume that debatepolitics.com is setup by an individual. If that is the case, its days may be numbered. Governments and corporations don't want you to store, process or transmit your own data. Each have their own reasons for this, but it is a common goal. Some day, if things don't change, individuals will no longer be able host or provide services on the internet. We will all become clients only. Meaning all our data and information will be controlled by someone else. See you in the MSN politics forum with moderator NSAJoe!


EndOfTimes!!!

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/01/feds_want_a_wir.html

Wait, I'm an individual? I thought I was just a number.:doh

 

[Gitdog]

Nothing new here. Except knowing how now begs the question. How does the NSA detect calls from Al Qaeda without first listening in on ALL communications. The ultra-right wing likes to say well only calls to al-qaeda are monitored. Which is just bogus because you need to listen in on all the data streams in order to determine which is and which is not Al qaeda. These ultra-right wingers are the same ones that want small government with no governmental oversight. Talk about irony.

It says right here how they do it. They install a device which has preprogrammed targets, or "dirty" words and when the device picks up on these dirty words, that's when they listen to see if it's something worth listening to.

Klein said the NSA built a secret room at the company's San Francisco central office in 2003, adjacent to a "switch room where the public's phone calls are routed." One of the documents under seal, Klein said, shows that a device was installed with the "ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060414/...MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

 

[jfuh]

It says right here how they do it. They install a device which has preprogrammed targets, or "dirty" words and when the device picks up on these dirty words, that's when they listen to see if it's something worth listening to.

You missed my point. That being that in order to "pick out the dirty words" they have to monitor all the calls.

 

[cascadian]

It says right here how they do it. They install a device which has preprogrammed targets, or "dirty" words and when the device picks up on these dirty words, that's when they listen to see if it's something worth listening to.

Yet there is nothing about dirty words that distinguishes anyone as being in contact with terrorists. This is wholesale monitoring of everyone without respect to suspicion or even alleged contact with foreign operatives.

This is vastly different from monitoring a few suspects without a warrant, this is monitoring the entire populace! Everyone is already in this dragnet.

 

[Gitdog]

You missed my point. That being that in order to "pick out the dirty words" they have to monitor all the calls.

No, I didn't miss it. The calls are monitored, but do not have someone listening to every single call, that's impossible. They only listen when the device flags a call.

 

[Captain America]

Even when I post on this forum I make an effort to avoid certain words that might flag the filter.

 

[Gitdog]

Yet there is nothing about dirty words that distinguishes anyone as being in contact with terrorists. This is wholesale monitoring of everyone without respect to suspicion or even alleged contact with foreign operatives.

This is vastly different from monitoring a few suspects without a warrant, this is monitoring the entire populace! Everyone is already in this dragnet.

Do you honestly believe they are able to filter through calls for certain words, but can not find out where the call is coming from and going to? They are not going to listen if the call is made and stays in the US. I can't say the FBI doesn't listen to calls that stay in the US, but the NSA does not listen to calls that are only located in the US. You can tell me I'm wrong all you want, but I guarantee I'm not.

 

[cascadian]

No, I didn't miss it. The calls are monitored, but do not have someone listening to every single call, that's impossible. They only listen when the device flags a call.

That's assuming quite a bit. They listen when and where they choose to listen because they can and there's no oversight to determine whether they don't. Nixon could have easily avoided getting caught with this sort of power. Even if Bush were a saint, there's no guarantee that our presidents will be immune to the temptations of this sort of power.

But even if what you say is true, that they only monitor calls that have certain keywords, they will inevitably wind up listening to calls of people we have no reason to suspect of terrorism. Someone discussing a scene a James Bond movie for example could have plenty of terms relating to bombs, someone who tracks or studies terrorists organizations might mention all sorts of related words, people with names that sound similar to certain terrorists might all trigger monitoring.

 

[cascadian]

Do you honestly believe they are able to filter through calls for certain words, but can not find out where the call is coming from and going to? They are not going to listen if the call is made and stays in the US. I can't say the FBI doesn't listen to calls that stay in the US, but the NSA does not listen to calls that are only located in the US. You can tell me I'm wrong all you want, but I guarantee I'm not.

Gee thanks for your guarantee, I'll sleep easier now. I find it relatively believable that they aren't supposed to listen to those calls, but there's no oversight on this to assure us.

Even if they only listened to calls placed from other countries, it's still too broad of a net to be justified.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If the powers were to end up being 'accidentally' used in an illegal manner, how would the electorate know? And what redress do we have?

For example if someone down at the NSA or whereveer decides he's going to keep tabs an his ex-girlfriend and her new beau for less than noble purposes what protects the innocent from an abuse of power?

 

[jfuh]

No, I didn't miss it. The calls are monitored, but do not have someone listening to every single call, that's impossible. They only listen when the device flags a call.

Which begs the question of how this is accomplished without first listening in on every call made.

 

[jfuh]

Do you honestly believe they are able to filter through calls for certain words, but can not find out where the call is coming from and going to? They are not going to listen if the call is made and stays in the US. I can't say the FBI doesn't listen to calls that stay in the US, but the NSA does not listen to calls that are only located in the US. You can tell me I'm wrong all you want, but I guarantee I'm not.

Caller ID's don't exactly proclaim Al-Qaeda on them. Not to mention it'd be pretty simple for any Al-Qaeda opperative to switch phones.
What would be the purpose of listening in if you're not going to listen in on domestic calls? There are afterall sleeper cells internally.

 

[Gitdog]

Which begs the question of how this is accomplished without first listening in on every call made.

Caller ID's don't exactly proclaim Al-Qaeda on them. Not to mention it'd be pretty simple for any Al-Qaeda opperative to switch phones.
What would be the purpose of listening in if you're not going to listen in on domestic calls? There are afterall sleeper cells internally.

It is impossible to listen to all of the billions of phone calls made every day. Yes the calls are being "listened" to, but not by humans.Until the equipment flags something, then a person will listen. Do you think the NSA which has the biggest budget of any US agency is using caller ID? lol. They don't spend their money on heated toilet seats, trust me I know. They have equipment that far exceeds what you're talking about. They know if the call is from or to overseas and to or from which country. The call has to either go through the phone lines on the ocean floor, or bounce off a satellite. That is not hard to monitor. As for sleeper cells, and domestic calls. That is the FBI's territory, they do all that. I'm sure you would find the FBI to be way more invasive then the NSA.

 

[jfuh]

It is impossible to listen to all of the billions of phone calls made every day. Yes the calls are being "listened" to, but not by humans.Until the equipment flags something, then a person will listen. Do you think the NSA which has the biggest budget of any US agency is using caller ID? lol. They don't spend their money on heated toilet seats, trust me I know. They have equipment that far exceeds what you're talking about. They know if the call is from or to overseas and to or from which country. The call has to either go through the phone lines on the ocean floor, or bounce off a satellite. That is not hard to monitor. As for sleeper cells, and domestic calls. That is the FBI's territory, they do all that. I'm sure you would find the FBI to be way more invasive then the NSA.

No, you don't say, I'd no idea. I thought it was the same as my cell phone Caller ID.:roll:

Now that we have established that all the calls are monitored, I don't see there to be any other argument. The premise of this administration has been that they only listen into conversations with Al-Qaeda.

 

[Gitdog]

No, you don't say, I'd no idea. I thought it was the same as my cell phone Caller ID.:roll:

Don't get stupid with me, you're the one that stated that caller ID doesn't say Al-Qaeda. Don't say something stupid and think you're not going to get an answer.

 

[jfuh]

Don't get stupid with me, you're the one that stated that caller ID doesn't say Al-Qaeda. Don't say something stupid and think you're not going to get an answer.

It serves the same function as Caller ID, thus I used the term. Shesh, lighten up.

 

[cascadian]

It is impossible to listen to all of the billions of phone calls made every day. Yes the calls are being "listened" to, but not by humans.Until the equipment flags something, then a person will listen.

Whether they are directly listened to by a human being or not is irrelevant. If the computer can distinguish words than it is listening in the most important sense of the word. The mere fact that they are data mining implies that they are casting a net over phone calls of people who are not even suspects. Furthermore it is doubtful that all those who meet criteria and are directly listened to are even suspects either.

Now it's becoming clear to me why the Admin wouldn't operate within FISA.

Would it be fair to assume that you support this eavesdropping? If so, what would more would it take to cause you alarm? Is there no power you wouldn't trust the government with?

 

[BWG]

If the powers were to end up being 'accidentally' used in an illegal manner, how would the electorate know? And what redress do we have?

For example if someone down at the NSA or whereveer decides he's going to keep tabs an his ex-girlfriend and her new beau for less than noble purposes what protects the innocent from an abuse of power?

Would it be fair to assume that you support this eavesdropping? If so, what would more would it take to cause you alarm? Is there no power you wouldn't trust the government with?

From my reading and person to person talks, I don't believe many people are against surveillance by itself. The problem comes from human frailty (ie push the limit, what can I get away with) without a system of checks and balances. I believe most people are basically honest, there is no need to provide temptation.

I don't have anything to hide either, but I do like to shut the bathroom door, even when I'm home by myself..LOL :lol:

 

[jfuh]

From my reading and person to person talks, I don't believe many people are against surveillance by itself. The problem comes from human frailty (ie push the limit, what can I get away with) without a system of checks and balances. I believe most people are basically honest, there is no need to provide temptation.

I don't have anything to hide either, but I do like to shut the bathroom door, even when I'm home by myself..LOL :lol:

:2wave:I'm very much against unwarrented surveillance. I want oversight by the other two branches.

 

[KCConservative]

Would it be fair to assume that you support this eavesdropping?

Yes, count me as one who supports it. :2wave:

 

[cascadian]

Yes, count me as one who supports it. :2wave:

Feel free to explain why this isn't a violation of privacy, or why this violation of privacy is necessary. Is there any form of warrantless surveillance you wouldn't support?

I mean heck, why not just install video cameras in everyone's house? Really what's the dif? But maybe that doesn't bug you either.