Government spying and the AT&T whistleblowing case

[KCConservative]

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.

To draw a sensible comparison would be to say "install video cameras in suspected terrorist's homes." And yes, I'd be for that as well. I'm for catching the bad guys, cascadian. Sue me.

 

[cascadian]

To draw a sensible comparison would be to say "install video cameras in suspected terrorist's homes." And yes, I'd be for that as well. I'm for catching the bad guys, cascadian. Sue me.

Not sure if I follow you there. They are not monitoring suspects they're monitoring everyone.

What we have here is a monitoring of everyone, then determining if they are suspects after the fact. In other words, your calls have may have already been monitored even though you are not a suspected terrorist.

Yeah, sure. We're all for "catching the bad guys", and I hope you wouldn't mean to imply otherwise. But even if this much monitoring is necessary for that (a case that hasn't been made yet), it should still be subject to some form of oversight.

 

[KCConservative]

Not sure if I follow you there. They are not monitoring suspects they're monitoring everyone.

You'll be presenting your evidence to this, I trust. Tell us about the time you were monitored.

 

[cascadian]

You'll be presenting your evidence to this, I trust. Tell us about the time you were monitored.

What sort of proof would be sufficient for you? A press conference where Dubya says "Yes I did in fact listen to Cascadian's calls personally".

How do you feel about the article I linked to? Do you believe that whistleblower in this case is making false allegations? The government doesn't deny the claims. Do you?

If you don't deny it, then you must acknowledge that the government is "datamining" and listening to calls of people who are not suspects.

 

[KCConservative]

What sort of proof would be sufficient for you? A press conference where Dubya says "Yes I did in fact listen to Cascadian's calls personally".

No, just something that supports your assertion that they are listening to "everyone." This is what you clamined.

How do you feel about the article I linked to? Do you believe that whistleblower in this case is making false allegations? The government doesn't deny the claims. Do you?

If you don't deny it, then you must acknowledge that the government is "datamining" and listening to calls of people who are not suspects.

Your link suggests a "capablility" of monitoring more than just the suspected terrorists. It says nothing about this actually happening. It further says:

"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."

So what's the problem again?

 

[cascadian]

No, just something that supports your assertion that they are listening to "everyone." This is what you clamined.

I will stand behind the claim that they have the potential to monitor everyone and they refuse to demonstrate that they aren't. I will go further and say that the allegations of the case suggest that they could listen potentially to anyone without regards to suspicion. Unless taking an overseas call is suddenly grounds for suspicion of terrorism. And I think I'm being generous here to suggest that they can be trusted to use that much restraint without any form of accountability.

Your link suggests a "capablility" of monitoring more than just the suspected terrorists. It says nothing about this actually happening.

I suppose you could say installing a video camera only offers the capability to monitor someone visually. :roll: Why install it if you're not going to use it?The allegations made in the case (which the government does not deny) is:

"AT&T violated U.S. law and the privacy of its customers as part of the "massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications" without warrants"

 

[KCConservative]

I will stand behind the claim that they have the potential to monitor everyone and they refuse to demonstrate that they aren't. I will go further and say that the allegations of the case suggest that they could listen potentially to anyone without regards to suspicion. Unless taking an overseas call is suddenly grounds for suspicion of terrorism.

Are they listening to everyone or do they have the potential for doing that? Maybe you need to tell us the rules of the game before we play any more.

 

[cascadian]

Are they listening to everyone or do they have the potential for doing that?

Do you care if we can't tell the difference and they won't deny it?

Maybe you need to tell us the rules of the game before we play any more.

I just told you what I would stand behind. Would you like me to say it again? Monitoring anyone with arbitrary secret rules without oversight, is functionally the same as everyone to me. In other words, everyone is subject to monitoring at any time.

Whether or not they actually listened to every single person in the US isn't really relevant to my issue with this. If they only listened to 10,000,000 of us without warrants or grounds for suspicion as opposed to listening to all 350,000,000+ would that change the argument any? Would you care any less or more? I don't think so, and I don't know why that would give you a problem.

 

[KCConservative]

In other words, everyone is subject to monitoring at any time.

Which is a long way from your earlier assertion that they are listening to everyone. Too bad it took all morning to keep you honest. Like I said earlier, let us know when you are spied upon. I'd be interested in hearing about the experience.

 

[cascadian]

Which is a long way from your earlier assertion that they are listening to everyone. Too bad it took all morning to keep you honest. Like I said earlier, let us know when you are spied upon. I'd be interested in hearing about the experience.

Of course. When I get my note from Dubya telling me that I've been illegally spied on, I'll pass it on to you. But it doesn't sound like you'd care anyway. Since if the government failed to spy one just one citizen there's nothing to argue about right?

Be sure to stop back by when you have an argument to present.

 

[KCConservative]

Be sure to stop back by when you have an argument to present.

Forgive me, I thought the argument had ended. You claimed that our government was spying on "everyone" and then backed off by admitting they only had the "potential" to do such a thing. Was there something more you needed explained?

 

[cascadian]

Forgive me, I thought the argument had ended. You claimed that our government was spying on "everyone" and then backed off by admitting they only had the "potential" to do such a thing. Was there something more you needed explained?

I've asked you a number of questions already that you've so far failed to answer. I don't think repeating them is going to get a better response. But if you want to look back over my posts and start answering my questions, I'm listening.

 

[Captain America]

Common sense tells me that it is virtually impossible for the government to spy on everybody all the time.

But I would not doubt that all of our communications, or perhaps more than we know, are filtered by an automated bot designed to pick out key words and phrases of interest. A necessary evil perhaps.

But I tell you guys this. The very FIRST time any intel garnered in the name of the Patriot Act, is linked to slander, politically blackmail, or use for any other reason other than the fight against terrorism, and can be proven, all hell is gonna break loose. It's just a matter of time.

 

[cascadian]

But I would not doubt that all of our communications, or perhaps more than we know, are filtered by an automated bot designed to pick out key words and phrases of interest. A necessary evil perhaps.

I have yet to see someone make the case that it is necessary.

But I tell you guys this. The very FIRST time any intel garnered in the name of the Patriot Act, is linked to slander, politically blackmail, or use for any other reason other than the fight against terrorism, and can be proven, all hell is gonna break loose. It's just a matter of time.

I'm not sure about it being a matter of time. It's not as easy as catching some goons trying to break into a hotel (like Watergate). They've already tapped into the mainline. I'm guessing they could get whatever information they wanted just by modifying a few parameters in the software. This would be nigh impossible to trace especially without any form of government oversight. There would have to be a whistleblower from within the government, and even then it would be hard for them to prove anything. One could also imagine the character assassination that would most certainly take place on whomever blew the whistle.

 

[cascadian]

Thought it would be worthwhile to link to another articlethat covers it more in depth.

Among new revelations:

The wiretapping/datamining included calls by other providers

The whistleblower alleges that the spying was even applied to completely domestic calls.

From the article:

"Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA," Klein's wrote. "And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens."

 

[Gill]

Thought it would be worthwhile to link to another articlethat covers it more in depth.

Among new revelations:

The wiretapping/datamining included calls by other providers

The whistleblower alleges that the spying was even applied to completely domestic calls.

From the article:

"Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA," Klein's wrote. "And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens."

The how's and why's of this program have been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. There is a HUGE difference in monitoring and listening. If you want more information on how, at least presumably, the program works, there are numerous explanations on the web.

The basics are that the system monitors the phones and data through satellites and taps, as others have said, for certain key words and tracks all calls from know foreign terrorists. For example, if a terrorist is captured, I would imagine that every phone number in his cell phone would go on the watch list.

Have you ever seen "Clear and Present Danger"? This movie has an excellent scene that shows how the system supposedly works.

This program is nothing new. It is known that Clinton used it and probably a few presidents before him if they had the technology.

 

[cascadian]

The how's and why's of this program have been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. There is a HUGE difference in monitoring and listening. If you want more information on how, at least presumably, the program works, there are numerous explanations on the web.

If "monitoring" includes word recognition then the difference between that and listening is not very huge to me. Plus, implicit in the "monitoring" is another step where calls are actually listened to on the basis that filter determines as opposed to suspicion of guilt.

This program is nothing new. It is known that Clinton used it and probably a few presidents before him if they had the technology.

I would like to see a cite on this.

 

[Gill]

If "monitoring" includes word recognition then the difference between that and listening is not very huge to me. Plus, implicit in the "monitoring" is another step where calls are actually listened to on the basis that filter determines as opposed to suspicion of guilt.


I would like to see a cite on this.

Monitoring: Electronic communications captured and reviewed by computer to find key words or calls to or from targeted phone numbers.

Listening: Hearing, reviewing or reading electronic communications by a human.

The existence of Echelon is common knowledge and you could have easily found it on your own. I'll give you one freebie.

ECHELON is actually a vast network of electronic spy stations located around the world and maintained by five countries: the US, England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These countries, bound together in a still-secret agreement called UKUSA, spy on each other’s citizens by intercepting and gathering electronic signals of almost every telephone call, fax transmission and email message transmitted around the world daily. These signals are fed through the massive supercomputers of the NSA to look for certain keywords called the ECHELON “dictionaries.”

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

60 MINUTES
Television Broadcast February 27, 2000

ECHELON; WORLDWIDE CONVERSATIONS BEING RECEIVED BY THE ECHELON SYSTEM MAY FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS AND INNOCENT PEOPLE MAY BE TAGGED AS SPIES

STEVE KROFT, co-host:

If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.

http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

 

[cascadian]

The existence of Echelon is common knowledge and you could have easily found it on your own.

Thanks for the link. Without knowing about ECHELON, it's hard to see how I would have known the right keywords to find it.

It is important to note that US had previously denied using ECHELON or similar systems on US citizens.

From Wikipedia:
"Before the September 11, 2001 attacks and the legislation which followed it, US intelligence agencies were generally prohibited from spying on people inside the US and other western countries' intelligence services generally faced similar restrictions within their own countries. There are allegations, however, that ECHELON and the UKUSA alliance were used to circumvent these restrictions by, for example, having the UK facilities spy on people inside the US and the US facilites spy on people in the UK, with the agencies exchanging data (perhaps even automatically through the ECHELON system without human intervention).

The proposed US-only "Total Information Awareness" program relied on technology similar to ECHELON, and was to integrate the extensive sources it is legally permitted to survey domestically, with the "taps" already compiled by ECHELON. It was cancelled by the U.S. Congress in 2004."

However, with this case, the government has suddenly decided that they will not deny it. Even though folks such as yourself were convinced all the while, this is news because it changes the nature of the public debate and shrinks the room for reasonable doubt considerably.

 

[Gill]

Thanks for the link. Without knowing about ECHELON, it's hard to see how I would have known the right keywords to find it.

It is important to note that US had previously denied using ECHELON or similar systems on US citizens.

From Wikipedia:
"Before the September 11, 2001 attacks and the legislation which followed it, US intelligence agencies were generally prohibited from spying on people inside the US and other western countries' intelligence services generally faced similar restrictions within their own countries. There are allegations, however, that ECHELON and the UKUSA alliance were used to circumvent these restrictions by, for example, having the UK facilities spy on people inside the US and the US facilites spy on people in the UK, with the agencies exchanging data (perhaps even automatically through the ECHELON system without human intervention).

The proposed US-only "Total Information Awareness" program relied on technology similar to ECHELON, and was to integrate the extensive sources it is legally permitted to survey domestically, with the "taps" already compiled by ECHELON. It was cancelled by the U.S. Congress in 2004."

However, with this case, the government has suddenly decided that they will not deny it. Even though folks such as yourself were convinced all the while, this is news because it changes the nature of the public debate and shrinks the room for reasonable doubt considerably.

I simply put "clinton electronic spying" in the search engine and it returned 83 hits.

Wikipedia is interesting, but I consider it a limited resource. I could go and change the quote you placed above to say that Clinton authorized spying of Americans and anyone who didn't agree could kiss his a**. Of course it wouldn't be true, but Wiki would say that on their website.

 

[cascadian]

Wikipedia is interesting, but I consider it a limited resource. I could go and change the quote you placed above to say that Clinton authorized spying of Americans and anyone who didn't agree could kiss his a**. Of course it wouldn't be true, but Wiki would say that on their website.

Yes, Wiki, wouldn't be appropriate if I thought we disagreed on a matter of fact. At this point I'm not certain that we do. But it does tend to be a reliable place to start research in my experience.

Are you disputing the any of the information in the Wikipedia article? If so, what facts are you suspicious of?

 

[jfuh]

I simply put "clinton electronic spying" in the search engine and it returned 83 hits.

Wikipedia is interesting, but I consider it a limited resource. I could go and change the quote you placed above to say that Clinton authorized spying of Americans and anyone who didn't agree could kiss his a**. Of course it wouldn't be true, but Wiki would say that on their website.

Actually no, you could not alter it to reflect something unfactual. The accuracy of Wiki is actually very high, with very few factual errors.

 

[Gill]

Actually no, you could not alter it to reflect something unfactual. The accuracy of Wiki is actually very high, with very few factual errors.

You want to bet?? I can go right now and change any topic in Wiki. It might not stay changed for more than a few days, but it would be changed long enough to quote.

I edit Wiki frequently on various topics.

 

[jfuh]

You want to bet?? I can go right now and change any topic in Wiki. It might not stay changed for more than a few days, but it would be changed long enough to quote.

I edit Wiki frequently on various topics.

oooook :roll:

 

[Gill]

oooook :roll:

Were you trying to make a point or did your computer crash before you were finished???