USA Today: NSA building massive database of phone records (1 Viewer)

[NYStateofMind]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has been secretly collecting records of ordinary Americans' phone calls in an effort to build a database of every call made within the country, it was reported Thursday.

AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers' phone calls to the National Security Agency program shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said USA Today, citing anonymous sources it said had direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The White House defended its overall eavesdropping program and said no domestic surveillance is conducted without court approval.

"The intelligence activities undertaken by the United States government are lawful, necessary and required to protect Americans from terrorist attacks," said Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, who added that appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on intelligence activities.

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would call the phone companies to appear before the panel "to find out exactly what is going on."

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the panel, sounded incredulous about the program and railed against what he called a lack of congressional oversight. He argued that the media was doing the job of Congress.

"Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al Qaeda?" Leahy asked. "These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything ... Where does it stop?"



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/nsa.phonerecords.ap/index.html

Good luck making the case that this is legal, necessary and appropriate. This isn't targeting people who have ties to terrorists, it's wholesale invasion of privacy of millions of innocent Americans.

 

[cascadian]

Don't be concerned, Big Brother is just looking out for your safety. You should be comforted by the thought that he is watching you.

 

[NYStateofMind]

Don't be concerned, Big Brother is just looking out for your safety. You should be comforted by the thought that he is watching you.

Oh, how silly of me, of course we should be thankful and willingly give up our rights. After all, everyone knows that Big Brother would never abuse his power.

:mrgreen:

 

[oldreliable67]

Lets look at a few more bits from the USA Today article:

This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
[...]
The government is collecting "external" data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting "internals," a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for "social network analysis," the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together.
[...]
Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining," said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.

The caveat, he said, is that "personal identifiers" — such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses — can't be included as part of the search. "That requires an additional level of probable cause," he said.

The NSA is consolidating and analyzing already collected data , not conversations, to try to stop terrorist attacks before they happen.

What exactly is the legitimate complaint against this program?

Consider this observation:

Immediately after 9/11, politicians and pundits slammed the Bush administration for failing to “connect the dots” foreshadowing the attack. What a difference a little amnesia makes. For two years now, left- and right-wing advocates have shot down nearly every proposal to use intelligence more effectively—to connect the dots—as an assault on “privacy.” Though their facts are often wrong and their arguments specious, they have come to dominate the national security debate virtually without challenge. The consequence has been devastating: just when the country should be unleashing its technological ingenuity to defend against future attacks, scientists stand irresolute, cowed into inaction.

“No one in the research and development community is putting together tools to make us safer,” says Lee Zeichner of Zeichner Risk Analytics, a risk consultancy firm, “because they’re afraid” of getting caught up in a privacy scandal. The chilling effect has been even stronger in government. “Many perfectly legal things that could be done with data aren’t being done, because people don’t want to lose their jobs,” says a computer security entrepreneur who, like many interviewed for this article, was too fearful of the advocates to let his name appear.

Source.

I am willing to give up trivial amounts of liberty (carrying a passport when traveling abroad, e.g.) when it provides some significant amount of additional security. I balk at even modest surrender of liberty (friskings by government travel agents at the airport) when I feel that the gain in security is negligible.

In this case, I believe the surrender of liberty is infinitesimal while the potential gain in security is huge. If it turns out that my premise is wrong (i.e., there have been some large number of people harassed because of perfectly legitimate calling patterns or other abuses), I am prepared to reevaluate my position.

 

[scottyz]

Oh, how silly of me, of course we should be thankful and willingly give up our rights. After all, everyone knows that Big Brother would never abuse his power.

:mrgreen:

Exactly! If you really love America you will support anything Bush does 100%, no questions asked. If you are in anyway against this you're either a:
Terrorist
Traitor
Liberal
Pinko
Or all of the above.

 

[cascadian]

The NSA is consolidating and analyzing already collected data , not conversations, to try to stop terrorist attacks before they happen.

What exactly is the legitimate complaint against this program?

To which my response is, what is the legitimate need? I have yet to be convinced that it is actually useful. Furthermore the scope of this thing keeps growing and legality ever more suspect.

Here's a more detailed article.

A few snippets:

The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.
...
Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information
...
The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

This appears to be yet another violation of the law.

What laws do they respect? If they can't respect the law why should we trust them with any intrusions into privacy?

I've been following this issue and I think we shall see soon enough that domestic calls have been monitored without warrants as a result of this datamining. I also have reason to suspect that the "datamining" involves analysis of the actual content of the conversations, which in my mind constitutes listening.

 

[oldreliable67]

To which my response is, what is the legitimate need? I have yet to be convinced that it is actually useful.

I can't speak for all, but I imagine that most of us who escaped from the WTCs in '93 and '01 recognize a very 'legitimate need'.

You still may not be convinced of its usefullness, but to get a better appreciation of why it could very well be quite usefull, possibly making a significant difference, take a quick read of "Blind Spot" by Timothy Naftali, which recounts the history of US counterterrorism efforts.

This appears to be yet another violation of the law.

Key word there is "appears". Controversial, no doubt, but so far, only allegations, no proof. A court test would be welcome, IMO, to gain some definitive legal ruling (or as close as we can come to such a thing in this environment).

I've been following this issue and I think we shall see soon enough that domestic calls have been monitored without warrants as a result of this datamining. I also have reason to suspect that the "datamining" involves analysis of the actual content of the conversations, which in my mind constitutes listening.

I certainly hope that calls have been monitored without warrants as a result of this datamining. Not, however, 'domestic' calls. I would hope that if this effort/analysis has produced 'reasonable' or 'probable cause' evidence of 'associations' with AQ or other terrorists organizations outside the US, that they have subsequently been monitored.

IIRC, this type of operation was actually written or speculated about in Wired sometime last year. It has been the subject of a great deal of speculation in the IT/telecom community for some time.

It's interesting to juxtapose the NSA stories - this one plus the Agency's international terrorist surveillance program - with this account of a report earlier today by Britain's Intelligence and Security Committee on the subway bombings in London last July:

"The suicide bombers who killed 52 passengers on London's transit system had a string of contacts with someone in Pakistan just before striking, Britain's top law enforcement official said Thursday.

However, authorities admitted they didn't know what was discussed in those contacts and stuck with their contention that the blasts were a home-grown plot and that the degree of involvement by al-Qaida, if any, was unknown.

Thursday's report by the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded that intelligence agents had been alerted to two of the suicide bombers before the attacks but limited resources prevented them from uncovering the plot.

Reid, speaking of the contacts in Pakistan ahead of the attacks, said authorities did not know what was discussed. ..."There are a series of suspicious contacts from an unknown individual or individuals in Pakistan in the immediate run-up to the bombings," Reid said after his department released its narrative of the attacks. "We do not know their content."

Source.

Sounds like they should have listened in on those calls. These are exactly the kind of communications that are, or should be, intercepted by the NSA under the terrorist surveillance program.

 

[cascadian]

I can't speak for all, but I imagine that most of us who escaped from the WTCs in '93 and '01 recognize a very 'legitimate need'.

You still may not be convinced of its usefullness,

"Need" of course, implies that it's actually useful in preventing such things. Why would they need to a database of every call made by anyone in the US? This isn't based on need, rather it is based on what they can get away with, presumably because they might need it. And even that presumption assumes good faith, which this government is inspiring less and less.

I guess, without a conviction, one might argue that they might be innocent of violating the law, but if that's all you have to offer, then I can't find it a very convincing argument. They refused to have this reviewed by FISA which in my mind presumes that the courts would probably disagree with their "interpretation."

I certainly hope that calls have been monitored without warrants as a result of this datamining.

I honestly don't understand why you hope that there wouldn't be warrants involved.

Sounds like they should have listened in on those calls. These are exactly the kind of communications that are, or should be, intercepted by the NSA under the terrorist surveillance program.

This is a presumption that is hard to prove since the calls were not listened to and they were to an unknown individual or individuals and the authorities still insist that the plot was homegrown. Maybe the calls were been completely innocent, and they would have actually diverted attention, who knows.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

In this case, I believe the surrender of liberty is infinitesimal while the potential gain in security is huge. If it turns out that my premise is wrong (i.e., there have been some large number of people harassed because of perfectly legitimate calling patterns or other abuses), I am prepared to reevaluate my position.

I have never met someone so rational that I disagreed with,... who are you?

 

[oldreliable67]

Legal blogger Orin Kerr has posted some thoughts on the NSA datamining operation disclosed by USA Today. Here are some relevant portions of his analysis:

1) The Fourth Amendment issues are straightforward. It sounds like the program involves only non-content surveillance, which means that it presumably doesn’t implicate the Fourth Amendment under Smith v. Maryland.

2) The legality of the program under FISA is somewhat similar to the legality of the NSA program we learned about a few months ago. The key question is, did the monitoring constitute “electronic surveillance” under FISA, and if so, does the Authorization to Use Military Force allow it? Note that FISA’s definition of “electronic surveillance” goes beyond accessing only content information and extends to some non-content information. If the program did involve “electronic surveillance” under FISA, then we’re right back to the same question that has been raised about the legality of the known NSA domestic surveillance program. If that’s right, your views of the legality of the new NSA program will pretty much coincide with your views of the legality of the NSA program disclosed a few months ago.

3) The next question is, did the monitoring violate the Pen Register statute, and in particular the prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 3121? To boil down a complex area of law into a sentence, federal surveillance law calls any means of surveilling non-content telephone or Internet information a “pen register” or “trap and trace device.” Section 3121 then bans using such a device unless the government has a court order (either through the criminal investigative authorities or national security law authorities) or an exception to the statute applies. The exceptions in the statute don’t seem applicable here: They mostly involve monitoring to provide better service for the telephone company.

The USA Today story suggests that Qwest wanted the government to obtain a court order for the monitoring, and that the government refused because they concluded that the FISA court might not grant the order. The court order they are referring to is probably the FISA pen register order. Under 50 U.S.C. 1842, the Attorney General or his designate needs to approve the request for such an order, and must certify “that the information likely to be obtained . . . is relevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.” The order would then need to be renewed every 90 days under 50 U.S.C. 1842(f).

The legal threshold for a FISA pen register order is low: relevance to an ongoing investigation is a pretty easy standard to satisfy. At the same time, obtaining an order for this kind of monitoring would raise an issue that I have wondered about but I don’t think I know how to answer: Does FISA’s pen/trap authority in 50 U.S.C. 1842 permit the government to conduct massive-scale monitoring, or must monitoring be limited to a specific set of persons or accounts? When the USA Today story says that the government didn’t think the order would be granted by the FISA court, I gather they are saying that the FISA court judges didn’t think the FISA pen/trap authority permitted such massive scale monitoring. That sounds like a sensible conclusion: I would guess that the FISA judges wouldn’t interpret the FSIA pen/trap authority as permitting such massive scale monitoring (in that it trumps the need for any individual orders, which would be odd).

4) The next possible statute is the Stored Communications Act (SCA), and in particular the prohibition on disclosing records relating to wire communications to a government entity found in 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3). It’s not clear to me that the SCA applies: the SCA was designed to deal with one-time disclosure of stored communications and records, not real-time collection and repeated disclosure. At the same time, the statute doesn’t have an explicit exception for real time collection, so it’s at least plausible that it does apply. If it applies, disclosure is permitted only if an exception to the statute covers this. I don’t think that any of the exceptions apply, though: the emergency exception of 18 U.S.C. 2702(c)(4) seens to be the closest, but this doesn’t sound like there was an “immediate danger” here. This was an ongoing program, not a program responding to a sudden emergency.

5) A fifth possible statute, and one mentioned in the USA Today story, is the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 222. I have generally thought that the statutes discussed above trump this statute, but the USA Today story mentions it. In any event, I don’t know much about this one, as it’s a telecom statute and I don’t normally play in that sandbox. So I’ll punt on this one for now.

Kerr's conclusions:

"my very preliminary sense is that there are no Fourth Amendment issues here but a number of statutory problems under statutes such as FISA and the pen register statute. Of course, all of the statutory questions are subject to the possible argument that Article II trumps those statutes. As I have mentioned before, I don’t see the support for the strong Article II argument in existing caselaw, but there is a good chance that the Administration’s legal argument in support of the new law will rely on it."

Source.

 

[oldreliable67]

"Need" of course, implies that it's actually useful in preventing such things. Why would they need to a database of every call made by anyone in the US? This isn't based on need, rather it is based on what they can get away with, presumably because they might need it. And even that presumption assumes good faith, which this government is inspiring less and less

With this statement, you set yourself up as the arbiter of what the analysts at NSA are, or are not, capable of accomplishing. And being rather presumptuous about it, as well. Are you really qualified to opine on what they can or cannot accomplish? You are certainly, as we all are, entitled to your opinion, and you may well have some sterling qualifications along these lines that might suggest that we should give your opinion considerable weight. But until you demonstrate such, the above statement is simply your opinion.

I honestly don't understand why you hope that there wouldn't be warrants involved.

Actually, there was a small mis-statement there. I had intended to type "with or without warrants". My bad. But, it doesn't change your criticism. Let me elaborate just a bit. My impression is that the purpose of this program is to discern calls with known or strongly suspected terrorists with associates in the rest of the world in general and the US in particular. If an "association" is established, it will provide the "reasonability" hurdle to take the analysis to the next level and perhaps ultimately eavesdrop on such calls, if the chain of evidence points to the necessity of such.

Throughout the '80s and '90s, there were several instances of terrorist operations being disrupted and avoided due to successful intercepts/wiretaps. But not all. I want them to all be disrupted.

In other words, I want this program to be successful. I want these guys put out of business. If we can direct our considerable technology to aiding in accomplishing that, and we can do so with, as I described it earlier, an infinitesimal surrender of liberty versus a huge potential gain in security, then I'm ok with that. Like I also said, earlier, if my premise is proven wrong, then I'm prepared to re-evaluate.

This is a presumption that is hard to prove since the calls were not listened to and they were to an unknown individual or individuals and the authorities still insist that the plot was homegrown. Maybe the calls were been completely innocent, and they would have actually diverted attention, who knows.

You got the "who knows" part right. But if the calls had been intercepted, the Brits would most likely have known. Either way.

 

[Stinger]

Good luck making the case that this is legal, necessary and appropriate. This isn't targeting people who have ties to terrorists, it's wholesale invasion of privacy of millions of innocent Americans.

That was one of the most stupidly written, stupidly protrayed story I have read.

Well DUH, I hope they are doing this.

Where did you get the idea that third party billing records have some special protection? You don't own the records of your phone calls the phone company does and it can do with it what it wants to and thankfully 3 of 4 realized that this is perfectly legal and appropriate for the times. They aren't giving out your personal data unless a warrant is issued.

And this is not new. Clinton did it under Echelon. The NYT mentioned this was an existing program months ago. This doesn't "target" anyone. Why the sudden uproar?

This is absurd I just heard Chris Matthews talking about people now being worried about thier last phone call to thier girlfriend or mistress. This is how these things get spun out of control and stupid people fall for it.

 

[Stinger]

Oh, how silly of me, of course we should be thankful and willingly give up our rights. After all, everyone knows that Big Brother would never abuse his power.

:mrgreen:

Where on earth to you believe you have the legal expecation of privacy concerning the phone number you RENT from the phone company? You've never had that right. And your name is not even associated with the number, no personal data at all, unless something clicks and THEN a warrant is sought.

 

[mpg]

If anyone did anything illegal, it's the phone companies, not the government.

 

[cascadian]

With this statement, you set yourself up as the arbiter of what the analysts at NSA are, or are not, capable of accomplishing. And being rather presumptuous about it, as well. Are you really qualified to opine on what they can or cannot accomplish?

Well, I am open to the idea of explaining why I couldn't understand such a thing or why it really is necessary, but I haven't seen the explanation yet. Can you answer my question as to why they would need a database of potentially every domestic call in the US?

My impression is that the purpose of this program is to discern calls with known or strongly suspected terrorists with associates in the rest of the world in general and the US in particular.

If they are known or strongly suspected then why can't they get a warrant and wiretap normally?

If we can direct our considerable technology to aiding in accomplishing that, and we can do so with, as I described it earlier, an infinitesimal surrender of liberty versus a huge potential gain in security, then I'm ok with that.

I guess I'm not inclined to agree with "infinitesimal" or "huge" in your assessment. It does not appear like an infinitesimal loss, and I don't see the gain in security as being that great if it achieves any at all. Even if you see it as a small personal loss, it's an incredible growth of government intrusion into the private realm as a whole.

Furthermore should any loss of liberty be necessary, I'd like to know what the hell it is so I can make a judgement for myself, thank you very much. Despite all of their claims of oversight, Congress keeps reacting like they had no clue (even the 'pubs this time). All of this secrecy and lack of denial does not inspire confidence that they are concerned about my liberties nor that it everything is on the up and up. Frankly it's not really clear to me what Bush thinks Article II won't let him do.

It is an admirable goal to prevent terrorism, but when it comes down to it, it's really not your average american's most pressing safety need. Kind of like airplane crashes, statistically unlikely, but headline grabbers that inspire great fear. This level of government intrusion due to the WOT doesn't seem like a good payoff to me.

 

[oldreliable67]

If they are known or strongly suspected then why can't they get a warrant and wiretap normally?

C'mon, don't be obtuse! This program is looking for patterns of calls. It is one thing to discover a particular cell phone number in Pakistan is an AQ guy and set up to eavesdrop on him in the future. It is quite another to investigate the pattern of calls to and from that a suspect phone, and then from those phones to other phones, etc. Lots of pattern analysis, perhaps some fuzzy logic/genetic algorithms, etc.

Furthermore should any loss of liberty be necessary, I'd like to know what the hell it is so I can make a judgement for myself, thank you very much.

Not everyone agrees that any loss of liberty is invovled. Of those that concede that some loss of liberty is involved, many believe that it is an acceptable, even desirable, tradeoff. Many believe that disclosure of some programs is done as result not of altruistic motives but attempts to gain partisan advantage.

It is an admirable goal to prevent terrorism, but when it comes down to it, it's really not your average american's most pressing safety need.

Disagree. It is, or should be, way up there on the list. Votes in the last Presidential election suggest that might well be the case.

BTW, leaving later this evening, returning Tuesday, so may not have a chance to reply to further posts till then.

 

[cascadian]

C'mon, don't be obtuse! This program is looking for patterns of calls. It is one thing to discover a particular cell phone number in Pakistan is an AQ guy and set up to eavesdrop on him in the future. It is quite another to investigate the pattern of calls to and from that a suspect phone, and then from those phones to other phones, etc. Lots of pattern analysis, perhaps some fuzzy logic/genetic algorithms, etc.

Of course, the investigation is different from a wiretap. My point here is that sensitive information involving people who are clearly not suspects is being used in the investigation. Additionally, the capacity for these algorithms to accurately and reliably determine suspicion is still unclear. In some respects, it still looks like a fishing expedition.

Not everyone agrees that any loss of liberty is invovled. Of those that concede that some loss of liberty is involved, many believe that it is an acceptable, even desirable, tradeoff.

Well, that's why we have a democracy. So that we at least have a chance to decide for ourselves whether or not we consider it a consider it a loss. Government secrecy undermines and clearly conflicts with democratic principles.

Disagree. It is, or should be, way up there on the list. Votes in the last Presidential election suggest that might well be the case.

It undeniably has been and is a great concern of people. I acknowleged that it has caused great fear. But statistically speaking, we have more pressing needs.

 

[Iriemon]

It undeniably has been and is a great concern of people. I acknowleged that it has caused great fear. But statistically speaking, we have more pressing needs.

Compare the number who have died from a terrorist attack compared to those who have died from murder, gunshot, car accidents, disease, alcohol, smoking, accidents whatever, and terrorism isn't even on the radar. If 300,000 had been killed it wouldn't be in the top 65 causes of death.

In just one year, more Americans died of the following causes than died of terrorist attacks in the last 10 years:

Source: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Pedestrian accident
Motorcycle rider
Car occupant
Occupant of pick-up truck or van
Other and unspecified land transport accidents
Other fall on same level
Other and unspecified fall
Accidental drowning and submersion
Other accidental threats to breathing
Exposure to smoke, fire and flames
Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances
Narcotics and psychodysleptics
Other and unspecified drugs, medicaments, and biologicals
Accidental exposure to other
Intentional self-poisoning
Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation, and suffocation
Intentional self-harm by firearm
Assault by firearm
Other and unspecified means of assault
Poisoning

In 2002 there were 164,112 external causes of mortality. Assuming this is an average year (I don't know that) over 10 years the figure would be 1,600,000 deaths from external causes. Over the last 10 years, about 3000 Americans have died from terrorist attacks, not counting military.

That means over the last 10 years you were about 500x more likely to die from some external cause other than a terrorist attack.

And that doesn't even include dying from some disease or cancer or something like that.

Hell, if I gotta go, I'd hope it was in a terrorist attack, as opposed to falling down the stairs, if the Govt will give my family a couple million in hush money like they did the folks in NY.

 

[Navy Pride]

This is nothing new...It is nothing but smoke and mirrors by the left.....They want to block the Hayden nomination.........What the NSA is doing is perfectly legal............

 

[tecoyah]

This is nothing new...It is nothing but smoke and mirrors by the left.....They want to block the Hayden nomination.........What the NSA is doing is perfectly legal............

And so...it would seem....is Lying:

"Our intelligence activities strictly target al-Qaida and their known affiliates," Bush said. "We are not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans."

But wait, What was that General Hayden:

"I have met personally with prominent corporate executive officers. (One senior executive confided that the data management needs we outlined to him were larger than any he had previously seen). [...] And last week we cemented a deal with another corporate giant to jointly develop a system to mine data that helps us learn about our targets."

Seriously now, if indeed this is required to combat terrorism....fine....but dont lie to me, and in the process think me a fool. This is becoming insulting to the American People. WE ARE NOT THAT STUPID.

 

[debate_junkie]

And so...it would seem....is Lying:

"Our intelligence activities strictly target al-Qaida and their known affiliates," Bush said. "We are not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans."

But wait, What was that General Hayden:

"I have met personally with prominent corporate executive officers. (One senior executive confided that the data management needs we outlined to him were larger than any he had previously seen). [...] And last week we cemented a deal with another corporate giant to jointly develop a system to mine data that helps us learn about our targets."

Seriously now, if indeed this is required to combat terrorism....fine....but dont lie to me, and in the process think me a fool. This is becoming insulting to the American People. WE ARE NOT THAT STUPID.

Exactly, tecoyah. We, the American people are NOT sheep. If you have a case, make it. If it's good for the country, tell me why. Otherwise, they need to explain themselves. It would seem to me that in this day and age, the power of government NEEDS to be extended, I can live with that. However, it seems they are spending OUR money going on a fishing expedition. We have to pay for the database to be built, and configured. We have to pay for the analysts to analyze the information, and then any subsequent further inquiries. Wouldn't it be better to start with the numbers that they've tapped, because they've found something suspicious? I mean seriously... track the patterns those numbers make, right? It just seems a bit far reaching to demand ALL records of ALL phone calls now.. when a majority of those phone calls wouldn't put a blip on the screen of the NSA.

 

[dragonslayer]

I was told that anyone who does not support the Right wing radicals is on this NSA list for being spied on.

Telephone records and spying. Hayden and Bush obviously hates Americans.

 

[disneydude]

Wait a minute....I was told by the right-wingers/bush apologists on this board that the spying was only on terrorrists. I mean after all, that's what their President said and we are supposed to trust their president, right? Right, right?....right? Are you out there?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If you arent willing to give up your freedom for security, you're unpatriotic. How dare you dissent!

 

[Davo The Mavo]

A few thoughts.

I am not a Constitutional Law Expert, so I have no idea if this can be semantically defended as legal. In my mind, I think it probably is illegal, however, because we (America) are polarized by this and the wiretap issue, I honestly believe the leak came from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and it has Karl Rove written all over it. This is the Administration's argument that if your not with us, you are weak on terrorism-----all over again.

It seems, if approximately 50% of the people wholeheartedly believe that the government would never over step its bounds with spying on American citizens, then the other 50% believes the slippery slope has been iced up over night------which then makes the Congress impotent, because as long as we stay divided on things, nothing ever gets done. Be it accountability or progress, nothing ever gets done.

Prediction: This will die----in a few months there will be some kind of new "leak" that will show that they were lying this time. Then, a few months after that it will be something else. I have to say, it is going to be really ironic when someday, the same people who believe the current administration can do no wrong, will be raising hell because they have finally lost a civil liberty that effects them personally.

Many Sociologists state that when a door is opened and an act becomes somewhat acceptable in society, then that door never closes. Does anyone truly believe homosexuals are going to go back into the closet now that their door has been opened? Has racism worsened or gotten better since 1964? Does anyone believe we will go backwards on Civil Rights Legislation? If we accept this, how long before they take away something a little more important than your phone call patterns. And by the way, how do we know that's all they are doing? We believed them when they said they were just looking for contacts with Al Qeada (well, not me, but a lot of us did), which brings us back to my prediction.

Of course, this whole charade would be moot if we all collectively told them they were full of crap.