NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure most everybody is familiar with the NSA wiretapping scandal that occured a while ago. President Bush, despite making bold proclamations* to the contrary, secretly gave the NSA permission to wiretap the phone conversations of American citizens without a warrant or court order. Bush justified the system by saying that the program was only being used on people who had been communicating with suspected terrorists ouside the country.

Guess what? He lied about that, too. What a big @$#&ing surprise.

USA Today recently broke the news (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm) that after 9/11 the NSA acquired the phone records of millions of Americans from the major carriers AT&T, Bellsouth, and Verizon, creating the largest database in human history. These aren't the records of those communicating with suspected terrorists, as Bush had promised before. These are the records of ordinary American citizens.

Out of all the major carriers, only Qwest refused to comply, citing legal and ethical concerns. When Qwest asked the NSA to obtain a letter of permission from a FISA court (the secret courts that are designed to oversee secret wiretapping) in order to assuage their concerns, NSA refused. Why? They said that the FISA court might disagree with the program. Well, that's kinda the #@&$ing point of the judcial branch, you statist spooks. To provide judicial oversight to ensure that your actions are legal. Anyway, bravo to Qwest for standing up for our rights.

This whole thing is undeniably illegal, as it violates the phone companies' privacy policies, federal privacy statutes, and the Fourth Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/) to the Constitution. But apparently that's all A-OK, since the NSA had permission from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (a Bush crony) to do what it did. I didn't realize that being Attorney General gave you the authority to do whatever the hell you want.

Discuss.




* "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. "

-- George W. Bush, April 20, 2004 (3 years after initiating the warrantless wiretapping program)

Discuss.
If Americans exchange their freedoms for security, I will view that as a fair and appropriate deal.

This wasn't any trade. Bush and his administration did this secretly. Every action they take which diminishes freedom and breaks the law is done secretly. And he then had the gall to blatantly lie about it while it was going on!

This wasn't any trade. Bush and his administration did this secretly. Every action they take which diminishes freedom and breaks the law is done secretly. And he then had the gall to blatantly lie about it while it was going on!
Well I don't see a whole lot of outrage about it.

and breaks the law

This is perfectly legal. Maybe not pleasant for some paranoid people, but legal.

These aren't wiretaps. These are simply phone records. A list of the numbers you've called. No one listened to the content of these calls (mostly, I think, because it would take too many people too much time to do that).

And you're still protected by the sixth amendment, aren't you? They can't use illegally obtained evidence against you.

This is perfectly legal. Maybe not pleasant for some paranoid people, but legal.
surely u kan bkk taht up?

This whole thing is undeniably illegal, as it violates the phone companies' privacy policies, federal privacy statutes, and the Fourth Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/) to the Constitution. But apparently that's all A-OK, since the NSA had permission from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (a Bush crony) to do what it did. I didn't realize that being Attorney General gave you the authority to do whatever the hell you want.

1. They have not tapped any phones, they are just collecting records.
2. Violation of the Constitution. Hog crap. I can buy a radio receiver and listen to telephone conversations.
3. We are at war you know.
4. So what is your problem? Are you using the phone to engage in illegal activities?

how can it be legal if its only the presidents opinion that its legal? they wouldnt even allow an OPR investigation of it.

it MAY be legal. it MAY be illegal. until the bush administration is challenged on it, he can do as he pleases.

This is perfectly legal. Maybe not pleasant for some paranoid people, but legal.
This breaks all the same laws as the NSA wiretapping program (4th Amendment, FISA, etc.). Except now Bush can't justify it by saying it'll only be used against suspected terrorists.

From the USA TODAY article:

"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."

These aren't wiretaps. These are simply phone records. A list of the numbers you've called. No one listened to the content of these calls (mostly, I think, because it would take too many people too much time to do that).
From the same article:

"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."

From Wikipedia:

"Such a database is ineffective on its own as a tool for national security. However, as an element of a broader data mining effort, the database could be invaluable. Such an effort has been the focus of the NSA's recent attempts to acquire key technologies from high tech firms in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. The Analyst's Notebook software, for example, is used by law enforcement to 'organize and view telephone and financial transaction records.'"

This breaks all the same laws as the NSA wiretapping program (4th Amendment, FISA, etc.).

Well, nothing physical that belongs to the person is being searched/seized, so it doesn't break the 4th amendment. It does not break any other laws, either.

"Under Section 222 of the Communications Act"

Well, that's a long act and I don't have time to read it all, but:

"that nothing herein shall preclude any State or local government from enacting and enforcing complementary oversight, liability, and regulatory systems, procedures, and requirements..."

<snip>Discuss.
>snip<

Isn't this really old news? We were hearing about ECHELON as far back as the seventies.


Further, I predict that the US government will eventually claim that the data held is perfectly legally holdable since it is

1. Digitally stored;
2. Not live data (of which there is, in fact, no such thing in a telecommunications network) and therefore not truly breaching privacy by being retained.

How much dyou want to bet against me? :)

Well, nothing physical that belongs to the person is being searched/seized, so it doesn't break the 4th amendment. It does not break any other laws, either.
................
does your 4th specifically refer to physical stuff?

does your 4th specifically refer to physical stuff?

No, but the telephone records are the propety of the tele-communications company, not the person.

No, but the telephone records are the propety of the tele-communications company, not the person.
the tc company surely has obligations to the client? Confidentiality?

Good point. The police pull phone records without a warrant all the time.

I'm not well-versed enough in the legal matters to know whether it's illegal or not; I just don't like the idea because it means that rather than being able to ask for the phone records for an individual currently on trial or being directly (and legally) investigated, it allows you to spread an ever-wider net of guilt by association.

Basically, if it came from another administration I might or might not have a problem with it. Unfortunately, this administration has a history of illegal, quasi-legal, and immoral activities (some of which it hasn't ever denied upon direct questioning) and the only "justification" is "9/11! 9/11! 9/11!"

the tc company surely has obligations to the client? Confidentiality?

Yes, but that can be over-ridden in the interest of national security.

Any company only has obligations to it's clients insofar as

the need for profit inspires them to be thus;
government regulation forces them to be thus.

So, really, trusting a company to act in your interests and not in the interests of the nation upon which it depends, is probably not the best idea in the universe. Unfortunately.

Good point. The police pull phone records without a warrant all the time.
In an investigation possibly, I don't think they do it just to have a record of people's phonecalls for shits and giggles.

Yes, but that can be over-ridden in the interest of national security.
By court order, right? For each person, right?

Any company only has obligations to it's clients insofar as

the need for profit inspires them to be thus;
government regulation forces them to be thus.

So, really, trusting a company to act in your interests and not in the interests of the nation upon which it depends, is probably not the best idea in the universe. Unfortunately.
A company might find itself in court if it breaches confidentiality to a client. That'd be the business case.

Government regulation was not in place, was it?

I'ts not like President Bush is the only president who authorized wiretapping, president clinton and previous presidents have. And i don't believe everything that the liberal media reports.besides even if they were invading my personel privacy to find if i was a terrorist it would be worth it if it would prevent another 9-11.

I'ts not like President Bush is the only president who authorized wiretapping, president clinton and previous presidents have. And i don't believe everything that the liberal media reports.besides even if they were invading my personel privacy to find if i was a terrorist it would be worth it if it would prevent another 9-11.
How much of your privacy are you willing to give up to prevent another 911?

By court order, right? For each person, right?

Not since the PATRIOT Act, no.

I'ts not like President Bush is the only president who authorized wiretapping, president clinton and previous presidents have. And i don't believe everything that the liberal media reports.besides even if they were invading my personel privacy to find if i was a terrorist it would be worth it if it would prevent another 9-11.
Speaking of things you shouldn't believe all the time..

How much of your privacy are you willing to give up to prevent another 911?
What's the difference here between the collection of phone numbers and the collection of personal information by businesses?
Grocery stores value cards collecting information on buying habits?
Internet sites using cookies to track browsing habits?

Any number of information collection is going on every day and all of it is perfectly legal.

What's the difference here between the collection of phone numbers and the collection of personal information by businesses?
Grocery stores value cards collecting information on buying habits?
Internet sites using cookies to track browsing habits?

Any number of information collection is going on every day and all of it is perfectly legal.
Most collecting of personal information requires consent. Otherwise it is illegal. Then again, if you think that being spied on by government is good, you're welcome. Say hello to big brother.

Not since the PATRIOT Act, no.
What does the patriot act say about this?

What's the difference here between the collection of phone numbers and the collection of personal information by businesses?
Grocery stores value cards collecting information on buying habits?
Internet sites using cookies to track browsing habits?
That information isn't collated with other information and can't be used against you in anything approaching a legal fashion.

What does the patriot act say about this?

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an 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 Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an 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. Thank you :fluffle:
An application to whom? What kind of order? A court order?

It's idiotic that Americans should be so damn worried about people listening in on their conversations if the content of which nobody cares. If you have something to hide, you can be all pissy about it and expose yourself. If you're just being pissy because somebody's "invading your privacy", get a fucking life. It's not as if some NSA agent is going to spread gossip about you in Baltimore.

It's idiotic that Americans should be so damn worried about people listening in on their conversations if the content of which nobody cares. If you have something to hide, you can be all pissy about it and expose yourself. If you're just being pissy because somebody's "invading your privacy", get a fucking life. It's not as if some NSA agent is going to spread gossip about you in Baltimore.
Some people like privacy. Suspicious?

Here is what America thinks:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195247,00.html :)

An application to whom? What kind of order? A court order?

I'm not sure exactly. However, since it says "order requiring," I assume that it requires whoever is in possession of the documents to turn them over. If it had to go through a court, I think it would have said "order requesting." However, your guess is as good as mine.

Here is what America thinks:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195247,00.html :)

Good god...

Well, if the government doesn't invade our privacy, who else will do it for us?

It's idiotic that Americans should be so damn worried about people listening in on their conversations if the content of which nobody cares. If you have something to hide, you can be all pissy about it and expose yourself. If you're just being pissy because somebody's "invading your privacy", get a fucking life. It's not as if some NSA agent is going to spread gossip about you in Baltimore.
That's the point. No one is listening to conversations, they are collecting data on phone numbers called.
No privacy issue here.

Some people like privacy. Suspicious?
Sorry, no expectation of privacy here. Therefor nothing illegal about it.

That's the point. No one is listening to conversations, they are collecting data on phone numbers called.
No privacy issue here.

It's still worrying as to their intentions. As for privacy, there may be no amendment on the need for privacy, but people still expect to have it.

I'm not sure exactly. However, since it says "order requiring," I assume that it requires whoever is in possession of the documents to turn them over. If it had to go through a court, I think it would have said "order requesting." However, your guess is as good as mine.
Mine is an educated one. Could be wrong, I grovellingly admit.

Sorry, no expectation of privacy here. Therefor nothing illegal about it.
Nobody expects privacy? All right then.

"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"- Benjamin Franklin

Here is what America thinks:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195247,00.html :)
No, that is what an ignorant, right-wing network and its equally ignorant, right-wing viewers think. Don't believe me? Check out this thread (http://www.forums.govteen.com/showthread.php?t=166734) on another forum.

That's the point. No one is listening to conversations, they are collecting data on phone numbers called.
No privacy issue here.
That means knowing who you talk to. That is a privacy issue. Same as video surveillance, at your home without your knowing about it. AKA spying.

That's the point. No one is listening to conversations, they are collecting data on phone numbers called.
No privacy issue here.
That is true. It is also true that they can combine that vast database of times and numbers with public records and the NSA's highly advanced data-mining algorithms to deduce uncomfortably private information about people and their relationships. The applications are incredibly broad: political blackmail, monitoring of fringe groups, etc., etc., etc. And what's more, the NSA is already attempting to acquire the sorting tools it would need to analyze this information within the context of the public records I mentioned.

If Americans exchange their freedoms for security, I will view that as a fair and appropriate deal."Those who are willing to give up freedom for security, deserve neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Sorry, no expectation of privacy here. Therefor nothing illegal about it.
There's no legal expectation of privacy in whom you talk to? I find that...incredibly difficult to believe.

No, that is what an ignorant, right-wing network and its equally ignorant, right-wing viewers think. Don't believe me? Check out this thread (http://www.forums.govteen.com/showthread.php?t=166734) on another forum.

I know ;) I was just being sarcastic... The comments on foxnews are pretty disturbing though.
It sounds pretty crazy that people would actually allow this to be done to them. I think the last guys to pull this were STASI. It wasn't done with the peoples consent. You've got to hand it to Bush&co, they actually managed to persuade at least a part of the population that this is necessary. I guess the people are scared. I mean, can you count how many times the words "war" and "terrorists" are used in there? It's impossible to tell what they're scared of though...I imagine some sort of a faceless spectre of an Osama Bin Hussain with a box cutter.

But this is something americans need to sort out for themselves I suppose. Experience has tought us that they don't like advice.

A company might find itself in court if it breaches confidentiality to a client. That'd be the business case.

Government regulation was not in place, was it?

It is and isn't in both the sense that a company cannot give your confidential information to just anyone. Except they can, because they do. In America, if memory serves, legally, don't you have to specify that information is confidential, and cannot be sold to third parties?

I know this is certainly true of information such as your phone number, which, well, is pretty private in my book.

But I suspect the real discussion here is not privacy, but whether one believes in open source or not. Effectively, the open source debate is spilling outwards into all arenas digital with regards communication:

Do we have the right to intellectual property, or do we have communal rights?

There's no legal expectation of privacy in whom you talk to? I find that...incredibly difficult to believe.
There is already a Supreme Court decision saying that there is no expectation of privacy when it comes to phone records.

Well I don't see a whole lot of outrage about it.
Sadly.

There is already a Supreme Court decision saying that there is no expectation of privacy when it comes to phone records.
I'm having difficulty with a good search...do you know which one or when it was?

On the side of limited privacy is Olmstead vs United States (1928) , with Justice Brandeis dissenting and laying the foundation for later cases. In this case the majority ruled that secret wiretapping was legal, no matter the reason nor motivation, because the Constitution does not expressly prohibit it. The first Originalist interpretation of the Constitution in that matter.

This concept is later fleshed out in Bartnicki and Kane vs Vopper aka Williams et al and United States (2001) where a unanimous Court holds that the right to privacy is not absolute where matters are of overriding public interest.

Finally we have an interesting decision in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (1985) that explains Title III's restrictions are intended to protect that interest, thereby "encouraging the uninhibited exchange of ideas and information among private parties . . . ." Moreover, the fear of public disclosure of private conversations might well have a chilling effect on private speech.

So while privacy rights are not absolute, they are only violable when the matter is of public concern. In fairness to SCOTUS they have ruled strongly that unless CLEAR evidence is possessed by the government, that the guidance of the Harper decision will remain the guiding, or dominant consideration.

The Electronic Communication Privacy Act (1986) will likely be the deciding factor in all the cases where the NSA asked major telecommunications firm to turn over an unlimited amount of call records, including phone numbers and stored data relating to the private and confidential records of their customers. Qwest acted correctly when they refused to turn over their records.

It is clear that the government (specifically the NSA), while not the violator of said Law, did knowingly ask a public company to violate that law on their behalf, where also the NSA knew it would derive direct benefit in a material sense upon receiving the records and they are clear Accessories to the violation of Title 18, 2511 USC.

I'm having difficulty with a good search...do you know which one or when it was?
The case was Smith v. Maryland, 1979
http://supreme.justia.com/us/442/735/case.html

The case was Smith v. Maryland, 1979
http://supreme.justia.com/us/442/735/case.html

The Smith case speaks specifically to the matter of using pen registers to monitor a suspected felon's phone calls and does not directly address the issue of privacy as to the phone records of mass groups of citizens. The Smith decision was narrowly focused and will not likely be applicable to the willful violations of the ECPA by the corporations in question that handed over private information to the NSA without a warrant or court order.

You have two principles at loggerheads here.

1. It is clear that AT&T, et al violated the ECPA by turning over the records of customers to the NSA. There is an expectation of confidentiality and privacy well grounded and supported by well-established law that was violated here.

2. You have the government's contention that the expectation of privacy is limited in matters of public interest (see Bartnicki, Kane decision), yet the government bears the burden of proof that accessing random phone records of non-suspects is inherent in the enforcement of national security interests. They do not have a well-established law, nor do they have clear citations from established and settled Court decisions to draw upon.

On warrantless wiretapping:

1. The government has the FISA, A court and well-established law to establish a surveillance program that can be focused on suspected terrorists and suspected accessories within the country. Frankly, the tools are in place.

2. Yet the government proceeded with a program that ignored the FISA and the FISA Court and embarked on a program that provided no legal oversight for a massive program.

3. The government once again bears the burden of proof as to the legality of their surveillance activities, especially since they had legal options clearly available to them.

This wasn't any trade. Bush and his administration did this secretly. Every action they take which diminishes freedom and breaks the law is done secretly. And he then had the gall to blatantly lie about it while it was going on!
They did the same thing hundreds if not thousands of companies do. It's called data mining.

They did the same thing hundreds if not thousands of companies do. It's called data mining.

It may be the same thing, but those doing it make the issue far different. The other companies can't use it [If they wanted to] to arrest you as a terrorist and hold you without bail or even telling you what crime you supposedly commited. Hell, the worst those other companies can do is send you annoying spam via email or your letterbox.

It may be the same thing, but those doing it make the issue far different. The other companies can't use it [If they wanted to] to arrest you as a terrorist and hold you without bail or even telling you what crime you supposedly commited. Hell, the worst those other companies can do is send you annoying spam via email or your letterbox.
The NSA couldn't use it for that either. All it can be used for is substantiating evidence in a criminal trial, and possibly as a totality of the circumstances instance for probable cause. But you would have to have one hell of a lot of other solid evidence in order for it to affect the validity of a warrant issued under the totality of the circumstances.

Legal, huh? Data mining, huh? You right wingers are so full of shit. Not even Newt Gingrich is defending this--he called it indefensible on Scarborough a couple of nights ago. But hey, don't let your blind partisanship get in the way of watching civil liberties get shot straight to fucking hell.

You guys fucking disgust me.

In the meantime, here's an actual story on the issue (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/13/washington/13phone.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print)
Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor and assistant professor at George Washington University, said his reading of the relevant statutes put the phone companies at risk for at least $1,000 per person whose records they disclosed without a court order.

"This is not a happy day for the general counsels" of the phone companies, he said. "If you have a class action involving 10 million Americans, that's 10 million times $1,000 — that's 10 billion."

The New Jersey lawyers who filed the federal suit against Verizon in Manhattan yesterday, Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer, said they would consider filing suits against BellSouth and AT&T in other jurisdictions.

"This is almost certainly the largest single intrusion into American civil liberties ever committed by any U.S. administration," Mr. Afran said. "Americans expect their phone records to be private. That's our bedrock governing principle of our phone system." In addition to damages, the suit seeks an injunction against the security agency to stop the collection of phone numbers.

Several legal experts cited ambiguities in the laws that may be used by the government and the phone companies to defend the National Security Agency program.

"There's a loophole," said Mark Rasch, the former head of computer-crime investigations for the Justice Department and now the senior vice president of Solutionary, a computer security company. "Records of phones that have called each other without identifying information are not covered by any of these laws."

Civil liberties lawyers were quick to dispute that claim.

"This is an incredible red herring," said Kevin Bankston, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy rights group that has sued AT&T over its cooperation with the government, including access to calling records. "There is no legal process that contemplates getting entire databases of data."

The group sued AT&T in late January, contending that the company was violating the law by giving the government access to its customer call record data and permitting the agency to tap its Internet network. The suit followed reports in The New York Times in December that telecommunications companies had cooperated with such government requests without warrants.

Well done Nazz.

The ONLY thing this Administration can do is stonewall it. This is something they excel at.

The Republican Party has been taken over by criminals and thieves and the mainstream party is just only now seeing the bitter fruit they are going to harvest for the next twenty years.

Bush is a laughingstock. His favorability against his archenemy President Clinton is between thirty and forty points lower than Clinton in all but two categories where former President Clinton holds an advantage within the margin of error.

Neither of the programs are legal, nor are they defensible.

Well done Nazz.

The ONLY thing this Administration can do is stonewall it. This is something they excel at.

The Republican Party has been taken over by criminals and thieves and the mainstream party is just only now seeing the bitter fruit they are going to harvest for the next twenty years.

Bush is a laughingstock. His favorability against his archenemy President Clinton is between thirty and forty points lower than Clinton in all but two categories where former President Clinton holds an advantage within the margin of error.

Neither of the programs are legal, nor are they defensible.
And if the people defending the programs were in the least bit honest, they'd admit that these programs don't pass the partisan test (aka the Hillary test). They'd be screaming as loudly as they could if this were a President Hillary program and they fucking well know it. It sickens me.

Not only do they have the phone records, they have a detailed picture of everything you do that can be photographed from space.

Well, we've been doing this to foreigners without their consent for decades, so I'm not surprised.

It doesn't fall under FISA, so it's perfectly legal to do.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html

Not only do they have the phone records, they have a detailed picture of everything you do that can be photographed from space.

Well, we've been doing this to foreigners without their consent for decades, so I'm not surprised.

It doesn't fall under FISA, so it's perfectly legal to do.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
Big difference. You walk out your door, you give up a lot of your expectation of privacy. Now, if they'd found a way to see inside your home, that's another matter.

Why don't we all replace "Hello" when we pick the phone, to "Fuck You George."

It could work.

"Fuck You George. How can I help you?"

Why don't we all replace "Hello" when we pick the phone, to "Fuck You George."

It could work.

"Fuck You George. How can I help you?"Works for me. Maybe I'll vary it with "Fuck the NSA."

Legal, huh? Data mining, huh? You right wingers are so full of shit. Not even Newt Gingrich is defending this--he called it indefensible on Scarborough a couple of nights ago. But hey, don't let your blind partisanship get in the way of watching civil liberties get shot straight to fucking hell.

You guys fucking disgust me.

In the meantime, here's an actual story on the issue (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/13/washington/13phone.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print)
And the actual story is that what the NSA did was perfectly legal. Now, as to what the phone companies did, that's a different matter entirely. Semantics, but still true.

Data mining, huh?
How was it not data mining. Essentially the only information they got was the same information that cookies give a company when you flit from site to site. Data mining, pure and simple. Now, it was probably illegal for the phone companies to give the information out yes. But the NSA isn't at fault, and this sort of shit has happened before without penalty, albeit on a much smaller scale. Not to mention as I noted before that this information can't really be used without a lot of other information as well, and you can't use this information, legally anyway, as justification to get other information. Really all it can be used for is to verify other stuff.

So who are you people blaming? The NSA who asked for the phone records or the companies for giving them out?

After all, the police can come and search your home/car if they ask for permission and you grant it. no search warrant needed for that. any evidence found can then be used against you. nice and legal.

Any information you volunteer out can be used in anyway shape, or form by the person getting the information. so if the NSA asked for your records from another company and that company gave it without asking questions (like QWEST did) you cannot blame the NSA but the companies that handed them out.

I also have to wonder just what kind of request the NSA made. Qwest had a press release that noted their former CEO came under intense scrutiny after he denied the NSA request. The big three all being hammered now--AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth--have major government contracts. If the NSA hinted that those contracts might not be so secure in the future, or that the CEOs of those companies might get the anal-probe treatment, well...

More from Orin Kerr on the program itself and its questionable legality (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_05_07-2006_05_13.shtml#1147361955)
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.

To summarize, 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.

The issue that I see most disturbing here is that, once again, the Bush administration issued an "executive order" destroying any check on its power (i.e., the court system). Whether or not the program itself is truly a threat to ordinary American's security and privacy is unclear, in my mind. What concerns me is that no warrants have been issued, that even though the "appropriate members of Congress" have been informed of the program (that's questionable, though), it has been not made well-known to many, based on the comments made by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the article. Above all, this continues a dangerous trend of the Bush administration employing executive branch domination in the name of national security.

Legal, huh? Data mining, huh? You right wingers are so full of shit. Not even Newt Gingrich is defending this--he called it indefensible on Scarborough a couple of nights ago. But hey, don't let your blind partisanship get in the way of watching civil liberties get shot straight to fucking hell.

You guys fucking disgust me.

In the meantime, here's an actual story on the issue (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/13/washington/13phone.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print)
Your complete partiscan bs sickens me. You talk about the "Hillary test" yet you go in to complete convulsions over the "Bush test". If Bush does it, it MUST be illegal :rolleyes:

They are collecting a list of phone numbers. They are not listening in to conversations. They are not wiretapping.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that there is no expectation of privacy on phone numbers dialed.

Get over yourself.

Why don't we all replace "Hello" when we pick the phone, to "Fuck You George."

It could work.

"Fuck You George. How can I help you?"
That just might work, if anyone were listening to you. Since they aren't, it just shows your own bigotry and partisanship.

And the actual story is that what the NSA did was perfectly legal. Now, as to what the phone companies did, that's a different matter entirely. Semantics, but still true.

Not true Raven, when you ask someone to voluntarily break an established law as a citizen, you bear responsibility as an accessory before the fact. If you are aware that a law was broken and you do not report it you are an accessory after the fact among other things.

The government and it's law enforcement organs who ask a company to violate a law that directly benefits said organization is an accessory BEFORE the fact by asking and could also be charged with Entrapment. Using the fruits of the poison tree is being an accessory AFTER the fact. They face both direct and vicarious liability.

The NSA broke the law. Period. The companies who provided the data directly violated the law (ECPA) and are criminally and civilly liable.

The NSA broke the law. Period. The companies who provided the data directly violated the law (ECPA) and are criminally and civilly liable.
In your opinion. Period.

Fortunately, your opinion is wrong. You just wont admit it.

In your opinion. Period.

Fortunately, your opinion is wrong. You just wont admit it.
Professor Orin Kerr disagrees with you, as I noted elsewhere in this thread. Take it up with him. I'm willing to bet he knows considerably more about this subject that you do.

So who are you people blaming? The NSA who asked for the phone records or the companies for giving them out?

After all, the police can come and search your home/car if they ask for permission and you grant it. no search warrant needed for that. any evidence found can then be used against you. nice and legal.

Correct, but the difference here is that the NSA did NOT ask permission of the customers, nor did the telecom companies.


Any information you volunteer out can be used in anyway shape, or form by the person getting the information. so if the NSA asked for your records from another company and that company gave it without asking questions (like QWEST did) you cannot blame the NSA but the companies that handed them out.

Not true from a legal standpoint and you know it. Read the law. No organization, government or private is exonerated from breaking the law on an "ask and answer" basis.

The NSA is perfectly aware of the ECPA, it KNEW it was asking the companies to break a Federal Statute. Even if in some weird dimension the NSA did not know it was asking the companies to violate the law, ignorance is not an excuse for violating the law or asking some entity to break the law.

The NSA is clearly criminally liable (as well as civilly so)

In your opinion. Period.

Fortunately, your opinion is wrong. You just wont admit it.

<chuckle> We shall see as the cases run through the Court system where the chips land.

I do not recommend you betting on this one, Epsilon...I know Intelligence and communication law. I have 22.5 years worth of being subject to it.

Professor Orin Kerr disagrees with you, as I noted elsewhere in this thread. Take it up with him. I'm willing to bet he knows considerably more about this subject that you do.
Don't need to. Just like you Orin Kerr is quite capable of saying whatever he wishes, true or not, to achieve his own personal agenda. Does he have one? I have no idea one way or another.

I've already posted the relavent decision.

The NSA is collecting a list of phone numbers dialed. There is no legitimate expectation of privacy to phone numbers dialed.

Incase you missed it, let me repeat it.

No expectatin of privacy.

Big difference. You walk out your door, you give up a lot of your expectation of privacy. Now, if they'd found a way to see inside your home, that's another matter.

Don't be surprised.

Something makes me think that phone records are legal to collect and do analysis on. It's not like they were listening to the conversations, which is something else entirely.

It's called traffic analysis, and requires no warrant that I know of.

Correct, but the difference here is that the NSA did NOT ask permission of the customers, nor did the telecom companies.they didn't have to. the list belongs to the Companies ATnT, and the others. while it did contain customer information it's the Company holding the list that has the responsibility. thus anyone can ask for the listing or database... it's up to the company holding that list to protect it or not.

Not true from a legal standpoint and you know it. Read the law. No organization, government or private is exonerated from breaking the law on an "ask and answer" basis.
and what law did the NSA break, they didn't threated the companies as far as was reported. when one asked for written documentation, the NSA admitted that they probably won't get that permission. and did they persecute QWEST? no, they stopped trying to get their list.

oh and any information volunteered by anyone to the police can be used. that's why it's so important for officers making arrest to state
"you have the right to remain silent
anything you say can and may/will be used against you.
you have the right to an attorney...

they warn you to watch what you say and even after that people still say things that land them in hot water.

The NSA is perfectly aware of the ECPA, it KNEW it was asking the companies to break a Federal Statute. Even if in some weird dimension the NSA did not know it was asking the companies to violate the law, ignorance is not an excuse for violating the law or asking some entity to break the law.

The NSA is clearly criminally liable (as well as civilly so)
I can ask you for your bank account and pin numbers. I am not criminally liable for that.
I can ask you for the location of your spare keys and your address, I am not criminally liable for that.
I can ask you for your SS#, your passwords, any information I want. it's your responsibility and choice on whether or not you'll give them to me.

I am criminally liable if I use that information in an illegal fashion or if I misrepresented myself in obtaining that information. (identity theft, stalking... etc. or stated that I was the nsa and you have to give me your info.)

You can give me all that information and you can be (not will be) held criminally negligent for that.

The people on the street are fine with it. But this is a serious problem. Bravo to Qwest...I'll have to wiki them and demand my parents switch to it. We really need a revolution. :mp5:

The people on the street are fine with it. But this is a serious problem. Bravo to Qwest...I'll have to wiki them and demand my parents switch to it. We really need a revolution. :mp5:
Actually, according to Newsweek (who waited until after the story had broken to do their polling, unlike the Washington Post), the people on the street are not fine with it (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/).
Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

Actually, according to Newsweek (who waited until after the story had broken to do their polling, unlike the Washington Post), the people on the street are not fine with it (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/).

One might well wonder what were the exact questions used in the poll, and what constituted a "sample".

I bet that just by varying the questions, and varying the sample, I could get any numbers I like for virtually any poll.

I could, if I wanted to, get a poll that showed that 90 percent of people love Bush - and as long as I didn't publish every last detail on how I did the sample, some people would buy it.

We buy a lot of "poll" information from the media nowadays. Do you really think we should believe them? What about the polls that said that Kerry would win the election? MMmm?

An additional point - if there are no more major events along this line in the next year, most people will have forgotten about it.

Don't need to. Just like you Orin Kerr is quite capable of saying whatever he wishes, true or not, to achieve his own personal agenda. Does he have one? I have no idea one way or another.

I've already posted the relavent decision.

The NSA is collecting a list of phone numbers dialed. There is no legitimate expectation of privacy to phone numbers dialed.

Incase you missed it, let me repeat it.

No expectatin of privacy.

You're a smug little hard-liner aren't you? What kills me about unhistoried punks like you is that, almost without exception, you all whine about "Big Government" and then bend over backwards to justify every intrusion into your life by the very same government...as long as it's "one of your guys" in charge.

Let me ask you. DO you support the 2nd Amendment? I'm pretty sure you do. And I bet you support it because of protection. Protection for you from criminals and protection for you from the government.

One's right to assemble and to be protected from unlawful search and siezure is for the same purpose. To give everyday folks a fighting chance if the government (as all governments do, the Founding Fathers knew this,) becomes too tyrannical or simply bogged down in a Gordian Knot of bereaurocracy.

Now, for example, imagine all the NSA programs, all unchecked by the judicial branch, were used by a future Democratic President to monitor everyone who places a call into a Republican party member's office. No one is looking over their shoulder, who is to stop them? They then can use their influnece to get any number of people audited or what have you.

Well, that's the kind of power you're sooooooooooooo blase about handing EVERY PRESIDENT FROM NOW ON.

You're a smug little hard-liner aren't you? What kills me about unhistoried punks like you is that, almost without exception, you all whine about "Big Government" and then bend over backwards to justify every intrusion into your life by the very same government...as long as it's "one of your guys" in charge.

Let me ask you. DO you support the 2nd Amendment? I'm pretty sure you do. And I bet you support it because of protection. Protection for you from criminals and protection for you from the government.

One's right to assemble and to be protected from unlawful search and siezure is for the same purpose. To give everyday folks a fighting chance if the government (as all governments do, the Founding Fathers knew this,) becomes too tyrannical or simply bogged down in a Gordian Knot of bereaurocracy.

Now, for example, imagine all the NSA programs, all unchecked by the judicial branch, were used by a future Democratic President to monitor everyone who places a call into a Republican party member's office. No one is looking over their shoulder, who is to stop them? They then can use their influnece to get any number of people audited or what have you.

Well, that's the kind of power you're sooooooooooooo blase about handing EVERY PRESIDENT FROM NOW ON.
Except this isn't that big of an intrusion on the whole of things. It would be like hiring a PI to follow someone from place to place, detailing where and how long that person was there for. Perfectly legal. The only difference is that this applies to phone calls. As for the FISA bullshit, given the capabilities of Echelon all it does is slow the information aquisition down. They're still gonna get it given the agreements we have with the brits. And if they're gonna get it anyway, what's the difference if they get the information directly and more quickly? Besides being able to react quicker to it?. Yeah of course, if the government was structured correctly this wouldn't be a problem, but then if the 2nd amendment was properly enforced and had popular opinion not been so against guns, maybe the pilots in the 9/11 planes would have had weapons, or perhaps licensed passengers. That would have solved a whole host of problems. Unfortunately that's not the case. One can choose to bitch about it ineffectually, or one can work within the framework one has.

You're a smug little hard-liner aren't you? What kills me about unhistoried punks like you is that, almost without exception, you all whine about "Big Government" and then bend over backwards to justify every intrusion into your life by the very same government...as long as it's "one of your guys" in charge.

Let me ask you. DO you support the 2nd Amendment? I'm pretty sure you do. And I bet you support it because of protection. Protection for you from criminals and protection for you from the government.

One's right to assemble and to be protected from unlawful search and siezure is for the same purpose. To give everyday folks a fighting chance if the government (as all governments do, the Founding Fathers knew this,) becomes too tyrannical or simply bogged down in a Gordian Knot of bereaurocracy.

Now, for example, imagine all the NSA programs, all unchecked by the judicial branch, were used by a future Democratic President to monitor everyone who places a call into a Republican party member's office. No one is looking over their shoulder, who is to stop them? They then can use their influnece to get any number of people audited or what have you.

Well, that's the kind of power you're sooooooooooooo blase about handing EVERY PRESIDENT FROM NOW ON.
lol.. you have issues, you know that don't you?

What I like most about your post is how you take a simple data mining operation and turn it into using it for getting people audited etc.

Since this has been going on for 5 years and there hasn't been the rash of democrats getting audited or what have you, I think you are being rather intellectually dishonest.

But then, that's what you do isn't it? Make up some bs scenario to try to get your opponents trapped in some way to discredit themselves.

For the record, I would have no problem, what so ever, with any and all future Democrat Presidents collecting a list of the phone numbers I dialed. Or a list of phone numbers that have called me.

If and when that list is used in an unlawful manner, then I would pay attention.

Get help with your hostility btw... it's not good for your blood pressure/stress level.

lol.. you have issues, you know that don't you?

Don't we all?

What I like most about your post is how you take a simple data mining operation and turn it into using it for getting people audited etc.

Watergate.

Since this has been going on for 5 years and there hasn't been the rash of democrats getting audited or what have you, I think you are being rather intellectually dishonest.

How do you know? There's no oversight.

But then, that's what you do isn't it? Make up some bs scenario to try to get your opponents trapped in some way to discredit themselves.

It's not a made up scenario, it's what politicians do. You give them the power to rearrange congressional districts for purely political reasons, they do so. You give them the power to make backroom deals with contributors, they do so. You give them the power to give themselves a pay raise during a time a decreasing wages, they do so. You give them an unchecked and unsupervised ability to snoop for political gain and they'll use it. They're politicians. It's what they do.

For the record, I would have no problem, what so ever, with any and all future Democrat Presidents collecting a list of the phone numbers I dialed. Or a list of phone numbers that have called me.

Fine. Are you also willing to give up your right to bear arms for "security" purposes?

If and when that list is used in an unlawful manner, then I would pay attention.

There's no oversight. They set it up to avoid oversight. How will you ever know it's been used unlawfully? How will any of us know? That's why there's a judicial branch.

Get help with your hostility btw... it's not good for your blood pressure/stress level.

I'm not hostile, I'm just impatient with cowardly and naive chickenhawks who think that handing more unchecked power to the government will make us safer.

In your opinion. Period.

Fortunately, your opinion is wrong. You just wont admit it.

Fortunately, you're an idiot. You just won't admit it.

Fine. Are you also willing to give up your right to bear arms for "security" purposes?

Different matter entirely and you know it. It would be like every time you went to a gun store and bought a gun the government would record it but they wouldn't know how many or what kinds.

they didn't have to. the list belongs to the Companies ATnT, and the others. while it did contain customer information it's the Company holding the list that has the responsibility. thus anyone can ask for the listing or database... it's up to the company holding that list to protect it or not.

Read the Electronics Communication Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act. Asking a company to break the law knowingly constitutes sufficient cause to establish a chain of liability to the NSA.

Let's put this in simpler terms. I ask you to go steal a list of customers call records from Company B, I am the CEO of Company A. I have just violated the ECPA, the person who steals the list goes to jail and I go to jail.


and what law did the NSA break, they didn't threated the companies as far as was reported. when one asked for written documentation, the NSA admitted that they probably won't get that permission. and did they persecute QWEST? no, they stopped trying to get their list.

How many times must this be said? They asked the companies to give them call records and confidential customer information protected by the ECPA, they did this KNOWINGLY. They are equally liable as AT&T , Verizon and the other private telecoms. Asking or inducing someone to break the law is illegal.

The legal term is Abetting. As in the phrase "To aid and abet." The NSA aided and abetted the three companies in breaking the law (Electronics Communication Privacy Act of 1986, 18 USC 2510, 2511) . The law holds that the party that abets is equally at fault as the party that commits the violation.


oh and any information volunteered by anyone to the police can be used. that's why it's so important for officers making arrest to state
"you have the right to remain silent
anything you say can and may/will be used against you.
you have the right to an attorney...

This refers back to Gideon vs Wainright, and this is not even a valid cite for this case. The NSA is not the POLICE, nor is it a Law Enforcement Organ. It's purpose as established is to gather Electronics, Satellite and Communications Intelligence. None of the Agents or Officers of the NSA are sworn Law Enforcement Officers with arrest powers. Only the FBI, US Secret Service, US Marshal's Service, and the DEA has the power to enforce Federal Law on behalf of the US Government inside the United States and each has a different area of jurisdiction.


I can ask you for your bank account and pin numbers. I am not criminally liable for that.
I can ask you for the location of your spare keys and your address, I am not criminally liable for that.
I can ask you for your SS#, your passwords, any information I want. it's your responsibility and choice on whether or not you'll give them to me.

I am criminally liable if I use that information in an illegal fashion or if I misrepresented myself in obtaining that information. (identity theft, stalking... etc. or stated that I was the nsa and you have to give me your info.)

Correct. The NSA knew if the companies handed over the material they would be breaking the law. Leads back to aiding and abetting, doesn't it?


You can give me all that information and you can be (not will be) held criminally negligent for that

LIABLE, the term is liable.

But you are in the wrong section of the law to start with.

This is perfectly legal. Maybe not pleasant for some paranoid people, but legal.
Quoted for truth! ^^^

Don't we all?
Yes, but most deal with theirs without outward hostility and insults.
Watergate.
Apple, meet orange. And you know it. But since it's Bush that's doing it... God help us all, right?
How do you know? There's no oversight.
Oh? And the 24ish Senators that have been aprised of the operation from the beginning?
It's not a made up scenario, it's what politicians do. You give them the power to rearrange congressional districts for purely political reasons, they do so. You give them the power to make backroom deals with contributors, they do so. You give them the power to give themselves a pay raise during a time a decreasing wages, they do so. You give them an unchecked and unsupervised ability to snoop for political gain and they'll use it. They're politicians. It's what they do.
It's a made up scenario. Be dishonest with yourself if you wish, but keep your made up bs out of the thread.

Fine. Are you also willing to give up your right to bear arms for "security" purposes? Again, apples and oranges. What pray tell does this have to do with the collection of phone numbers? Nothing, just another attempt on your part to distract and distort.

There's no oversight. They set it up to avoid oversight. How will you ever know it's been used unlawfully? How will any of us know? That's why there's a judicial branch.
Again, this was done with Senate knowledge.
The supreme court already ruled that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy with regards to phone numbers dialed.

I'm not hostile, I'm just impatient with cowardly and naive chickenhawks who think that handing more unchecked power to the government will make us safer.
You are hostile. You insult and distort because you can barely contain your rage over something that is as significant as what clothes you choose to wear in the morning.

Get over yourself.

Fortunately, you're an idiot. You just won't admit it.
Add something constructive, will you?

Or is that beyond you.

Discuss the posts, refute what I wrote. Argue till you are blue in the face, but simple name calling hardly does your cause any justice.

1. They have not tapped any phones, they are just collecting records.
2. Violation of the Constitution. Hog crap. I can buy a radio receiver and listen to telephone conversations.
3. We are at war you know.
4. So what is your problem? Are you using the phone to engage in illegal activities?


It's still so 1984, dude. Big Brother is watching you!

Yes, but most deal with theirs without outward hostility and insults.

Apple, meet orange. And you know it. But since it's Bush that's doing it... God help us all, right?

I don't want any politician weilding that unsupervised power.

Oh? And the 24ish Senators that have been aprised of the operation from the beginning?

And what were those Senators told? Did the Senators have the power to say "You can't do that," and actually enforce it? No, that's what the JUDICIAL BRANCH is for.

It's a made up scenario. Be dishonest with yourself if you wish, but keep your made up bs out of the thread.

Politicians using unsupervised power for political gain is made up?



Again, apples and oranges. What pray tell does this have to do with the collection of phone numbers? Nothing, just another attempt on your part to distract and distort.

No, privacy and the right to bear arms are both vital in securing ourselves from tyranny. Keep turning a blind eye to history though.


Again, this was done with Senate knowledge.
The supreme court already ruled that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy with regards to phone numbers dialed.

You keep repeating your point about the Supreme Court. Please reread this thread, there are apparently a few things you're choosing to ignore.

Did the Senate know that Bush's rationale for doing things his way was because he knew the FISA court would not approve? Did the Senate know the scope of the program? What did the Senate know? The Senate knew just as much as the Bush administration wanted them to know. That's not oversight.


You are hostile. You insult and distort because you can barely contain your rage over something that is as significant as what clothes you choose to wear in the morning.


I'm angry all right, as any aware person should be.

How about you respond to my points instead of pretending that I'm continuing to insult you.

How about you respond to my points instead of pretending that I'm continuing to insult you.
I did respond. You distort. You make wild suppositions how Bush uses this program to persecute his "enemies" yet all you can do is twist things to make these wild accusations.
Comparing this to Watergate? Please.
Claiming that this program is being used to generate a list to use for malicious audits? Be real.

You have an irrational fear and loathing or conservatives in general and this administration in particular. Seek help. You really need it.

3. We are at war you know.
4. So what is your problem? Are you using the phone to engage in illegal activities?

Ah, the old "since we're at war the president gets charte blanche to do whatever he DAMN FUCKING WELL PLEASES". Too bad it doesn't work like that, and you're anti-American for claiming it does or for wanting it to. Move to North Korea if you don't like democracy.

Followed by "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be concerned.". Very well, assuming you don't get riled up for creeps looking over your calls to your lover or your mother, NORMAL PEOPLE DO, so you will cut out that crap. Now.

There, that's better.

Why don't we all replace "Hello" when we pick the phone, to "Fuck You George."

It could work.

"Fuck You George. How can I help you?"
"Have i told ... you lately ... that i <3 you?"
:fluffle:

Verdigroth says, from experience, just answer with "I'm an American citizen" - and interject it a few times over as many minutes. Clearly.
He didn't say NOT to say FUCK YOU GEORGE, just make sure you include the important part.

That just might work, if anyone were listening to you. Since they aren't, it just shows your own bigotry and partisanship.
Of course, clearly from the perspective who ISN'T expressing their own "bigotry" and "partisanship", THEY should simply answer "Yes, King George, i'm ready and willing for my patriotic colonic now, feel free to wrap your devils-club bristleswab in the Bill of Rights and i'll be happy to clean up after myself with the U.S. flag."
And of course "Thank you sir, may i have another!"

*undeserved snippage but repect nonetheless*Damn, where have you been?
Did your satellite crash into the sun?
And, what vehicle do you transform into? ;)


Good to see ya again.
:)

Read the Electronics Communication Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act. Asking a company to break the law knowingly constitutes sufficient cause to establish a chain of liability to the NSA.
I read it, did you? if you did, and read all the articles pertaining to what the NSA did, you will notice that the NSA did NOT break the law. the ECPA is concerning the CONTENT of any transmitted signal. PHONE RECORDS only show the numbers dialing out/in and how long. no CONTENT is given away. and your Stored Communications Act SCA is mostly for computing services and again for CONTENT ONLY. inother words, if the NSA asked for transcrips or mail content, then yes, they broke the law. but records can be given. The Companies holding the records can request and require a warrent (what QWEST did) and withhold information untill such warrent is obtained.
Let's put this in simpler terms. I ask you to go steal a list of customers call records from Company B, I am the CEO of Company A. I have just violated the ECPA, the person who steals the list goes to jail and I go to jail.
true, you are asking me to STEAL a list of customers. and you admit to being a CEO of another company. a violation that is clearly outlined in both acts. the NSA is not a commercial entity and they did NOT ask anyone to steal anything. they asked the company to turn in the PHONE RECORDS of THEIR (the company) clients. not any content of any electronic media thus no theift on anyone's part just really bad judgement on the company's. read those acts carefully.
How many times must this be said? They asked the companies to give them call records and confidential customer information protected by the ECPA, they did this KNOWINGLY. They are equally liable as AT&T , Verizon and the other private telecoms. Asking or inducing someone to break the law is illegal.
I can ask you to give me the keys to the car you drive. if you do, and you do own the car, then I am not guity because I asked for and recieved with your CONSENT. The Database and Phone RECORDS belong to the company. they are proprietary information that the company holds and maintains. they can sell, give away or destroy it depending on the contract held between the company or the individual. usually the contract only states that the information would not be sold or released to commercial/telecommunication entities. nothing about not letting the government have them should they ask. Go ahead and read that contract. if that contract is broken, then only the company is held liable. not the entity that recieved that information. you can take them to civil court and sue for that information back, but legally speaking, the buyer/recipiant of that information is in the clear.
The legal term is Abetting. As in the phrase "To aid and abet." The NSA aided and abetted the three companies in breaking the law (Electronics Communication Privacy Act of 1986, 18 USC 2510, 2511) . The law holds that the party that abets is equally at fault as the party that commits the violation.the NSA did not Aid or Abet. they asked and recieved. BIG difference. the NSA did not provide any equiptment to retrieve that data, the NSA did not provide any training to obtain that data, they only asked for it. no Aiding nor Abetting there.

This refers back to Gideon vs Wainright, and this is not even a valid cite for this case. The NSA is not the POLICE, nor is it a Law Enforcement Organ. It's purpose as established is to gather Electronics, Satellite and Communications Intelligence. None of the Agents or Officers of the NSA are sworn Law Enforcement Officers with arrest powers. Only the FBI, US Secret Service, US Marshal's Service, and the DEA has the power to enforce Federal Law on behalf of the US Government inside the United States and each has a different area of jurisdiction.
even more so then that those private companies are in trouble with their customers. for the NSA only asked for those records and those companies turned them over without asking for any warrent. the NSA is still clean of guilt.

Correct. The NSA knew if the companies handed over the material they would be breaking the law. Leads back to aiding and abetting, doesn't it?
what law. I can go to a store and ask to take stuff for free. if the store worker consents I am not stealing. for I have that workers consent. even more so if that worker is the owner or manager of that store. it's only stealing if you take it without consent or compensation (in which case me taking it with consent is an agreed compensation of 0)

LIABLE, the term is liable.

But you are in the wrong section of the law to start with.agreed, I made that mistake. but the NSA is still not LIABLE for what they did. those companies that turned over the data are, not the NSA.

Why don't we all replace "Hello" when we pick the phone, to "Fuck You George."

It could work.

"Fuck You George. How can I help you?"
while fun to say, if it happens to be a George on the line, you'll only piss him off for nothing.

perhaps a FUCK YOU NSA! would be better in not causing any undue stress for all those unfortunate to be named 'George'

I did respond. You distort. You make wild suppositions how Bush uses this program to persecute his "enemies" yet all you can do is twist things to make these wild accusations.
Comparing this to Watergate? Please.
Claiming that this program is being used to generate a list to use for malicious audits? Be real.

You have an irrational fear and loathing or conservatives in general and this administration in particular. Seek help. You really need it.\

Hello Mr Persecution complex. This has nothing to do with conservatives. I made no supposition on how the program is being used, nor did I target conservatives. That's a construct of your own imagination. What I did do was explain to you that a power given is a power that is inevitably exercized by someone. This is the whole reason why a system of checks and balances was put into place in our government. Our very Founders didn't trust the government to operate unsupervised, and so should you. Are you going to accuse the Founding Fathers of being Bush haters?

As Bush said himself, his job would be easier if he were a dictator, and the edicts of a dictator would definitely be less cumbersome in responding to threats. Unfortunately, installing a dictator means you have to absolutely trust not only the guy in power right now, but every man or woman in power for as long as our country persists.

Do you instinctually trust those who have absolute power over you? I thought us liberals were supposed to be the pie-in-the-sky idealists.

Now, when a blind eye was turned towards Mr Nixon coducting wiretapping, he eventually turned it into a mechanism to keep tabs on those he arbitrarily put on his "enemies" list. This, among other things, was the rationale for the creation of the FISA court in the first place. Can you not see the historical parallel? I mean Watergate and the current situation are irrevokably tied together by law and circumstance, and yet you want to cry "apples and oranges."

Before the civil rights movement, government had the power to restrict the rights of blacks. It was used. When the U.S. developed the nuclear bomb, we used it. We wiped out two cities. The U.S. was able to take away the property and freedom of Japanese Americans. This power was used. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. People placed highly in the government are able to award lucrative contracts to friends and cronies. They can rewrite their districts to ensure that they will be re-elected. This is not conspiracy theory, this is what happens each and every day. This power is used. It's used repeatedly and ruthlessly by those in power whenever they can. That is the nature of the beast.

Conservative or Liberal. Republican or Democrat. You give those who seek power additional power and they use it.

Now, look at the NSA wiretapping program and the NSA number gathering program. The problem I have with them is not that they exist, but that there is no mechanism to check that power. They did away with the judicial oversight. Why would they do that?

Well, the reasons given were that the FISA court, a court that runs 24/7 and has NO OTHER responsibilities aside from making sure that surveillance isn't conducted on Americans on a whim, was too cumbersome to do what they wanted to do. Remember, the FISA court is a court that is legally able to issue warrants 72 hours AFTER the surveillance was conducted so that there is no lag in cases of emergency. So what does the Bush administration do? Request that more judges be available? Ask that new legislation be written, with proper checks and balances, to enable them to do what they want? No, they avoided it completely.

They (the Bush administration,) says that the Senate was kept apprised, and yet there are Senators now, even Republican Senators, even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who say that if they knew the whole story, they would not have gone along with it. For all your protestations, this is not a liberal/conservative thing, and I find it very troubling that you persist in claiming it is such.

Another rationale for proceding as they did was that the program was too secret to divulge what exactly they were doing. Well, that worked great, didn't it?

Now, let's looks at the results of the NSA programs...you'll have to help me out here. What has it accommplished? If you ask certain people at the FBI, they'll tell you that the fruit of the program has been a WHOLE lot of leg work chasing down tenuous connections that turn out to be nothing whatsoever. The fact is that these programs result in data overload, or, if you prefer, diminishing returns.

But hey, the FBI just hates Bush, right?

You've got it in your head that criticism aimed at Bush has to do with simply hating Bush. That's childish. Those of us in the super-majority who dislike Bush dislike him because of what he has done, rather than some stupid "my team is better than your team," ra ra bullshit. We dislike his actions and therefore we disapprove of him, NOT the other way around.

So, perhaps YOU are the one who should seek help. Perhaps YOU should get over YOURSELF. Seriously. I think you need help. Look up terms like "projection". It might help.

Are you using the phone to engage in illegal activities?
Are you using your anal sleeve to engage in anything besides contraband transfers?
Of course you wouldn't mind if the party makes sure everything is in order.
Besides, a healthy prostate is a happy prostate.

Are you using your anal sleeve to engage in anything besides contraband transfers?
Of course you wouldn't mind if the party makes sure everything is in order.
Besides, a healthy prostate is a happy prostate.
and don't forget, with portable x-ray devices that can be stationed at the airport (infact most have some sort of medical facility hidden somehwere.), "forced intrusion" is not really neccessary. :D

Damn, where have you been?
Did your satellite crash into the sun?
And, what vehicle do you transform into? ;)


Good to see ya again.
:)

Good to see you too. My internet went down and the company (earthlink) was very tardy in getting it set back up. Every time I called, my reconnect date was always "in 48 hours."

As far as the vehicle I transform into, I was visited by "Pimp My Ride," so I transform into Playatron. I blind the Decepticons with my shiny mag wheels and neon lights.

Good to see you too. My internet went down and the company (earthlink) was very tardy in getting it set back up. Every time I called, my reconnect date was always "in 48 hours."

As far as the vehicle I transform into, I was visited by "Pimp My Ride," so I transform into Playatron. I blind the Decepticons with my shiny mag wheels and neon lights.
err... I think you'll now blind anyone who looks directly at you without proper eye protection.

heya, long time no see.

and don't forget, with portable x-ray devices that can be stationed at the airport (infact most have some sort of medical facility hidden somehwere.), "forced intrusion" is not really neccessary. :D
Nah - they won't take the risk of giving people extra cancer risks by x-ray exposure. Further, they can say that their gross salaries are justified by helping perpetuate health care in the same measure. Looks good on a resume. Plus, they'll have a higher success rate than the inspection percentages on port docks - beginning to end.
Besides, it's surely not an "occupational hazard" if you do it enough times - besides, it's also an "accomodation" that our patriotic folk should be proud to "bare"!
:p

Good to see you too. My internet went down and the company (earthlink) was very tardy in getting it set back up. Every time I called, my reconnect date was always "in 48 hours."But it was always the sequel, wasn't it? Not worth the effort. Murphy should've known better.

As far as the vehicle I transform into, I was visited by "Pimp My Ride," so I transform into Playatron. I blind the Decepticons with my shiny mag wheels and neon lights.Word.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/1356.gif

Nah - they won't take the risk of giving people extra cancer risks by x-ray exposure. Further, they can say that their gross salaries are justified by helping perpetuate health care in the same measure. Looks good on a resume. Plus, they'll have a higher success rate than the inspection percentages on port docks - beginning to end.
Besides, it's surely not an "occupational hazard" if you do it enough times - besides, it's also an "accomodation" that our patriotic folk should be proud to "bare"!
:p

Thanks. that helped alot :D (in reply to another thread that you replied in.)

If Americans exchange their freedoms for security, I will view that as a fair and appropriate deal.
Those who exchange their freedoms for temporary safety, deserve neither

Thanks. that helped alot :D (in reply to another thread that you replied in.)
Are you insinuating that i served some kind of use or purpose? :confused:
I don't come here to do that, i come here to GET AWAY from that! ;)

Are you insinuating that i served some kind of use or purpose? :confused:
I don't come here to do that, i come here to GET AWAY from that! ;)
never, I'm just saying that I was doing the internet thing... Getting some humorous feelings from your posts without your express written consent. and since you didn't put any notification that any was needed, it was presumed to be a free service. :p

never, I'm just saying that I was doing the internet thing... Getting some humorous feelings from your posts without your express written consent. and since you didn't put any notification that any was needed, it was presumed to be a free service. :p
Sorta free - i write you off on my taxes. ;)
Well, i shoot - and often miss - for humour, and usually get something in between humour and horror. Kinda like the mole women thingie.

Sorta free - i write you off on my taxes. ;)
Well, i shoot - and often miss - for humour, and usually get something in between humour and horror. Kinda like the mole women thingie.
Psst... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482472 :D

Psst... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482472 :D
Hey, not bad at all! :D
Do the mods have trouble with that sort of thing, though - given the nature of this forum? ;)

Hey, not bad at all! :D
Do the mods have trouble with that sort of thing, though - given the nature of this forum? ;)
i don't even know if it has any legal bite to it... but I found it funny to add it in.

I can understand why some people would be ignoring this.

But why are some of you even protecting this? How is it even supposed to help you in any way whatsoever?

i don't even know if it has any legal bite to it... but I found it funny to add it in.
It's a good addie, indeed - i just didn't know if the mods would murmur, "domain" or something to that effect. I guess we'll find out.
For example, there was this sheep-riding smilie that someone ELSE posted, and I lifted it for use later on, and the first poster didn't appear to get in any trouble for it whatsoever - i got my post deleted about it. Theirs stayed on. I was a little saddened by that.

I read it, did you? if you did, and read all the articles pertaining to what the NSA did, you will notice that the NSA did NOT break the law. the ECPA is concerning the CONTENT of any transmitted signal. PHONE RECORDS only show the numbers dialing out/in and how long. no CONTENT is given away.

So, in your fantasy world any government agency may ask a company to violate the law and remain clean of responsibility? Even knowing full well what they ask is an illegal act on the company's part?

Your understanding of the law is poor at best and blindly ignorant at the worst. You just go on sticking your head in the sand.

The NSA abetted AT&T, Verizon, et al in breaking the law. Aiding and abetting makes an entity equally responsible for the illegal actions of another party. So the act of asking for information is not illegal, unless the act of giving that information is illegal. Once those two circumstances meet, the asking party is liable.

All of the telecoms that cooperated are either being sued now, or will be sued shortly. IN these cases, it is highly likely that the NSA will be named co-respondent.

Look back at history. These types of things got Allen Dulles fired at CIA. Got Dick Helms sent to jail.

The same argument you present today was presented then. National Security and "no expectation of privacy." The precedent is there. Those arguments lost.

Here is what America thinks:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195247,00.html :)

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Here is what America thinks:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195247,00.html :)
That's why I do not view the trend as a tragedy. The people obviously fully understand what they are doing, and are broadly acquiescent, if not actually supportive of the changes. If freedoms are given up voluntarily, and let us not forget, by people who are armed against the possibility of state tyranny, well... so? :confused:

That's why I do not view the trend as a tragedy. The people obviously fully understand what they are doing, and are broadly acquiescent, if not actually supportive of the changes. If freedoms are given up voluntarily, and let us not forget, by people who are armed against the possibility of state tyranny, well... so? :confused:
There are reasons why some issues--like civil liberties--never come up for a vote, why they're supposed to be protected by the Consitution and the people who are sworn to defend it. The main one is that the average person is too short-sighted to see the necessity for those protections. Should the entire country go into the shitter because the average person is too busy wondering what happened on American Idol to think about what it means that the government is tracking their phone traffic? Some will undoubtedly say yes, that a public unconcerned with what their government is doing deserves to be enslaved, but don't forget, this government has the capability to wipe out human life on this globe--you can't just let the US go down the shitter and expect to walk away clean. For better or worse (generally worse), what happens to the US affects the rest of the world.

But they are not ignorant of what they are doing. It's not as if they are distracted by the TV and don't notice the G-Man sneak in and remove their framed copy of the Bill of Rights. A lot of those responses seem to indicate they have thought about it and believe it will help. Of course, I may not agree that their decision is a wise one, but it is theirs nonetheless. Should the US "go down the shitter", I do not believe it will happen without the informed consent of the majority, although yes, the rest of the world may suffer some additional consequences over and above everything that's happening already. Only fair to share the pain though, eheh? ;)

No sir, I don't like it.

\

Hello Mr Persecution complex. This has nothing to do with conservatives. I made no supposition on how the program is being used, nor did I target conservatives. That's a construct of your own imagination.
Really?
Now, for example, imagine all the NSA programs, all unchecked by the judicial branch, were used by a future Democratic President to monitor everyone who places a call into a Republican party member's office. No one is looking over their shoulder, who is to stop them? They then can use their influnece to get any number of people audited or what have you.
My imagination must have written this then :rolleyes: Oh and my mistake, you didn't say conservatives, you said republicans. I was just reacting to you history as well.

What I did do was explain to you that a power given is a power that is inevitably exercized by someone. This is the whole reason why a system of checks and balances was put into place in our government. Our very Founders didn't trust the government to operate unsupervised, and so should you. Are you going to accuse the Founding Fathers of being Bush haters?
Now who's imagination is constructing fantasies. The government isn't operating unsupervised. That's just bs, and you (should) know it. Unless your own prejudice prevents you from seeing it. Oh wait, it does.
As Bush said himself, his job would be easier if he were a dictator, and the edicts of a dictator would definitely be less cumbersome in responding to threats. Unfortunately, installing a dictator means you have to absolutely trust not only the guy in power right now, but every man or woman in power for as long as our country persists.
Again with the twists and distortions. Bush was defending himself being called a dictator. Not advocating that he be made into a dictator. He understands that a dictator is not an option. But keep it up. If it helps your fantasy world.

Do you instinctually trust those who have absolute power over you? I thought us liberals were supposed to be the pie-in-the-sky idealists.
I trust who I trust. So far, there is no one who has absolute power over me. Your own conspiricy insania/paranoia might lead you to think someone has absolute power over you.

Now, when a blind eye was turned towards Mr Nixon coducting wiretapping, he eventually turned it into a mechanism to keep tabs on those he arbitrarily put on his "enemies" list. This, among other things, was the rationale for the creation of the FISA court in the first place. Can you not see the historical parallel? I mean Watergate and the current situation are irrevokably tied together by law and circumstance, and yet you want to cry "apples and oranges."
This isn't wiretapping. You ARE paranoid. This is something different. I hope you can tell the difference. But maybe your own paranoia can't let you see past it. You see a program, that isn't breaking any law, and you freak out because Bush is connected to it.

Before the civil rights movement, government had the power to restrict the rights of blacks. It was used. When the U.S. developed the nuclear bomb, we used it. We wiped out two cities. The U.S. was able to take away the property and freedom of Japanese Americans. This power was used. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. People placed highly in the government are able to award lucrative contracts to friends and cronies. They can rewrite their districts to ensure that they will be re-elected. This is not conspiracy theory, this is what happens each and every day. This power is used. It's used repeatedly and ruthlessly by those in power whenever they can. That is the nature of the beast.
I'll ask a question... What rights of yours has been restricted or violated?

Conservative or Liberal. Republican or Democrat. You give those who seek power additional power and they use it.
And your point is? Of course people use power that is given them. That's the point of power isn't it? But that in and of itself isn't a bad thing tho.

Now, look at the NSA wiretapping program and the NSA number gathering program. The problem I have with them is not that they exist, but that there is no mechanism to check that power. They did away with the judicial oversight. Why would they do that?
The latter doesn't need judicial oversight and the former wasn't a part of this discussion, at least not my part of the discussion.

Well, the reasons given were that the FISA court, a court that runs 24/7 and has NO OTHER responsibilities aside from making sure that surveillance isn't conducted on Americans on a whim, was too cumbersome to do what they wanted to do. Remember, the FISA court is a court that is legally able to issue warrants 72 hours AFTER the surveillance was conducted so that there is no lag in cases of emergency. So what does the Bush administration do? Request that more judges be available? Ask that new legislation be written, with proper checks and balances, to enable them to do what they want? No, they avoided it completely.
Again, I'm not talking about the incomming call wire tapping. I'm only discussing the number gathering operation. Which isn't an oversight issue. No one's rights are being violated.

They (the Bush administration,) says that the Senate was kept apprised, and yet there are Senators now, even Republican Senators, even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who say that if they knew the whole story, they would not have gone along with it. For all your protestations, this is not a liberal/conservative thing, and I find it very troubling that you persist in claiming it is such.
I persist in claiming? The only comment I made about conservative at all was to say you have conservativephobia. I already said I was reacting to your own track record and that in THIS thread you were talking about republicans.

Another rationale for proceding as they did was that the program was too secret to divulge what exactly they were doing. Well, that worked great, didn't it?
In general do you think it's a good idea to tell the target of an investigation that you are targetting them? That just seems stupid to me.

Now, let's looks at the results of the NSA programs...you'll have to help me out here. What has it accommplished? If you ask certain people at the FBI, they'll tell you that the fruit of the program has been a WHOLE lot of leg work chasing down tenuous connections that turn out to be nothing whatsoever. The fact is that these programs result in data overload, or, if you prefer, diminishing returns.

But hey, the FBI just hates Bush, right? So programs should be abolished if their accomplishments are not immediately appearant? Then a whole load of programs would be cancelled and I don't think that's a good idea.

You've got it in your head that criticism aimed at Bush has to do with simply hating Bush. That's childish. Those of us in the super-majority who dislike Bush dislike him because of what he has done, rather than some stupid "my team is better than your team," ra ra bullshit. We dislike his actions and therefore we disapprove of him, NOT the other way around.
And you have it in your head that any criticism of you makes the criticisor "omg, you criticise Bush, you hate Bush". I didn't say that, and you're right it is childish. Look in the mirror if it isn't too uncomfortable.

So, perhaps YOU are the one who should seek help. Perhaps YOU should get over YOURSELF. Seriously. I think you need help. Look up terms like "projection". It might help.
LOL. I am not paranoid. You clearly are. I'm sorry if you can't see that. The first step ....

Read the Electronics Communication Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act. Asking a company to break the law knowingly constitutes sufficient cause to establish a chain of liability to the NSA.

Let's put this in simpler terms. I ask you to go steal a list of customers call records from Company B, I am the CEO of Company A. I have just violated the ECPA, the person who steals the list goes to jail and I go to jail.



How many times must this be said? They asked the companies to give them call records and confidential customer information protected by the ECPA, they did this KNOWINGLY. They are equally liable as AT&T , Verizon and the other private telecoms. Asking or inducing someone to break the law is illegal.

The legal term is Abetting. As in the phrase "To aid and abet." The NSA aided and abetted the three companies in breaking the law (Electronics Communication Privacy Act of 1986, 18 USC 2510, 2511) . The law holds that the party that abets is equally at fault as the party that commits the violation.

Look at section 2702. Apparently they can give out the information to everyone but a governmental agency.

ection 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records

(a) Prohibitions. - Except as provided in subsection (b) -
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication
service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person
or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic
storage by that service; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to
the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity
the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained
on that service -
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic
transmission from (or created by means of computer processing
of communications received by means of electronic transmission
from), a subscriber or customer of such service;
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer
processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the
provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such
communications for purposes of providing any services other
than storage or computer processing; and
(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic
communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a
record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or
customer of such service (not including the contents of
communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any
governmental entity.
(b) Exceptions for disclosure of communications. - A provider
described in subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a
communication -
(1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication
or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient;
(2) as otherwise authorized in section 2517, 2511(2)(a), or
2703 of this title;
(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee
or intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in
the case of remote computing service;
(4) to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are
used to forward such communication to its destination;
(5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the
service or to the protection of the rights or property of the
provider of that service;
(6) to a law enforcement agency -
(A) if the contents -
(i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider;
and
(ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or
(B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of
1990; or
(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the
provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving
danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires
disclosure without delay of communications relating to the
emergency.
(c) Exceptions for Disclosure of Customer Records. - A provider
described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other
information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such
service (not including the contents of communications covered by
subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2)) -
(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;
(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the
service or to the protection of the rights or property of the
provider of that service;
(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably
believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or
serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the
information; or
(5) to any person other than a governmental entity.
So really all the NSA would have to do is set up a front company, buy the records, and then "resell" them to the NSA. That assumes they didn't follow Sec 2709 and get permission from the director of the FBI as detailed below.

§ 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records

(a) Duty to provide.--A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Required certification.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may--

(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Prohibition of certain disclosure.--No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.

(d) Dissemination by bureau.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation may disseminate information and records obtained under this section only as provided in guidelines approved by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence collection and foreign counterintelligence investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, with respect to dissemination to an agency of the United States, only if such information is clearly relevant to the authorized responsibilities of such agency.

(e) Requirement that certain congressional bodies be informed.--On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section.

If they got the writ from the FBI then the whole idea of illegality is bunk. Be interesting to see how it all falls out.

If they got the writ from the FBI then the whole idea of illegality is bunk. Be interesting to see how it all falls out.
And if they didn't get that writ, or if it turns out the NSA is in violation of other law as suggested by Professor Kerr, will you then admit to the illegality of the actions, or will you still play the "there was another way to do it so it doesn't really matter if they broke the law or not" game?

Doesn't it mean anything to you that even if there were a legal way to get this information, the fact that they chose not to do it legally shows nothing but contempt for the laws these people are supposed to be sworn to uphold? Or does partisanship trump hypocrisy?

........
So really all the NSA would have to do is set up a front company, buy the records, and then "resell" them to the NSA. That assumes they didn't follow Sec 2709 and get permission from the director of the FBI as detailed below.

.....
Piercing the corporate veil...isn't that a U.S.-born doctrine? Abusing the limited liability or somesuch?

If you knew how much more surveillance is going on, and how much further advanced than post-transaction analysis - that centers exist that are prowling every communication network in real-time - that they are staffed around the clock and aren't relying on warrants...

So, in your fantasy world any government agency may ask a company to violate the law and remain clean of responsibility? Even knowing full well what they ask is an illegal act on the company's part?buyer beware.

Your understanding of the law is poor at best and blindly ignorant at the worst. You just go on sticking your head in the sand.read it again. look for the words CONTENT. Phone records do not hold the content of the conversation. point out in the Acts where the NSA broke the law.

The NSA abetted AT&T, Verizon, et al in breaking the law. Aiding and abetting makes an entity equally responsible for the illegal actions of another party. So the act of asking for information is not illegal, unless the act of giving that information is illegal. Once those two circumstances meet, the asking party is liable.nope, asking and recieve what one asked for is not illegal. AT&T and those others MAY HAVE broken their contract with their customers, but the NSA is Guilt free.

All of the telecoms that cooperated are either being sued now, or will be sued shortly. IN these cases, it is highly likely that the NSA will be named co-respondent.while the suing of the companies is well and good. they can try to implicate the NSA. Unless the NSA did something stupid like try to buy that information with favors or threaten those companies, proving the NSA's guilt will be a feat for the lawyers.

Look back at history. These types of things got Allen Dulles fired at CIA. Got Dick Helms sent to jail.look at the specifics of those cases.

The same argument you present today was presented then. National Security and "no expectation of privacy." The precedent is there. Those arguments lost.[shurgs] then the lawyers are rewritting laws and I'm surprised that no one is complaining about that.

My imagination must have written this then :rolleyes: Oh and my mistake, you didn't say conservatives, you said republicans. I was just reacting to you history as well.

Yes, I set up a hypothetical scenario where a DEMOCRAT spied on a REPUBLICAN, and yet you seem to think I was suggesting that Republicans were currently spying on Dems. Try reading comprehension, it might help a little.

Now who's imagination is constructing fantasies. The government isn't operating unsupervised. That's just bs, and you (should) know it. Unless your own prejudice prevents you from seeing it. Oh wait, it does.

It's clear that it's not my prejudice at work here. And of course the government is working unsupervised. That's the whole point. The Bush administration did an end-around of the FISA court while keeping only his pet Congressment partially apprised.

Again with the twists and distortions. Bush was defending himself being called a dictator. Not advocating that he be made into a dictator. He understands that a dictator is not an option. But keep it up. If it helps your fantasy world.

Er, it seems clear that you are the one twisting and distorting here. Are you even aware of the original quote? I suggest you look it up. No one was calling Bush a dictator when he whipped out his dictator comment.

I trust who I trust.

Obviously.

So far, there is no one who has absolute power over me. Your own conspiricy insania/paranoia might lead you to think someone has absolute power over you.

Can you say where I mentioned absolute power? And what, exactly, is insania?


This isn't wiretapping. You ARE paranoid. This is something different. I hope you can tell the difference. But maybe your own paranoia can't let you see past it. You see a program, that isn't breaking any law, and you freak out because Bush is connected to it.

They are conducting widespread wiretapping in addition to the number collecting. Is your memory that short?

I'll ask a question... What rights of yours has been restricted or violated?

4th Amendment. I can't be more specific BECAUSE THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT.

And your point is? Of course people use power that is given them. That's the point of power isn't it? But that in and of itself isn't a bad thing tho.

But it leads to bad things, which is why our government was set up with a system of checks and balances.


The latter doesn't need judicial oversight and the former wasn't a part of this discussion, at least not my part of the discussion.

Who says the latter doesn't require oversight? The Bush administration? What, do you expect them to say "whoops, our bad." As for the former, it most certainly IS part and parcel of this conversation. It's not like the NSA data mining operation exists in a vacuum.

Again, I'm not talking about the incomming call wire tapping. I'm only discussing the number gathering operation. Which isn't an oversight issue. No one's rights are being violated.

According to you and your "I trust who I trust." attitude.


I persist in claiming? The only comment I made about conservative at all was to say you have conservativephobia. I already said I was reacting to your own track record and that in THIS thread you were talking about republicans.

And what's your basis for saying I have "conservativephobia"? I've made great pains to explain to you that I don't care WHO exercises illicit and unsupervised power.
In general do you think it's a good idea to tell the target of an investigation that you are targetting them? That just seems stupid to me.

A) Do you really think the terrorists think we aren't targeting them?
B) The Bush administration's attempt to cover this issue up resulted in a firestorm of publicity. Do you really think a congressional bill tweaking the government's ability to conduct surveilance would have hot the front page?

So programs should be abolished if their accomplishments are not immediately appearant? Then a whole load of programs would be cancelled and I don't think that's a good idea.

No, but programs that erode civil liberties and prove to be counterproductive should be shut down.

And you have it in your head that any criticism of you makes the criticisor "omg, you criticise Bush, you hate Bush". I didn't say that, and you're right it is childish. Look in the mirror if it isn't too uncomfortable.


But that's the thing. That's exactly what you've done. You've repeatedly insisted that I'm a blind conservative-hater or mentally deranged as your main defense against my argument. That, my friend, is called an ad hominem.

LOL. I am not paranoid. You clearly are. I'm sorry if you can't see that. The first step ....

So let me get this straight. I'm paranoid because I site historical precedent and human nature? Pseudo-psychologist, heal thyself.

Let me ask you a question. How old are you? I'm guessing somewhere in the 13-22 range. Am I right?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12779087/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12779087/site/newsweek/
And what does that opinion piece hope to prove? Except that it's two guys opinions?

And what does that opinion piece hope to prove? Except that it's two guys opinions?
I only skimmed that story, but it was straight reporting from what I could tell, and I have extensive experience in telling the difference--I was an editorials editor for two years in college. That didn't seem like much of an opinion piece to me, although if you can point to specific examples of opinion intruding over the reporting, I'd be glad to take a second look.

I suspect you won't however, as your type seems to prefer just shouting "bias" and hoping no one calls you on it.

Let me ask you a question. How old are you? I'm guessing somewhere in the 13-22 range. Am I right?
Emotionally/psychologically/intellectually? It would appear to be on the lower end.

lol, it's the three amigos.

Ok, disecting each other's posts aren't getting anywhere. How bout we try a different approach:

You are making the accusations about illegality and civil rights violations... how about you show just how collecting a list of phone numbers is either illegal or a civil rights violation?

lol, it's the three amigos.

Ok, disecting each other's posts aren't getting anywhere. How bout we try a different approach:

You are making the accusations about illegality and civil rights violations... how about you show just how collecting a list of phone numbers is either illegal or a civil rights violation?
Professor Kerr did--why don't you address his concerns individually? But oh, that's his opinion, which is worth as much as yours, I suppose, being as you know more than a respected law professor. :rolleyes: