# Bush and Telephone Privacy.



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Now he's collecting data on every American's telephone calls.

And he has an approval rating of 29%.

_'WASHINGTON--Capitol Hill politicians reacted angrily on Thursday to a new report about how President Bush's eavesdropping program has secretly collected records of telephone calls made by tens of millions of Americans.'_

A reaction of 'angry words'? I bet that makes him lose sleep! It's fortunate he didn't do anything _seriously_ evil like commit adultery or blaspheme the One True God...otherwise he might face impeachment!

US Congress debating gay marriage:


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLPWCXIII,

I understand people's concerns about this issue. I don't like the government collecting this data and I am not saying this program is necessarily a good idea. But such a step does not take place in a vaccuum. Terrorists are actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons to use against the US. If there was such a nuclear incident I am not sure people understand the civil liberties ramifications, bc at that point our national survival would be at state. I am sure that if there was a nuclear terrorist attack inside the US we would be under martial law and such concerns over data collection would seem quaint.

Again I am not saying the program is justified but I think a broader discussion needs to take place about the of the nature the risk we face and what is justified in countering that risk and what the consequences would be if those risks are realized.

No one wants the government monitoring our calls but no one wants another 9-11. Where do we draw the line and what are the consequences on both sides of that line? That is the long overdue debate in the US.

Karl


----------



## Eskie (May 5, 2006)

Karl,

I agree with much that you wrote. It is, however, an example of how information may be collected and used in ways other than its intended purpose. In some ways, I'm more fearful of the large databases US companies keep on us, many holding far more detail about us than anyone imagined, and not just our financial records of what we buy, where we buy it, what cars we have, the values of our homes, but more personal data, such as records of your medical history, that are shared between insurance companies. To see an excellent example of "Big Brother" see MIB and it's website. While they have a friendly sounding consumer section, see the services they provide to insurance carriers to protect them from "fraud" by knowing all your illnesses (medical, mental, substance abuse treatment) and reporting them so as to allow what, or whether, an individual insurance policy would even be issued. Knowing that there are many mistakes in all these databases (unavoidable with same names or similar ss#'s), which when combined together, may very well paint a very different picture of you than reality. 

Looking for patterns in calling records is not as invasive as private companies knowing what the doctor said to me, what medicines I take, and how I choose to waste my money. If it's unacceptable for the government to evaluate information that evaluates patterns, not what is said during our phone calls, how come we passively allow far more private information to be gathered by the private sector? I do not believe there really is any privacy in the US anymore, which we've ceded years ago by passively allowing information to flow into these records. The question really is, how, or even if, it should be reclaimed. Or do we accept sacrificing that privacy for the ability to get an instant approval for a credit card, or issuance of a health or life insurance policy?


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

The general concept behind this cal tracking is actually old news. It started in 1999 or so wel before 9/11, and most of the western countries (UK, Canada, France, USA) all participate and share information.

It doesn't actually record the calls, it just keeps a note of patterns that develop. So, for example, if you called the afghan desert once a week from your house in ohio, the system may set up a red flag.

Honestly, this doesn't really bother me that much. We feel that we have privacy, but we really don't anymore. We are on camera everywhere.

Do any of you remember the story from last year about the guy who phoned a MacDonalds posing as a police officer and had the manager strip search a girl in her office?

It was in the midwest somewhere. The police looked up the phone records, and noted that the call had come from a payphone in florida.

They then found the call had been placed with a pre-paid calling card. Looking up the info on the card, they found it was purchased at a Walmart. They then dug through wal-marts records and found the day/time/and till the card had been purchased at. Finally, the cross-referenced the security camera footage and found a picture of the guy buying the calling card.

All of this within a couple of hours, they had the guys photo on television and he was arrested. We are on the Grid, like it or not.

www.thegenuineman.com


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Three words: Concatenation of information.

People have been aware of it for decades. 

I got told I was paranoid when I starting shredding my financial correspondence in 1988. I was refused service at various vendors when I refused to give my social insurance or social security number to minimum wage cashiers. I pay cash and refuse to use a "member" card at the grocery store, ACE Hardware, etc. I even made my undergrad school change my student ID# from my social insurance number. By the time I hit grad school in the US, social security numbers had be forbidden to be used at school ID#s.

Seems that one person's "paranoid" is another person's early awareness of societal direction.

Warmest regards


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Not to make light, but I am so often reminded of any number of 1940s movies when Conrad Veidt, the perennial nazi would say to the American involved with the French resistance, "Ve haf a dossier on you"

It's not, "am I paranoid", but "am I paranoid enough"?


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

There is nothing illegal here. People keep forgetting that the only people whose calls are being listened to are those making or receiving calls from known terrorists or their affiliates. 

I'm glad the president is doing what he's doing, and each and every American should be grateful. We have been kept safe.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by jeansguy_
> 
> The general concept behind this cal tracking is actually old news. It started in 1999 or so wel before 9/11, and most of the western countries (UK, Canada, France, USA) all participate and share information.
> 
> ...


I see no problem with this.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

The police do this all the time. There is no privacy in who you call or who calls you. That's part of the phone records.

Who here hasn't seen CSI or other police dramas where the detective says, "the suspect got three telephone calls from ____________ and _______________ and ______________ and made at call at _______________ to __________________."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Heck, anyone can buy your cell phone records. Also, this "keep them on the line so we can trace it" is bull. Identification is instant, the "ANI" or automated number identification system does it. Otherwise, how could the phone company bill? That was always the biggest joke to me. At one time, you could even dial "my-ani-is" and it would tell you the number of that phone. It used to be much easier to "phreak" the system, now it is harder but there is more you can do.

Warmest regards


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

To quote Ben Franklin, as is often done in this area, "those who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security." I think what this president is doing is unconstitutional, unbelievable, and egregious and I am disgusted. I hope that Congress condemns this in the strongest possible way. We're starting to live in a god-damn police state and we're starting to become no better than the menace that we fought so long to overcome. I can't find words strong enough to express my disappointment in this president, and in members of the public who are apologists for this action.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## Eskie (May 5, 2006)

Actually, when the police get those phone records to trace back time and location (even allowing triangulation of a cell caller, now, even easier with most new phones equipped with GPS, a requirement for "enhanced 911" services), they obtain a subpoena which is presented to the phone carrier. They do not have the ability of walking into AT&T and asking for call logs. Getting the subpoena for records issued requires at least a trace of probable cause presented to a judge to allow access. I think the concern here is that all those records were supplied in the absence of any court order, but gathered in a wholesale fashion without any judicial intervention.

The problem as I see it, though, is that the charter of the NSA was to monitor communications for the protection of national security. They were, and are renowned for picking up and tracing communications and data flows, as well as decrypting communications to obtain information on any possible threat to the US. When created, following the charter was quite easy, as the protection of national security came down to monitoring primarily the USSR and the Eastern bloc, and to some extent China (especially during the Korean and Vietnam war). The threat to national security is now far different, and the NSA is trying to adjust to the new threat. That does include, unfortunately, not just those overseas, but others operating in the US, actively, supportive of, or sympathetic to the groups involved (and let's be honest, it's far from being just Bin Laden's crew). To try and place the activities under the same light as a police request, with requisite court orders, is not realistic. Accepting that, though, still means an awful lot of non-terrorist information is sitting in those databases, and the real question is whether it is properly safeguarded. Just because the NSA has it shouldn't mean that standard criminal investigations conducted by the government can just reach into the candy jar without worrying about convincing a judge about it. So, what it comes down to is who guards the henhouse, and how can they be trusted when no oversight can be performed for fear of leaks of materials & methods. Go tell one elected representative sworn to secrecy about how it all works, and it will be in the NY Times the next day. Withhold the information from an elected official, and you look like a totalitarian, "men in black" organization. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> To quote Ben Franklin, as is often done in this area, "those who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security." I think what this president is doing is unconstitutional, unbelievable, and egregious and I am disgusted. I hope that Congress condemns this in the strongest possible way. We're starting to live in a god-damn police state and we're starting to become no better than the menace that we fought so long to overcome. I can't find words strong enough to express my disappointment in this president, and in members of the public who are apologists for this action.


Odor, you haven't even walked down the aisle to get capped yet and you sound like a left wing ACLU mouthpiece! Congrats bud, you have arrived 

Just kidding, you know I love you.

Warmest regards


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> To quote Ben Franklin, as is often done in this area, "those who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security." I think what this president is doing is *unconstitutional*, unbelievable, and egregious and I am disgusted. I hope that Congress condemns this in the strongest possible way. We're starting to live in a god-damn police state and we're starting to become no better than the menace that we fought so long to overcome. I can't find words strong enough to express my disappointment in this president, and in members of the public who are apologists for this action.
> 
> _I fought the law and the law won._​


I don't know much about the law of the land (just the basics), so my question is how is this uncostitutional? And if it is so, why are the appropriate authorities not taking action? There seems to be a loss of checks and balances if we are not fighting unconstitutional activity!

Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people. - F. M. Hubbard


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by GT3_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This amendment has been interpreted to include things such as telephone conversations. The reason that the authorities are not taking any action is, it appears to me, that they don't know what's going on because they are kept in the dark about it. General Hagel said, "Everything that the agency [NSA] has done has been lawful. It's been briefed to the appropriate members of Congress." Well, who exactly are these so-called "appropriate" members? And when did these so-called "appropriate" members of Congress overtake a court's role in issuing warrants, based on probable cause, and "particularly describing" what is to be seized?

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was under the impression that only telephone numbers were being seized. Am I missing something here, are they recording our telephone conversations? That's not cool if they are recording our conversations without any evidence of the "offender" being a threat to national security. 

Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people. - F. M. Hubbard


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hockeyinsider_
> 
> There is nothing illegal here. People keep forgetting that the only people whose calls are being listened to are those making or receiving calls from known terrorists or their affiliates.
> 
> I'm glad the president is doing what he's doing, and each and every American should be grateful. We have been kept safe.


To quote Pogo, "we have met the enemy and he is us".

If you actually believe what you just wrote, you would have been very comfortable in any number of dictatorships, many of whom we put in place and/or support, and all of whom were "safe", really, really "safe"!


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by GT3_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because it is the "appropriate authorities" who are doing the spying!


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by GT3_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, at first they denied doing anything, then they admitted that they were, in fact, listening to phone conversations, but only between the US and foreign countries and only then if the call was to or from a known Al Qaida associate, then they denied that it went any further than that, then they denied that they had collected millions of phone numbers, then they said but no listening was done... it doesn't take a soothsayer to figure out what the next admission will likely be, and then the next discovery, the next lie. This ain't rocket science, guys, this is a government in quest of absolute power and if that doesn't scare the bejesus out of you, you just ain't payin' attention!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hockeyinsider_
> 
> There is nothing illegal here. People keep forgetting that the *only people whose calls are being listened to are those making or receiving calls from known terrorists or their affiliates. *
> 
> I'm glad the president is doing what he's doing, and each and every American should be grateful. We have been kept safe.


 So tens of millions of Americans (nearly every household and private company, according to an AP article) are terrorists? [:0]


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

rip - This is utterly disturbing. The question is what can we do to stop this totalitarian government... This country is out of control and I am conservative, mind you.

Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people. - F. M. Hubbard


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Two points on the opposite side of the scale:

1) Amendment IV has meant squat for decades and continues to mean less and less as time goes by. Terry Searches, helicopters flying over suburbs using infra-red to monitor warmth for pot grow lights, etc....no, anyone that thinks we are secure from unwarranted search and seizure, or have been for decades now, is dreaming.

2) Bush is not setting up a dictatorship. Anyone that seriously believes this has drank the Kool Aide.

Warmest regards


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Absolutely with you on this. Outrageous. And people SIT for this crap?

I hope not.

If it's not illegal, to the letter of the law, it ought to be. Americans of ANY political stripe should be concerned about this stuff.



> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> To quote Ben Franklin, as is often done in this area, "those who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security." I think what this president is doing is unconstitutional, unbelievable, and egregious and I am disgusted. I hope that Congress condemns this in the strongest possible way. We're starting to live in a god-damn police state and we're starting to become no better than the menace that we fought so long to overcome. I can't find words strong enough to express my disappointment in this president, and in members of the public who are apologists for this action.
> 
> _I fought the law and the law won._​


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Telephone call data (not the call content itself) are third party records, therefore, no expectation of privacy exists. Accepting telephone service from someone probably results in some loss of privacy, and acceptance that the telephone company may provide some or all of your telephone data to another party.

The data is only the call numbers, time, location, etc. No telephone calls are overheard.

The NSA can't listen to a phone conversation within the US, without a warrant from a judge. Probable cause has to be presented by a US. Attorney. If a conversation is overheard, it can't be used as the basis for a prosecution.

The information is used for data mining. There are almost one million calls made per hour in the US. It is literally impossible to listen in on that number of phone calls. The data alone, if digitized, could not be contained on all the computers in the country. Also, there are not enough people in the government to attempt to listen to, or otherwise analyze all the myriad conversations going on everywhere.

Congress has known about the NSA using the information since the law was passed in the early 1990's. Any House member or Senator who was there, and now denies knowledge, is simply a liar.

This is election year politicking, plain and simple.

No person's right to privacy has been violated. People have far less privacy among private companies than with the US Government.

Ben Franklin's quote, in this instance, is merely raising the red herring. We haven't given up any privacy for a little security.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> Telephone call data (not the call content itself) are third party records, therefore, no expectation of privacy exists. Accepting telephone service from someone probably results in some loss of privacy, and acceptance that the telephone company may provide some or all of your telephone data to another party.
> 
> ...


So they say, so they say... just like they said there were WMDs in Iraq, just like they said, we're not listening to anyone's conversations, and you bought it, didn't you. Sadly, you're the stuff of which dictatorships are made, The crowd cheering them on.

Train your eye! Then train your brain to trust your eye.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

This is an interesting discussion, but wonder how of outraged each of you were when a previous president obtained over nine hundred specific raw FBI files and used them to terrorize those he considered his 'enemies'. If that did not create in you the kind of emotions I see expressed here, your intellectual honesty is more than questionable.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by PetroLandman_
> 
> This is an interesting discussion, but wonder how of outraged each of you were when a previous president obtained over nine hundred specific raw FBI files and used them to terrorize those he considered his 'enemies'. If that did not create in you the kind of emotions I see expressed here, your intellectual honesty is more than questionable.


Or how many people were suddenly subjected to an IRS audit from the same people for the same reason. For instance, odd that the gentleman that ran the Whitehouse travel for years and years not lost his job so an FOB could take it, but he also was audited immediately after protesting his treatment.

Warmest regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by PetroLandman_
> 
> This is an interesting discussion, but wonder how of outraged each of you were when a previous president obtained over nine hundred specific raw FBI files and used them to terrorize those he considered his 'enemies'. If that did not create in you the kind of emotions I see expressed here, your intellectual honesty is more than questionable.


Fewer than a thousand FBI files on Republicans vs. millions upon millions of phone records of garden-variety Americans ... I think it is you who is being intellectually dishonest in trying to compare the two.

I think the public expects a certain amount of dirty tricks between opposing parties and, unless it reaches Watergate proportions, it may not be approved of by most Americans, but there is little shock and outrage because we sort of expect stuff like that. But when there is massive secret spying on the American public, that's something altogether different and the amount of outrage will be proportionally appropriate.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

It's utterly amazing how some people will defend the indefensible. These people betrayed our trust and the principles of the very party they claim to represent.



> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

People are missing the point. Abusing Presidential power to conduct illegal searches is abusing Presidential power to conduct illegal searches, end of story. The "fewer than a thousand FBI files on Republicans" apology is bull, those people were also garden variety Americans. Further, those files were of concentrated information being mined for only one reason, to hurt the people involved. I cannot believe personal and political gain and vendetta is excuseable using detailed information whereas finding people calling known terrorists interested in the downfall of the US isn't. 

Either both are excuseable in my book or neither are. The thought that "dirty tricks" are expected by the public is a very lame apology for abuse of the FBI by the Clinton Whitehouse.

Warmest regards


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

The hand wringing on this thread is almost deafening. I think it would help if we let facts, not hyperbole steer this discussion. So what are the facts stripped from the hysteria?

- Since 2003 the NSA has partnered up with major telecom firms to data mine phone records against call logs obtained from terrorists around the globe.

- The NSA has collected "call-detail" records. That's telephone industry lingo for the numbers being dialed. *Phone customers' names, addresses and other personal information are not being collected as part of this program.*

- *Eavesdropping is not part of the program.*

- The Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures, make the conduct in question illegal. *The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the numbers they dial.*

- The definition of "pen register" in FISA shows that the statute doesn't regulate the government with respect to the technology at issue here. FISA states that the regulations governing pen registers *do not "include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communications services provided by such provider."*

- 63% of Americans have no problem with the program in its entirety.

Another case of manufactured outrage in an election year, similar to the weapons cache story leaked just weeks before the 2004 election....

Its a shame that our defense agencies have become bastions of politicized agents more concerned about votes than national security, makes me wonder how in the world we haven't been hit again. Damn miracle if you ask me.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> The "fewer than a thousand FBI files on Republicans" apology is bull


I didn't say that what Clinton did was right, I just said that what Bush is doing is much worse and that's why there is so much more public outrage over this. I don't think you can successfully downplay the current outrage by pointing out what another president did; it has zero effect on the public perception of the current administration.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

"manufactured outrage" - a good word for it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> I didn't say that what Clinton did was right, I just said that what Bush is doing is much worse and that's why there is so much more public outrage over this. I don't think you can successfully downplay the current outrage by pointing out what another president did; it has zero effect on the public perception of the current administration.


I'm sorry, but it's all about intent (isn't it). What the Clintons did was to gain political advantage over US Citizens for personal gain. What Bush has had done (he hasn't done it) is to protect US Citizens. Hillary had FBI files in her "friend's" apartment for crying out loud and that man died over it. Remember Vince Foster?

Managed perception or not, it's a huge difference! And there is not more public outrage over this. There is far less. It's just being reported where the other was not. Wait until Hillary wins the democratic party nomination for it to be regurgitated all over again. YUCK!

And factually, W's is not much worse. That is to blur the difference between investigating and collecting public records and voluntarily contributed business records (no FISA authorization is required to ask for information if someone gives it to you). Could you be mad at AT&T or Verizon, sure I guess.

But, to say W is worse is not just an opinion that people can disagree about, it's an outright LIE and you should know it.

I hate to cross the line of politeness, but it has to be said.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

PetroLandman said:


> This is an interesting discussion, but wonder how of outraged each of you were when a previous president obtained over nine hundred specific raw FBI files and used them to terrorize those he considered his 'enemies'. If that did not create in you the kind of emotions I see expressed here, your intellectual honesty is more than questionable.


Many of us who were of an age to be involved in that, had exactly the same kind of outrage then you see expressed here now. Particularly those of us who were at the receiving end of that terrorizing.

It is because of that I am exceedingly frightened about what is happening now. There was, however, a significant difference: the "previous president" did these actions as much out of pure paranoia as he did to tilt the government toward executive control; the current administration is simply grabbing power any way it can, and using this as one of many tools to discover, chill, silence and ultimately overrun any critics of this adminstration and its president.

Addendum: After reading some of the additional posts, I realize the "previous president" was Clinton, not Nixon. My comments must be considered in terms of Nixon, not Clinton. Both committed egregious betrayels of the Amercan trust. But Clinton's acts didn't frighten me the way Nixon's and now Bush's do.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

pendennis said:


> Telephone call data (not the call content itself) are third party records, therefore, no expectation of privacy exists. Accepting telephone service from someone probably results in some loss of privacy, and acceptance that the telephone company may provide some or all of your telephone data to another party.
> 
> The data is only the call numbers, time, location, etc. No telephone calls are overheard.
> 
> ...


This is the exact kind of apologism that I'm talking about.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I'm sorry, but it's all about intent (isn't it). What the Clintons did was to gain political advantage over US Citizens for personal gain. What Bush has had done (he hasn't done it) is to protect US Citizens. Hillary had FBI files in her "friend's" apartment for crying out loud and that man died over it. Remember Vince Foster?
> 
> Managed perception or not, it's a huge difference! And there is not more public outrage over this. There is far less. It's just being reported where the other was not. Wait until Hillary wins the democratic party nomination for it to be regurgitated all over again. YUCK!
> 
> ...


It's amazing to me how moving to the right atrophies the brain; the farther right, the less it seems to function in any kind of cognitive way.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rip said:


> the current administration is simply grabbing power any way it can, and using this as one of many tools to discover, chill, silence and ultimately overrun any critics of this adminstration and its president.


That's probably the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. First, he's not running again. What does he care about critics of his administration?

Second, what possible gain has he had from this conspiracy to silence his critics? His approval rating is hovering at 30%. Who has he silenced? The news is wall to wall criticism of W and the administration.

Make up your mind. Either he's silencing critics or you're safe speaking out against him. It's like that Colbert thread. "Oh Colbert is so brave speaking truth to power." What a bunch of pansies - he was on national TV, what was W going to do execute him or send him to secret prison? LOL


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

whnay. said:


> The hand wringing on this thread is almost deafening. I think it would help if we let facts, not hyperbole steer this discussion. So what are the facts stripped from the hysteria?
> 
> - Since 2003 the NSA has partnered up with major telecom firms to data mine phone records against call logs obtained from terrorists around the globe.
> 
> ...


Whnay,

When the Court decided those cases about pen registers, the pen registers were being used to get numbers from suspected criminals. Are millions of Americans all of a sudden suspected criminals? Just because the Supreme Court decides something, doesn't mean that we all have to all of a sudden accept it as gospel.

First:
"Oh, gee, the Supreme Court said that we have no expectation of privacy in the telephone numbers we dial, so I guess that means that we don't and we shouldn't care if the government wants our phone records."

Next:
"Oh gee, the Supreme Court says that the government has been doing wiretapping and listening to phone conversations for so long and so many people know about it that they should no longer have an expectation of privacy in their phone conversations. Therefore, we hold that the Fourth Amendment no longer protects private phone conversations."

The only reason why certain things have lost Fourth Amendment protection in the past is because the public has become complacent and lets itself lose those protections. If we stood up for privacy in more areas, then we would have an expectation of privacy in more areas. We're letting our rights slip through our fingers and there are people out there that are making excuses.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rip said:


> It's amazing to me how moving to the right atrophies the brain; the farther right, the less it seems to function in any kind of cogitive way.


Better be careful! W has sent people to Gitmo for far less than that! I hear the government monitors internet access and you know how he hates gays - he probably watches AAAC more than any other message board. LOL


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

odoreater said:


> This is the exact kind of apologism that I'm talking about.


Since when did pointing out the difference between the truth and the lie become apologism?

If you want to be a libertarian (like I am) start paying cash for all your purchases and don't use a FEDERALLY REGULATED TELEPHONE SYSTEM then complain about government intrusion into your life.

Come on, Odoreater, you're much smarter than that. Look at who is on the "outraged side" of this. It's not exactly a collection of the best and brightest.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Since when did pointing out the difference between the truth and the lie become apologism?
> 
> If you want to be a libertarian (like I am) start paying cash for all your purchases and don't use a FEDERALLY REGULATED TELEPHONE SYSTEM then complain about government intrusion into your life.
> 
> Come on, Odoreater, you're much smarter than that. Look at who is on the "outraged side" of this. It's not exactly a collection of the best and brightest.


Look, I know that a lot of this is hype and that it may not be as bad as it sounds. But, if you stop fighting for inches, you end up losing a mile. As soon as we let our government know that we're not really that pissed off about what they're doing and "we understand" they immediately start thinking about how much further they can push our understanding before we get really pissed off. Using this method, they've been slowly pushing us further and furthers and every time, it's just a little thing and it's no big deal so we're not that pissed off. Until we start getting pissed off at the little things it's never going to stop.


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that *who you called* is not protected.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Look, I know that a lot of this is hype and that it may not be as bad as it sounds. But, if you stop fighting for inches, you end up losing a mile. As soon as we let our government know that we're not really that pissed off about what they're doing and "we understand" they immediately start thinking about how much further they can push our understanding before we get really pissed off. Using this method, they've been slowly pushing us further and furthers and every time, it's just a little thing and it's no big deal so we're not that pissed off. Until we start getting pissed off at the little things it's never going to stop.


I agree with your sentiment. However, this isn't an example of that.

When you enter into a business transaction with a publicly traded, federally regulated company, the government isn't "doing" anything to you. They did not collect any information "from" you. If they had, I'd be the first in line to cry fowl.

I do think people have a gripe with their phone company. I think Qwest refused to supply the data without a FISA order and the government did not insist nor file a FISA request. So, it seems to me the lawyers of the phone companies knew the data was theirs not our's or the public's and they surrendered their private data voluntarily. As a customer should we expect more from them? Probably so.

I'd like to see how many of the "outraged" 20% actually fire their phone company. After all that's the American way. Vote with your wallet. If the phone company wrongs you, fire them. If this had happened 20 years ago during the AT&T federally protected monopoly I think it would be a different issue as well.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Look at who is on the "outraged side" of this. It's not exactly a collection of the best and brightest.


The really hilarious thing is that in attempting to refresh my memory about the specifics last night I Googled "Bill Clinton" and "raw FBI files" and came up with not much from respectable mainstream news organizations, just rantings on lunatic-fringe Web sites. The only mentions on mainstream sites were transcripts of right-wingers talking, such as on CNN talk shows.

At some point you're going to have to accept that while ever since Nixon a vast majority of Americans have become cynical about politicians of any political persuasion, the outrage over the current administration is not partisan, judging by the approval ratings. It's something Bush brought on himself, and trying to present it as respectable by pointing out another administration's smaller transgressions just makes you look nuts.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I'd be the first in line to cry fowl.


Quack, quack. I think you mean "cry foul."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Pattern?*



rip said:


> Addendum: After reading some of the additional posts, I realize the "previous president" was Clinton, not Nixon. My comments must be considered in terms of Nixon, not Clinton. Both committed egregious betrayels of the Amercan trust. But Clinton's acts didn't frighten me the way Nixon's and now Bush's do.


Three data points and they all line up. Repub = bad, Dem = okay.

Yes, I can see why abusing Presidential power with FBI files to destroy your political enemies would not scare an average citizen much more that possible abuse trying to stop terrorists. Makes perfect sense to me. Let us not forget the rash of Clinton inspired IRS audits too.

What's wrong is wrong, be it the people you back or the opposition. Anything else is just hypocrisy.

Warmest regards


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> the outrage over the current administration is not partisan, judging by the approval ratings. It's something Bush brought on himself, and trying to present it as respectable by pointing out another administration's smaller transgressions just makes you look nuts.


Reading a poll that says 30% approve and concluding that 70% are really outraged (while a poll shows 33% were outraged when they thought the government was wiretapping, but now 20% are outraged when they knows the facts) is what makes you look nuts.

If siding with the 80% of Americans that can draw the distinctions you can't (even while half of those generally don't approve of Bush's job) makes me a member of the lunatic fringe, then so be it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> The really hilarious thing is that in attempting to refresh my memory about the specifics last night I Googled "Bill Clinton" and "raw FBI files" and came up with not much from respectable mainstream news organizations, just rantings on lunatic-fringe Web sites. The only mentions on mainstream sites were transcripts of right-wingers talking, such as on CNN talk shows.


Or it could prove that the mainstream media gave Clinton a pass.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Funnier yet*



crs said:


> The really hilarious thing is that in attempting to refresh my memory about the specifics last night I Googled "Bill Clinton" and "raw FBI files" and came up with not much from respectable mainstream news organizations, just rantings on lunatic-fringe Web sites. The only mentions on mainstream sites were transcripts of right-wingers talking, such as on CNN talk shows.


Tell me, is Salon considered lunatic-fringe or right winger in your neck of the woods?

Warmest regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Tell me, is Salon considered lunatic-fringe or right winger in your neck of the woods?
> 
> Warmest regards


The item you link to contains no reporting by Salon, it is a Q&A with someone who at the time had no affiliation with a news organization and as such was not subject to the editing process that most major news organizations demand. Therefore, I would not consider him to be as credible as someone currently affiliated with a major news organization and subject to that kind of vetting. There was no one standing over his shoulder demanding, "Oh yeah? Prove it."

While I wouldn't consider Salon lunatic, I also would not consider it a major mainstream news organization. Its editing staff is quite small, and in my experience a lack of resources usually will result in some cutting of corners in challenging writers' assertions and demanding substantiation. On major newspapers, most staff stories go through at least three layers of editing, with sensitive stories receiving much more scrutiny than that. A small staff simply can't afford to do that.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Reading a poll that says 30% approve and concluding that 70% are really outraged (while a poll shows 33% were outraged when they thought the government was wiretapping, but now 20% are outraged when they knows the facts) is what makes you look nuts.
> 
> If siding with the 80% of Americans that can draw the distinctions you can't (even while half of those generally don't approve of Bush's job) makes me a member of the lunatic fringe, then so be it.


If you are trying to tell us that the vast majority of Americans do not strongly disapprove of this, I think you ought to seek professional help.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

odoreater said:


> This is the exact kind of apologism that I'm talking about.


No apology is my post. I do not agree with a lot of what the President does. My Fourth Amendment rights are not being trampled. Neither are anyone else's.

We are in a war, in which the enemy uses every resource available, to inflict harm on my fellow citizens. They are neither uniformed, nor equipped with a physical address. They are sheltered by countries which are openly hostile to my beliefs and way of life. Whatever means are necessary to locate and kill him are the ways of war. The enemy will surrender when killed, or when he lies prostrate with the bayonet at his throat. He surely will not have mercy on anyone who is deemed his enemy.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

pendennis said:


> No apology is my post. I do not agree with a lot of what the President does. My Fourth Amendment rights are not being trampled. Neither are anyone else's.
> 
> We are in a war, in which the enemy uses every resource available, to inflict harm on my fellow citizens. They are neither uniformed, nor equipped with a physical address. They are sheltered by countries which are openly hostile to my beliefs and way of life. Whatever means are necessary to locate and kill him are the ways of war. The enemy will surrender when killed, or when he lies prostrate with the bayonet at his throat. He surely will not have mercy on anyone who is deemed his enemy.


If we were in the type of war where it would be possible to declare a determinable victory and a determinable end then I'd be right there with you. Unfortunately, we are in a war against "terrorism." Terrorism is an idea or a tactic. So, we are in a war against a particular type of tactic or idea. How are we supposed to end a war against an idea or tactic? We can be in a war on "terrorism" for the next 500 years, in fact, we can fight this war forever, and you'll never get rid of terrorism. As long as people are being born that hate us, which will be forever, then this war will continue.

You say that they're sheltered by countries which are hostile to your beliefs (and mine), so does that mean that to win this war we have to become like those countries? We have to cease being ourselves and become our enemy, that's the only way to win? I sure hope not.

By the way, I'm not saying that President Bush is like the rulers of countries that shelter terrorists or that our governmnet is like their government, I'm just saying that we're heading down that path.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

pendennis said:


> We are in a war...


When an enemy wages war on our way of life, it must be openly fought, and won by killing the enemy until he can no longer wage war. That is the way of all war. The militant Muslims have declared war on Christianity and Judaism, and they, in this case, are the aggressors. The aggressor always sets the rules. If these people want to wage a war in which their victory is defined as the subjugation, or elimination of Christianity or Judaism, then the only response is victory, no matter how long it takes. They have shown a predelicition for violence against unarmed civilians for years, something the US military generally does not do. With an enemy who thinks that personal victory is death and rewarded by seeing Allah, then he should be accommodated in every instance.

If, by the above response, you surmise that I believe generally in a "take no prisoners" rule in this conflict, then you would be correct.

Dead men generally do not foment much in the way of war.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> JLPWCXIII,
> 
> I understand people's concerns about this issue. I don't like the government collecting this data and I am not saying this program is necessarily a good idea. But such a step does not take place in a vaccuum. Terrorists are actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons to use against the US. If there was such a nuclear incident I am not sure people understand the civil liberties ramifications, bc at that point our national survival would be at state. I am sure that if there was a nuclear terrorist attack inside the US we would be under martial law and such concerns over data collection would seem quaint.
> 
> ...


Though I can't say I like it, I also am not worried because I'm not committing any crimes. Unfortunately the saftety of the whole requires some minor inconveniences of the many. The reason we have so much crime related to computers and the Internet is because the criminals know how to exploit the weaknesses in these systems. As long as you or I are not accepting of some inconvenience, criminals will be able to continue committing crimes. Terrorists are the same way, they fight by stealth and surprise. They exploit our weaknesses. The "openness" of our country is what makes us vulnerable.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> If you are trying to tell us that the vast majority of Americans do not strongly disapprove of this, I think you ought to seek professional help.


I will happily seek the expertise of a professional ... ABC News should work:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1953464

May 12, 2006 - Americans by nearly a 2-1 ratio call the surveillance of telephone records an acceptable way for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, expressing broad unconcern even if their own calling patterns are scrutinized.

Lending support to the administration's defense of its anti-terrorism intelligence efforts, 63 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the secret program, disclosed Thursday by USA Today, is justified, while far fewer, 35 percent, call it unjustified.

BTW and for you: good Luck with your own professional help - "Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired. Persons experiencing a psychotic episode may experience hallucinations, hold delusional beliefs (e.g., grandiose or paranoid delusions), and exhibit disorganized thinking."


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Reading a poll that says 30% approve and concluding that 70% are really outraged (while a poll shows 33% were outraged when they thought the government was wiretapping, but now 20% are outraged when they knows the facts) is what makes you look nuts.
> 
> If siding with the 80% of Americans that can draw the distinctions you can't (even while half of those generally don't approve of Bush's job) makes me a member of the lunatic fringe, then so be it.





ksinc said:


> I will happily seek the expertise of a professional ... ABC News should work:
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1953464
> 
> ...


Four hours ago you cited a poll in which only 30 percent approved. Now you cite a poll in which 63 percent approve. I am sure if you go poll-shopping enough, you can find one that indicates most people believe the world is flat.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Oddly enough, if you vote on the ABC site, readers there feel quite the opposite of the poll. The results at this writing:

Is it okay for the government to track phone calls made by you and millions of other Americans?

No, it is not acceptable no matter what the government says.
4,736
Yes, if the government says it is necessary to fight terrorism.1,866
Total Vote: 6,602


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Am I incorrect in stating Osama Bin Laden should be our priority target, if not for current practical reasons at least national revenge? The mans a 6'6 cripple hiding out in a cave somewhere in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions. It seems to me 'boots on the ground' as Rumsfeld & co. parroted in hopes of some WW2 poster romantic reaction will root the pig out- not domestic spying. Overlooked among all the arguments is a simple and odious fact of all such actions. The 'target list' is conveniently used against a broad spectrum of adversaries. Your campaign contributor from the timber industry having bad P.R. against environmentalists? Ba da boom, ba da bing! and some patchouli drenched, vegan, pacifist blockading a timber road is a terrorist. The political target on 9/11 was our way of life. Our freedooms were hated most by these sharia law abiding citizens of the wahabai caravanseri called El quida. Congratulations , You won.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Better be careful! W has sent people to Gitmo for far less than that! I hear the government monitors internet access and you know how he hates gays - he probably watches AAAC more than any other message board. LOL


I'm gay? O, thank God... I thought I had an incurable shopping fetish.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> Four hours ago you cited a poll in which only 30 percent approved. Now you cite a poll in which 63 percent approve. I am sure if you go poll-shopping enough, you can find one that indicates most people believe the world is flat.


No. Not true. I was discussing W's job approval rating is at 30%. The 63% approval is regarding the phone records.

Please check that psychosis thing out it will really help you ;-) You're continually wrong and yet you presume to condescend. It's really not a good look even on you. It's the equivalent of pleated, blue jeans cut-off into shorts.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> The item you link to contains no reporting by Salon, it is a Q&A with someone who at the time had no affiliation with a news organization and as such was not subject to the editing process that most major news organizations demand. Therefore, I would not consider him to be as credible as someone currently affiliated with a major news organization and subject to that kind of vetting. There was no one standing over his shoulder demanding, "Oh yeah? Prove it."


Funny, the link seems to indicate he is Salon's managing editor. The bio also indicates he worked previously for the San Fransico Examiner. No doubt the Examiner has turned both right wing and lunatic fringe. I could be wrong.

If you still wish to quibble, please indicate so and I will take the effort to find a link from a left leaning, mainstream media source to prove that lunatic fringe right wingers were not the only people to take note of the FBI "filegate".

Warmest regards


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Three data points and they all line up. Repub = bad, Dem = okay.
> 
> Yes, I can see why abusing Presidential power with FBI files to destroy your political enemies would not scare an average citizen much more that possible abuse trying to stop terrorists. Makes perfect sense to me. Let us not forget the rash of Clinton inspired IRS audits too.
> 
> ...


Re-read my post that you quoted: you will find the phrase, "Both committed egregious betrayels of the Amercan trust." Just how does that make "Dem=OK?"

You just don't get it, do you? You really do believe that this is all about trying to stop terrorists. You poor sad bloke. I feel sorry for you when the truth finally dawns on you (but even sorrier if it never does).


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Funny, the link seems to indicate he is Salon's managing editor.


He did no reporting, it was a Q&A -- a format that entails no fact-checking or substantive editing -- and the qualifications I was referring to were of the person he interviewed, who was at the time not employed by a major news organization.

My original point was not that no mainstream media reported on the Clinton thing, only that currently only right-wing Web sites seem obsessed enough to have it currently available or still be discussing it.

As I've written before, you seem to have difficulty with reading.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> No. Not true. I was discussing W's job approval rating is at 30%. The 63% approval is regarding the phone records.


This is what you wrote:



ksinc said:


> Reading a poll that says 30% approve and concluding that 70% are really outraged (while a poll shows 33% were outraged when they thought the government was wiretapping, but now 20% are outraged when they knows the facts) is what makes you look nuts.


Clearly you were referring to the phone records.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> Am I incorrect in stating Osama Bin Laden should be our priority target


I really don't know, but I think it's a valid point of view.

I tend to think preventing another attack is our priority and I trust the experts that say getting Bin Laden really has little to do with that.

Do I want Bin Laden? You betcha. However, I think it's very easy to make this a "most wanted person" and miss the bigger picture. It's our pride and our hate that makes us want him. Strategically, it's probably better in 100 ways to have him right where he is.

While W and Condi's plan to plant democracies in the time bought by military action may seem ludicrous to some, it's really the only long term solution that has been proposed. I have heard 15-20 years as a best case scenario for their approach. While, I have no problem with criticism of that plan, I think to criticize it based on a short time horizon is insincere by political hacks of every stripe. I will go ahead and say everything I have heard from Dean, Kerry, and Gore I would categorize this way. I think Biden has made some excellent points. Hillary has repeated some valid points, but I don't see any real original thought with her. I wish she was a solution.

The problem is clearly NOT that we will be in Iraq for 5-10 more years. Any argument that starts with that as a premise is IMHO a deliberate attempt to distort the facts or a simple political idiot demonstrating his ineptness.

If AQ, Afghanistan, and Iraq were solved tomorrow, we still have the Palestenians, Iranians, and others to deal with. And then there is China, Korea, and Taiwan. The one thing I agree with a lot of people on is Britain's Imperialistic Arrogance is the root cause of all this particularly the Israeli problem.

If anyone want's a great read. "A Republic, not an Empire" by Pat Buchanan is really surprisingly good. Frankly, I wish W and #41 would read it.

My own personal view is also the most harsh and cruel, too cruel. I think we should have bombed Iraq like we did, sent in the ground troops like we did and destroyed everything like we did, and taken Saddam, ARMED THE KURDS, then gotten out and left them. There would have been huge innocent casualties, civil wars, ethnic cleansing, and more. But, we wouldn't be having our soldiers in the middle of it. I don't see any politicians leading in that horrific direction for humanitarian reasons, but it's really the only way to meet our goals and not get drawn into what we are in now. It would have bought us about 5-10 years probably. Just a guess.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> This is what you wrote:
> Clearly you were referring to the phone records.


This is what you said. You referenced the approval ratings and tied them to the outrage

Originally Posted by crs
the outrage over the current administration is not partisan, judging by the approval ratings. It's something Bush brought on himself, and trying to present it as respectable by pointing out another administration's smaller transgressions just makes you look nuts.

This is what I said splitting the two topics as they factually are. You keep trying to combine them and distort the truth to fit your imagined reality. The majority is not outraged. The majority disapproves of his overall job. That number obviously is bipartisan as you pointed out and includes 40% of REPUBLICANS that would still vote for W again over Kerry and support the collection of phone records.



ksinc said:


> Reading a poll that says 30% approve and concluding that 70% are really outraged (while a poll shows 33% were outraged when they thought the government was wiretapping, but now 20% are outraged when they knows the facts) is what makes you look nuts.
> 
> If siding with the 80% of Americans that can draw the distinctions you can't (even while half of those generally don't approve of Bush's job) makes me a member of the lunatic fringe, then so be it.


Clearly I was not. You are wrong. Again. I'm sorry you can't read or win, but maybe you can tackle that disappointment after the psychosis.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> This is what I said splitting the two topics as they factually are. You keep trying to combine them and distort the truth to fit your imagined reality.


I don't see where you get that. My point was that the people who are not exactly the brightest are the people who keep trying to find bizarre ways to defend the current administration by attacking a previous administration's situation that, while regrettable, is completely irrelevant to the current problem. Only a real nutcase would try to defend Bush by living in the past and screaming, "But look at what Slick Willie did!" Next they'll be invoking Martin Van Buren. This obsession with the past is a clear indication of mental illness. The folks who criticize today's phone spying might or might not be wrong, but at least sane. They aren't roaming the streets, howling at imaginary people about the Clinton years.



ksinc said:


> Look at who is on the "outraged side" of this. It's not exactly a collection of the best and brightest.





crs said:


> The really hilarious thing is that in attempting to refresh my memory about the specifics last night I Googled "Bill Clinton" and "raw FBI files" and came up with not much from respectable mainstream news organizations, just rantings on lunatic-fringe Web sites. The only mentions on mainstream sites were transcripts of right-wingers talking, such as on CNN talk shows.
> 
> At some point you're going to have to accept that while ever since Nixon a vast majority of Americans have become cynical about politicians of any political persuasion, the outrage over the current administration is not partisan, judging by the approval ratings. It's something Bush brought on himself, and trying to present it as respectable by pointing out another administration's smaller transgressions just makes you look nuts.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> I don't see where you get that. My point was that the people who are not exactly the brightest are the people who keep trying to find bizarre ways to defend the current administration by attacking a previous administration's situation that, while regrettable, is completely irrelevant to the current problem. Only a real nutcase would try to defend Bush by living in the past and screaming, "But look at what Slick Willie did!" Next they'll be invoking Martin Van Buren. This obsession with the past is a clear indication of mental illness. The folks who criticize today's phone spying might or might not be wrong, but at least sane. They aren't roaming the streets, howling at imaginary people about the Clinton years.


Ok, well on that point maybe I can help you. They aren't defending what W did by screaming what Clinton did. They are just pointing out your hyprocrisy and total lack of a sense of proportionality and intent. Your only defense is to claim W is acting on some greater conspiracy or profiting in some indirect way that simply doesn't exist. They also aren't screaming.

Don't you think it's odd that you have to call people or there tactics: bizarre, nutcases, obsessed, mentally ill, etc. to make your point?

If the facts supported you, you should be empowered to be more generous of spirit. When you throw words around like nutcase and you have such a groundless argument based on "manufactured outrage" it's not attractive.

No one is wandering the streets howling at imaginary people and you know it. When you say it anyway, you sound like a severely unbalanced person. I'm serious, reread that definition of psychosis, it describes your posts to a T.

I think you will find you get the respect your points deserve. If you have to call people names and make outrageous accusations laced with derogatory adjectives you get very little respect. Every claim you have made in this thread has been politely, but consistently debunked inspite of your attacks on nameless people you don't know because they don't even exist.

Say something poignant, relevant, and based in truth and see where you get. That's where I get it.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> If you have to call people names and make outrageous accusations laced with derogatory adjectives you get very little respect.


Your second post on this thread, directed to me:



ksinc said:


> But, to say W is worse is not just an opinion that people can disagree about, it's an outright LIE and you should know it.
> 
> I hate to cross the line of politeness, but it has to be said.


Your third post on this thread, directed at Rip:



ksinc said:


> That's probably the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard.


Your fourth post, directed at Rip:



ksinc said:


> Better be careful! W has sent people to Gitmo for far less than that! I hear the government monitors internet access and you know how he hates gays - he probably watches AAAC more than any other message board. LOL


Your fifth post, directed at Odoreater:



ksinc said:


> Come on, Odoreater, you're much smarter than that. Look at who is on the "outraged side" of this. It's not exactly a collection of the best and brightest.


I'm done responding to your utter nonsense. You're obviously crazy. Get some help, man.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

A famous irish writer was once asked where he received inspiration for the traitors in his works. He stated simply " at the local pub." I thought this generation's enemy were a bunch of rejects from a Rudolph Valentino remake practising evil looks watching old John Wayne WW2 movies. Instead we seem to be making war on each other. Shall we divide America permanently into Red and Blue with co emperors in Rome and Constantinople?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

I often wonder if some of your posts are replies to other threads. Your analogies seem so off that you cause me to suspect that I have missed some vital point. You are either mad or brilliant bc I can't make heads or tails of your last post. 

Karl


----------



## nation (Jul 30, 2005)

*phone records*

I was a criminal defense attorney for 25 years and fought vigorously for the 4th Amendment--so thats my background.
First, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy as to who you called, or who called you. Therefore your phone records are unprotected. To get phone records, you may need a subpoena, but you do not need a warrant. A warrant needs to be signed by a judge after probable cause is shown. A subpoena is issued by one of the parties to a law suit. (no need to even show relevence, let alone probable cause). I have a solution to this debate: Unless you shred your phone records before throwing them in the trash, you cannot complain. Anything in your trash is unprotected (Thats why the Feds often go pick up trash of suspects). Even things that would otherwise be protected (letters, diaries, etc.) are seizable without a warrant if you put them in your trash. That is because once you put things in your trash any Tom Dick or Harry can come by and look at it--hence no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Polls--polls are very accurate if they are random. That is, if the pollster scientifically selects people to call. Self selecting polls (e.g. The MSNBC Question of the day) are meaningless because they are not random. They are based on who sees the question, and who chooses to respond. Finally, polls (even good ones) do not establish the truth--they only tell people's mood at a given time--and these feelings change often and dramatically--and could be wrong based on misinformation. Certainly, if 90% of the populace believed the moon was made of green cheese, it wouldn't make it so. Reliance on poll data to establish "truth" is silly: truth doesn't count noses.


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

nation said:


> First, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy as to who you called, or who called you.


Okay, this is for my understanding: Why do I not have a reasonable exectation of privcy regarding my phone contacts? This seems strange to me!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

GT3 said:


> Okay, this is for my understanding: Why do I not have a reasonable exectation of privcy regarding my phone contacts? This seems strange to me!


Maybe this article summarizes the arguments for legal/illegal pretty well.

I'm not a lawyer, and admit I'm a bit confused as to how a 1934 and a 1978 act are the relevent law after a 1979 Supreme Court decision. It'll be interesting to see certain people argue against 'stare decisis' re: the privacy decision here since that's a big part of the so-called 'central holding'. LOL

The relevant part regarding 'expectation of privacy' below taken from USAToday, but the whole article is rather interesting regarding possible problems with other laws - https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-12-data-gathering_x.htm



> The NSA apparently has not collected the actual content of the phone conversations, just the numbers dialed. That distinction is key in determining whether the program violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable government searches and seizures.
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> "We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."


Also, if you do some searching on CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Information - I worked in Carrier Access Billing in a former life) you will find that businesses sued the FCC repeatedly to aquire this data in the name of competition. There's basically a double-entry record of every origination/destination phone call made and it's considered the property of the companies, not the customers. One of the defenses was so-called protection of customers and even tied to the 1st amendment as these were business-customer communication records. It's pretty tortured logic, but I'd think a lot of water is under that bridge.

As I said earlier, you can't use a federally regulated communication system and then complain about the government's involvement and access, IMHO.


----------



## nation (Jul 30, 2005)

*to GT3*

I guess the simple answer is, because the Supreme Court says so. I don't mean to be flippant, but expectation of privacy is a legal phrase, and hence, definition of the phrase is reserved to the Court.

As a practical matter, wanting something to be private does not make it so. I may want the books I buy to be private, but they are not--because the pimple faced clerk at Barnes and Noble--along with everyone else at B&N know what I buy. My grocery store swipes my card eveytime I check out--that means they know everything I have purchased, and everything I have ever purchased. I have heard people say that video cameras everywhere violates their right to privacy--not so. Once I leave my house, a cop can follow me. If he uses a camera to do so, it does not matter. Inside my house, however, I have a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy. My phone conversations (that is the words I speak and those spoken to me) are also protected. But if I throw something in the trash, it is not. If I leave my doors and windows to my house open, so that any passerby can hear and see what I am doing--then it is not private. If I sit in a crowded bus and talk on my cell phone--at least what I am saying is not private. If someone--other than you--can look at your records, like the phone company, or VISA/Mastercard, etc, then it is simply not private. We do not expect it to be, and it isn't.

Actually seizing your conversations, however, requires a warrant. As I understand the Al Quaida intercepts, they were done outside of the US, when one partipant in the conversation was outside the US, and another within. Again, no 4th amendment violation. Additionally, if I call Iran, I have no expectation of privacy. That is because I assume the Iranians are listening.

There simply seems to be alot of handwringing over this--and it is fueled by the statements of people who should know better. (I do not assume our democratic senators are idiots--I just think they assume we are)


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

odoreater said:


> To quote Ben Franklin, as is often done in this area, "those who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security." I think what this president is doing is unconstitutional, unbelievable, and egregious and I am disgusted. I hope that Congress condemns this in the strongest possible way. We're starting to live in a god-damn police state and we're starting to become no better than the menace that we fought so long to overcome. I can't find words strong enough to express my disappointment in this president, and in members of the public who are apologists for this action.


Spoken like a recent law school graduate.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

rip said:


> Addendum: After reading some of the additional posts, I realize the "previous president" was Clinton, not Nixon. My comments must be considered in terms of Nixon, not Clinton. Both committed egregious betrayels of the Amercan trust. *But Clinton's acts didn't frighten me the way Nixon's and now Bush's do.*


I really hope you have a better explanation for your fear than that you like Clinton's politics but not the politics of the other two.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> Oddly enough, if you vote on the ABC site, readers there feel quite the opposite of the poll. The results at this writing:
> 
> Is it okay for the government to track phone calls made by you and millions of other Americans?
> 
> ...


What? You are honestly suggesting that an online poll is an accurate representation of Americans' beliefs? Seriously? How does an online poll account for biases? There is no random sampling taking place; this poll is indicating selection bias out the ass.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> I really hope you have a better explanation for your fear than that you like Clinton's politics but not the politics of the other two.


Firstly, don't make assumptions on facts not in evidence; I never said I liked anything at all about Clinton's politics; it is simply that I am less frightened of venality than of either outright paranoia (Nixon) or of megalomania (Bucheney).


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> What? You are honestly suggesting that an online poll is an accurate representation of Americans' beliefs? Seriously? How does an online poll account for biases? There is no random sampling taking place; this poll is indicating selection bias out the ass.


Of course not, I took statististics, too. I just think it's amusing that their online poll is numerically almost the exact opposite of ABC's "real poll." I have no doubt there will be several scientific polls in the next few weeks that will contradict each other.

As for "selection bias," I can't argue with that. Probably if you limit the sampling only to those with an interest in the outside world and only to those who can read, the results will be heavily skewed against the spying. You're absolutely correct -- selection bias out the ass.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nation said:


> Inside my house, however, I have a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy.


I would argue even with this, I do not think what I would define as "reasonable" is even allowed here. I do not think it is reasonable that police and other law enforcement agencies can do things like fly over neighborhoods at night looking for "suspicious" foundation warmth with infra-red cameras. They are of course trolling for possible pot growing homes.

Just my opinion, which is completely without value (I am under no delusions).

Warmest regards


----------



## nation (Jul 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I would argue even with this, I do not think what I would define as "reasonable" is even allowed here. I do not think it is reasonable that police and other law enforcement agencies can do things like fly over neighborhoods at night looking for "suspicious" foundation warmth with infra-red cameras. They are of course trolling for possible pot growing homes.
> 
> Just my opinion, which is completely without value (I am under no delusions).
> 
> Warmest regards


I would think that is as invasive as super-sensative listening devices- parked across the street (which requires a warrant). I have never run across police spending very much time looking for pot growing basements, and I doubt they could get a warrant on "foundation warmth". Usually the infrared cameras are looking for people running from the law.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/script.html

Warmest regards


----------



## nation (Jul 30, 2005)

Thanks for the article. I practiced in the Midwest--but in a big city. Didn't see much of the war on pot. (We had our war on crack). The Feds sometimes would have their ridiculous pot conspiracy cases--but the Feds dont really have much better to do. (think about it--name five federal crimes). This sounded like the State of Indianna had gone berserk.

As to the searches--a plane or helicopter can find pot growing in a field--and it is not a search. It is in plain view. I am still not sure--and the article doesn't state it--that an infrared view of a "hot basement" would suupport a search warrant.

There are a few different issues here:
1) is the war on drugs stupid, wasteful and counterproductive: my answer--yes!
2) Are the searches unconstitutional--different question entirely: No

and I guess in this thread:
Is Geroge W. responsible for it: No. It started along time ago. The draconian Federal sentencing guidelines were mandated by a democratic Senate (largely championed by Ted Kennedy) and definately discriminate against Blacks-- "Black drugs" are punished much more harshly than " white drugs" (and we would regularly challenge these disparties in Court--to no avail). America has been enamored with this war on drugs since Nixon--all the politicians (and their voters) are to blame.

Anyway--thanks for the enlightening link.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

It appears our government may be trying to spy on people other than terrorists:


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Now he's collecting data on every American's telephone calls.
> 
> And he has an approval rating of 29%.


Getting back to the original posting, I don't care if they monitor my bedroom conversation, any day above ground is a good one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It appears our government may be trying to spy on people other than terrorists:


As myself and various other posters have tried to point out, who you call on your cell phone is basically public knowledge, ergo not "spying". The article specifically references cell phones.

I do not like anyone being able to track who I call on any of my phones, but if a reporter as high up the chain as Mr. Ross is does not know cell phone records are freely available to the public, he needs to seek a new profession that does not have the term "investigative" in the title.

Warmest regards


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> As myself and various other posters have tried to point out, who you call on your cell phone is basically public knowledge, ergo not "spying". The article specifically references cell phones.
> 
> I do not like anyone being able to track who I call on any of my phones, but if a reporter as high up the chain as Mr. Ross is does not know cell phone records are freely available to the public, he needs to seek a new profession that does not have the term "investigative" in the title.
> 
> Warmest regards


I think the problem is the idea that the government is taking an active role watching the press. Trying to figure out what they're up to. I'm pretty sure that the press aren't the same guys as the AQ terrorists that this phone thing is targeting. First it was just a few overseas conversations. Then is was domestic numbers looking for AQ links. Now it's the press? Is this a logical progression for fighting terror? What's next, the political opposition? 
That last thought may sound a bit paranoid but the idea that the government would be keeping tabs on what numbers journalists call would have souded bizarre just a few months ago.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

familyman said:


> I think the problem is the idea that the government is taking an active role watching the press. Trying to figure out what they're up to. I'm pretty sure that the press aren't the same guys as the AQ terrorists that this phone thing is targeting. First it was just a few overseas conversations. Then is was domestic numbers looking for AQ links. Now it's the press? Is this a logical progression for fighting terror? What's next, the political opposition?
> That last thought may sound a bit paranoid but the idea that the government would be keeping tabs on what numbers journalists call would have souded bizarre just a few months ago.


Does, "the FBI is investigating the felony criminal action of leaking classified information to the press" sound less paranoid to you?

I noticed in the article there was a tidbit about ABC news does not know that this is related to the NSA issue.

But, I would add they certainly don't mind the implication do they?

Are Criminal Investigations and Spying one and the same now?

I would assume the JD used the same tool in investigating the reporters tied to 'Scooter' Libby's investigation.

If true, would that make it more palatable?


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Does, "the FBI is investigating the felony criminal action of leaking classified information to the press" sound less paranoid to you?
> 
> I noticed in the article there was a tidbit about ABC news does not know that this is related to the NSA issue.
> 
> ...


Yes. If that's the case.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Monitoring reporters' phone calls in order to find leaks severely inhibits a free press. Many controversial stories -- national and local -- become public only because sources believe their contributions will remain confidential and that the reporter will even be willing to go to jail in order to maintain that confidentiality. If sources believe their anonymity can be easily compromised, they will be more reluctant to step forward and more bad stuff will remain uncovered.

There is often a misconception about the role anonymous sources play in newsgathering. A professional news organization will require that any information provided by a source who requests anonymity be independently verified by one or more other sources with knowledge of the situation, and the party being criticized will be given an opportunity to refute or dispute the accusations. It's not as if the press routinely takes the word of one person as the basis for a story.

Too, some news tips are on "background" -- by agreement the tipster cannot be quoted, even anonymously, but is merely attempting to steer the reporter in the right direction or, having read a reporter's story, is attempting to tell him that he didn't have the story quite right so he can correct it. In these cases, the anonymous source's only intent is ensure that an already unearthed story is at least reported accurately and that bad reporting is corrected. I've done this myself a few times, calling a reporter from another news organization -- in one instance after a reporter wrote that the state refuses to fund an organization when in fact the organization by its own rules accepts no outside contributions and never has. Such people will also turn up in a wide-ranging witch hunt and may find their jobs in jeopardy just as much as those who reveal classified information. They will be unfairly targeted and scrutinized merely for talking to a reporter.

As for the public availability of certain phone records, I believe there is a difference between what a government CAN do and what it OUGHT to do -- a distinction conservatives are unafraid to invoke when it's something like stem-cell research, say. Is there a loophole by which the government can spy on the press? I guess so, although I'm not a lawyer. Should it? Well, I doubt anyone can effectively argue that's the spirit of the law as envisioned in the First Amendment. If the government institutes broad-based spying on the press, a free press will suffer. And if this were being done during the Clinton years, conservatives no doubt would be howling the loudest. Imagine if Clinton had ordered that Rush Limbaugh's and The Washington Times' phone records be monitored!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Good Job!*



crs said:


> As for the public availability of certain phone records, I believe there is a difference between what a government CAN do and what it OUGHT to do -- a distinction conservatives are unafraid to invoke when it's something like stem-cell research, say. Is there a loophole by which the government can spy on the press? I guess so, although I'm not a lawyer. Should it? Well, I doubt anyone can effectively argue that's the spirit of the law as envisioned in the First Amendment. If the government institutes broad-based spying on the press, a free press will suffer. And if this were being done during the Clinton years, conservatives no doubt would be howling the loudest. Imagine if Clinton had ordered that Rush Limbaugh's and The Washington Times' phone records be monitored!


Excellent work! Managing to bash "conservatives" (whatever that word means to you) over stem cell research in a thread about phone calls! And then a Clinton AND a Rush reference! That's what keeps American divided, keep it rolling!

Warmest regards


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

crs said:


> It's not as if the press routinely takes the word of one person as the basis for a story.


Does the name Bill Burkett ring a bell? Not only did CBS go ahead with the story with only his take on it, but also against the advice of the experts they'd hired to confirm the legitimacy of Burkett's evidence. I suppose you're right that they don't "routinely" do it because there are many stories published on a daily basis that nobody really pays attention to, but if there's a story that the editors want to push, they don't always require confirmation from other sources.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Does the name Bill Burkett ring a bell? Not only did CBS go ahead with the story with only his take on it, but also against the advice of the experts they'd hired to confirm the legitimacy of Burkett's evidence. I suppose you're right that they don't "routinely" do it because there are many stories published on a daily basis that nobody really pays attention to, but if there's a story that the editors want to push, they don't always require confirmation from other sources.


Was that the big flap over Bush and the Air National Guard?

Warmest regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> Does the name Bill Burkett ring a bell? Not only did CBS go ahead with the story with only his take on it, but also against the advice of the experts they'd hired to confirm the legitimacy of Burkett's evidence. I suppose you're right that they don't "routinely" do it because there are many stories published on a daily basis that nobody really pays attention to, but if there's a story that the editors want to push, they don't always require confirmation from other sources.


Well, Hopkins_student, I have been working for newspapers for 30 years, on newspapers whose opinion pages ran the complete spectrum of mainstream political persuasion, and I am telling you what the "routine" has been at every newspaper of which I've been a part. As long as reporting and editing is done by human beings, there will be occasional lapses in quality control, but it is not systematic. You are entitled to your opinion, but unless you are studying at Hopkins after a long career as a reporter or editor, your opinion is uninformed.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Don't feel bad....*



crs said:


> You are entitled to your opinion, but unless you are studying at Hopkins after a long career as a reporter or editor, your opinion is uninformed.


Hopkins_Student, do not feel bad. You're merely uninformed. I suffer from the lack of ability to read well, per our ever complimentary friend, crs.

Warmest regards


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Yes, Bill Burkett is the guy who made documents in MS Word or some other modern day word processing software that were supposedly produced on a typewriter 30 years ago.

CRS, I believe I deferred to your judgement on what is "routinely" done, but this example illustrates that when there are political motivations involved, what should be *constant* becomes *routine*.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> CRS, I believe I deferred to your judgement on what is "routinely" done, but this example illustrates that when there are political motivations involved, what should be *constant* becomes *routine*.


Hopkins, it would not be accurate to automatically assign political motives to lapses of journalism standards and ethics. Sometimes mistakes result from mere sloppiness. Sometimes they result from ego, people being so sure of themselves that taking that required extra step is beneath them. Sometimes there is pressure from above to produce a story before it is ready, not for political reasons but for competitive reasons. Sometimes, as in the Jayson Blair case, it is the result of top management so wanting a specific person to succeed that skeptics are tuned out. Sometimes an individual is so ambitious, so eager to advance, that he will cut corners and not tell supervisors, as was apparently the case with the Cincinnati Enquirer's "Chiquita banana" scandal. But in 30 years on newspapers I have never heard, nor heard of, an edict handed down from the top to do something for political reasons. Perhaps that might occur once in a while, but it has never been my experience. And I have worked on newspapers owned and/or run by conservatives, liberals, libertarians and those whose only motives appeared to be making life difficult for anyone in power, party being irrelevant. Any news staff would scream in unison were this to occur, and certainly you'd be reading about a staff revolt.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Hopkins_Student, do not feel bad. You're merely uninformed. I suffer from the lack of ability to read well, per our ever complimentary friend, crs.
> 
> Warmest regards


Hey, and at least you're not crazy!


----------

