NSA wants database of every phone call made in the US

[Sub_Umbra]

Fortunately many of those old microwave links are going dark and being replaced by fiber. I personally know of some that have been decommissioned in this area in favor of fiber.

My problem is this: Have any laws been enacted that explicitly protect your conversation over fiber optics? Secondly: Will they ever do it? If you look at advances in communications technology in the last 60 years a pattern becomes obvious. Legislators don't have to change the Constitution or repeal any laws to take away all of our private communications. They may simply write impotent laws long after new technologies are implemented, or more often that not, just completely ignore the new technology's potential negative impacts on our privacy alltogether.

Who says an old snake can't learn new tricks? Inspite of the decades old microwave problem mentioned above, no laws were ever passed that would give that portion of our phone calls the same level of protection and penalties that they gave to the older, hard-wired parts of the system. The parts that are old enough that they came from a time when legislators had something other than contempt for the citizens. Before they came to the conclusion that the people are just a danger to the public.

They're certainly smart enough to never make the mistake they feel they made with snail mail by messing up email with the same type of protections for the individual that they foolishly granted years ago when the individual was more important in our society.

I know that some would say that you can just use crypto but without getting partisan we have had an administration not that long ago that did it's best to take that tool right out of our hands. IMO no party is above that.

Until I see anything that looks different than what I've seen in the last 40 years I'm going to expect no privacy rights for business or the individual in any new technology implementation coming down the road.

The old protections built into snail mail and the original hard-wired phone system are remnants of a world that no longer exists. All that the legislators have to do is nothing. They can do that.

 

[powernoodle]

If another 3K (or 300K) innocent people die in an attack on American soil, the folks who now complain about the gov't looking at AT&T's records (with their consent, I might add) will be the most vociferous complainers that the gov't didn't do enough to prevent the attack.

I'm confident that the 3 calls I made today will go unnoticed among the countless billions of calls made within, to and from the United States. I'm much more concerned with the diminution of other actual rights (religious freedom and firearm ownership) and the failure to secure our southern border than I am about the instant issue.

W and his boys have prevented numerous (and rarely publicized) attempts to harm us in the last 4.5 years, and am happy for him to keep that winning streak alive.

cheers!

 

[Sub_Umbra]

If another 3K (or 300K) innocent people die in an attack on American soil, the folks who now complain about the gov't looking at AT&T's records (with their consent, I might add) will be the most vociferous complainers that the gov't didn't do enough to prevent the attack.

Many are complaining right now about information that the govt had before 911 that they couldn't figure out what to do with. They couldn't make sense of the information they were overloaded with BEFORE 911. If you're asserting that we are now safer because they now have a greater volume of information that they can't get a grip on, I fail to see how even more for them to cope with will make us somehow safer.

The only two things thay've done to make a repeat of 911 less likely is to make the cockpit doors stronger and also to go back on what they've been saying for 30+ years...er...that we actually SHOULD fight back in a hi-jacking. The rest is just fluff.

There is also the potential for abuse. If they can't go through the mountain of private info that they say they need and have very convincingly demonstrated that point, then we are left with the potential of abuse that this private information presents.

Where is the up-side?

 

[IlluminatingBikr]

Sum_Umbra,

You make a very good point.

Pre-9/11, apparently we had enough information, we just didn't use that information effectively. Perhaps we should focus on being more efficient in our data-processing, rather than just adding more information to the mix. Additionally, how about actually knowing who is in our country, rather than letting millions of unchecked people enter as they please?

I think there is much more work to be done before anybody can actually say that our national security demands these domestic spying programs.

 

[tvodrd]

The info collected consists of the originating phone#, the number called and the call duration. There is no personally-identifyable information. (Not that if your number is listed in the directory/reverse directory they couldn't find out who. When they do catch a BG with a phone, they have the ability to ID every # it has called. Finding out who belongs to those #'s then requires asking or warranting TPC (I loved James Coburn in "The President's Analyst. ) for who/where.

The scenario of a BG dialing your # by mistake landing you in Gitmo is a little far fetched. Also haven't a couple states Attorney Generals recently sued some private companies offering the same info for a price???

Wasn't there a big row over some draconian record-keeping requirements for ISPs in Europe a few months back??

They'll have to implant the RFID chip in my dead body prior to cremation! :tinfoil_hat off:

Larry

 

[Topper]

I think it would be nice if they would send me a transcript of every call I make. I forget sometimes who I called why I called so that would be cool.
I guess this rates real low on my "get worked up about meter" seems like a waste of money to track my calls but perhaps their not overly concerned with me in particular.
Topper

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

I really don't care if the government can obtain my phone records as its worthless information. What really pisses me off about our government is the poor border security and almost nonexistent interior enforcement.

Amen Brother! Close the FREAKING border! What the HE77 is so wrong with that?

 

[raggie33]

i will always say i dont care about this kinda stuff .they could listen to all my calls if they want .they would get bored im sure lol.

 

[metalhed]

I'll do my best to keep this non-partisan...

It is quite ironic that as kids, my generation was taught that the victor in the Cold War would decide how the world would be governed. Either we would live dominated by a lumbering, dictatorial, privacy-ignoring communist bureaucracy (the USSR), or be guaranteed freedom under the constitutional, democratic, and free market principles espoused (and defended) by the United States.

I say ironic because the democratic side won the Cold War, but has not really advanced the cause to any significant degree. The attitude and logic behind programs like the NSA's is, to me, more reminiscent of the old USSR than of the United States I was born into.

Even if this kind of data mining could prevent a future 9/11, where were the voices in government saying, "this isn't right, this isn't in the spirit of the Constitution"? Didn't anyone ask whether we really gain more than we risk?

For me the answer is an easy no. If I had lost a loved one on 9/11, or in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, I might have a different opinion.

But I haven't and I don't.

 

[tygger]

those who trust the gov. with even more personal information under the guise of keeping us safe should realize that the fed can't even simplify its own tax code (over 3000 pages as it is). how's that relevant you ask? well, in my opinion, one of the true signs of a gov. that cares about the wellbeing its citizens and realizes it is truly accountable to them can be seen in how it handles their hard earned money. if the fed doesn't even value your most valuable contribution (hard earned dollars), which is evident in how they burn through trillions without blinking an eye, how do you think they'll value your personal information? the voracious need for more and more money seems similar to the gov.'s need for more and more personal information. as others have said, more isn't necessarily better beyond a certain point, its what you do with it that counts. and if the way they handle our money is any indication of how they might handle our personal information, i'd say they've got plenty of both already.

 

[Topper]

Hold up a minute, I made no mention of trusting or not trusting. I just pointed out I do not care because I am not doing anything wrong. That was not political at all. Now as for is it worth it? I would say sure because I feel real sure "I'm not their huckleberry" and I admit I have hard feelings towards anyone attempting to harm our country. I might be naive but I am honest about it. No hard feelings on my part
Topper

 

[Empath]

Feelings that some might have of "I have nothing to hide", but especially comments such as "the ones complaining will be the first to complain when another 3000 people die" is disconcerting. There have been many innocent that have died, and they will continue to die. In addition, many guilty will go free. It's the price we pay.

Our liberties are based on the philosophy of "give me liberty or give me death". That such liberties are bought with lives is no surprise. Yes, we can lessen the deaths through a greater intrusion by the "authorities", and less liberty. Not everyone though, is willing to pay that price for security.

 

[IlluminatingBikr]

I feel passionately on this issue, and I hope I have not stepped over the line of respectful discussion.

Hold up a minute, I made no mention of trusting or not trusting. I just pointed out I do not care because I am not doing anything wrong. That was not political at all.

No hard feelings here either, but let me give you an example to try and explain what I'd like to say. Let's say you talked to a friend of yours who is Muslim. Maybe you guys talk about sports or something harmless like that on the phone, but it turns on that he is associated with Al-Qaeda. Far-fetched...I know, but my point is that in this scenario you certainly did nothing wrong, as you just thought he was a good citizen, but in actuality he turned out to be associated with some pretty bad people. What if you were tried in a court of law for a crime related to being associated with this person? Certainly in this situation you have "nothing to hide" but maybe you'd rather those call logs weren't there in the first place, as my scenario would be a bit of a headache.

If someone were to say that they "have nothing to hide" and that they don't mind if their calls are logged, they are implying (as some would infer) that they trust that the truth will be upheld, and not what might appear to be the truth.

Feelings that some might have of "I have nothing to hide", but especially comments such as "the ones complaining will be the first to complain when another 3000 people die" is disconcerting. There have been many innocent that have died, and they will continue to die. In addition, many guilty will go free. It's the price we pay.

Our liberties are based on the philosophy of "give me liberty or give me death". That such liberties are bought with lives is no surprise. Yes, we can lessen the deaths through a greater intrusion by the "authorities", and less liberty. Not everyone though, is willing to pay that price for security.

That was beautifully written. I especially like the quote "give me liberty of give me death," as originally stated by Patrick Henry.

Here is the full quote:

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

 

[PhotonWrangler]

I have two concerns here -

1) The notion that we're all guilty until proven innocent. That seems to be modus operandi here.

2) We still might be seeing only the tip of an iceberg. At first it was "we don't spy on our own people." Then it changed to "OK, so we do, but only when they're on international calls." Then it changed again to "OK, so we do spy on domestic calls, but we don't record them."

What's next? How many are they actually recording? And are they saying all these things with their fingers crossed behind their backs?

 

[BB]

Regarding 1)... That has been the case with the IRS since it was founded many decades ago... Also, with asset forfeiture laws (you are arrested "in the commission of a crime" but never convicted, or sometimes never even charged) you lose your money/car/property without any trial.

Regarding 2)...Both the Supreme Court, some retired FISA Court ("secret court") judges, and the current laws do not declare "pen trace" recordings (used to be the digits dialed with a rotary phone, now extended to DTMF and any billing type records) do not require a warrant. And, as far I have read, all instances of domestic spying have been the result of at least one party having been outside of the US territories (there may have been issues of a foreign cell phone in the US or two people in the US with their phone calls routed outside of the US having their calls listened too... Not sure of that).

None of this started with the current president. And, in fact, is pretty mild when compared to what past presidents, congress, government agencies, and the courts have done to citizens over the years...

Don't like what is happening now? Register and vote people that will change the law (good luck on that)...

-Bill

 

[MScottz]

Here's some infor:

This is NOT new, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Ford all did the same thing. Clinton too, and in his case it was domestic calls NOT related to national security. In fact a t a law got passed in 94 I believe which basically stated that it was the duty of all telcoms to give this info to the feds. In fact, something around 500 mil was appropriated to reimburse the telcoms for tech upgrades so they could comply. This is just more pre-election posturing. The funny thing is, this story originally broke 4 months ago, but no one paid attention. Some in the senate raising hell about this voted for the 94 bill. The only reason this is getting air now is that it ca be used against the new nominee for the head of the CIA. They can't complain too much about him being military, as about half the head of CIA have been former military.

 

[tygger]

"panem et circences" is a phrase coined by the roman poet/playwright Juvenus i believe. anyway, it translates to "bread and circuses." apparently the romans gave citizens plenty of cheap bread and circuses to entertain them, which basically kept them uninterested in the affairs of the state. of course there are similarities to today with people's insatiable demand for pop culture, cheap food, and cheap entertainment, while remaining almost completely ignorant of even the most basic workings of the gov (or who even runs the gov). today, after years of development, the state has become an overgrown behemoth ruling over citizens who want nothing but "bread and circuses." my whole point here is that its just not at all healthy for a democracy to have such an overbearing centralized state, with a monopoly on information, ruling over an uninterested and largely uninformed public. as it is now, the balance is completely tilted to one side. this gov was never meant to run on cruise control with the driver (the people) asleep at the wheel. which is what it has pretty much been doing for at least the last 20 years. there must be some balance. and this widespread covert information gathering is a clear example that there is none.

 

[Ras_Thavas]

The real issue here is not whether you are ok with the government doing this because it a) might catch terrorists b) doesn't bother you because you have nothing to hide. It is a violation of a 1934 law (sorry, can't get link to the exact one right now cato.org is down at the moment.)

That is why not all the phone companies have complied with the governments order and provided the records.

Just because terrorists attacked us on 9/11 does not mean we elected G.W. to be our King. He still has to follow the law, well, he is supposed to anyway.

 

[raggie33]

but laws have to change the world isnt the same place it was in 1934 .please note this is just my opion .i repsect ya opion to..

 

[Empath]

Raggie, I'm not commenting on the 1934 law, or whether things have changed since then. However, one thing that remains the same is that the President cannot change the law. Only Congress can change the law. If it involves the constitution, then it takes not only Congress, but ratification from the states.