Pretty big story in USA Today regarding NSA wiretaps

[Hatfield]

for those interested in such things.

(you guys have missed me haven't you) :)

[TUSooner]

(you guys have missed me haven't you) :)
Now that you mention it... no. :D

Where have you been?

[Hatfield]

to be honest i don't know. lol....

actually been working on some stuff lately and haven't had time to stop in and be my jovial self.

[yermom]

what do you have to hide Hatfield?

[TUSooner]

what do you have to hide Hatfield?
The NSA knows ! BWahahahahahahah!

[Hatfield]

nothing.

now that i know they are listening in on normal american calls like they said they weren't....my convos are about to get a lot more interesting.

good thing gonzales wasn't under oath when he testified.

[etouffee]

now that i know they are listening in on normal american calls like they said they weren't.
they aren't actaully listening to the conversations (as part of the specific program this USA Today story is about, anyway). they're collecting records of who called who from phone companies and putting it into a database. then they're running all sorts of computer analysis and modeling programs to identify patterns and make connections between people.

that's not to say there isn't any surveillance of conversations being conducted. my only point is that's not what the program discussed in today's article is about. that, and the fact that all these congressmen and senators are kicking and screaming like nobody knew this was going on, when in fact congressional committees had been briefed.

[C&CDean]

this is huge I tell you, huge.....

[SicEmBaylor]

The NSA should be free to intercept any call or communicatin incoming or outgoing of these United States when at least one party is a known terrorist, has terrorist ties, or is a known enemy of these United States. That includes intercepting calls, without a warrant, when one party is a United States citizen.

IF that information is being used for general war fighting purposes, prevent a terrorist attack, or identify for the purposes of killing or capturing terrorists then NO warrant should be necessary.

HOWEVER, if that information is being used to identify American citizens for the purpose of prosecuting them in a court of law for subversive activities relating to terrorism or otherwise then warrants should ABSOLUTELY be obtained and if proper procedure for doing so is not followed then that information should absolutely not be allowed to be used in court.

[etouffee]

I don't think they're gathering it for evidence in court. They're gathering it to identify potential terrorists. Once a real terrorist is identified, even if the phone data is inadmissible, they should be able to compile enough admissible evidence to prosecute. Or just quietly have them "disappear".

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't think they're gathering it for evidence in court. They're gathering it to identify potential terrorists. Once a real terrorist is identified, even if the phone data is inadmissible, they should be able to compile enough admissible evidence to prosecute. Or just quietly have them "disappear".

That's my point. I'm assuming this information is being used for general war fighting purposes and not to build a legal case, therefore no warrants are necessary.

[etouffee]

I hope they're not necessary, because if they're keeping records of virtually every call made in the US (both phone numbers + call duration is allegedly all they're collecting), that's one hell of a lot of warrants.

[47straight]

Etoufee is right, it's not wiretapping.


The term is called data mining. The idea has been around for some time now, that inferences can be drawn from seemingly innocuous (and available) data. A popular example is that some journalists were able to predict the start of the ground offensive in Gulf War I by noticing a spike in pizza deliveries to the Pentagon.

[Okla-homey]

Is this just landline telecoms? If so, who gives a crap? Only businesses and my Aunt Tillie use their landline phones anymore.

Please advise if they include wireless calls...because I'll be happy since they are more likley to catch terrorists that way because even the n00b terrorists know you don't use a landline for anything of a sensitive nature.

If they are "tapping" wireless calls, I see no Constitutional issues since stuff going thru the air is fair game for anybody who can intercept and decode it IMHO.

[OklahomaTuba]

Holy ****, the NSA is doing its job. News worth indeed.

And they say Dubya isn't listening to the people. pfft.

I wonder if the people who are against this sort of stuff are the ones who ripped the government for not "connecting the dots" before 9-11?

This is a old story that came out when the times decided to out our intel practices while fighting a war, just to sell newspapers.

Also nice to know that Quest Communications doesn't seem to care much about national security or helping fight the war on terror. No doubt Quest will be the telecom of choice for terrorists.

[GottaHavePride]

this is huge I tell you, huge.....

That's what she sa... wait a minute.

[OklahomaTuba]

The great one opines on this, and I agree with him 1000000%.

I honestly am appalled at the arguments I hear against our intelligence activities in the face of an enemy who has already infiltrated our country and unleashed attacks from within, killing thousands of our fellow citizens. I get the impression that too many do not take this war seriously.

The NSA intercept program shouldn't be controversial. The Constitution and precedent make clear that the president, especially during war-time, can intercept enemy communications, including if those communications involve U.S. citizens within the United States. It is absurd to argue otherwise.

And now, we're supposed to be offended when the government data-mines third-party phone records. This doesn't involve eavesdropping, but merely running these millions of phone numbers and tens of millions of phone contacts through some kind of computer analysis.

This has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment. The case law couldn't be clearer. And those who demand judicial oversight do so not because they want or hope the courts will affirm these intelligence-gathering methods, but because they oppose them and hope some activist court will kill them.

Disarming as this enemy plots against us, even where the Constitution doesn't require it, is a perverse view of civil liberties. It's not the lawyers in the courtrooms who are challenging or will challenge these basic intelligence gather practices who are protecting our civil liberties. It's the soldiers, spies, intelligence analysts, and law enforcement, led by a president with the guts to face down this enemy, who are doing so.

Is not life the most important of civil liberties? These intelligence programs are trashed without any curiosity as to whether they've prevented any attacks and saved any lives. The hostile responses are largely knee-jerk and lack any kind of context. The arguments are abstract and descend into fear-mongering. While I'm all for philosophical debates, how about a little more reality when it comes to fighting and winning this war—a real war against a horrific enemy.
http://levin.nationalreview.com/

[Vaevictis]

If they are "tapping" wireless calls, I see no Constitutional issues since stuff going thru the air is fair game for anybody who can intercept and decode it IMHO.

Just because I'm slightly pedantic, but wouldn't this view depend, in part, upon where the calls were tapped?

ie, if you were tapping the actual wireless transmission, that's one thing, but what about tapping it once it's been injected into the landline network?

[picasso]

I find it hard to believe that the idiots in D.C. had to find out about this from USA frickin Today.
Feinstein and the gang should shut their yapholes and concentrate on keeping us safe. The hell really cares if the Gov is tapping the phones?

Biotch for lack of intelligence, biotch for too much delving.

Get a life you whiney bastards.

[usmc-sooner]

they can listen to my phone calls all day long if they want. Why this gets some people so excited I'll never know.

[Hatfield]

at least the phone companies are making chedder off this...because we all know gov't contracts are fat.

[Okla-homey]

one more observation that struck me after reading this again after sleeping on it.

My liberal friends always laugh at me and think I'm silly because I'm an NRA member. While some of them don't have a problem with guns very generally, they don't like the NRA because it consistently opposes even slight government infringement of 2d amendment rights based on the 'slippery slope' theory.

These same liberal friends don't have a problem generally with listening in on suspected terrorists, but they oppose NSA warrantless 'wiretaps' on that same 'slippery slope' theory for which they pillory the NRA -- i.e. if gov't can listen in on suspected terrorists w/o a warrant, it won't be long before other government agencies will be listening in on phone calls for other purposes. Thus, slight gov't infringement of 4th amendment rights is opposed on the basis of "slippery slope" theory

IOW, I guess 'slippery slope' is okay if its used as a basis for opposing infringement of your pet constitutional issue. If someone is anti-gun rights, the NRA is "silly" for using that argument, but those same guys are quite prepared to use "slippery slope" to oppose gov't infringement of Fourth Amendment rights. Just goes to prove, "where you stand is where you sit."

[Hatfield]

don't you think that pretty much applies to any group with an agenda?

and fwiw using words like pillory is hawt. ;)

[JohnnyMack]

Didn't the SCOTUS rule a few decades ago that it was perfectly legal for the govt. to peruse your information once it's passed on to a 3rd party (i.e. - Ma Bell)?

[Mjcpr]

Whoever is assigned to my phones has to be dying of boredom.

Except for that time I got drunk dialed by the SO wenches.

[Hatfield]

Didn't the SCOTUS rule a few decades ago that it was perfectly legal for the govt. to peruse your information once it's passed on to a 3rd party (i.e. - Ma Bell)?

No.


well...no they didn't rule a few decades ago.... 1997...stupid no countin hillbilly. ;)

[JohnnyMack]

No.


well...no they didn't rule a few decades ago.... 1997...stupid no countin hillbilly. ;)

I didn't feel like taking off my shoes. :O

[etouffee]

when did hillbillies start wearing shoes?

[Hatfield]

by shoes he means potato sacks