NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

[ScreamingEagle]

I already touched on in this or another thread. Could be duration of calls, number and duration of calls. X number of calls, to certain #'s at such-and-such and interval...

Now I haven't any 'training' in this type of thing, just common sense. We know that they fear 'tapping'. We know they are trying to 'lie low.' Can phone records pick up such? If so, it's worth the government having the records. I seriously do not see how they can go through 'individuals' without bars on patterns. I do not want to think of the number of calls going on by the minute in the US.

Out of billions of calls they can spot "terrorist calls" by the number of calls or the duration of calls....you got to be kidding.

And it seems that any self-respecting sneaky terrorist would easily make his calls spaced-out or of a "normal" length to avoid being spotted if that was the case.

 

[Annie]

Out of billions of calls they can spot "terrorist calls" by the number of calls or the duration of calls....you got to be kidding.

And it seems that any self-respecting sneaky terrorist would easily make his calls spaced-out or of a "normal" length to avoid being spotted if that was the case.

Nooo. Out of billions of calls, they can identify X number of identified by parameters calls. Based on other parameters, they can further reduce that number. Etc. Will some be missed? Undoubtedly. Will 90some be of no import, probably yes. Would 1 or 2 real problems be worth the money spent? I think so.

 

[GotZoom]

Out of billions of calls they can spot "terrorist calls" by the number of calls or the duration of calls....you got to be kidding.

And it seems that any self-respecting sneaky terrorist would easily make his calls spaced-out or of a "normal" length to avoid being spotted if that was the case.

You just defeated your own argument with that statement.

We do not let others know what our capability is when it comes to "spying" and "surveillance." Once they know what we are able to do, then they change their methods of operation.

I don't know if you remember this, but back in 1983, the Russian shot down a Korean airliner - KAL Flight 007. After the plane went down, President Reagan announced in live T.V. that we knew the Russians knew it was a civilian airliner. That we had monitored the communications between the Russian pilot and the tower, etc.

The U.S. Intelligence Community came unglued because that was the first time that anyone in the U.S. government came right out and admitted that we had that ability.

We don't tell the bad guys what we can do and how well we can do it.

 

[Mr. P]

Nooo. Out of billions of calls, they can identify X number of identified by parameters calls. Based on other parameters, they can further reduce that number. Etc. Will some be missed? Undoubtedly. Will 90some be of no import, probably yes. Would 1 or 2 real problems be worth the money spent? I think so.

Otherwise this is just opinion. Regardless, it's not legal.

 

[Annie]

Out of billions of calls they can spot "terrorist calls" by the number of calls or the duration of calls....you got to be kidding.

And it seems that any self-respecting sneaky terrorist would easily make his calls spaced-out or of a "normal" length to avoid being spotted if that was the case.

Hello, that isn't what I said or implied, quite the opposit. In fact, the implication is that out of the 'billions' or whatever number of calls, X number might fall within 'parameters' of 'suspicious.' Out of those, many more would be tossed for various reasons, and so on, until a 'manageable' number would be worth looking at. Of those, perhaps a small number would be worth looking at more closely. I may be wrong, but in this case I doubt it, this is what 'intelligence gathering' is about.

 

[Annie]

Otherwise this is just opinion. Regardless, it's not legal.

Well when it was first reported, no one brought to the courts. Perhaps they will now and SCOTUS will rule.

 

[dilloduck]

Hate to say it, But I told ya so.

<center><a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29120>Crocodile tears</a></center>

Dubbyuh's domestic spying operation has been nothing more than a giant trolling and data mining operation from the start. Not only that, but it's illegal as hell, no matter how they try to justify it.

Trolling-----are you accusing him of fishing again ?? I thought you would have learned you lesson after your last debacle.

 

[Mr. P]

Well when it was first reported, no one brought to the courts. Perhaps they will now and SCOTUS will rule.

Perhaps, but I don't think it will make it to the SCOTUS, the public outrage will stop this runaway admin, I hope.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Nooo. Out of billions of calls, they can identify X number of identified by parameters calls. Based on other parameters, they can further reduce that number. Etc. Will some be missed? Undoubtedly. Will 90some be of no import, probably yes. Would 1 or 2 real problems be worth the money spent? I think so.

Whether or not it is worth it does not make it legal. I like my privacy. I'm not a terrorist and have no fear of reprisal for the conversations that I have. I simply don' tlike the idea of some government employee listening in on what I am saying to my wife, brother, mother, or anyone else. It is a matter of personal integrity. Now that the program is in the open, I know that they are listening and it pisses me off. It is illegal. There is no way to positivly spin this. I am not ready to give up my personal freedoms for a little security.

 

[Annie]

Perhaps, but I don't think it will make it to the SCOTUS, the public outrage will stop this runaway admin, I hope.

Time will tell. In actuality, you really should hope it goes the route, for another attack would cause worse.

 

[Gunny]

Abso-freakin-lutely wrong. There is no justification for this program. The only bright spot is that my phone company, Qwest, stood up to the Feds.

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

Link

Personally, I could care less. But then, I'm not up to anything nefarious.

However, it does seem to go above and beyond invasion of privacy.

 

[Mr. P]

Time will tell. In actuality, you really should hope it goes the route, for another attack would cause worse.

The route? Whos route? My route is cease this ILLEGAL practice NOW!

 

[Annie]

The route? Whos route? My route is cease this ILLEGAL practice NOW!

You should hope it goes to SCOTUS. If there were to be another attack, the president, regardless if GW, Hillary or whomever, would have carte blanche, if there weren't parameters given.

 

[dilloduck]

Whether or not it is worth it does not make it legal. I like my privacy. I'm not a terrorist and have no fear of reprisal for the conversations that I have. I simply don' tlike the idea of some government employee listening in on what I am saying to my wife, brother, mother, or anyone else. It is a matter of personal integrity. Now that the program is in the open, I know that they are listening and it pisses me off. It is illegal. There is no way to positivly spin this. I am not ready to give up my personal freedoms for a little security.

You know why Bin Laden wasn't killed before he could pull of 9/11? Some one thought it might be illegal to kill him. Let's make the same mistake again ????

 

[Gunny]

Whether or not it is worth it does not make it legal. I like my privacy. I'm not a terrorist and have no fear of reprisal for the conversations that I have. I simply don' tlike the idea of some government employee listening in on what I am saying to my wife, brother, mother, or anyone else. It is a matter of personal integrity. Now that the program is in the open, I know that they are listening and it pisses me off. It is illegal. There is no way to positivly spin this. I am not ready to give up my personal freedoms for a little security.

What "freedom" are you giving up?

 

[Mr. P]

You should hope it goes to SCOTUS. If there were to be another attack, the president, regardless if GW, Hillary or whomever, would have carte blanche, if there weren't parameters given.

Need parameters? They are out there.

1. It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.

2. The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation. Section 2707 of the Stored Communications Act gives a private right of action to any telephone customer “aggrieved by any violation.” If the phone company acted with a “knowing or intentional state of mind,” then the customer wins actual harm, attorney’s fees, and “in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.”

(The phone companies might say they didn’t “know” they were violating the law. But USA Today reports that Qwest’s lawyers knew about the legal risks, which are bright and clear in the statute book.)

3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t get the telcos off the hook. According to USA Today, the NSA did not go to the FISA court to get a court order. And Qwest is quoted as saying that the Attorney General would not certify that the request was lawful under FISA. So FISA provides no defense for the phone companies, either.

In other words, for every 1 million Americans whose records were turned over to NSA, the telcos could be liable for $1 billion in penalties, plus attorneys fees. You do the math.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liable

 

[dilloduck]

Need parameters? They are out there.

1. It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.

2. The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation. Section 2707 of the Stored Communications Act gives a private right of action to any telephone customer “aggrieved by any violation.” If the phone company acted with a “knowing or intentional state of mind,” then the customer wins actual harm, attorney’s fees, and “in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.”

(The phone companies might say they didn’t “know” they were violating the law. But USA Today reports that Qwest’s lawyers knew about the legal risks, which are bright and clear in the statute book.)

3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t get the telcos off the hook. According to USA Today, the NSA did not go to the FISA court to get a court order. And Qwest is quoted as saying that the Attorney General would not certify that the request was lawful under FISA. So FISA provides no defense for the phone companies, either.

In other words, for every 1 million Americans whose records were turned over to NSA, the telcos could be liable for $1 billion in penalties, plus attorneys fees. You do the math.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liable

We still could have prevented 9/11 by doing something that may have been illegal. Ask me if a give a shit if we stop terrorism legally or illegally.

 

[Mr. P]

We still could have prevented 9/11 by doing something that may have been illegal. Ask me if a give a shit if we stop terrorism legally or illegally.

What? What law in the USA prevented us from doing so? None. Don't confuse this with treaties and politics.

 

[dilloduck]

What? What law in the USA prevented us from doing so? None. Don't confuse this with treaties and politics.

Laws don't prevent anything. Only enforcement does. We conveniently choose which ones to enforce and which ones to ignore. Lawyers advised our government to NOT kill bin laden because it MIGHT have been illegal. We were so worried about possibly breaking some law that we opened ourselves up to attack.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

What "freedom" are you giving up?

You don't consider privacy a personal freedom?