Big Brother outrage

[quietfan 233]

Here's a copy of the letter I am sending to BellSouth in the next mail:

BellSouth Communications

P.O. Box 100-120

Columbia, SC 29202

To all concerned and responsible:

I am outraged to learn that you are one of the companies apparently cooperating with the National Security Agency’s unconstitutional attempt to catalogue the phone calls of millions of American citizens!  While I understand the importance of cooperating with legitimate warrants for specific records issued by courts upon probable cause, there is no excuse for cooperating with government attempts to spy on American citizens without cause, warrant, or suspicion of a specific crime.  Please halt this reprehensible and illegal intrusion upon the rights and privacy of your customers immediately! 

I am also writing to my congressional representatives to ask that Congress live up to its constitutional responsibility within our system of checks and balances to hold the executive branch accountable for its unilateral skirting of the Bill of Rights.  It is long past time for Congress and the courts to halt this Administration’s freehanded and unconstrained attempts to interpret the Constitution according to its particular whims.

Finally, I will be investigating and comparing other service providers for my local, long distance, and internet service needs.  I have been very satisfied with the service I have received from BellSouth in the past and do not wish to change service providers.  However, if you continue to cooperate with the current Administration’s attempts to trounce upon my Constitutional right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches, I will be forced to look for a service provider who will respect my civil rights!

I will be sending letters of similar wording to all of my Congressional representatives. I realize many of you on this forum may not agree with me, or will disagree with my interpretations like "illegal" and "unconstitutional", and I respect your right to a different opinion. However, clearly I feel very strongly about what I see as a continuing encroachment upon the Bill of Rights by this Adminstration, and this latest attempt to create a government database of the private phone records of every American citizen has pushed me to the breaking point.

For those who do feel similarly, I strongly urge you also to write to both your representatives in Congress and to your phone company if it is one of the companies cooperating with this latest version of "Big Brother". For those who disagree with me, again, I respect without anger or malace your right to your own opinion, and merely ask that you similarly respect mine.

[AURaptor 1,125]

I'm not outraged in the least. Why should we be ? Folks can google your name or pay some company a small fee and find out almost anything about you. Far more info than what you're getting all worked up over. We have cameras looking at us in every place of business , when we take $ out of the ATM, and while driving down the road. You'll hardly bat an eye as your mail box gets stuffed w/ fliers or a telemarketer calls you, all based on the info your credit card company has sold to some marketing outfit. But when your phone company legally offers up info which reveals patterns of phone calls, not even conversations, that's what sets you off ?

I don't get it.

[AUTiger94 0]

I'm not outraged in the least. Why should we be ? Folks can google your name or pay some company a small fee and find out almost anything about you. Far more info than what you're getting all worked up over. We have cameras looking at us in every place of business , when we take $ out of the ATM, and while driving down the road. You'll hardly bat an eye as your mail box gets stuffed w/ fliers or a telemarketer calls you, all based on the info your credit card company has sold to some marketing outfit. But when your phone company legally offers up info which reveals patterns of phone calls, not even conversations, that's what sets you off ?

I don't get it.

234832[/snapback]

Baah! Baah! Raptor! Baah! Baah!

Here's Raptor!

[rexbo 104]

Yep, I am really bothered by this too, I am sure someone at the NSA is about to pick out all those suspicious calls to my mistress and call my wife and tell her...

[AURaptor 1,125]

AUTiger94, and this is you.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Hmmm...lets see...the government is using everything they can to PREVENT attacks that could kill thousands of people. But hey, if you dont want them to see that you called your grandmother on her birthday....I guess thats okay.

WHO FREAKING CARES. They can listen to my phone calls, look at my phone records...do whatever they want. They are keeping me safe. And there's nothing they can gather from my phone calls that will EVER EVER EVER hurt me.

My phone records vs My family's safety....hmmm.....ill take safety.

And quietfan...it isnt "illegal". It has long since been ruled on by federal judges...and its perfectly legal.

[MDM4AU 332]

Here's a copy of the letter I am sending to BellSouth in the next mail:

BellSouth Communications

P.O. Box 100-120

Columbia, SC 29202

To all concerned and responsible:

I am outraged to learn that you are one of the companies apparently cooperating with the National Security Agency’s unconstitutional attempt to catalogue the phone calls of millions of American citizens!  While I understand the importance of cooperating with legitimate warrants for specific records issued by courts upon probable cause, there is no excuse for cooperating with government attempts to spy on American citizens without cause, warrant, or suspicion of a specific crime.  Please halt this reprehensible and illegal intrusion upon the rights and privacy of your customers immediately! 

I am also writing to my congressional representatives to ask that Congress live up to its constitutional responsibility within our system of checks and balances to hold the executive branch accountable for its unilateral skirting of the Bill of Rights.  It is long past time for Congress and the courts to halt this Administration’s freehanded and unconstrained attempts to interpret the Constitution according to its particular whims.

Finally, I will be investigating and comparing other service providers for my local, long distance, and internet service needs.  I have been very satisfied with the service I have received from BellSouth in the past and do not wish to change service providers.  However, if you continue to cooperate with the current Administration’s attempts to trounce upon my Constitutional right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches, I will be forced to look for a service provider who will respect my civil rights!

I will be sending letters of similar wording to all of my Congressional representatives. I realize many of you on this forum may not agree with me, or will disagree with my interpretations like "illegal" and "unconstitutional", and I respect your right to a different opinion. However, clearly I feel very strongly about what I see as a continuing encroachment upon the Bill of Rights by this Adminstration, and this latest attempt to create a government database of the private phone records of every American citizen has pushed me to the breaking point.

For those who do feel similarly, I strongly urge you also to write to both your representatives in Congress and to your phone company if it is one of the companies cooperating with this latest version of "Big Brother". For those who disagree with me, again, I respect without anger or malace your right to your own opinion, and merely ask that you similarly respect mine.

234830[/snapback]

I don't disagree with your anger. But before you and the political game players in Washington start putting all the blame on this administration...

CBS's "60 Minutes" blew the lid off the agency's domestic wiretapping in Feb. 2000, when the Clinton administration was using it for all sorts of unauthorized purposes.

"60 Minutes" host Steve Kroft introduced the segment by saying:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

Now, more than six years later, the big media is pretending that this is all brand new - something cooked up by President Bush in a mad rush to shred the Constitutional rights of every American.

But even USA Today had to admit in its own report that the NSA wiretapping program has "been done before, though never on this large a scale."

Don't get me wrong, I am uneasy about this type of thing by my government, but don't fall into the DNC trap of pinning this on one person or administration. And for anyone in Congress to pretend as though they are just now hearing of such a thing is either Stupid or just playing politics and either way they are not looking out for the people.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

For you outraged types: Please provide me with examples of methods for collecting intelligence to which you would provide your stamp of approval.

If you don't feel there are any methods that make you feel comfortable, then please tell me exactly how you think the government should go about protecting you from terrorist threats, and how you intend to respond to the government the next time a possibly preventable event occurs.

I am curious to see how you would define an acceptable policy and defensive strategy.

[CCTAU 3,327]

If I'm not mistaken, they only track the numbers. If the mumber of a known problem individual comes up, they investigate farther. For all of you that are outraged, if you have a cellphone, then you must not use it, because anybody can listen in with the right equipment without a warrant. Also the same for cordless phones. So basically if you use both of those, you have no privacy anyway. You are just jumping on the bandwagon but will be the first to condemn if there is another attack that could have been prevented by this.

[quietfan 233]

First of all, I’d like to say I appreciate the civil responses to my comments from both of you, Raptor & BamaGrad. As I said, I respect your right to disagree. AUTiger94, I’ll hope your pictorial response to Raptor (which of course incited his simlar response) was meant more for humor than mere name-calling.

But here’s my feeling:

I'm not outraged in the least. Why should we be ? Folks can google your name or pay some company a small fee and find out almost anything about you. Far more info than what you're getting all worked up over. We have cameras looking at us in every place of business , when we take $ out of the ATM, and while driving down the road. You'll hardly bat an eye as your mail box gets stuffed w/ fliers or a telemarketer calls you, all based on the info your credit card company has sold to some marketing outfit. But when your phone company legally offers up info which reveals patterns of phone calls, not even conversations, that's what sets you off ?

I don't get it.

234832[/snapback]

To me, there are several differences between the commercial, private sector intrusions on my privacy and a widespread, secret campaign of cataloguing American citizens by the government. [believe it or not, I have the similar concerns with universal registration/cataloguing of gun ownership by the federal government, even though that view is not part of the “liberal party line”.]: First of all, I am fully aware of companies selling my name and info on mailing lists although I won’t pretend it makes me happy. But they are not doing so in secret behind my back; they publish their privacy policies and are legally bound to limit themselves to those published policies; and in most cases I can request in writing that they avoid such release of my information. While they may be selling my information, they are not using my information to intrude upon the privacy of my friends and relatives. Finally, if they do me unjust harm I can use the government and the courts to seek relief and compensation for damages. If it’s the government itself doing the spying, then whom do I turn to for a redress of my grievances, especially if they are doing it in secret and I don’t even know about it until long after the damage is done?

I’m not too keen on having cameras record my commercial transactions either, but when I walk into a convenience store or stop at the ATM, I don’t have any expectation of privacy. I do have a reasonable expectation of privacy that the phone company will only release my calling records upon issuance of a legitimate warrant signed by a judge for probable cause of specific crime. Furthermore, the convenience stores and/or banks are not (to my knowledge—don’t want to sound too paranoid) cooperating to create a universal registry of my behavior patterns or those of my friends and relatives.

Finally, the Bill of Rights was created to protect us from government intrusion. It does not specifically forbid a credit card company or a convenience store from cataloguing my behavior.

Hmmm...lets see...the government is using everything they can to PREVENT attacks that could kill thousands of people. But hey, if you dont want them to see that you called your grandmother on her birthday....I guess thats okay.

WHO FREAKING CARES. They can listen to my phone calls, look at my phone records...do whatever they want. They are keeping me safe. And there's nothing they can gather from my phone calls that will EVER EVER EVER hurt me.

My phone records vs My family's safety....hmmm.....ill take safety.

And quietfan...it isnt "illegal". It has long since been ruled on by federal judges...and its perfectly legal.

234878[/snapback]

I find it hard to believe that this “has long since been ruled on by federal judges” since it was just revealed in the last few days and part of the argument is whether the government can do so without prior warrant from a legitimate court. I would even be accept it, though be cautiously concerned, if the secret NSIA court had actually issued an official ruling on such, but apparently it has not been consulted even though it was specifically created to monitor such activity while protecting necessary classified information. I think the entire debate is whether this is actually legal or not. Obviuously I think not, but on that we’ll just have to agree to respectfully disagree.

I have nothing illegal to hide, and therefore nothing to fear in that respect from them knowing I call my relatives. But just recently it was reported that the HUD Secretary scuttled an applicant’s contract bid because the applicant wasn’t a Bush supporter. Now that hasn’t been confirmed, and I think even Bush himself would find it reprehensible and illegal if it happened. But it is an example of the sort of abuses that could occur. Who is to say when someone might decide to discriminate against me because they notice that most of my phone calls are with known liberals or Democrats? I am equally concerned that a Democratic administration could start an “enemies list” of known conservative calling circles.

If this country ever falls under the sway of a dictatorship, it will not be from an outside invader. It will be a home-grown dictatorship that came to power through a gradual eroding of our constitutional protections. Terrorists may kill thousands or even millions with a WMD, but they will never enslave our whole nation. Do I think the current Administration is aiming to establish a dictatorship? Of course not. But I certainly believe there are individuals, and individuals in positions of power now, who would be more than happy to have total control to run our country as they like. There always will be such in any party, administration, or government. The only sure way to prevent this is to always guard our freedoms with utmost diligence.

[CCTAU 3,327]

But I certainly believe there are individuals, and individuals in positions of power now, who would be more than happy to have total control to run our country as they like.  There always will be such in any party, administration, or government.  The only sure way to prevent this is to always guard our freedoms with utmost diligence.

I agree with you on this. Right now they refer to themselves as the demoncratic party. This is the only reason I have questions about the wire taps. You think its bad now, wait till a communistic demoncrat gets in office.

[quietfan 233]

For you outraged types:  Please provide me with examples of methods for collecting intelligence to which you would provide your stamp of approval.

If you don't feel there are any methods that make you feel comfortable, then please tell me exactly how you think the government should go about protecting you from terrorist threats, and how you intend to respond to the government the next time a possibly preventable event occurs.

I am curious to see how you would define an acceptable policy and defensive strategy.

234952[/snapback]

Sorry, Jenny, just saw your post after posting my last tome. To me, the biggest difference is that this appears to be a universal cataloguing of all citizens without prior cause or suspicion of any particular crime. It’s not limited to or directed at specific persons of suspicion. Even the prior admission of eavesdropping on international calls without warrant (which yes, did concern me) was at least directed at particular targets in particular regions of suspicion. What sort of intelligence gathering would I approve of? Spying aimed at specific individuals based on prior suspicion, or limited searches under the auspices of legitimate warrants issued by a court (even the secret NSIA court) based on probable cause.

I just fear the universal eroding of constitutional rights more than I fear dying from a terrorist’s dirty bomb. Ordinary criminals kill many more Americans every year, and I am much more likely to die from the actions of a petty criminal enterprise than from a terrorist act, but I would be equally opposed to such a universal registry of citizens’ behavior to protect me from that.

Ask yourselves: If this was being done to millions upon millions of citizens by a Democratic administration under the guise of tracking down violent abortion opponents or homegrown Timothy McVeigh/anti-ATF style terrorists, would you feel as comfortable?

[quietfan 233]

But I certainly believe there are individuals, and individuals in positions of power now, who would be more than happy to have total control to run our country as they like.  There always will be such in any party, administration, or government.  The only sure way to prevent this is to always guard our freedoms with utmost diligence.

I agree with you on this. Right now they refer to themselves as the demoncratic party. This is the only reason I have questions about the wire taps. You think its bad now, wait till a communistic demoncrat gets in office.

234963[/snapback]

Obviously I disagree with your characterization of the Democratic Party , but you make my point about a gradual eroding of Constitutional rights. It's a slippery slope that can get worse in the future and that we don't want to start down.

[Tigermike 3,036]

Here is a little info that could help in this discussion. If anyone is interested.

The Right Call on Phone Records

The NSA's Program Safeguards Security -- and Civil Liberties

By Richard A. Falkenrath

Saturday, May 13, 2006; Page A17

On Thursday, USA Today reported that three U.S. telecommunications companies have been voluntarily providing the National Security Agency with anonymized domestic telephone records -- that is, records stripped of individually identifiable data, such as names and place of residence. If true, the architect of this program deserves our thanks and probably a medal. That architect was presumably Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and President Bush's nominee to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The potential value of such anonymized domestic telephone records is best understood through a hypothetical example. Suppose a telephone associated with Mohamed Atta had called a domestic telephone number A. And then suppose that A had called domestic telephone number B. And then suppose that B had called C. And then suppose that domestic telephone number C had called a telephone number associated with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The most effective way to recognize such patterns is the computerized analysis of billions of phone records. The large-scale analysis of anonymized data can pinpoint individuals -- at home or abroad -- who warrant more intrusive investigative or intelligence techniques, subject to all safeguards normally associated with those techniques.

Clearly, there is a compelling national interest in understanding and penetrating such terrorist networks. If the people associated with domestic telephone numbers A, B and C are inside the United States and had facilitated the Sept. 11 attacks, perhaps they are facilitating a terrorist plot now. The American people rightly expect their government to detect and prevent such plots.

Very few career government officials possess the expertise, initiative and creativity needed to devise a system to penetrate such networks, using only existing statutory and presidential authorities, employing only existing technical and personnel resources, and violating the privacy of no American. Yet, if the USA Today story is correct, this appears to be exactly what Hayden did.

Some legislators and observers have questioned the legality of the alleged NSA domestic telephone records collection program. If the facts of the program are as reported in USA Today, there is every reason to believe that the program is perfectly legal.

There are, of course, strict legal limits on the ability of federal agencies such as the NSA to compel the provision of domestic information or to collect it secretly. The USA Today story, however, alleges that three telecommunications companies -- AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth -- provided it voluntarily. How else could one company (Qwest) decline to provide the information? Since there is no prohibition against federal agencies receiving voluntarily provided business records relating to their responsibilities, it appears that the NSA's alleged receipt and retention of such information is perfectly legal.

The three companies reported to have supplied telephone records to the NSA also appear to be acting lawfully. The Telecommunications Act of 1934, as amended, generally prohibits the release of "individually identifiable customer proprietary network information" except under force of law or with the approval of the customer. But, according to USA Today, the telephone records voluntarily provided to the NSA had been anonymized. In addition, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 explicitly permits telecommunications companies to provide customer records to the government if the government asks for them. So it would appear that the companies have been acting not just in the public interest, but also within the law and without encroaching on the privacy of any of their customers.

Bureaucrats excel at finding reasons not to do something. They are most often guilty of sins of omission, not commission. A timid, ordinary executive might have concluded that it was too risky to ask U.S. telecommunications companies to provide anonymized call records voluntarily to an agency such as the NSA, dealing with foreign intelligence. If the USA Today story is correct, it appears that Mike Hayden is no timid, ordinary executive. Indeed, it appears that he is exactly the sort of man that we should have at the helm of the CIA while we are at war.

The writer is a fellow at the Brookings Institution. He was deputy homeland security adviser and deputy assistant to the president until May 2004. He has no official knowledge of the program in question.

link

[quietfan 233]

Thanks, Tigermike, for a good article relating to the question. It does present some reasonable arguments for the legality of the phone record collection. Until clearly addressed by a court, however, there are alternative interpretations. Following up on your link, I went to the USA website itself to find other opinions I’ve linked below. My feeling is simply that these are the sort of questions that need to be resolved by a Federal court and not unilaterally decided by the NSA on its own, then kept secret from the public.

I’m still concerned with the erosion of our privacy. The very process Mr. Falkenrath describes—A calls B calls C calls D…ad infinitim—begs the question of the old “six degrees of separation/Kevin Bacon” hypothesis. How far before any one of us, although totally innocent, gets linked to Khalid Sheik Mohammed? At which point the government feels justified into putting us on a “suspicious” list and proceeds to open a file on every part of our private lives? And as long as we have merely the Administration’s good will and word for it, with no oversight or checks and balances, what guarantee is there that we want become victims of a private “enemies list” (remember Richard Nixon?) based on our choice of associates?

Anyway, here are some other views of the same legality questions (Obviously, I’ve highlighted primarily the points related to my concerns, but I don’t mean that to imply I’m blindly, subjectively ignoring the opposing viewpoints)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...gathering_x.htm

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government's secret collection of Americans' phone records may not breach the Fourth Amendment's privacy guarantee, legal analysts said Thursday, but it could violate federal surveillance and telecommunication laws.

More broadly, USA TODAY's report about the National Security Agency's deal with three major phone companies fed a debate over whether the Bush administration is going too far — and setting dangerous precedents — in trying to protect the nation from terrorism.

"This may well be another example where the Bush administration, in secret, decided to bypass the courts and contravene federal law," said Georgetown University law professor David Cole.

…

Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos emphasized Thursday that the administration briefed members of Congress on the NSA's collection of phone records. She said the NSA's efforts, authorized by Bush, have been legal and aimed at rooting out terrorists.

Viet Dinh, a former assistant attorney general who helped draft the USA Patriot Act after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said such a goal could make the data collection legal: "The question is, to what use is the government putting this data? Is it for law enforcement and anti-terrorism uses that would outweigh privacy concerns? If they were just trolling for information, that would be a concern." (Note that this is from one of the authors of the Patriot Act! IMO, this can only be called "trolling"--It's hard to argue that sorting through millions upon millions of records looking for "patterns" with aiming at specific acts by specific individuals is anything else.)

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.

The Fourth Amendment might not be at issue, but legal analysts said the NSA's collection of phone records could be legally vulnerable under federal intelligence-gathering and communication laws.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adopted in 1978, requires the government to go before a special court and obtain a warrant for electronic surveillance related to international espionage and terrorism. The statute defines the covered communication to include any information about the identity of the parties. A question now is whether that might include the phone numbers someone calls.

That law and another criminal statute that requires warrants when authorities seek devices that record numbers dialed on a telephone could prohibit the NSA deal with the telecommunication companies.

Qwest was the only major phone company to decline to turn over records to the NSA. Its lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. The agency declined; USA TODAY reported Thursday that two sources with direct knowledge of the situation said it was because the NSA thought the court would not agree to the plan.  (?!?!!)(So even the NSA itself suspected what it was doing wouldn't pass court/legal scrutiny?)

A communication act dating to 1934 and more recent electronic privacy laws generally require phone companies to protect the confidentiality of customers' communication. "There really isn't any precedent for this kind of thing," said Lee Tien, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T after the NSA's eavesdropping program was revealed in December. The suit accuses AT&T of helping the NSA spy on phone users

.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-nsa-reax_x.htm

Among the controversies over the database, however, is that it was built without court warrants or the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a panel of federal judges established to issue secret warrants, according to people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

Some critics questioned whether the administration's warrantless programs violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which bars "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires warrants for searches, as well as the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that established the secret court.

Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School and author of The National Security Constitution, called the scope of the database "quite shocking."

"If they had gone to Congress and said, 'We want to do this without probable cause, without warrants and without judicial review,' it never would have been approved," said Koh, a former law clerk for the late Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun.

"I don't think any FISA court would have approved this kind of scale of activity."

As a general rule, telecommunications companies require law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they will turn over a customer's phone records. Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, phone companies are prohibited from giving out information about their customers' calling habits.

Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, questioned why the phone companies would cooperate with the NSA.

"Why are the telephone companies not protecting their customers?" he said. "They have a social responsibility to people who do business with them to protect our privacy as long as there isn't some suspicion that we're a terrorist or a criminal or something."

One major telecommunications company, Qwest, did refuse to participate in the NSA program because of concerns about its expansiveness and the lack of judicial oversight, USA TODAY reported.

…

Bush said "appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat," had been briefed about the NSA program. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., acknowledged receiving some briefings.

Pelosi said, however, that she hadn't been told all of the information included in the USA TODAY story. And all but a handful of lawmakers learned of the program for the first time in the news account.

…

The objections to the telephone database Thursday also crossed party and ideological lines.

"This is an outrageous invasion of privacy and a frightening expansion of government power," said Bob Barr, a former Georgia congressman and conservative Republican who served as one of the House managers of President Clinton's impeachment.

Ralph Neas, president of the liberal group People for the American Way, used similar language in calling the program "an unconscionable infringement on the rights and freedoms that are the birthright of every American." He added, "We can destroy the terrorists without shredding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

Boehner, the House Republican leader, said he is "concerned" about the program. "I'm not sure why it was necessary for us to keep and have that kind of information."

On the other hand, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., argued that there was nothing to worry about. "I don't think this action is nearly as troublesome as being made out here," he said, "because they are not tapping our phones."

Here's how I think this should have been handled: You want to investigate associates of, say, Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Let's assume you have sufficient probable cause on him. Start by getting a legal warrant for his phone records (use the secret NSIA Court if security is a concern). Those records can be used to identify the persons he's talked to. If any of those persons sticks out because of name/location/frequency or timing of calls, etc., i.e., if there is again sufficient probable cause, proceed to get a proper warrant for that person's records and repeat the process. Each step is then protected by due process and court scrutiny. Don't start by saying "Oh, let's just get every American's records and see if something suspicious pops up."

[TexasTiger 12,949]

But I certainly believe there are individuals, and individuals in positions of power now, who would be more than happy to have total control to run our country as they like.  There always will be such in any party, administration, or government.  The only sure way to prevent this is to always guard our freedoms with utmost diligence.

I agree with you on this. Right now they refer to themselves as the demoncratic party. This is the only reason I have questions about the wire taps. You think its bad now, wait till a communistic demoncrat gets in office.

234963[/snapback]

The question Right Wingers need to ask in regard to executive power is, "How much authority would you want President Hillary Clinton to have?" If she is elected, she inherits all this power now claimed as "inherent in the executive."

[rexbo 104]

The question Right Wingers need to ask in regard to executive power is, "How much authority would you want President Hillary Clinton to have?"  If she is elected, she inherits all this power now claimed as "inherent in the executive."

235073[/snapback]

The one who needs to worry about that is Bill...

[AUTiger94 0]

Yes QuietFan 90% of what I post is for Comedic effect. The sheep is for a post that I felt was toeing the party line, which is what the majority of people in this country do, or they just get their opinion from the media. While I disagree w/ Raptor his subsequent posts (except Chicken little) have at least shown that his opinion is his own. I personally can't stand party Politics. My stand on the issue comes from inside and I'll vote according to that. If asked what Party I'm in I will proudly say that I'm an American and an Auburn Tiger!

WDE

[quietfan 233]

Yes QuietFan 90% of what I post is for Comedic effect.  The sheep is for a post that I felt was toeing the party line, which is what the majority of people in this country do, or they just get their opinion from the media. While I disagree w/ Raptor his subsequent posts (except Chicken little) have at least shown that his opinion is his own.  I personally can't stand party Politics. My stand on the issue comes from inside and I'll vote according to that. If asked what Party I'm in I will proudly say that I'm an American and an Auburn Tiger!

WDE

235090[/snapback]

Understood...and vive la independence!

[MDM4AU 332]

Here's a copy of the letter I am sending to BellSouth in the next mail:

BellSouth Communications

P.O. Box 100-120

Columbia, SC 29202

To all concerned and responsible:

I am outraged to learn that you are one of the companies apparently cooperating with the National Security Agency’s unconstitutional attempt to catalogue the phone calls of millions of American citizens!  While I understand the importance of cooperating with legitimate warrants for specific records issued by courts upon probable cause, there is no excuse for cooperating with government attempts to spy on American citizens without cause, warrant, or suspicion of a specific crime.  Please halt this reprehensible and illegal intrusion upon the rights and privacy of your customers immediately! 

I am also writing to my congressional representatives to ask that Congress live up to its constitutional responsibility within our system of checks and balances to hold the executive branch accountable for its unilateral skirting of the Bill of Rights.  It is long past time for Congress and the courts to halt this Administration’s freehanded and unconstrained attempts to interpret the Constitution according to its particular whims.

Finally, I will be investigating and comparing other service providers for my local, long distance, and internet service needs.  I have been very satisfied with the service I have received from BellSouth in the past and do not wish to change service providers.  However, if you continue to cooperate with the current Administration’s attempts to trounce upon my Constitutional right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches, I will be forced to look for a service provider who will respect my civil rights!

I will be sending letters of similar wording to all of my Congressional representatives. I realize many of you on this forum may not agree with me, or will disagree with my interpretations like "illegal" and "unconstitutional", and I respect your right to a different opinion. However, clearly I feel very strongly about what I see as a continuing encroachment upon the Bill of Rights by this Adminstration, and this latest attempt to create a government database of the private phone records of every American citizen has pushed me to the breaking point.

For those who do feel similarly, I strongly urge you also to write to both your representatives in Congress and to your phone company if it is one of the companies cooperating with this latest version of "Big Brother". For those who disagree with me, again, I respect without anger or malace your right to your own opinion, and merely ask that you similarly respect mine.

234830[/snapback]

In statement, BellSouth denies giving information to National Security Agency

Updated 5/16/2006 12:13 AM ET

By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY

BellSouth said in a statement that it doesn't contract with the National Security Agency to supply customer calling information.

"As a result of media reports that BellSouth provided massive amounts of customer calling information under a contract with the NSA," it said Monday, "the company conducted an internal review to determine the facts. Based on our review to date, we have confirmed no such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA."

Last Thursday, USA TODAY reported that the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon, people with direct knowledge of the program said. One of the nation's major telecommunication companies, Qwest, declined to participate, the story said, a fact confirmed Friday by Herbert Stern, the lawyer for former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio.

USA TODAY first contacted BellSouth five weeks ago in reporting the story on the NSA's program. The night before the story was published, USA TODAY described the story in detail to BellSouth, and the company did not challenge the newspaper's account. The company did issue a statement, saying: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority."

In an interview Monday, BellSouth spokesman Jeff Battcher said the company was not asking for a correction from USA TODAY.

Asked to define "bulk customer calling records," Battcher said: "We are not providing any information to the NSA, period." He said he did not know whether BellSouth had a contract with the Department of Defense, which oversees the NSA.

Spokesmen for AT&T and Verizon said Monday night they had no comment on BellSouth's statement. Verizon spokesman Bob Varettoni referred to a company statement Friday that said Verizon doesn't "provide any government agency unfettered access to our customer records or provide information to the government under circumstances that would allow a fishing expedition."

Last week, Verizon said it had complied with relevant laws and was "committed" to customer privacy. San Antonio-based AT&T said it respects customers' privacy but has "an obligation to assist law enforcement and other government agencies responsible for protecting the public welfare."

Contributing: The Associated Press

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...htm?POE=NEWISVA

[Jenny AU-92 0]

For you outraged types:  Please provide me with examples of methods for collecting intelligence to which you would provide your stamp of approval.

If you don't feel there are any methods that make you feel comfortable, then please tell me exactly how you think the government should go about protecting you from terrorist threats, and how you intend to respond to the government the next time a possibly preventable event occurs.

I am curious to see how you would define an acceptable policy and defensive strategy.

234952[/snapback]

NO ONE ever answered my question...

[BamaGrad03 0]

I think Im gonna send all the cooperating phone companies a thank you letter for helping keep my country safe.

Because since they started doing this....i havent seen any attacks on america. I know the president before bush wasnt doing a lot of proactive data mining...and i know what happened sept 11th.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

Here's a copy of the letter I am sending to BellSouth in the next mail:

BellSouth Communications

P.O. Box 100-120

Columbia, SC 29202

To all concerned and responsible:

I am outraged to learn that you are one of the companies apparently cooperating with the National Security Agency’s unconstitutional attempt to catalogue the phone calls of millions of American citizens!  While I understand the importance of cooperating with legitimate warrants for specific records issued by courts upon probable cause, there is no excuse for cooperating with government attempts to spy on American citizens without cause, warrant, or suspicion of a specific crime.  Please halt this reprehensible and illegal intrusion upon the rights and privacy of your customers immediately! 

I am also writing to my congressional representatives to ask that Congress live up to its constitutional responsibility within our system of checks and balances to hold the executive branch accountable for its unilateral skirting of the Bill of Rights.  It is long past time for Congress and the courts to halt this Administration’s freehanded and unconstrained attempts to interpret the Constitution according to its particular whims.

Finally, I will be investigating and comparing other service providers for my local, long distance, and internet service needs.  I have been very satisfied with the service I have received from BellSouth in the past and do not wish to change service providers.  However, if you continue to cooperate with the current Administration’s attempts to trounce upon my Constitutional right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches, I will be forced to look for a service provider who will respect my civil rights!

I will be sending letters of similar wording to all of my Congressional representatives. I realize many of you on this forum may not agree with me, or will disagree with my interpretations like "illegal" and "unconstitutional", and I respect your right to a different opinion. However, clearly I feel very strongly about what I see as a continuing encroachment upon the Bill of Rights by this Adminstration, and this latest attempt to create a government database of the private phone records of every American citizen has pushed me to the breaking point.

For those who do feel similarly, I strongly urge you also to write to both your representatives in Congress and to your phone company if it is one of the companies cooperating with this latest version of "Big Brother". For those who disagree with me, again, I respect without anger or malace your right to your own opinion, and merely ask that you similarly respect mine.

234830[/snapback]

In statement, BellSouth denies giving information to National Security Agency

Updated 5/16/2006 12:13 AM ET

By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY

BellSouth said in a statement that it doesn't contract with the National Security Agency to supply customer calling information.

"As a result of media reports that BellSouth provided massive amounts of customer calling information under a contract with the NSA," it said Monday, "the company conducted an internal review to determine the facts. Based on our review to date, we have confirmed no such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA."

Last Thursday, USA TODAY reported that the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon, people with direct knowledge of the program said. One of the nation's major telecommunication companies, Qwest, declined to participate, the story said, a fact confirmed Friday by Herbert Stern, the lawyer for former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio.

USA TODAY first contacted BellSouth five weeks ago in reporting the story on the NSA's program. The night before the story was published, USA TODAY described the story in detail to BellSouth, and the company did not challenge the newspaper's account. The company did issue a statement, saying: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority."

In an interview Monday, BellSouth spokesman Jeff Battcher said the company was not asking for a correction from USA TODAY.

Asked to define "bulk customer calling records," Battcher said: "We are not providing any information to the NSA, period." He said he did not know whether BellSouth had a contract with the Department of Defense, which oversees the NSA.

Spokesmen for AT&T and Verizon said Monday night they had no comment on BellSouth's statement. Verizon spokesman Bob Varettoni referred to a company statement Friday that said Verizon doesn't "provide any government agency unfettered access to our customer records or provide information to the government under circumstances that would allow a fishing expedition."

Last week, Verizon said it had complied with relevant laws and was "committed" to customer privacy. San Antonio-based AT&T said it respects customers' privacy but has "an obligation to assist law enforcement and other government agencies responsible for protecting the public welfare."

Contributing: The Associated Press

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...htm?POE=NEWISVA

236409[/snapback]

These companies are choosing their words pretty carefully in their denials.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

For you outraged types:  Please provide me with examples of methods for collecting intelligence to which you would provide your stamp of approval.

If you don't feel there are any methods that make you feel comfortable, then please tell me exactly how you think the government should go about protecting you from terrorist threats, and how you intend to respond to the government the next time a possibly preventable event occurs.

I am curious to see how you would define an acceptable policy and defensive strategy.

234952[/snapback]

NO ONE ever answered my question...

236587[/snapback]

Maybe it was the way you addressed it. This administration doesn't surprise me enough to be outraged anymore. But in regard to this particular issue, I expect companies that take my money and control records of my private communications to at least inform me as to whom they may release it to. Then I can decide if I would rather do business with someone else. That's how the free market should work, right? Watch Quest's business go up.

[quietfan 233]

For you outraged types:  Please provide me with examples of methods for collecting intelligence to which you would provide your stamp of approval. (1)

If you don't feel there are any methods that make you feel comfortable, then please tell me exactly how you think the government should go about protecting you from terrorist threats, and how you intend to respond to the government the next time a possibly preventable event occurs.

I am curious to see how you would define an acceptable policy and defensive strategy. (2)

234952[/snapback]

NO ONE ever answered my question...

236587[/snapback]

Sorry, I though I had:

...

(1) What sort of intelligence gathering would I approve of? Spying aimed at specific individuals based on prior suspicion, or limited searches under the auspices of legitimate warrants issued by a court (even the secret NSIA court) based on probable cause.

(2) I just fear the universal eroding of constitutional rights more than I fear dying from a terrorist’s dirty bomb.  Ordinary criminals kill many more Americans every year, and I am much more likely to die from the actions of a petty criminal enterprise than from a terrorist act, but I would be equally opposed to such a universal registry of citizens’ behavior to protect me from that.

...

234968[/snapback]

Or, to clarify #2 a bit more: I want a policy/strategy that does not sacrifice the freedoms that make us America for fear of some future attack. If we let fear of the terrorists cause us to abandon what America stands for, then they have won already.

Also, as far as #1, I added:

....

Here's how I think this should have been handled: You want to investigate associates of, say, Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Let's assume you have sufficient probable cause on him. Start by getting a legal warrant for his phone records (use the secret NSIA Court if security is a concern).  Those records can be used to identify the persons he's talked to.  If any of those persons sticks out because of name/location/frequency or timing of calls, etc., i.e., if there is again sufficient probable cause, proceed to get a proper warrant for that person's records and repeat the process.  Each step is then protected by due process and court scrutiny.  Don't start by saying "Oh, let's just get every American's records and see if something suspicious pops up."

235072[/snapback]