[noname]

just a few interjections here. First, the government isn't listening in to the phone calls, they are getting detailed billing records, like the one you get every month from the phone company. Yes that's still illegal last I heard, but if we're going to bitch about the government we should complain about the right thing.
Second, has anyone ever heard of the Eschalon project? Google it, you'd be really surprised. It was a program put into play during the Clinton administration that monitored all electronic communication. Hmmmmmmmm........ Sounds like our government has been snooping for a long time.
Also, and this is just a tin hat theory, growing up here we always heard rumors about a DOD program that electronically monitored all calls and trolled for key words...............hhmmmm

 

[valve bouncer]

I wonder if there's a market out there for a telco that advertises "won't sell you out to the man"........

 

[noname]

I wonder if there's a market out there for a telco that advertises "won't sell you out to the man"........

I'd start one, don't think I'll be able to get permissions from the gov.

 

[valve bouncer]

I'd start one, don't think I'll be able to get permissions from the gov.

Haha...no doubt. The problem with this kind of thing is that it doesn't actually do anything to stop terrorism but gives the illusion to the sheep that they're actually doing something. There's no way they can actually listen to all these millions of conversations but if they give the impression they are then the sheep are happy. Osama and his mates aren't fooled but then again they aren't the ones that need to be fooled.

 

[Toshi]

just a few interjections here. First, the government isn't listening in to the phone calls, they are getting detailed billing records, like the one you get every month from the phone company. Yes that's still illegal last I heard, but if we're going to bitch about the government we should complain about the right thing.
Second, has anyone ever heard of the Eschalon project? Google it, you'd be really surprised. It was a program put into play during the Clinton administration that monitored all electronic communication. Hmmmmmmmm........ Sounds like our government has been snooping for a long time.
Also, and this is just a tin hat theory, growing up here we always heard rumors about a DOD program that electronically monitored all calls and trolled for key words...............hhmmmm

and who says the nsa isn't recording calls as well? i am willing to bet that this divulged program only represents the tip of the iceberg.

and it's "echelon" btw, not "eschalon".

 

[Radarr]

Pick up your landline phone and call a friend in a different state and tell him that you wish someone would assasinate Bush. Don't say that you would do it, or that you personally want to be involved, just that it's be good if it happened. Also talk about the NSA and 9/11 how it is all a big lie. Go on you pvssy, do it if you're so free. You won't be commiting any crimes.

Careful, "they" are probably trolling through interweb forums, too. You just got yourself put on about 15 watch-lists. NZ will soon be found to be harboring terrorists, and concealing WMDs for use against the world. Oh, what's that? You're starting up a nuclear program? I don't think so...

You just wait. We are going to pave the road to Mordor with American democracy and freedom!

 

[DRB]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12806653/

BellSouth says they actually didn't provide any information to the NSA.

However at the end of the article there is this....

Battcher said BellSouth’s customer service department had received little more than two dozen complaints about reports that private phone records may have been relayed to the government.

“We have 20 million land line customers, so 26 complaints is not a lot,” Battcher said.

I find that surprising but realistic.

 

[DRB]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12821609/from/RS.5/

Verizon Communications Inc. says it did not give the government records of millions of phone calls, joining fellow phone company BellSouth in disputing key assertions in a USA Today article.

Verizon has not provided customer call data to the NSA, nor had it been asked to do so, the company said in an e-mailed statement Tuesday.

Apparently it might be long distance call information that was requested.

 

[syadasti]

They are just carefully choosing their words so they aren't lying in the legal definition:

Verizon denies that NSA sought phone records

Verizon: "One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers' domestic calls"

Technically this would be true if:

A) They had an arrangement prior to 9/11 which is likely.

and/or

B) Verizon does not keep records on everyone that use their network (too data to process for commercial viability) and thus didn't hand any records over. There is technology being utilized that captures data in real time (much easier and more useful than a giant database of random data). These telecoms have a routing path that allows the NSA to incept data packets with NSA's system so technically the telecoms didn't do anything but allow the data to be rerouted.

The telecoms definately would want to deny it regardless of the truth as the suit filed last Friday is claiming $1000 per customer for turning over phone records, as per the Telecommunications Act of 1934. Nobody wants to fork over billions for what the government made them do. The government certainly won't pay them back even though it was the government who broke the law.

 

[syadasti]

Ah so it was Narlus, I mean Narus, who was doing it all along. Who would have suspected Narlus was really a NSA bot

All About NSA's and AT&T's Big Brother Machine, the Narus 6400

Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room

According to a statement released by Klein's attorney, an NSA agent showed up at the San Francisco switching center in 2002 to interview a management-level technician for a special job. In January 2003, Klein observed a new room being built adjacent to the room housing AT&T's #4ESS switching equipment, which is responsible for routing long distance and international calls.

"I learned that the person whom the NSA interviewed for the secret job was the person working to install equipment in this room," Klein wrote. "The regular technician work force was not allowed in the room."

Klein's job eventually included connecting internet circuits to a splitting cabinet that led to the secret room. During the course of that work, he learned from a co-worker that similar cabinets were being installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.

...

Narus, whose website touts AT&T as a client, sells software to help internet service providers and telecoms monitor and manage their networks, look for intrusions, and wiretap phone calls as mandated by federal law.

Narus Product Page

That Narus STA 6400 is smoking fast:

Industry-leading packet processing performance that supports network speeds of up to OC-192 at layer 4 and OC-48 at layer 7, enabling carriers to monitor traffic at either the edge of the network or at the core.

OC-192 = 10000 Mb/s - ie an internet backbone!
OC-48 = 2500 Mb/s - ie a regional internet backbone!

 

[Toshi]

the govt is basically saying "you're not cleared to view the evidence of whether this is illegal"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/18/MNGGDITL781.DTL

this is yet another kick in the nuts to democracy. sickening.

 

[MikeD]

The ECPA, often cited by opponents to this practice, protects the contents of a communication while in transmission, NOT the fact that the communication takes place. When you dial a phone, you disclose the phone number you're dialing to the phone company.

They're under no Constitutional obligation to keep this private; the Constitution can't regulate the behavior of any non-governmental entity (in this case, the phone companies willingly turning over your info); no private party can violate your Constitutional rights. They can cause you damages, which are addressed by a civil tort, but it’s not in the scope of Constitutional law, which is a contract between the people and the government.

When you deal with the phone company, as a private 3d party, you have no reasonable expectation that this party will not disclose information you give them. In this case, when you use the phone, you give them the phone number you're calling to make use of the service. They keep records of it, and are under no legal obligation to keep these records private. They can give it up if they want, but they’re also not forced to give it up unless the government has a subpeona or warrant. You can, of course, opt to use a phone company that won’t turn over your records willingly, assuming one is available, or simply not use the phone at all. And you can sue the phone company if they broke a contract with you, but I don't think they promised anyone privacy. Did they? And even if they did, your fight is with them, not the government.

Those are the simple legal facts. However, I can see this intelligence stuff differing from the traditional law enforcement application in one distinct (although not legally different) sense: criminal investigators generally target someone who's potentially involved in criminal activity, then check his phone records to learn about possible associations with other criminals/conspirators. (Or they can legally record the return addresses of all his incoming mail, also not protected by the 4th Amendment, although the contents of the mail are...) What we're seeing here is the use of these records to search for targets, and that's a little worrysome to me. Not as much as some other things going on, though...this is pretty clear legal ground.

However, if I were going to try and make a case against the government, I suppose what I'd do is try and extend the government's extensive use of these databases to establish that the phone companies are, in essence, operating as agents of the government, and are thus subject to the regulation of the 4th amendment and all applicable privacy laws.

MD

PS Your email isn't entirely private, either. Unlike the phone companies, which only keep records noting long-distance calls between two phone numbers, email is stored in its entirety (ie, including the contents of the communicatin) on private servers that the government can access very easily, as they're also controlled by a 3d party.

 

[DaveW]

The ECPA, ....<Snip stuff.
>.

So basicly not breaking the law just breaking the "Spirit of the law"

The fact that they are using this to try to uncover jounalistic sources is a worry as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Toshi]

what if this suppressed information actually showed they were storing the CONTENTS of everything that passed through those switches? ...

 

[blue]

 

[MikeD]

So basicly not breaking the law just breaking the "Spirit of the law"

No, that's not it at all...they're following the guidelines set by the law quite clearly. They're looking at records on a heretofore unseen scale, but that's a consequence of simple computer technology, not any re-interpretation or expansion of the law.

The warrantless FISA intercepts are another thing entirely, and going on the little they've commented, clearly outside Constitutional bounds.

MD

 

[MikeD]

The telecoms definately would want to deny it regardless of the truth as the suit filed last Friday is claiming $1000 per customer for turning over phone records, as per the Telecommunications Act of 1934. Nobody wants to fork over billions for what the government made them do. The government certainly won't pay them back even though it was the government who broke the law.

My long polemic above speaks to this issue at a Constitutional level...however, it's quite possible that the records handling violated a statute such as the Telecom act. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about it specifically, so I can't comment on this at the moment. Still, it would implicate the companies, as far as I can surmise, not the government, who would in glorious irony be the prosecutor for such a statutory violation.
(Ed: Holy CRAP that's a long statute...plus the 1996 stuff...gonna be a while, if I can ever get down to looking at it at all...have a relevant section reference for me??)

Also, the fact that the government is installing government equipment at the telecoms' sites, instead of just having companies provide records, goes a LONG way towards establishing the telecom companies as 'government agents' in a legal sense, IMHO. It's like an informant wearing a wire, sort of, but in both cases, the gov't is still not getting information that's protected by the 4th Amendment due to its disclosure to a 3d party. (Case law on this is quite clear.) However, the wearing of the wire at government's direction still makes the criminal informant into a government agent.

MD

 

[N8 v2.0]

Oops Lib's....

Looks like the system does work afterall:

Terrorist plots disrupted: 1 that we know of
Innocent Americans inconvienced: 0

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

 

[Toshi]

Oops Lib's....

Looks like the system does work afterall:

Terrorist plots disrupted: 1 that we know of
Innocent Americans inconvienced: 0

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

all about the police state fanboi-ism, aren't you, n8? you deserve the state of affairs that we're in.

 

[Transcend]

Oops Lib's....

Looks like the system does work afterall:

Terrorist plots disrupted: 1 that we know of
Innocent Americans inconvienced: 0

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

People who's civil liberties have been infringed upong 300 000 000+

I'd hazzard a guess that the hundreds who have been "interviewed" for suspicious activities would probably say that they have been inconvenienced.

 

[Transcend]

all about the police state fanboi-ism, aren't you, n8? you deserve the state of affairs that we're in.

Funny how it's the same people who would scream bloody murder if it was their rights to own a gun or drive ridiculously large pickups that was being infringed upon.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Funny how it's the same people who would scream bloody murder if it was their rights to own a gun or drive ridiculously large pickups that was being infringed upon.

pfft.... red herring argument...

 

[RenegadeRick]

Oops Lib's....

Looks like the system does work afterall:

Terrorist plots disrupted: 1 that we know of
Innocent Americans inconvienced: 0

Uhmmm, no:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2296564
Security Ban Could Put Passengers' Health at Risk
By JOY VICTORY, ABCNEWS.com Health Producer
August 10, 2006 — The highly restrictive carry-on rules in force today at airports could put many passengers' health at risk, especially those who suffer from chronic conditions such as heart disease, asthma and diabetes, a doctor warned.

I'd say a health risk is a bit more than an "inconvenience."

 

[Transcend]

pfft.... red herring argument...

HAHAHAHAHA. You must love it when you get put on the spot huh?

 

[N8 v2.0]

HAHAHAHAHA. You must love it when you get put on the spot huh?

you couldn't put a soap dish on the spot I'm afraid.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Uhmmm, no:

I'd say a health risk is a bit more than an "inconvenience."

I say driving in a car is a far greater health risk than a few people who "might" be at risk because why again??? I see no reasoning given in your clip...

 

[RenegadeRick]

I say driving in a car is a far greater health risk than a few people who "might" be at risk because why again??? I see no reasoning given in your clip...

Your position was that 0 Americans have been inconvenienced as a result of spying, but in actuality thousands have been:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2301948
The adjustment followed a grueling day Thursday, when passengers unaware of the new rules waited hours to reach security checkpoints only discover they had to throw out their now-banned bottles of makeup, perfume, suntan lotion, even wine bottles.

Sorry N8, I didn't realize that I needed to point out the specific inconvenience.
I assumed you would understand that people having their health put at risk is worse than an inconvenience. Oops, my bad!

 

[N8 v2.0]

Your position was that 0 Americans have been inconvenienced as a result of spying, but in actuality thousands have been:

Sorry N8, I didn't realize that I needed to point out the specific inconvenience.
I assumed you would understand that people having their health put at risk is worse than an inconvenience. Oops, my bad!

Awww...... so sad!!! No wine bottles???

 

[Munster]

So, does this mean the "war on terra" is over?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Awww...... so sad!!! No wine bottles???

So are you planning any trips that require flying? Any at all....?

If so, please report back...let us know how long the wait was...let us know if you missed your connecting flight...let us know if the TSA took your anti-anxiety meds away because they were "suspicious, and not vital to your health" in their opinion.

Being a contributing part of the human race means taking a look at things with at least lip service to whatever the hell else is going on.

 

[N8 v2.0]

So are you planning any trips that require flying? Any at all....?

If so, please report back...let us know how long the wait was...let us know if you missed your connecting flight...let us know if the TSA took your anti-anxiety meds away because they were "suspicious, and not vital to your health" in their opinion.

Being a contributing part of the human race means taking a look at things with at least lip service to whatever the hell else is going on.

I fly occationally... just flash my ID and no problem-o....

 

[Transcend]

I say driving in a car is a far greater health risk than a few people who "might" be at risk because why again??? I see no reasoning given in your clip...

So of the millions of commercial flights flown every year, a few may be bombed.


Seems like the sort of "might" be at risk idea you posted.

Also, I'm willing to bet more than 300-400 people have major health problems and are being put at risk. This is of course the same amount as larger jumbos carry who would be at risk of a bomb.

Once again, you are made to look like an idiot. Congrats!

 

[N8 v2.0]

at risk how again???


What's putting them at risk?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I fly occationally... just flash my ID and no problem-o....

Oh...so you flew yesterday? You (Like my wife) had to wait in DFW for 9 hours because the security at JFK was horrendous and you missed your connecting flight? You (like my wife) had your anti-anxiety pills (issued because of a previous landing in crash position) taken because the TSA guys weren't sure that they were vital to your health? I'd say the possibility of giving someone having a F*CKING serious myocardial infarction on a plane because of stress is putting people at an inconvenience.

She even flashed her ID....but there was a problem. So give us a report after your next flight.


Thx, that is all.

 

[Transcend]

Wow, they are confiscating prescription medication at their opwn leisure???? WTF? I can't wait for someone to sue one of them, the TSA and the airport authority because some wanna be doctor TSA screener throught it was ok to take somenes meds.

Liquid explosives means confiscate electronics, pills, drinks bought in the gates and anything else. Good job airlines, good job.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Wow, they are confiscating prescription medication at their opwn leisure???? WTF? I can't wait for someone to sue one of them, the TSA and the airport authority because some wanna be doctor TSA screener throught it was ok to take somenes meds.

You can't sue the US government. They just say that its a matter of national security and dismiss the case. Come on, they won't even show us the law that says you have to show ID to fly.

 

[N8 v2.0]

maybe now they will close down those over priced stores in the flyway now...

 

[Transcend]

You can't sue the US government. They just say that its a matter of national security and dismiss the case. Come on, they won't even show us the law that says you have to show ID to fly.

The airport authority, airlines and TSA screeners are not the govt though.

 

[Silver]

Oh...so you flew yesterday? You (Like my wife) had to wait in DFW for 9 hours because the security at JFK was horrendous and you missed your connecting flight? You (like my wife) had your anti-anxiety pills (issued because of a previous landing in crash position) taken because the TSA guys weren't sure that they were vital to your health? I'd say the possibility of giving someone having a F*CKING serious myocardial infarction on a plane because of stress is putting people at an inconvenience.

She even flashed her ID....but there was a problem. So give us a report after your next flight.


Thx, that is all.

If she accepted Christ into her life and prayed, she wouldn't need the devil's drugs to fly.

(Speaking as someone who for some weird reason needs Ativan to get on a plane, I can't believe they did that. Did she raise holy hell?)

 

[RenegadeRick]

The airport authority, airlines

are typically corporations...

TSA screeners

are FedGov employees though.

Do you forsee the AbuGhraib scenario here, where the top brass disavows the actions of their subordinates?

"Those TSA screeners that took your wife's medicines away were a few bad apples. We certainly had not instructed them to do that. They were acting on their own."

Having your a$$ hung out to dry is a tough way to earn $17.50/hr.