Government Taps Almost Every Phone in the USA

[Armin]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
Might I remind you all of the quote Joe posted the other day:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

This whole thing makes me sick. I'm not blaming it directly on Bush, but he was obviously a part of it. He plays a little game, and tries making whoever released the information  seem like a bad guy, by saying they just threatened the security of the US citizens. What a load of crap.

[Sidoh]

Sorry for my blatant ignorance on the subject, but hasn't this been known for a few months now?

[MyndFyre]

You're not the blatantly ignorant one Sidoh.  MetaL is.  This program has been public for a LONG time, and it's well-known that it only involves calls originating from outside the US from suspected terrorists.  US citizens used to be protected from this explicitly (from the NSA), theoretically, although it's also known that similar programs were used by Carter, Bush I, and Clinton.

[Eric]

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Possible that you've mistaken this for the more recent AT&T controversy?

[CrAz3D]

I dont see anything about "every phone" in the article.

I saw the other day that the NSA is trying to make a database of every call made, just who & when though.

[Newby]

You're not the blatantly ignorant one Sidoh.  MetaL is.  This program has been public for a LONG time, and it's well-known that it only involves calls originating from outside the US from suspected terrorists.  US citizens used to be protected from this explicitly (from the NSA), theoretically, although it's also known that similar programs were used by Carter, Bush I, and Clinton.

No. This is everyone.

This frustrates me for the same reason the NSA/AT&T traffic forwarding bit does. It gets everyone, regardless of whether or not you're in contact with terrorists.

[iago]

You're not the blatantly ignorant one Sidoh.  MetaL is.  This program has been public for a LONG time, and it's well-known that it only involves calls originating from outside the US from suspected terrorists.  US citizens used to be protected from this explicitly (from the NSA), theoretically, although it's also known that similar programs were used by Carter, Bush I, and Clinton.

No. This is everyone.

This frustrates me for the same reason the NSA/AT&T traffic forwarding bit does. It gets everyone, regardless of whether or not you're in contact with terrorists.

Yeah, this is new.  They're tracking everybody.  But not the content of the calls, only the source/destination. 

As far as I can tell, they're building a who-calls-who network.  That way, if your friend talks to terrorists, they can pull you in too.  That's probably not true, but eh?

[CrAz3D]

.....I'm sad

I saw a poll on ... the news, CNN or something, today that said 65% of Americans accept the phone tapping/call database and 35% don't like it

WTF people, come on, this is getting down right scary.

[iago]

.....I'm sad

I saw a poll on ... the news, CNN or something, today that said 65% of Americans accept the phone tapping/call database and 35% don't like it

WTF people, come on, this is getting down right scary.

You're right.  It's actually 63% source.  I love how it was done by phone.. if you say you're against it, They know who you are

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone May 11, 2006 among 502 randomly selected adults.

It's because people are so terrified of terrorists, etc.

Here's an awesome quote from Slashdot:

Bin Laden has kicked our ass in a way that is so much better than mere body counts. He has cost us hundreds of billions in dollars and, more importantly, managed to shift our entire belief structure. As far as I'm concerned, the terrorists have won. I'm sure this turned out better than Bin Laden ever imagined.

That's what I've been saying! Terrorists are making an effort to cause terror, and they're done that perfectly to the point where the country is more afraid of terrorists than child-rapers. 

[CrAz3D]

I agree.

What we were SUPPOSED to do is just jump back into how life was pre-9/11....+blow some shit up, thats all, nothing more.

And really, the blowing crap up is more for an anger release...I spose we could catch Bin Laden if we wanted.


EDIT:

Created: Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 10:58:16 EDT
How does the report that the NSA is building a database of Americans' phone calls make you feel?
Creepy
   
   
  75%
   
142928 votes
More secure
   
   
  25%
   
46497 votes
Total: 189425 votes
This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein.
Related:   
# USA Today: NSA building massive database of phone records
# Get more Quick Vote results

Poll that is ongoing on CNN.com.
WTF, MEGA different numbers.

Polls suck unless you talk to like at least 10 million people...500 ppl say "WTF ever dude" while 200k ppl say "WTF IS GOING ON!?"

[GameSnake]

You're not the blatantly ignorant one Sidoh.  MetaL is.  This program has been public for a LONG time, and it's well-known that it only involves calls originating from outside the US from suspected terrorists.  US citizens used to be protected from this explicitly (from the NSA), theoretically, although it's also known that similar programs were used by Carter, Bush I, and Clinton.

No. This is everyone.

This frustrates me for the same reason the NSA/AT&T traffic forwarding bit does. It gets everyone, regardless of whether or not you're in contact with terrorists.

Yeah, this is new.  They're tracking everybody.  But not the content of the calls, only the source/destination. 

As far as I can tell, they're building a who-calls-who network.  That way, if your friend talks to terrorists, they can pull you in too.  That's probably not true, but eh?

Adding to Myndys scolding: 25 million people are not terroists. It's the fact that congress isnt looking into this for us, and the media is that makes us mad.

Bin Laden will bleed the U.S of our money, but theres one guy who lets it happen: George Bush. I would support impeachment if congress finds illegal doings.

[GameSnake]

theoretically, although it's also known that similar programs were used by Carter, Bush I, and Clinton.

I've up up your theory:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9561

Dick Cheney taps thousands pre-9/11

The rest were used sparringly and only in extreme conditions, by contrast Clinton had used this "legal nuclear bomb" half a dozen times.

[Sidoh]

They haven't already been recording that?  Crime shows (like CSI and stuff) always have the detectives running around looking at "call records."  Maybe that's fictitious? 

Regardless, I personally don't see much of a problem with it.

[MyndFyre]

by contrast Clinton had used this "legal nuclear bomb" half a dozen times.

Yeah, and look where it got us.  He bombed civilian structures in Serbia, and a recessing economy.

25 million people are not terroists. It's the fact that congress isnt looking into this for us, and the media is that makes us mad.

Do you mean 250 million people?  If not, I don't understand what you're saying.

Of course, I'm not worried when they look at my international call list, or even my domestic call list.  Know why?  I'm not a terrorist.

I just want to know: what are you afraid of them knowing by looking at your call list?  Hehe, snort snort, this guy called for phone sex 28 times.  That was after he ordered the fleshlight.  What a fucking loser.  Hehehe, snort snort

No. This is everyone.

The AT&T thing is new.  MetaL did NOT link to the AT&T thing, he linked to the NSA tapping thing that I described in my post.

I saw a poll on ... the news, CNN or something, today that said 65% of Americans accept the phone tapping/call database and 35% don't like it

WTF people, come on, this is getting down right scary.

The one and only problem I could see this being for is if politicians in power (or politically-motivated bureaucrats) use the program to damage political opponents.  Uncool.

As it turns out, on a related note, a friend of mine who works for a major bank chain says she uses Myspace during the hiring process to determine whether to hire someone.

As far as I can tell, they're building a who-calls-who network.  That way, if your friend talks to terrorists, they can pull you in too.  That's probably not true, but eh?

That idea would probably not go anywhere.  No American jury would convict someone because he talked to someone who talked to a terrorist.  Now, if he talked to someone who talked to a terrorist, and then blew shit up, probably all three could be implicated.

On the side note, as I linked to GS's post above (about the Fleshlight (different post)), I would just like to point out that it's not entirely difficult to resolve an internet handle (particularly one like mine, which has historically been associated with my real-name email address), and have talked about people's real names, that shit you say on the internet that is persistent is FAR more dangerous than what you say on the phone, since the internet is public domain and easily-accessible.

[iago]

They haven't already been recording that?  Crime shows (like CSI and stuff) always have the detectives running around looking at "call records."  Maybe that's fictitious? 

Regardless, I personally don't see much of a problem with it.

Specific records can be subpeona'ed, and I think they have to be kept for a certain amount of time.  However, taking and correlating all records is beyond that. 

[CrAz3D]

I know I have nothing to be afraid of, but we've always been a country that is big on freedom, we're not very free if the government has an ever watchful eye on us.  Instead, we should have ever watchful eyes on them, but we don't.
I spose "oh well", I don't *THINK* its likely that 'd be had by some terrorism thing.....but look @ the Red Scare, we could have a new one aided by phone lists.

Who said anything about a jury?...as I recall the Red Scare had no juries & ruined alot of careers, didn't it?


As far as MySpace hiring, I've heard (I think from someone here) that people Google emails & name, they dig up as much dirt as the internet can dish out on you

[Eric]

by contrast Clinton had used this "legal nuclear bomb" half a dozen times.

Yeah, and look where it got us.  He bombed civilian structures in Serbia, and a recessing economy.

25 million people are not terroists. It's the fact that congress isnt looking into this for us, and the media is that makes us mad.

Do you mean 250 million people?  If not, I don't understand what you're saying.

Of course, I'm not worried when they look at my international call list, or even my domestic call list.  Know why?  I'm not a terrorist.

I just want to know: what are you afraid of them knowing by looking at your call list?  Hehe, snort snort, this guy called for phone sex 28 times.  That was after he ordered the fleshlight.  What a fucking loser.  Hehehe, snort snort

No. This is everyone.

The AT&T thing is new.  MetaL did NOT link to the AT&T thing, he linked to the NSA tapping thing that I described in my post.

I saw a poll on ... the news, CNN or something, today that said 65% of Americans accept the phone tapping/call database and 35% don't like it

WTF people, come on, this is getting down right scary.

The one and only problem I could see this being for is if politicians in power (or politically-motivated bureaucrats) use the program to damage political opponents.  Uncool.

As it turns out, on a related note, a friend of mine who works for a major bank chain says she uses Myspace during the hiring process to determine whether to hire someone.

As far as I can tell, they're building a who-calls-who network.  That way, if your friend talks to terrorists, they can pull you in too.  That's probably not true, but eh?

That idea would probably not go anywhere.  No American jury would convict someone because he talked to someone who talked to a terrorist.  Now, if he talked to someone who talked to a terrorist, and then blew shit up, probably all three could be implicated.

On the side note, as I linked to GS's post above (about the Fleshlight (different post)), I would just like to point out that it's not entirely difficult to resolve an internet handle (particularly one like mine, which has historically been associated with my real-name email address), and have talked about people's real names, that shit you say on the internet that is persistent is FAR more dangerous than what you say on the phone, since the internet is public domain and easily-accessible.

It began by tapping those already suspected of terrorism.  It then lead to the monitoring of all call logs to determine those worthy of becoming known as a suspected terrorist.  Where will they go from here?  Once you get your foot in the door, it's not that difficult to push it open.  It's been proven in the past that such endevures lead to many negative results.

[Sidoh]

Specific records can be subpeona'ed, and I think they have to be kept for a certain amount of time.  However, taking and correlating all records is beyond that. 

Oh.  *shrugs*  I don't mind much.  I know it's taking one of the basic freedoms, but it doesn't really effect me.

I'm still against it, but oh well.

[Ergot]

Fuck. I need to change my ISP and my phone provider x_x.

[GameSnake]

Specific records can be subpeona'ed, and I think they have to be kept for a certain amount of time.  However, taking and correlating all records is beyond that. 

Oh.  *shrugs*  I don't mind much.  I know it's taking one of the basic freedoms, but it doesn't really effect me.

I'm still against it, but oh well.

Why don't you mind much? I would stand up and say something rather than say "this is bad, but I don't care"!

[Sidoh]

Why don't you mind much? I would stand up and say something rather than say "this is bad, but I don't care"!

That's clearly because you do care.  I don't care enough to resist.  If further violations of rights are made (ones that I care about), maybe that'll change.

[CrAz3D]

Why don't you mind much? I would stand up and say something rather than say "this is bad, but I don't care"!

That's clearly because you do care.  I don't care enough to resist.  If further violations of rights are made (ones that I care about), maybe that'll change.

ooooh....oooooh!

quote related thing...

uhm, something about "If you dont stand up for the little ones then who will stand up for you?"
If you dont stand up for your rights then they're just going to keep taking more & more until we have to have a mass revolte

[zorm]

Yeah, this is new.  They're tracking everybody.  But not the content of the calls, only the source/destination. 

As far as I can tell, they're building a who-calls-who network.  That way, if your friend talks to terrorists, they can pull you in too.  That's probably not true, but eh?

First there seems to be a misconception that the government is forcing anything. The government is simply the one building the database. The phone companies are the ones willingly handing over the information. So it might be wiser to look more closely at the phone companies and their privacy policies, etc. than at the government which is simply processing available information.

Also I feel safe, Qwest is the only phone company that didn't turn over records. Yay!

[Eric]

I blame AT&T about as much as I'd blame any other company (Google, for example) for doing the same.

[Armin]

Of course, I'm not worried when they look at my international call list, or even my domestic call list.  Know why?  I'm not a terrorist.

I just want to know: what are you afraid of them knowing by looking at your call list?  Hehe, snort snort, this guy called for phone sex 28 times.  That was after he ordered the fleshlight.  What a fucking loser.  Hehehe, snort snort

Just like Ben Franklin said, if you sacrifice a little freedom for a little security, you deseve niether and lose both. What this is saying is that if you slowly sacrifice your freedom for security, it's going to get out of control, just like this did. There is nothing in the constitution that gives Bush, or ANYONE the right to do this. If they walk over the constitution now, they'll be able to walk over it more later. The American people are also purely responsible for this. It's up to us to control our government. Too bad the majority of America is too ignorant to realize what's really happening.

No. This is everyone.

The AT&T thing is new.  MetaL did NOT link to the AT&T thing, he linked to the NSA tapping thing that I described in my post.

Sorry, I accidently posted the wrong article. No need to be so hostile towards me though, like you were in your first post.

[Newby]

Just like Ben Franklin said, if you sacrifice a little freedom for a little security, you deseve niether and lose both. What this is saying is that if you slowly sacrifice your freedom for security, it's going to get out of control, just like this did. There is nothing in the constitution that gives Bush, or ANYONE the right to do this. If they walk over the constitution now, they'll be able to walk over it more later. The American people are also purely responsible for this. It's up to us to control our government. Too bad the majority of America is too ignorant to realize what's really happening.

As my history teacher said, challenge authority. When it gets out of hand, fix it.

[iago]

I blame AT&T about as much as I'd blame any other company (Google, for example) for doing the same.

Google took it to court and tried (successfully? unsuccessfully? I haven't heard anything...)

As my history teacher said, challenge authority. When it gets out of hand, fix it.

That's what your country is based on, so that's definitely the truth. 

[Joe]

Well, there's some good and bad news to come out of this. Bad: The anti-Christ is here. Good: His three and a half years of rise have come, and his three and a half years of havoc are almost over. Then the world ends..

[Armin]

Joe, shutup. This thread is for serious discussion.

[CrAz3D]

I blame AT&T about as much as I'd blame any other company (Google, for example) for doing the same.

Google took it to court and tried (successfully? unsuccessfully? I haven't heard anything...)

I think Google won.

However,Google still gave in to China.

[Newby]

I blame AT&T about as much as I'd blame any other company (Google, for example) for doing the same.

Google took it to court and tried (successfully? unsuccessfully? I haven't heard anything...)

Successful, if I recall correctly.

As my history teacher said, challenge authority. When it gets out of hand, fix it.

That's what your country is based on, so that's definitely the truth. 

My history teacher was a big fan of the U.S. too.

Well, there's some good and bad news to come out of this. Bad: The anti-Christ is here. Good: His three and a half years of rise have come, and his three and a half years of havoc are almost over. Then the world ends..

Contribute something useful, or shut the fuck up.

[Eric]

[off-topic from previous posts]

If someone was suspected of terrorism, wouldn't obtaining a warrant and gathering that specific suspect's phone records provide the same information as gathering everyone's phone records would?  I mean, the records would show all outgoing calls and all incoming calls to and from that suspect—providing of course that terrorists still communicate via a device that our own country's criminals have known was insecure since the beginning of organized crime.  Is this simply a way to bypass the warrant?

[Newby]

Is this simply a way to bypass the warrant?

Technically they still need a warrant for each person.

But en masse, yes, it seems to be a method to bypass specific warrants.

[Eric]

I understand that what they're doing is entirely legal, but performing unprovoked information "searching" on large groups of people specifically to circumvent the need for such a warrant seems unconstitutional to me.

[iago]

The problem is that a judge won't grant a warrant based simply on, "he's Islamic" or "he phoned somebody in the middle east."  There's no way they'll get a warrant based on such a weak case, so they have to circumvent the procedure. 

[MyndFyre]

The problem is that a judge won't grant a warrant based simply on, "he's Islamic" or "he phoned somebody in the middle east."  There's no way they'll get a warrant based on such a weak case, so they have to circumvent the procedure. 

Well, the problem is more likely that the judges are not cleared to see the evidence of whom they've phone in the mid east.

[zorm]

Well, the problem is more likely that the judges are not cleared to see the evidence of whom they've phone in the mid east.

This definitely isn't the case, they have courts setup for exactly this sort of scenario.

From what I gather all they are doing is looking for patterns in who is calling whom. They have to be able to see a general overview of the behavior so that they can see "Oh, this guy makes a phone call to someone in Afghanistan on the 3rd wednesday of every month" thats really suspicious and hes probably involved in something. This sort of information would likely be used to secure a warrant for a wiretap.

You can't really argue that its an invasion of privacy on the governments part if the phone companies are willingly turning over this information as well. Its much the same as

[iago]

They have to be able to see a general overview of the behavior so that they can see "Oh, this guy makes a phone call to someone in Afghanistan on the 3rd wednesday of every month" thats really suspicious and hes probably involved in something. This sort of information would likely be used to secure a warrant for a wiretap.

That doesn't sound suspicious at all.  Perhaps he has family in Afghanistan, and they've made arrangements to get in touch once a month?  If that's enough for a warrant, then there's still a problem with the judges. 

You can't really argue that its an invasion of privacy on the governments part if the phone companies are willingly turning over this information as well. Its much the same as

I agree, it IS the same as.