Government Taps Almost Every Phone in the USA

[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.