NSA secretly collecting phone records of tens of millions of citizens and businesses with help of phone companies

[zendari]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: zendari
Supreme Court on the matter

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes.



Damn Bush packing the Supreme Court in 1979!

Once again, Zen shows that he loves and trusts anything that the govt does.....as long as it's a Repub that is doing it. Just wait Zennie......the Repubs days are numbered. Latest poll has the dems favored by REGISTERED VOTERS by over 14%. Are you still going to be as trusting when the debils are running congress? And what about if they take back the presidency? Still going to be as rubber-stamp happy when Hillary is the one performing your body cavity search?

What does any of this have to do with my post? Who was president in 1979?

Bush is far more intelligent than any of us if he can get a SCOTUS to rubber stamp his presidency 21 years in advance. In the face of true facts, I suspect youll toss up another duhversion soon. :laugh:

Are you so freaking stupid that you think that Carter placed every member of the SCOTUS in that role in 1979?

Are you so freaking stupid to think that current day polls and the debils have anything to do with it?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: zendari
Supreme Court on the matter

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes.



Damn Bush packing the Supreme Court in 1979!

Once again, Zen shows that he loves and trusts anything that the govt does.....as long as it's a Repub that is doing it. Just wait Zennie......the Repubs days are numbered. Latest poll has the dems favored by REGISTERED VOTERS by over 14%. Are you still going to be as trusting when the debils are running congress? And what about if they take back the presidency? Still going to be as rubber-stamp happy when Hillary is the one performing your body cavity search?

What does any of this have to do with my post? Who was president in 1979?

Bush is far more intelligent than any of us if he can get a SCOTUS to rubber stamp his presidency 21 years in advance. In the face of true facts, I suspect youll toss up another duhversion soon. :laugh:

Are you so freaking stupid that you think that Carter placed every member of the SCOTUS in that role in 1979?

Are you so freaking stupid to think that current day polls and the debils have anything to do with it?

What I am is curious. Are you willing to be this accepting of a Democratic congress and president commiting the same acts against the constitution as the current crop of Republicans?

Will you be just as vocal in your support and blind to the facts when it is Hillary or Kerry datamining all records to find the boogyman that scares you so?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What I am is curious. Are you willing to be this accepting of a Democratic congress and president commiting the same acts against the constitution as the current crop of Republicans?

Will you be just as vocal in your support and blind to the facts when it is Hillary or Kerry datamining all records to find the boogyman that scares you so?

I simply linked to the facts which all the circlejerking leftwingers here seemed to have overlooked. Someone posted it earlier in this thread but you all were already in your frenzy.

Who said it's against the constitution?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What I am is curious. Are you willing to be this accepting of a Democratic congress and president commiting the same acts against the constitution as the current crop of Republicans?

Will you be just as vocal in your support and blind to the facts when it is Hillary or Kerry datamining all records to find the boogyman that scares you so?

I simply linked to the facts which all the circlejerking leftwingers here seemed to have overlooked. Someone posted it earlier in this thread but you all were already in your frenzy.

Who said it's against the constitution?

I've got an idea. Let's force the NSA to grant the investigators the clearance needed to investigate this and then force the Bush administration officials to testify UNDER OATH about what is truly happening and then let the case be heard by the SCOTUS and then we can call it a day and you will have your proof that everything your idol has authorized is on the up and up. What do you say? Sound like a good idea?

You will then get your question answered beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: zendari
Supreme Court on the matter

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes.



Damn Bush packing the Supreme Court in 1979!

This is a VERY narrow decision based on PART of the 4th Amendment. It's pretty obvious you have NEVER read the 4th . . . just like Bush, Hayden, Ashcroft, Gonzalez.

Find Law on 4th amendment

With regards to the NSA the primary issue would be a lack of probable cause. But for the sake of argument let's say NSA has one. Then they run into another issue.

The Court later rejected this approach, however. ''The premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited. . . . We have recognized that the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property, and have increasingly discarded fictional and procedural barriers rested on property concepts.'' 34 Thus, because the Amendment ''protects people, not places,'' the requirement of actual physical trespass is dispensed with and electronic surveillance was made subject to the Amendment's requirements. 35

The test propounded in Katz is whether there is an expectation of privacy upon which one may ''justifiably'' rely. 36 ''What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.'' 37 That is, the ''capacity to claim the protection of the Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the area was one in which there was reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.'' 38

In this context, NSA may be "allowed" to register all calls EXCEPT those calls for which either party has INTENTIONALLY blocked identification. If NSA is logging those calls it's pretty clear they are violating the 4th b/c those individuals reasonably expect freedom from intrusion . . . even from people they know!

 

[TheAdvocate]

Zen, the ECPA (enacted in 1984, as a result of that 1979 decision) governs this and was modified by W's PATRIOT Act in 2001. It clearly states that this type of information requires a Judicial Court Order to be collected. That, in and of itself, is equivalent to a general warrant, which the 4th Amendment was established to prevent. But nevertheless, the PATRIOT act passed, and that's what law we're under.

But even under the PATRIOT act, this is illegal. The case you linked is now outdated with newer legislation.

I posted a link to a very helpful explanatory chart, but it doesn't seem like anyone read it. Here it is again:

Matrix

Again, a court order must be obtained, and the telco's cannot (see the NO's on the right hand side) voluntarily surrender the info, even in a business exchange, to the govt.

What we're also missing is that this info is privately sharable, which I think is despicable and should be outlawed immediately. I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I want any big brother, public or private, over me.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What I am is curious. Are you willing to be this accepting of a Democratic congress and president commiting the same acts against the constitution as the current crop of Republicans?

Will you be just as vocal in your support and blind to the facts when it is Hillary or Kerry datamining all records to find the boogyman that scares you so?

I simply linked to the facts which all the circlejerking leftwingers here seemed to have overlooked. Someone posted it earlier in this thread but you all were already in your frenzy.

Who said it's against the constitution?

I've got an idea. Let's force the NSA to grant the investigators the clearance needed to investigate this and then force the Bush administration officials to testify UNDER OATH about what is truly happening and then let the case be heard by the SCOTUS and then we can call it a day and you will have your proof that everything your idol has authorized is on the up and up. What do you say? Sound like a good idea?

You will then get your question answered beyond the shadow of a doubt.

It seems like you already made up your mind and don't care for anything as trivial as a SCOTUS decision. File your petitions or whatever.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: zendari
Supreme Court on the matter

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes.



Damn Bush packing the Supreme Court in 1979!

This is a VERY narrow decision based on PART of the 4th Amendment. It's pretty obvious you have NEVER read the 4th . . . just like Bush, Hayden, Ashcroft, Gonzalez.

Find Law on 4th amendment

With regards to the NSA the primary issue would be a lack of probable cause. But for the sake of argument let's say NSA has one. Then they run into another issue.

The Court later rejected this approach, however. ''The premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited. . . . We have recognized that the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property, and have increasingly discarded fictional and procedural barriers rested on property concepts.'' 34 Thus, because the Amendment ''protects people, not places,'' the requirement of actual physical trespass is dispensed with and electronic surveillance was made subject to the Amendment's requirements. 35

The test propounded in Katz is whether there is an expectation of privacy upon which one may ''justifiably'' rely. 36 ''What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.'' 37 That is, the ''capacity to claim the protection of the Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the area was one in which there was reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.'' 38

In this context, NSA may be "allowed" to register all calls EXCEPT those calls for which either party has INTENTIONALLY blocked identification. If NSA is logging those calls it's pretty clear they are violating the 4th b/c those individuals reasonably expect freedom from intrusion . . . even from people they know!

Because BaliBabyDoc is smarter than 9 members of the Supreme Court.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Zen, the ECPA (enacted in 1984, as a result of that 1979 decision) governs this and was modified by W's PATRIOT Act in 2001. It clearly states that this type of information requires a Judicial Court Order to be collected. That, in and of itself, is equivalent to a general warrant, which the 4th Amendment was established to prevent. But nevertheless, the PATRIOT act passed, and that's what law we're under.

But even under the PATRIOT act, this is illegal.

The case you linked is now outdated with newer legislation.

I posted a link to a very helpful explanatory chart, but it doesn't seem like anyone read it. Here it is again:

Matrix

Again, a court order must be obtained, and the telco's cannot (see the NO's on the right hand side) voluntarily surrender the info, even in a business exchange, to the govt.

What we're also missing is that this info is privately sharable, which I think is despicable and should be outlawed immediately. I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I want any big brother, public or private, over me.

Forget it, we are literaly watching these people jump off the bridge for Bush.

 

[dainthomas]

I love how neocons are dodging the question if they want Hillary listening in on their phone calls. After all, if the president's doing it, it must be legal.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: Passions
Only those who have things to hide are outraged.

I have absolutely nothing to hide, and outraged is really understating it. Only those who are NOT outraged are not paying attention.

 

[db]

Doesn't matter if what they are doing is illegal or not.
Bush says "do it", and they do it. Bush is above the law, because he can do a signing statement saying he is legal to do it. Also, he claims publically that as CinC, he has been given authorization by Congress to prosecute the war (in whatever way he see fit).
The only way to stop him is to remove him from office.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87
Find a different carrier, AT&T has been holding phone records and conversations for decades and can and will sell it to the highest bidder. The govt cant legally collect this crap but it doesnt stop private industry from doing it and selling it to the govt or telemarketers.

So, let me get this straight. bush circumvents or outright ignores The Bill of Rights and you blame it on AT&T???

Why am I NOT surprised?

How is this circumventing the bill of rights? A private industry keeps your records and sells it on the open market and the govt bought it. I dont like it anymore than you but you cant just make shat up.

One of my first jobs out of school was for a small firm. Our clients sent us purchasing information along with CC#'s and names, address's ect. We used this information for data mining and then sold that information on the open market.

Unless congress passes a law banning the collecting of information like this I dont see how it is breaking the law. A private firm collected information from their product and sold it to the govt. It is an end round move and something the govt has been doing for ages. When you signup with these companies they have privacy clauses that outline what they are collecting and who it gets sold to.

btw you do realize Anandtech collects data on your login, IP, and how many times you visit? Are they cirvumventing the 4th amendment?

Link

The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Because BaliBabyDoc is smarter than 9 members of the Supreme Court.

Not necessarily but definitely smarter than you . . . or at least better reading comp skills.

The case cited was in regards to a SUSPECT and that suspect's claim that the 4th Amendment prohibited warrantless surveillance of the phone numbers he called.

The Court's answer IGNORED the issue of probably cause b/c it's pretty obvious the authorities had a "cause" and that it was reasonable. The question was as to whether the suspect had a right to privacy (under the 4th) given that no warrant was requested or issued.

The Court's judgment was that it was unreasonable to believe the "who, when, how often, and how long" of your phone calls was private or "assumed" to be private. I'm not sure I would agree but in 1979 people had limited means of gaining said privacy.

That is NOT the case in the 21st century. Millions of citizens take steps EXPRESSLY to prevent anyone from knowing their number.

But here's all you need to know about the shaky legal foundation of the Bush Regime's latest 1984 redux:

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

Hmm, cannot go to FISA . . . cannot go to the AG . . . looks like someone is afraid of the law?!

 

[JVanhuse]

I don't have a problem with the General running the CIA. If you've ever served in the military, one of the big prolems in forward areas are hi optempo operations requiring communication between complicated organizations, you would know that liason officers are a common method of bridging communication gaps. I would bet that this would solve a lot of problems and given the current situation with forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, this effect could be even more pronounced. People are only freaking out because it is so radically different from the history of the position.

But it will be fine and probably is exactly what is needed over there.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Just thought of this waking up a few minutes ago. Perhaps the American people could flight back? Maybe break the NSA's system? Get like as many people as you can, in the many many millions, to make a call at the same time and date. Once the call has been initiated, they begin reading a script made available online, something that lists as many "red-flag" words as possible. I am sure that would do a number on their hardware.

Should be easy enough, just play a recording of the RNC convention in 04.

tarrarist terrarist terrarist 9/11, 9/11, 9/11

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Zen, the ECPA (enacted in 1984, as a result of that 1979 decision) governs this and was modified by W's PATRIOT Act in 2001. It clearly states that this type of information requires a Judicial Court Order to be collected. That, in and of itself, is equivalent to a general warrant, which the 4th Amendment was established to prevent. But nevertheless, the PATRIOT act passed, and that's what law we're under.

But even under the PATRIOT act, this is illegal. The case you linked is now outdated with newer legislation.

I posted a link to a very helpful explanatory chart, but it doesn't seem like anyone read it. Here it is again:

Matrix

Again, a court order must be obtained, and the telco's cannot (see the NO's on the right hand side) voluntarily surrender the info, even in a business exchange, to the govt.

What we're also missing is that this info is privately sharable, which I think is despicable and should be outlawed immediately. I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I want any big brother, public or private, over me.

Nice post, great link. That matrix is darn helpful!

 

[piasabird]

Oh no! They will find out I called Granma and Granpa!

Maybe they will know every time you call one of those 1-800 sex lines.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Oh no! They will find out I called Granma and Granpa!

Maybe they will know every time you call one of those 1-800 sex lines.

What ever, it's none of their fscking business.

 

[HeaterCore]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Oh no! They will find out I called Granma and Granpa!

Maybe they will know every time you call one of those 1-800 sex lines.

Ah, the old "why do you care if you're not doing anything wrong" defense. That argument's facially ridiculous, but persistent monitoring has deeper societal implications as well:

The point is not that people will not learn under conditions of no-privacy, but that they will learn differently, and that the experience of being watched will constrain, ex ante, the acceptable spectrum of belief and behavior. Pervasive monitoring of every first move or false start will, at the margin, incline choices toward the bland and the mainstream. The result will be a subtle yet fundamental shift in the content of our character, a blunting and blurring of rough edges and sharp lines.

The condition of no-privacy threatens not only to chill the expression of eccentric individuality, but also, gradually, to dampen the force of our aspirations to it.

-Julie E. Cohen, in Examined Lives: Informational Privacy and the Subject as Object-

 

[acole1]

How else would you suggest they device a more accurate baseline? You can't find anomalies without a baseline.

It's not like your privacy was invaded so shut the fsck up. Why do you care if the Govt knows that you called your mother 32 times last week.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: acole1
How else would you suggest they device a more accurate baseline? You can't find anomalies without a baseline.

It's not like your privacy was invaded so shut the fsck up. Why do you care if the Govt knows that you called your mother 32 times last week.

You seem to contradict yourself in that whole moronic paragraph. So they either know they called your mother, which would be a blatant invasion of privacy or they wouldn't which would side with your eloquent first sentence.
Obviously you don't have a clue what you are talking about. They are invading privacy, and it's a direct violation of the 4th amendment (an amendment that the nominee for the head of the CIA doesn't even know).
I don't want the government in my bedroom, tapping my phone, monitoring my internet activity, reading my emails without (a)my direct permission or (b) a court order.
Once they get either one of those, it's fair game. I have nothing to hide, and I shouldn't have to worry about MY government listening in/reading/monitoring my activities. This is not Soviet Russia, or the Orwellian Eden dumbya wishes the world to would be.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: acole1
How else would you suggest they device a more accurate baseline? You can't find anomalies without a baseline.

It's not like your privacy was invaded so shut the fsck up. Why do you care if the Govt knows that you called your mother 32 times last week.

The reason why this is a problem is because it is an infringement.

got it?

The government has to play by the rules just like everybody else.

 

[acole1]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: acole1
How else would you suggest they device a more accurate baseline? You can't find anomalies without a baseline.

It's not like your privacy was invaded so shut the fsck up. Why do you care if the Govt knows that you called your mother 32 times last week.

You seem to contradict yourself in that whole moronic paragraph. So they either know they called your mother, which would be a blatant invasion of privacy or they wouldn't which would side with your eloquent first sentence.
Obviously you don't have a clue what you are talking about. They are invading privacy, and it's a direct violation of the 4th amendment (an amendment that the nominee for the head of the CIA doesn't even know).
I don't want the government in my bedroom, tapping my phone, monitoring my internet activity, reading my emails without (a)my direct permission or (b) a court order.
Once they get either one of those, it's fair game. I have nothing to hide, and I shouldn't have to worry about MY government listening in/reading/monitoring my activities. This is not Soviet Russia, or the Orwellian Eden dumbya wishes the world to would be.

Monitoring your phone records is not an invasion of privacy protected by the 4th amendment! It might be news to you but the phone companies do this every day! How do you think the government got their information? :disgust:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Under which category would Phone reccords fall? Persons, houses, papers, or effects?

You do not own your phone records. The phone company does. You also do not "own" your Emal and Internet activity. If you think your internet activity and emails are safe from prying eyes, think again!

Also, they did not "tap" phones...
"Q: Does that mean people listened to my conversations?
A: Eavesdropping is not part of this program."

They "collected... records."

These same people think driving your car is a "right" that you deserve to have because you are an American. In the end this is only another excuse to complain about how awful our government is.

I will now take this time to cry you a river because your phone records are buried somewhere among thousands of terabytes of data, that NO ONE is going to see, except some computer system that creates statistical reports for a living. It would make more sense to complain about the waste of CPU cycles.

 

[OrByte]

I think the argument could be made that this information falls under "persons" or "effects" But this is not important, our legal system has already identified these records as "electronic information."

Under "electronic information" there are rules in place as to how the government can obtain the data.

According to news reports (specifically the report(s) regarding Qwest denying the NSA request for data) the NSA failed to meet the guidelines for legally obtaining the records. Here is one article. Focus your attention on the fact that Qwest was seeking legal authority to hand over the records, but the government couldn NOT provide any.

If true, your government is breaking the law by making the request. And if that is true then I don't really give a sh!t if you have anything to hide or not, your government cannot operate above the law.

A few pages back someone linked a matrix that outlines the type of electronic information and how the government needs to go about obtaining the information. The "records" that are important to this issue fall under the, "Real-time interception of non-content information." I suggest reading that.

Originally posted by: acole1

I will now take this time to cry you a river because your phone records are buried somewhere among thousands of terabytes of data, that NO ONE is going to see, except some computer system that creates statistical reports for a living. It would make more sense to complain about the waste of CPU cycles.

you are making quite an assumption there.