[zmcgill]

From what I understand, the phone companies voluntarily gave up phone call records. There was no listening to conversations, there were no wires, there was no tapping. So why the name?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

From what I understand, the phone companies voluntarily gave up phone call records. There was no listening to conversations, there were no wires, there was no tapping. So why the name?

Depends on what particular case you are talking about.

In the case of gathering phone records, that wasn't wiretapping. It was data mining. They are analysing call patterns to identify similar patterns that happen around terrorist cells.

Calling it wiretapping is just a way for those who want to paint the President in a bad light and to perpetuate the myth that George W. Bush has nothing better than to listen to me calling my wife and asking her to check the mail on the way home.

It's one of those things where if there were to be another attack and it was found that the government wasn't doing this, they'd get flak. But they are doing it, and getting flak from the same people who would critcize them for not doing it.

There are a certain number of people who have nothing to offer, they just want everyone else to hate George W. Bush as much as them.

[analogika]

It doesn't get any better if you call it "data mining". Illegally pressuring corporations into handing over personal data is still something that should get all those in charge fired and left inable to get another job.

[zmcgill]

That makes sense, Dave. Like when Democrats demand new people in the White House, but when GW replaces a couple people they freak out because of a 'shake-up.' They only core values are against the president, so they'll automatically oppose anything he does, good or not.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by analogika

It doesn't get any better if you call it "data mining". Illegally pressuring corporations into handing over personal data is still something that should get all those in charge fired and left inable to get another job.

But your core assumption is that something illegal was done. Which is quite an assumption to make.

I'd rather we quit trying to make everything into a scandal. Everytime the Democrats try to turn a mountain into a molehill, they are essentially crying wolf.

To the point that when a real scandal comes along, they'll have no credibility to point it out because we've heard it too many times already over things that weren't a big deal.

The Democrats need to stop trying to turn anything into a way to impeach the President and concentrate on the 2006 and 2008 elections. If they don't, they'll get their asses handed to themselves all over again.

Accept the fact that the President is who he is for another two and a half years and work towards electing someone you'd rather have. Develop real stands on issues instead of just being the party of Bitch & Moan (and no, I'm not talking about Hillary and Ted Kennedy when I say that.)

[ink]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

To the point that when a real scandal comes along, they'll have no credibility

And the conservatives have credibility? None of this would be an issue if Americans trusted their government.

Perhaps we never will, and perhaps that's a good thing.

Also, I also don't really care what their intentions are for this informaiton. Human beings will be looking at it, and they will, by their very nature misuse it. "Hmmm, I wonder who my girlfriend called over the last year; whellp, I have all this data sitting in Access on my desktop, let's see.....". There's no external accountability, no external oversight, no check or balance. It's like the end-run around the FISA courts -- "trust the white house because we say so".

It's not that we don't want things done, but let's do it more transparently so that it doesn't get out of control.

PS: There are no wires being tapped in VOIP or ISP data; but the gov't is pushing hard to get its hands on all that data as well. You don't mind the government (ie, some G-6 employee in a cube farm) analyzing all your data traffic, right?

[Spliffdaddy]

If you're concerned about the government having your telephone records - how would you feel if I told you Spliffdaddy had access to your phone records for 16 years? And not just telephone numbers....I could instantly access your credit information and any personal data that was on file.

Nobody whined about *that*.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by ink

And the conservatives have credibility? None of this would be an issue if Americans trusted their government.

Notice I didn't say that Republicans have credibility. I just said the Democrats don't. Don't take that as an implication that it's mutually exclusive between the two.

And the other thing is, I don't really think that it IS an issue. I don't see Americans all riled up about it, and the polls don't either.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

From what I understand, the phone companies voluntarily gave up phone call records. There was no listening to conversations, there were no wires, there was no tapping. So why the name?

Because the Bush Administration is trying to play the lawyer, in blatant violation of the spirit of the Fourth Amendment despite the attempts to get around its letter. Calling it wiretapping, while perhaps not the greatest name for the acts themselves, perfectly reflects the spirit in which they were done.

[whgoodman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If you're concerned about the government having your telephone records - how would you feel if I told you Spliffdaddy had access to your phone records for 16 years? And not just telephone numbers....I could instantly access your credit information and any personal data that was on file.

Nobody whined about *that*.

Considering it appears that you worked for AT&T at a consumer customer care center, no. But, even post-divestiture AT&T took a dim view of misuse of computer systems. I put that banner on many systems at AT&T for years. Also, as a consumer we can sue AT&T for improper use of personal data whereas as a citizen of the US it is very difficult and costly to sue the NSA. But, as a citizen, I don't consider the collection of call detail data a form of wire tapping. On a side note, I would think the NSA would be more interested in LEC detail records than the LD detail records, but that's just me.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by whgoodman

Considering it appears that you worked for AT&T at a consumer customer care center, no. But, even post-divestiture AT&T took a dim view of misuse of computer systems. I put that banner on many systems at AT&T for years. Also, as a consumer we can sue AT&T for improper use of personal data whereas as a citizen of the US it is very difficult and costly to sue the NSA. But, as a citizen, I don't consider the collection of call detail data a form of wire tapping. On a side note, I would think the NSA would be more interested in LEC detail records than the LD detail records, but that's just me.

Actually, I worked in AT&T's bill processing/bill print centers. Never was interested enough to 'misuse' the computer systems. But I'll admit to looking at the (actual) phone bills for famous Hollywood celebrities, etc. Hey, you hafta do quality checks on *somebody's* bill.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If you're concerned about the government having your telephone records - how would you feel if I told you Spliffdaddy had access to your phone records for 16 years? And not just telephone numbers....I could instantly access your credit information and any personal data that was on file.

Nobody whined about *that*.

I doubt you have all my phone records for the past 16 years. I've been with 6 different phone companies in 3 states. Credit checks are all traceable to who requested the check (there's a trail, unless you work for one of the credit bureaus [which STILL limits your availability]). Phone companies would get smeared if they let personal information out into the public. If you really have such access, then post all my phone numbers for the past 16 years.

My sister-in-law has access to pretty much every Direct TV account (she has some great stories about Tiger Woods' viewing habits...). My wife is an RN supervisor at a fairly renown regional cancer hospital, and she's given chemo to more than a handful of VIP patients (and everyday folks from our neighborhood) who wanted it to all be anonymous.

They are individually keeping things private because their jobs depend on it. If it ever came out that they were loose about such information, then they would be fired and even sued (NDA for SIL and HIPPA for my wife). We distribute such risks and contain them with limited contact and availability. If the governement were to require all records from everyone (such as the phone 'wire tapping'), it presents a much greater risk to privacy.

Again, I'm not against the information being there. I'm not against legitimate law enforcement using it -- what I am against is unreasonable search and siezure, data mining, and having it all available for some Joe-Public-Servant to browse.

Do you think they'll ever erase those phone records? Having worked for the DOE on nuclear tracking software, I would doubt it. Also having worked for DOE, I would hazard that it's stored in an Oracle database somewhere that dozens (if not hundreds) of people have access to.

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

And the other thing is, I don't really think that it IS an issue. I don't see Americans all riled up about it, and the polls don't either.

Yes, I'm in the minority on the issue. I'm stll passionate about it.

[analogika]

I'm just continually amazed that there are apparently hardly any laws regulating collection, storage, and sharing of personal data in the United States.

This sort of thing would have led to a MASSIVE round of musical chairs at the very top level, if not the government itself, over here.

[Mithras]

Spliffdaddy, to point out the obvious: you are not the government. You do not, last I checked, have the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. We're bothered by Government wiretaps for the same reason that conservatives are bothered by Government just-about-anything.

[tie]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

To the point that when a real scandal comes along, they'll have no credibility to point it out because we've heard it too many times already over things that weren't a big deal.
...
Accept the fact that the President is who he is for another two and a half years and work towards electing someone you'd rather have. Develop real stands on issues instead of just being the party of Bitch & Moan (and no, I'm not talking about Hillary and Ted Kennedy when I say that.)

As to your first point, I think that is nonsense, and that these are real scandals.

As to your second point, look at Bush's latest gay marriage statements. Both parties do the same stupid things, unfortunately.

[ink]

Originally Posted by analogika

I'm just continually amazed that there are apparently hardly any laws regulating collection, storage, and sharing of personal data in the United States.

[Rush Hannity]We're at WAR, dammit! You're a traitor for even briniging it up![/Rush Hannity]

This is what we have to deal with.

[abe]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Depends on what particular case you are talking about.

In the case of gathering phone records, that wasn't wiretapping. It was data mining. They are analysing call patterns to identify similar patterns that happen around terrorist cells.

Calling it wiretapping is just a way for those who want to paint the President in a bad light and to perpetuate the myth that George W. Bush has nothing better than to listen to me calling my wife and asking her to check the mail on the way home.

It's one of those things where if there were to be another attack and it was found that the government wasn't doing this, they'd get flak. But they are doing it, and getting flak from the same people who would critcize them for not doing it.

There are a certain number of people who have nothing to offer, they just want everyone else to hate George W. Bush as much as them.

[abe]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

But your core assumption is that something illegal was done. Which is quite an assumption to make.

I'd rather we quit trying to make everything into a scandal. Everytime the Democrats try to turn a mountain into a molehill, they are essentially crying wolf.

To the point that when a real scandal comes along, they'll have no credibility to point it out because we've heard it too many times already over things that weren't a big deal.

The Democrats need to stop trying to turn anything into a way to impeach the President and concentrate on the 2006 and 2008 elections. If they don't, they'll get their asses handed to themselves all over again.

Accept the fact that the President is who he is for another two and a half years and work towards electing someone you'd rather have. Develop real stands on issues instead of just being the party of Bitch & Moan (and no, I'm not talking about Hillary and Ted Kennedy when I say that.)

[abe]

Originally Posted by ink

And the conservatives have credibility? None of this would be an issue if Americans trusted their government.

Perhaps we never will, and perhaps that's a good thing.

Also, I also don't really care what their intentions are for this informaiton. Human beings will be looking at it, and they will, by their very nature misuse it. "Hmmm, I wonder who my girlfriend called over the last year; whellp, I have all this data sitting in Access on my desktop, let's see.....". There's no external accountability, no external oversight, no check or balance. It's like the end-run around the FISA courts -- "trust the white house because we say so".

It's not that we don't want things done, but let's do it more transparently so that it doesn't get out of control.

PS: There are no wires being tapped in VOIP or ISP data; but the gov't is pushing hard to get its hands on all that data as well. You don't mind the government (ie, some G-6 employee in a cube farm) analyzing all your data traffic, right?

I HAVE ANSWERED THIS ISSUE SO MANY TIMES IT IS A CRYING SHAME HOW PEOPLE FAIL TO GET THE MESSAGE.

FISA lays out a framework to obtain electronic surveillance. To do that the AG must submit an application to a special court, the FISA court, and the application must include a wide variety of things.

After 9/11 the POTUS challenged everyone in the administration to think about ways we could better protect American citizens from a similar kind of attack. And we quickly realized we had holes in our surveillance because of the procedures in FISA.

If we had information about a particular person that we believe was communicating with (al qaeda) we were not able to initiate surveillance as quickly as we thought would be necessary in order to get valuable information.

And so the President asked, 'do we have the capability and do we have the need to get this information?' Yes, we do have the capability, we do have the need in certain cases to get this information more quickly.

And the question is, do I have the legal authority to authorize this kind of activity.

And we believe the President does have the legal authority...

CR: VP Cheney said two criteria needed to be met, it had to be al qaeda related and it had to be a call to or from outside of the United States.

One end of the comm had to be outside US and where we have reasonable grounds to believe that one party to that communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist group.

Now, that determination is not made by some political hack somewhere. This is made by an intelligence professional out at NSA.

These are people who know about it, who know al Qaeda tactics, al Qaeda communications, al Qaeda aims, as Gen. Hayden has said, the Deputy Director of national intelligence for this country, these people are the best at what they do, they are very good at this. They know about al Qaeda and they would be in the best position to make an evaluation as to whether or not someone isn't in some way a member or affiliated with al Qaeda.

The POTUS drew the line that this secret surveillance program would not be used to listen to two parties (two al Qaeda members communicating with each other) within the US. Other tools, however would be used and that includes the provisions of FISA.

There is an emergency authorization provision within FISA which allows the AG to give his verbal authorization for surveillance to be initiated immediately and the court order is issued after the fact (within 72 hours) but before AG Gonzales gives that ok he must know that ALL the FISA requirements are met.

This isn't like a 72 hour "Hall Pass" to engage in "free electronic surveillance."

When he gives the authorization he's required by law to make sure all the FISA requirements are met. Then with 72 hours they must submit "a very thick application a formal legal brief, almost," to the FISA court, for their consideration and hopefully, their approval.

Article 2 of the Constitution and the Forces Resolution are not the only possible mechanisms which may authorize legal search.

All searches DO NOT require a warrant.

There is within the Supreme Court's jurisprudence a special needs exception to the normal warrant requirement recognized for many many years by the Supreme Court.

If you're talking about activities outside of normal law enforcement, in the national security area, where speed and agility is critically important, that special needs do provide an exception for the normal warrant requirements. So they believe the activities directed by the POTUS is fully consistent with long standing presidential practice and fully consistent with the special needs jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

And because it is limited in terms of authorization in time, every 45 days it is renewed, it is based on the continuing threat posed by al qaeda, it is reviewed periodically by the NSA Inspector General, there is oversight by the General Counsel's office, because we have provided periodic briefings to leaders in Congress, we believe the combination of all those factors make these searches reasonable under the Supreme Court jurisprudence...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3ACharlie_Rose

[Mithras]

I'm glad that's what Cheney says, but it's not what the law says. Both the phone-tapping surveillance program and the domestic "call records" program are most likely illegal.

The executive branch knew this, which is why they avoided allowing the FISA court to review the program.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Mithras

I'm glad that's what Cheney says, but it's not what the law says. Both the phone-tapping surveillance program and the domestic "call records" program are most likely illegal.

The executive branch knew this, which is why they avoided allowing the FISA court to review the program.

Sorry, I should have made it clearer.

The person interviewed on the Charlie Rose show which was awkwardly transcribed was Attorney General Gonzales.

He is the TOP Attorney for the Government.

And why do you think there hasn't been more play from this issue if it were REALLY illegal?

There is within the Supreme Court's jurisprudence a special needs exception to the normal warrant requirement recognized for many many years by the Supreme Court.

If you're talking about activities outside of normal law enforcement, in the national security area, where speed and agility is critically important, that special needs do provide an exception for the normal warrant requirements. So they believe the activities directed by the POTUS is fully consistent with long standing presidential practice and fully consistent with the special needs jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

And because it is limited in terms of authorization in time, every 45 days it is renewed, it is based on the continuing threat posed by al qaeda, it is reviewed periodically by the NSA Inspector General, there is oversight by the General Counsel's office, because we have provided periodic briefings to leaders in Congress, we believe the combination of all those factors make these searches reasonable under the Supreme Court jurisprudence...

[ink]

Originally Posted by Mithras

I'm glad that's what Cheney says, but it's not what the law says. Both the phone-tapping surveillance program and the domestic "call records" program are most likely illegal.

The executive branch knew this, which is why they avoided allowing the FISA court to review the program.

Not to mention hiding it from 99% of the members of the house and senate. If the White House were so incredibly confident ("The insurgents are in their last throes! Saddam has WMD!"), they would have been more transparent and honest with their dealings.

[Kevin]

They call it wiretapping because they know that is what will get the most emotional responses.

Regardless of it being a lie.

REMEMBER, it's not if it's true or not folks, it's the seriousness of the accusations.



I don't know HOW many folks I work with thinks this is about wiretapping. And it's not their fault. They have been TOLD AS MUCH!