Looks Like Most Americans Have No Problem With NSA/Phone Record Program

GotZoom

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2005
5,719
368
48
Cordova, TN
A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.

Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." Three in 10--31 percent--said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.

Half--51 percent--approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy matters.

The survey results reflect initial public reaction to the NSA program. Those views that could change or deepen as more details about the effort become known over the next few days.

USA Today disclosed in its Thursday editions the existence of the massive domestic intelligence-gathering program. The effort began soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, the agency began collecting call records on tens of millions of personal and business telephone calls made in the United States. Agency personnel reportedly analyze those records to identify suspicious calling patterns but do not listen in on or record individual telephone conversations.

Word of the program sparked immediate criticism on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans criticized the effort as a threat to privacy and called for congressional inquiries to learn more about the operation. In the survey, big majorities of Republicans and political independents said they found the program to be acceptable while Democrats were split.

President Bush made an unscheduled appearance yesterday before White House reporters to defend his administration's efforts to investigate terrorism and criticize public disclosure of secret intelligence operations. But he did not directly acknowledge the existence of the NSA records-gathering program or answer reporters' questions about it.

By a 56 percent to 42 percent margin, Americans said it was appropriate for the news media to have disclosed the existence of this secret government program.

A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051200375_pf.html
 
The people that own the copyright to the term "Land of the free" want you to stop using it. However they said that you can use "Land of the sort-of free" with no problems. But they reserve the right to withdraw permission for that one too if things go downhill.
 
Imagine terrorists flying a Quantas Airliner into the Sydney Opera House on an evening when both the Concert Hall and Drama Theater are filled to capacity.

I think your entire outlook on things would change.
 
NSA has your phone records; 'trust us' isn't good enough Fri May 12, 6:52 AM ET

The government is secretly collecting the phone records of millions of Americans.

Stop and think for a moment about the meaning of that simple, startling fact, exposed Thursday in a remarkable report by USA TODAY's Leslie Cauley.

In the narrowest interpretation, of course, it is benign. Possibly even helpful. It means that the National Security Agency (NSA) - the Pentagon-run spy agency that monitors communications - is using a new tool to hunt terrorists: Monitor phone traffic to identify threats and stop them.

This is all it means, President Bush told the public Thursday in a brief appearance aimed at quelling the instant outrage provoked by the story. He assured Americans that their civil liberties were being "fiercely protected" and that the government was "not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans."

In other words, never mind appearances. Trust us.

Well, that is not all it means. Nor can the president's promise to protect privacy be reliably kept.

The fact that the government is trying to track (but not wiretap) every call you make and every call you receive - at home or on your cellphone is, to say the least, disturbing.

It means that your phone company (if you are a customer of AT&T, BellSouth or Verizon) tossed your privacy to the wind and collaborated with this extraordinary intrusion, and that it did so secretly and without following any court order.

That is, unless you're lucky enough to be served by Qwest, the one major phone company that had the integrity to resist government pressure.

It means that unless public opposition changes the government's course, this database will be compiled, updated and expanded into the indeterminate future, through countless administrations with who-knows-what interests and motives.

Only the most naive and unsuspicious soul could trust that it will remain safe, secured and for the eyes only of those hunting terrorists.

One need look no further than past abuses of power to be uncomfortable about the future. Richard Nixon during Watergate. Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. J. Edgar Hoover during his long reign as FBI director.

Even assuming that the Bush administration's motives are pure, and that this program merely looks for patterns of calls that could reveal terror networks, it raises a number of troubling questions:

Is it legal? Bush insists it is, but that's questionable. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a court order to gather a person's current phone records. A 1934 law requires phone companies to protect customers' privacy. And the Fourth Amendment forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Is it useful? Taken as a whole, such a database is of dubious utility. U.S. intelligence-gathering agencies are already suffering from an abundance of raw information and a dearth of good intelligence. Looking for suspicious patterns among billions of phone numbers seems like the ultimate search for a needle in a haystack.

Is it foolproof? These types of databases invariably have errors. The federal terrorist "watch list," which is used to screen airline passengers, has ensnared a number of innocent travelers - among them Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., and a 23-month-old toddler - whose names are similar to, or the same as, suspects on the list. Once you're mistakenly targeted, the error can be nearly impossible to fix and your life can be turned upside down.

Will it be abused? Maybe not at first. Over time, however, this vast quantity of data is a potentially irresistible tool for government officials who want to zero in on individual Americans.

At the very least, one can imagine this information being used by law enforcement agencies trying to trace people who have attracted their attention but about whom they don't have enough information to justify a court order. Or to look for whistle-blowers who have leaked sensitive information to reporters.

Consider what happened in the 1960s and '70s, the last time federal law enforcement and national security agencies launched mass snooping expeditions against U.S. citizens. The FBI, which became a clearinghouse for the data, sent them to the CIA, the Justice Department and the IRS, where some of the data were used in tax probes.

"Information that should not have been gathered in the first place has gone beyond the initial agency to numerous other agencies and officials, thus compounding the original intrusion," concluded a committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, which investigated and reported on the abuses in 1976. The amount of information was "so voluminous," it was difficult "to separate useful data from worthless detail."

NSA's technological capabilities, the Church Committee wrote, are a "sensitive national asset" valuable to the national defense. Even so, it warned, "if not properly controlled ... this same technological capability could be turned against the American people, at great cost to liberty."

The panel's conclusions about NSA are as valid today as they were then.

The phone record program serves as a powerful reminder of how, in a digital age, records can be compiled and analyzed in ways you are unaware of.

And combined with a separate NSA program (revealed in December by The New York Times) to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls from the USA, it raises the question of what other secret and constitutionally suspect programs the Bush administration might still be shielding.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA for six years and is now Bush's nominee to be CIA director, is a master of evasion. Speaking in January about the international eavesdropping, he said the program is not a widely cast "drift net" but is narrowly "focused" and "targeted."

Perhaps. But, at the time, he was fully aware of a program that is many of the things the other is not. A 2006 version of the Church Committee is needed to investigate the anti-terror programs created in the scary aftermath of 9/11, and the Senate should hold up Hayden's nomination until all its questions are answered.

Creating a huge, secret database of Americans' phone records does far more than threaten terrorists. It is a deeply troubling act that undermines U.S. freedoms and threatens us all.

The White House declined to provide an opposing view to this editorial.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20...s45s678B2YD;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
 
Thank you for your input.

Now, if you would please refer to the title of this thread:

Looks Like Most Americans Have No Problem With NSA/Phone Record Program
 
Diuretic said:
The people that own the copyright to the term "Land of the free" want you to stop using it. However they said that you can use "Land of the sort-of free" with no problems. But they reserve the right to withdraw permission for that one too if things go downhill.

:thanks: :thup:
 
GotZoom said:
A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

I wonder how many people are aware that the program is illegal .
 
5stringJeff said:
I wonder how many people are aware that the program is illegal .

Everyone has an opinion on it's legality.

"This activity by the NSA doesn't violate anything the court has said with respect to the Fourth Amendment," Fairfield University professor Don Greenberg, chairman of the college's politics department, said Thursday. "It's definitely not an unreasonable seizure. They are not listening in on your calls. People who have access to your phone records are not necessarily sworn to any kind of secrecy," Nevertheless, the NSA's phone record compilation is a "bad idea," he said, because it overreaches. "Instead of collecting good information, it bogs the government down in information overload. They would be better off taking a more selective tactic collecting information, rather than this shotgun approach."

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_3814068
 
GotZoom said:
Everyone has an opinion on it's legality.

"This activity by the NSA doesn't violate anything the court has said with respect to the Fourth Amendment," Fairfield University professor Don Greenberg, chairman of the college's politics department, said Thursday. "It's definitely not an unreasonable seizure. They are not listening in on your calls. People who have access to your phone records are not necessarily sworn to any kind of secrecy," Nevertheless, the NSA's phone record compilation is a "bad idea," he said, because it overreaches. "Instead of collecting good information, it bogs the government down in information overload. They would be better off taking a more selective tactic collecting information, rather than this shotgun approach."

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_3814068

I'm wondering what a poli sci prof knows about the law. One doesn't necessarily have to do with the other.

Whether it's illegal or not isn't any more a matter of opinion than whether robbery is illegal. It seems that the way the statute is written, it doesn't matter if they think what they did was legal or not. Seems pretty straightforward to me, even without delving into the Constitutional arguments.
 
I really don't care if it's legal or not.
If it proves useful, or if it could have prevented a child I knew from being
a victim in the OKC bombing, I'm all for it.
 
Officials of BellSouth Corp., which serves hundreds of thousands of telephone customers in Tennessee, says that the company would not turn over phone records to the government "without proper legal authority."

Atlanta-based BellSouth issued a press release in the wake of a USA Today report that the company, along with AT&T and Verizon Communications, had supplied the National Security Agency with databases of phone calls placed by millions of Americans. The newspaper said the information was turned over in response to an NSA request for data that could be used to track suspected terrorists.


"BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority," company officials said in the press release.

Spokesman Jeff Battcher told Cox News Service that BellSouth did not have a contract with the NSA and hadn't provided "mass, confidential information" to the agency. He said a subpoena was required to turn over details about call records. BellSouth serves nine Southeastern states.

http://www.rctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060512/NEWS01/605120412/1006/MTCN0301

Maybe there were supoenas or even a "National Security Letter" which does not require a court order.
 
JOKER96BRAVO said:
I really don't care if it's legal or not.
If it proves useful, or if it could have prevented a child I knew from being
a victim in the OKC bombing, I'm all for it.

Apparently you and I have a problem then. We find nothing wrong with this because we WANT our citizens protected from terrorists and are willing to give up a small section of our rights for that protection.
 
I'm a firm believer that everything is circumstantial.
In this case, I see it saving more lives than doing more harm.
Legal or not, if you can't see that you need help.
 
Guess this ain't true........

The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.

The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.

The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.

With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.
Question! If this is legal why would an offer of payment be made? Wouldn't there be a legal obligation to turn over the info.?

Ya'll can't spin this for Bush...IT'S FUCKING ILLEGAL!!
 
Mr. P said:
Guess this ain't true........


Question! If this is legal why would an offer of payment be made? Wouldn't there be a legal obligation to turn over the info.?

Ya'll can't spin this for Bush...IT'S FUCKING ILLEGAL!!
So what!!!
It might save someone you love.

Given the (on the spot) chance, to save hundreds of lives
by which you must kill one person, would you do it???
 
JOKER96BRAVO said:
So what!!!
It might save someone you love.

Given the (on the spot) chance, to save hundreds of lives
by which you must kill one person, would you do it???

Mr P says "It's illegal"... you say "so what"?!? :wtf:

Sorry, but there are better ways to target terrorists than throwing out a proverbial fishnet and seeing what turns up.
 
jillian said:
Isn't the better question "are you willing to die to defend our freedom?"
Been there done that. However, my time to pass never came.
I am a proud disabled veteran of war.
 
GotZoom said:
Apparently you and I have a problem then. We find nothing wrong with this because we WANT our citizens protected from terrorists and are willing to give up a small section of our rights for that protection.

That makes three of us, and we weren't even polled. :salute:

With the amount of our personal information that gets shared by all kinds of agencies and companies, a list of my phone calls is the least of my worries.

I am sure that many Americans throw that same phone information (i.e. their phone bill) in the trash, where it becomes public property anyway.
 

Forum List

Back
Top