NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

[5stringJeff]

Abso-freakin-lutely wrong. There is no justification for this program. The only bright spot is that my phone company, Qwest, stood up to the Feds.

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

Link

 

[jillian]

Abso-freakin-lutely wrong. There is no justification for this program. The only bright spot is that my phone company, Qwest, stood up to the Feds.

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

Link

Everyone should be screaming from the rafter about this one. It's inexcusable.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Everyone should be screaming from the rafter about this one. It's inexcusable.

Still on the terrorists side I see. Sad.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Still on the terrorists side I see. Sad.

I guess that makes Jeff on their side, too?

 

[dilloduck]

Everyone should be screaming from the rafter about this one. It's inexcusable.

I think thats why they timed the release of this information to coincide with Haydens' confirmation process. Just because somebody thinks I should be screaming doesn't mean I will. Handcuffing the law breeds criminals.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Collecting intelligence is a very fine line.
Requesting ALL records for every user is different because it does not
target any certain groups. Is it legal - yes, Is it right - no.
Do I care - no.

 

[jillian]

It isn't legal. The Constitution requires probable cause before the government is entitled to do a search. Under certain rare exceptions, such as exigent circumstances, where a warrant isn't needed.

Saying it's okay because you like the guys doing it is dangerous. Someday someone you don't like will have that power.

What separates us from a banana republic if our citizens' privacy can be violated with impunity just because the president yells "terrorism"?

If someone is believed to be a terrorist...go after them. This garbage about people being pro-terrorist if they don't believe in government tyranny doesn't fly. So ... :chillpill

 

[5stringJeff]

Still on the terrorists side I see. Sad.

Objecting to collecting everyone's phone records - including most innocent Americans who are not charged or suspected of a crime - is being on the terrorists' side??

Bush is over the line on this one.

 

[dilloduck]

It isn't legal. The Constitution requires probable cause before the government is entitled to do a search. Under certain rare exceptions, such as exigent circumstances, where a warrant isn't needed.

Saying it's okay because you like the guys doing it is dangerous. Someday someone you don't like will have that power.

What separates us from a banana republic if our citizens' privacy can be violated with impunity just because the president yells "terrorism"?

If someone is believed to be a terrorist...go after them. This garbage about people being pro-terrorist if they don't believe in government tyranny doesn't fly. So ... :chillpill

The slippery slope argument is garbage----if ANY innocent is convicted on evidence obtained in this manner I will scream. Until then they collect away as far as I'm concerned.

 

[5stringJeff]

The slippery slope argument is garbage----if ANY innocent is convicted on evidence obtained in this manner I will scream. Until then they collect away as far as I'm concerned.

On what grounds may the government collect this information?

 

[jillian]

The slippery slope argument is garbage----if ANY innocent is convicted on evidence obtained in this manner I will scream. Until then they collect away as far as I'm concerned.

How about if the information is used to blackmail a political candidate? Or the CEO of a business?

The prohibition against warrantless searches has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It concerns only the level of intrusion the government is allowed to make into our lives.

Or do you like the idea of living in a police State?

 

[Mr. P]

I guess that makes Jeff on their side, too?

Me too.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'd just love to see everyone's reactions if Hillary Clinton was president and going this...


Hell, maybe in 4 years I will :fifty:

 

[Mr. P]

I'd just love to see everyone's reactions if Hillary Clinton was president and going this...


Hell, maybe in 4 years I will :fifty:

Kinda separates the "Citizens" from those with blind support, don't it?

 

[Democrat4Bush]

I have to agree with Jeff and Jillian.

I am very uncomfortable with this whole thing.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Kinda separates the "Citizens" from those with blind support, don't it?

There are much easier ways to accomplish that.

 

[Annie]

I just don't have a problem with them looking for patterns. I think Qwest was wrong, now the terrorists know where to go. USA Today did no Americans a favor today.

Links at site:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014051.php

May 11, 2006
NSA Accused of Protecting U.S. From Terrorists

Liberals are jumping up and down about USA Today's publication of another leak relating to the National Security Agency. It's considered a news flash that the NSA is collecting data on phone calls, with the cooperation of almost all of the major telecom companies, to look for suspicious patterns. This is a "data mining" project that does not involve listening in on conversations, but merely identifying phone numbers involved in possible terrorist communications.

Michelle Malkin has a good roundup of reaction to the story. I'd add just a few comments.

One, as A.J. Strata points out, the USA Today article identified Qwest as the one major carrier that declined the NSA's request for cooperation. Presumably Qwest has now become the terrorists' telecom company of choice. Way to go, USA Today!

Two, it's obvious that what the NSA does with this vast amount of data is to run it through computers, looking for suspicious patterns, especially involving known or suspected terrorist phone numbers. I did a quick calculation: assuming that there are 200 million adult Americans, each of whom places or receives ten phone calls a day (a conservative estimate, I think), it would require a small army of 35,000 full-time NSA employees to pay a total of one second of attention to each call. In other words, lighten up: the NSA obviously isn't tracking your phone calls with your friends and relatives.

Three, it's interesting to juxtapose the NSA stories--this one plus the Agency's international terrorist surveillance program--with this account of a report earlier today by Britain's Intelligence and Security Committee on the subway bombings in London last July:

The suicide bombers who killed 52 passengers on London's transit system had a string of contacts with someone in Pakistan just before striking, Britain's top law enforcement official said Thursday.

However, authorities admitted they didn't know what was discussed in those contacts and stuck with their contention that the blasts were a home-grown plot and that the degree of involvement by al-Qaida, if any, was unknown.

Thursday's report by the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded that intelligence agents had been alerted to two of the suicide bombers before the attacks but limited resources prevented them from uncovering the plot.

Reid, speaking of the contacts in Pakistan ahead of the attacks, said authorities did not know what was discussed. *** "There are a series of suspicious contacts from an unknown individual or individuals in Pakistan in the immediate run-up to the bombings," Reid said after his department released its narrative of the attacks. "We do not know their content."

Sounds like they should have listened in on those calls. These are exactly the kind of communications that are intercepted by the NSA under the terrorist surveillance program that has been widely denounced by Democrats.
Posted by John at 11:10 AM

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I also live in the Qwest phone area like Jeff. However, when I looked into getting a regular phone line at my new address Qwest required that I give them my social security number in order to get service. I refused on the principle of the thing. None of my other utilities require a SSN to get service (knock on wood). Instead I just use my cell phone with Verizon which didn't require my SSN.

My question is, if Qwest refuses national security probing, why does it require a SSN? I thought it wasn't even legal for a business to require your SSN. Do the phone companies in other states require you to give them your social security number as well?

 

[Mr. P]

I also live in the Qwest phone area like Jeff. However, when I looked into getting a regular phone line at my new address Qwest required that I give them my social security number in order to get service. I refused on the principle of the thing. None of my other utilities require a SSN to get service (knock on wood). Instead I just use my cell phone with Verizon which didn't require my SSN.

My question is, if Qwest refuses national security probing, why does it require a SSN? I thought it wasn't even legal for a business to require your SSN. Do the phone companies in other states require you to give them your social security number as well?

It's for a credit check as far as I know. After some 8 years after being a BellSouth customer for many years, I went back to them a month ago.
Even as a past customer they wanted an ssi number. Sux, but the price was right.

 

[dilloduck]

It's for a credit check as far as I know. After some 8 years after being a BellSouth customer for many years, I went back to them a month ago.
Even as a past customer they wanted an ssi number. Sux, but the price was right.

Exactly my thoughts of THIS TYPE of surveillance--the price is right.