Have you been taped w/o your knowledge?

[AllyandJack]

You can't have Verizon sitting on information that could potentially save thousands of lives. They have the information anyway. It's not a new database or the collection of new information. I don't want to be the victim of a terror attack and later find out that Verizon had key information that could have prevented it from happening.

With all of the things you let the government know about you, not to mention all of the records private companies keep about you, this is so minor.

 

[bsnyder]

I don't believe we need to repeal the 4th amendment. But if people out there are so afraid of terrorism that they want to see the constitution and those laws changed, they should try and get that done.

I think you completely missed the point I'm trying to make. Almost everyone would agree with you, at this point. We don't need to repeal the 4th amendment. But if we don't use common-sense approaches, with available technology to "connect the dots" and deter future attacks, if we have another "big one", you'll see that opinion change. Many people will say they'll be willing to give up a lot of their personal liberity in exchange for security. That should be what scares you!

What about the 5,000 innocent Arab American men who were detained and questioned without warrant in the name of the Patriot Act, simply on the basis of their race? Over 700 American Muslims were detained in NYC alone, none of whom had any connection to terrorists.

And on this new data mining: do you know exactly *who* is examining these phone records? The gov't has farmed out this job to less accountable agencies like covert military ops and private companies, some of which are not subject to any review.

It seems innocent now, but where will it stop?

All this is a bit to authoritarian for my taste.

It's totally misleading to say that the program is examining phone "records". They are examining phone numbers - they don't have names and addresses attached to them. As for "who" is doing it, it's not even a who, it's a what. It's computers analysizing bunch of o's and 1's.

As Galahad points out, this is nothing new, it pre-dates this Administration. And even this latest media frenzy, caused by USA Today's publication of "new" revelations about the Bush Administration is a crock - all of this new information was revealed by the New York Times leak back in December.

With all of the things you let the government know about you, not to mention all of the records private companies keep about you, this is so minor.

Yep. Think about the massive amount of personal information the government already has about each of us when we file our annual tax return. They know where you do your banking, what type of investments you have, what charities you donate money to (and how much), etc. But there's no big outcry about that. Because we've decided that honest and accurate tax collections are in the public interest and outweigh the privacy invasion.

 

[momomonster]

Sheesh Galahad, way to take the wind out of the sails!

[sarcasm] Oh, yeah, the "Clinton did it, too!" argument is simply devastating. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. [/sarcasm]

 

[Laura]

This data collection pre-dates this administration.

This program started after 9/11/2001.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa-qna_x.htm

 

[bsnyder]

This program started after 9/11/2001.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa-qna_x.htm

I believe what Galahad is referring to is the fact that the government has been doing data mining on phone records for a while now. Ever heard of Echelon?

And it's possible that the "particular" program that USA Today refers to wasn't simply implemented by the Bush Administration, so much as greatly expanded. That would be my guess.

 

[chobie]

This program started after 9/11/2001.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa-qna_x.htm

Sheesh Laura, way to take the wind out of the sails!

 

[Charade]

Anyone ever hear about the Eschelon program?

You think this is frightening? Read up on Eschelon.

 

[bsnyder]

Breaking news from Scrappleface:

May 12, 2006
Congress to Scrap NSA, Create ‘Transparent’ Spy Agency
by Scott Ott

(2006-05-12) — Concerned that the National Security Agency (NSA) may have violated the civil liberties of Americans by analyzing records of millions of phone calls to detect patterns that might indicate terrorist activity, a bipartisan coalition in Congress today will unveil legislation to scrap the NSA and replace it with a more ‘transparent’ spy agency.

According to language in the measure, the new intelligence unit, dubbed Open-Source Intelligence (OSI), will “harness the power of the internet to protect the right of the American people to know how their spy dollar is spent.”

“There’s nothing like sunshine to ensure accountability,” said an unnamed Congressional aide who spoke in exchange for a lobster dinner, a fine chianti and a $12 Macanudo cigar. “Just because the enemy is among us, using our telecommunications infrastructure to plot the next major attack, doesn’t mean the government can sneak around doing secret stuff simply to save a few thousand, or million, lives. We have rights.”

Under the terms of the bill, the OSI website will include a list of all covert agents, with photos, home addresses, email links and IM screennames. As the OSI gathers data, it will be accessible in real-time through the website to “premium subscribers,” but even non-members will be able to view the aggregated data, and listen to brief, sample clips of legally intercepted phone calls.”

 

[MUFFYCAT]

i have nothing to hide- go ahead and tape

i believe after listening to our house, they'll be bored and move on

 

[bsnyder]

As for that "principled" stand taken by Qwest to "protect" our privacy:

From the Qwest website:
"Our representatives pull up account records and may refer to your bill, your calling patterns, and other information we have to answer questions you may have or recommend how we can best serve you."

And this: "We share information within our Qwest companies to enable us to better understand our customers' product and service needs, and to learn how to best design, develop, and package products and services to meet those needs. . . . Currently, our primary lines of business include local and long-distance services, wireless services, cable services, dedicated web hosting, Internet access for businesses and consumers, on-line services, and directory publishing. We also offer other products and services, for example, Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), telephone equipment, voice mail services, and directory advertising."

"As a general rule, Qwest does not release customer account information to unaffiliated third parties without your permission unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate."

 

[chobie]

Gosh, its so funny all of this. I hope they invade every detail of my private life --what a hoot.

 

[JPN4265]

I don't know if I have -- if I did know, it wouldn't have been taping me without my knowledge.

If you don't, your not doing enough, if you do, your doing to much. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Charade]

As for that "principled" stand taken by Qwest to "protect" our privacy:

I guess they feel national security isn't appropriate.

 

[CheshireVal]

It's totally misleading to say that the program is examining phone "records". They are examining phone numbers - they don't have names and addresses attached to them. As for "who" is doing it, it's not even a who, it's a what. It's computers analysizing bunch of o's and 1's.

Well, as far as I know, computers aren't self-aware (yet )

They don't just run themselves!

 

[Galahad]

I believe what Galahad is referring to is the fact that the government has been doing data mining on phone records for a while now. Ever heard of Echelon?

And it's possible that the "particular" program that USA Today refers to wasn't simply implemented by the Bush Administration, so much as greatly expanded. That would be my guess.

Yes, that's essentially what I'm saying. The constitutionality and legality of the collection and mining of these kinds of records was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1997. Collection of data, under other programs, began in 1999. It is not a case of "Clinton did it too". It is a case of "be sure you hate the practice intrinsically rather than because of who's name is currently attached to it".

 

[KarenC]

I don't really have an issue with the government obtaining large amounts of data in order to find the needle in a haystack that will keep us secure. We have technology that wasn't anticipated when the 4th ammendment was added to our constitution. Credit Card companies have very extensive data mining operations that alert them to potential fraud. Both times my American Express card number was stolen (not the card, just the number) they figured it out within hours. I've never been impeded from using my credit card by their data mining program so it must be pretty effective at weeding out "false positives".

That said, I strongly believe that when politics intersect with national security, programs such as this must be very carefully designed to ensure that the data isn't used inappropriately. I don't trust any administration, least of all the current gang, to administer such a program without appropriate non-partisan oversight.

 

[CheshireVal]

Yes, but data mining was only REQUIRED by law when Bush signed the Homeland Security bill in 2003. The problem with it is that it can be abused because no one particular entity is really in charge since TIA lost funding.

This has serious potential to be abused. I don't normally like slippery slope fallacies, but Americans are so willing to give up privacy that they deem as "not really important," who knows where the line will be drawn?

 

[jgmklmhem]

But as Gallahad has pointed out the Supreme Court has deemed these types of activity constitutional so whether we like it or not currently these programs have been deemed constitutional just like abortion....we don't have to like it or even agree with the Supreme Court's decision...but as of now they are both legal.

I also always find these discussion some what amusing becuase the side who always wants more government in areas like health care is the first to get upset over something like this program. I mean if we were ever to go to nationalized health care then almost all of at least your billing and such and maybe even more would be in government hands. I see that as much more intrusive than finding out who I have been calling. Like others have said our tax returns have way more personally damaging data on them as well.

 

[poohandwendy]

Sheesh Laura, way to take the wind out of the sails!

LOL...no, not quite. As demonstrated above, this is nothing new.

 

[Nancy]

Well, if you really want to know what everyone is talking about why bother secretly recording anything. All they need to do is plop their butts in any Mall, rest. grocery store, movies, etc. and listen to all the cell phone users. Most don't seem to care who is listening to them. I have unfortunately been privy to all kinds of things I really didn't need to hear!