mainstream media slant (phone database records issue)

[daniel49]

In saying that media is biased , I have often felt its biased not in what it does report , but the convienant facts it leaves out.

http://www.nysun.com/article/32651
*************************************************************************

An editorial from the New York Sun

No sooner had the man who ran the National Security Agency for years been nominated to head the CIA than USA Today rushed out details of our efforts to use technical means to find terrorists using the phones. And no sooner had USA Today disclosed details of an apparent attempt by the National Security Agency to defend Americans from terrorists than the Democratic Party and its leading politicians and interest groups went on the attack. Not against the terrorists but against President Bush. "This is another example of the Bush Administration misleading the American people," said a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, Stacie Paxton.

Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts called the program "abusive" and said "Today's shocking disclosures make it more important than ever for the Republican Congress to end its complicity in the White House cover up of its massive domestic surveillance program. When three major telephone companies are supplying the administration with records of all Americans regardless of any hint of wrongdoing, Congress can't look the other way." Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat of Tennessee, went on Fox News Channel to call the news "disturbing." Senator Clinton pronounced herself "deeply disturbed."
Mrs. Clinton might want to have a talk with her husband. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible.President Bush struck exactly the right notes yesterday. "So far we've been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil," Mr. Bush said. "As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy. Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country." If he seemed calm about the latest disclosures, we can't help wondering whether it's because he recognizes that when Americans go to sleep at night, they're less worried about the "danger" that the government is looking for terrorists than they are about the danger that terrorists are looking for them.

This is the issue that the Democrats of the Howard-Dean-John-Kerry era just don't seem to prepared to credit. The Democrats who controlled the White House and both houses of Congress in 1994 showed signs of understanding the national security issues at stake here when they passed the law. Their understanding seems to have eroded since then. It can't be that they feel America faces less of a threat - if anything, the attacks of September 11, 2001, make the case for such programs even stronger. What's changed isn't the enemy threat but the party that now controls the White House. Which explains why Mrs. Clinton is "deeply disturbed" about activities legal under a law her husband signed.

 

[Cruise51]

?The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.?

 

[OrByte]

HE DID IT!!

no wait....

HE DID IT!!

nooo....waitaminute...


we did it to ourselves.

 

[Lemon law]

I just want the answer to two questions regarding this basic data mining.

1. How much is this really costing us--the US taxpayer to fund this datamining---gotta be a bundle.

2. Who in the history iof the world has this caught?

 

[skooma]

I don't even see where that act grants them the right to do any "data mining". I haven't poured over it but it mostly says that the telecoms should have the ability to provide such information if needed. Like we should have an army to defend ourselves but that doesn't give the president the right to use it any time he likes. I think, lol.

In answer to your questions-
1) I'm wondering this myself but I'm sure we'll never know.
2) Noone?

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Cruise51
?The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.?

I have been reading this a lot lately and it is a good quote...to be applied to the years before the internet, now it means nothing.

Simply by choosing to log onto the internet, you have given up your security for the freedom to find anything you want, play games, look at pr0n or listen to music or watch movies.

In this day and age anyone can find out anything about anyone they want. Through the use of an address, SS#, license plate, IP address, phone # or any other slight bit of info anyone can find what they want for $10 or less. With the advent of the internet, local, state and the federal goverment have made thier records available. Records that have always been "public record" such as court dockets or land ownership are freely available to gawk at anytime you want. It used to be youhad to make a trip to the courthouse and look them up manually....not anymore, FOR FREE.

For example if I have your name I can look up your locakl municipal court to see if you have any traffic violations, from that I can find out where you live and from that I can pretty much get anything I want about you.....for free.

Anyone who really belives that they can have thier cake (the ability to access the internet) and eat it to (the privacy we all desire) is foolish to think it will happen....not anymore.

The goveerment is the least of your worries, it is the crooks and corporate greed for your information is what you should be worried about.


So the goverment "may" have wiretapped a few phones. So they "might" have your phone number....in this day and age that is the least of your worries.

 

[techs]

That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

That is exactly the point. It is UNLAWFUL for the government to violate the Constitution. Which is what Bush did.
The idea that a law passed under Clinton can allow a violation of the Constitution is ludicrous. Only a Constitutional Amendment can do that.
And the idea that a "court order" isn't the only lawful way to get this info, as the article states, may mean things like a Presidentially signed, NSA drafted letter. Which has always meant a single individual or small group of individuals whose records are being requested or the National Security Act that allows getting this info for up to a short time until a court order can be gotten. These acts have been held to be Constitutional by the courts because they are urgent and limited.
Your post is completely erroneous in the criticizing the media on this. Many Republicans and Democrats and Constitutional scholars have called what Bush did outrageous and illegal. In fact outside of the Bush administration there haven't been many supporters.
Lastly, the whole idea that if it ok for one person than we can do it to everyone is dangerous. An example would be if we can torture suspects in emergency situations to get information than we can just torture everyone to get information.
When the Nazis came to get my grandparents they had no trouble finding them. Seems the Nazis has spent the last few years finding out everything about everyone in Germany. The phone company in Germany was an excellent source. Of course the Nazis justified it with the same rationale as the Bushies. Enemies of the state have no rights. How can it be the the USA is doing what the Nazis did?


and from Wiki on the New York Sun:
The paper's owners include Hollinger International, the company once led by Conrad Black until his arrest warrant following numerous indictments by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Other Sun owners are a group of New York City businessmen, as well as the paper's two founding editors. The paper's staff include many well-known political conservatives. Major backers of the paper include Bruce Kovner, a billionaire financier who is also a backer of the neoconservative Manhattan Institute and American Enterprise Institute, as well as Roger Hertog, a trustee of the American Enterprise Institute, which is associated with the Project for the New American Century.


Not a newspaper but a PROPAGANDA source itself!!!

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Cruise51
?The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.?

I have been reading this a lot lately and it is a good quote...to be applied to the years before the internet, now it means nothing.

Simply by choosing to log onto the internet, you have given up your security for the freedom to find anything you want, play games, look at pr0n or listen to music or watch movies.

In this day and age anyone can find out anything about anyone they want. Through the use of an address, SS#, license plate, IP address, phone # or any other slight bit of info anyone can find what they want for $10 or less. With the advent of the internet, local, state and the federal goverment have made thier records available. Records that have always been "public record" such as court dockets or land ownership are freely available to gawk at anytime you want. It used to be youhad to make a trip to the courthouse and look them up manually....not anymore, FOR FREE.

For example if I have your name I can look up your locakl municipal court to see if you have any traffic violations, from that I can find out where you live and from that I can pretty much get anything I want about you.....for free.

Anyone who really belives that they can have thier cake (the ability to access the internet) and eat it to (the privacy we all desire) is foolish to think it will happen....not anymore.

The goveerment is the least of your worries, it is the crooks and corporate greed for your information is what you should be worried about.


So the goverment "may" have wiretapped a few phones. So they "might" have your phone number....in this day and age that is the least of your worries.

so we should not care?
yeah right...

btw- your argument = red herring = not a very good argument. What we do on the internet has nothing to do with the issue. And if it really was that easy for the government to get useful relevant data they would just google it. :roll:

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: techs
That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

That is exactly the point. It is UNLAWFUL for the government to violate the Constitution. Which is what Bush did.
The idea that a law passed under Clinton can allow a violation of the Constitution is ludicrous. Only a Constitutional Amendment can do that.
And the idea that a "court order" isn't the only lawful way to get this info, as the article states, may mean things like a Presidentially signed, NSA drafted letter. Which has always meant a single individual or small group of individuals whose records are being requested or the National Security Act that allows getting this info for up to a short time until a court order can be gotten. These acts have been held to be Constitutional by the courts because they are urgent and limited.
Your post is completely erroneous in the criticizing the media on this. Many Republicans and Democrats and Constitutional scholars have called what Bush did outrageous and illegal. In fact outside of the Bush administration there haven't been many supporters.
Lastly, the whole idea that if it ok for one person than we can do it to everyone is dangerous. An example would be if we can torture suspects in emergency situations to get information than we can just torture everyone to get information.
When the Nazis came to get my grandparents they had no trouble finding them. Seems the Nazis has spent the last few years finding out everything about everyone in Germany. The phone company in Germany was an excellent source. Of course the Nazis justified it with the same rationale as the Bushies. Enemies of the state have no rights. How can it be the the USA is doing what the Nazis did?


and from Wiki on the New York Sun:
The paper's owners include Hollinger International, the company once led by Conrad Black until his arrest warrant following numerous indictments by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Other Sun owners are a group of New York City businessmen, as well as the paper's two founding editors. The paper's staff include many well-known political conservatives. Major backers of the paper include Bruce Kovner, a billionaire financier who is also a backer of the neoconservative Manhattan Institute and American Enterprise Institute, as well as Roger Hertog, a trustee of the American Enterprise Institute, which is associated with the Project for the New American Century.


Not a newspaper but a PROPAGANDA source itself!!!

section 103(a)2. of the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Acts specifically states a court order or other lawful authorization
My guess is that intercepting communication of an enemy hell bent on destruction of the United States would fall under National Security that would clearly give voice to the words other Lawful Authorization
Since security of the US is clearly a Govermental mandate.

Now we can certainly argue that this is a bad law, poorly worded and without proper safeguards, but please can we give the full story USA today?
And that is that this phoney outrage of Democratic senators is in response to something thier party made law 12 years ago.


I will be equally interested in seeing your blow by blow breakdown of the New York Times owners and staff:Q must be a few skeletons in that crew.

Many republicans and democrats are outraged about many things in front of the camera..take it with the grain of salt.
They are all outraged about our borders as well as they sit there and do nothing, except keep mexico informed of where minutemen are.


in conclusion you sound pretty worked up about it. Perhaps putting more safeguards in the law is what is needed? I dunno. I do know we can not defeat an enemy if our attemps at subtrafuge are constantly splattered all over the National Headlines in an attempt to get more Democrats in congress?

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Cruise51
?The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.?

I have been reading this a lot lately and it is a good quote...to be applied to the years before the internet, now it means nothing.

Simply by choosing to log onto the internet, you have given up your security for the freedom to find anything you want, play games, look at pr0n or listen to music or watch movies.

In this day and age anyone can find out anything about anyone they want. Through the use of an address, SS#, license plate, IP address, phone # or any other slight bit of info anyone can find what they want for $10 or less. With the advent of the internet, local, state and the federal goverment have made thier records available. Records that have always been "public record" such as court dockets or land ownership are freely available to gawk at anytime you want. It used to be youhad to make a trip to the courthouse and look them up manually....not anymore, FOR FREE.

For example if I have your name I can look up your locakl municipal court to see if you have any traffic violations, from that I can find out where you live and from that I can pretty much get anything I want about you.....for free.

Anyone who really belives that they can have thier cake (the ability to access the internet) and eat it to (the privacy we all desire) is foolish to think it will happen....not anymore.

The goveerment is the least of your worries, it is the crooks and corporate greed for your information is what you should be worried about.


So the goverment "may" have wiretapped a few phones. So they "might" have your phone number....in this day and age that is the least of your worries.

so we should not care?
yeah right...

btw- your argument = red herring = not a very good argument. What we do on the internet has nothing to do with the issue. And if it really was that easy for the government to get useful relevant data they would just google it. :roll:

exactly my point.

The big issue for people concernd about this, is the invasion of thier privacy, or security. The fact is in this day and age, that privacy is not as easliy held onto as it once was. As soon as your computer logs onto the internet it is open season on you and your information and privacy. That is the trade off you choose to make when you step into the digital age.

Is if fair? No.

But none the less it is a reality that was not there 30, 40, 50 or a 100 years ago.

You can care all you want, what exactly do you want to happen?

The best possible outcome for those opposed to this is that Bush is found responsible. He and those around him who are involved are indicted and go to prison. So what? it solves nothing. Who ever steps in will do the same thing just in a more covert way.

I would guess that more than half the people who are up in arms over this belive in goverment conspiracies any way, so even if the NSA says "ok we'll stop monitoring calls" are you really going to believe it? probably not.

But it's your life, if you wanna make this a focus of what you do and look for a goverment boogeyman in every corner be my guest, I hope it brings you fullfilment in your life.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Cruise51
?The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.?

I have been reading this a lot lately and it is a good quote...to be applied to the years before the internet, now it means nothing.

Simply by choosing to log onto the internet, you have given up your security for the freedom to find anything you want, play games, look at pr0n or listen to music or watch movies.

In this day and age anyone can find out anything about anyone they want. Through the use of an address, SS#, license plate, IP address, phone # or any other slight bit of info anyone can find what they want for $10 or less. With the advent of the internet, local, state and the federal goverment have made thier records available. Records that have always been "public record" such as court dockets or land ownership are freely available to gawk at anytime you want. It used to be youhad to make a trip to the courthouse and look them up manually....not anymore, FOR FREE.

For example if I have your name I can look up your locakl municipal court to see if you have any traffic violations, from that I can find out where you live and from that I can pretty much get anything I want about you.....for free.

Anyone who really belives that they can have thier cake (the ability to access the internet) and eat it to (the privacy we all desire) is foolish to think it will happen....not anymore.

The goveerment is the least of your worries, it is the crooks and corporate greed for your information is what you should be worried about.


So the goverment "may" have wiretapped a few phones. So they "might" have your phone number....in this day and age that is the least of your worries.

so we should not care?
yeah right...

btw- your argument = red herring = not a very good argument. What we do on the internet has nothing to do with the issue. And if it really was that easy for the government to get useful relevant data they would just google it. :roll:

exactly my point.

The big issue for people concernd about this, is the invasion of thier privacy, or security. The fact is in this day and age, that privacy is not as easliy held onto as it once was. As soon as your computer logs onto the internet it is open season on you and your information and privacy. That is the trade off you choose to make when you step into the digital age.

Is if fair? No.

But none the less it is a reality that was not there 30, 40, 50 or a 100 years ago.

You can care all you want, what exactly do you want to happen?

The best possible outcome for those opposed to this is that Bush is found responsible. He and those around him who are involved are indicted and go to prison. So what? it solves nothing. Who ever steps in will do the same thing just in a more covert way.

I would guess that more than half the people who are up in arms over this belive in goverment conspiracies any way, so even if the NSA says "ok we'll stop monitoring calls" are you really going to believe it? probably not.

But it's your life, if you wanna make this a focus of what you do and look for a goverment boogeyman in every corner be my guest, I hope it brings you fullfilment in your life.

so I get it, lets just shrug it all off and go watch NASCAR.

ok thanks.

The big issue isn't so much the data mining..it is the possible violation of law. And I don't want my children to have to deal with a government that is so blatant in violating the law. I will be happy with accountability.

you can get back to your NASCAR now.

 

[skooma]

Originally posted by: daniel49
section 103(a)2. of the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Acts specifically states a court order or other lawful authorization
My guess is that intercepting communication of an enemy hell bent on destruction of the United States would fall under National Security that would clearly give voice to the words other Lawful Authorization
Since security of the US is clearly a Govermental mandate.

Its still listed under "capability requirements", its not an authorization to use it. Its outlining scenarios in which these capabilities should be made available to our government.

And I agree, it should be no problem for bush to get his approval to mine some data on specific groups of people, provided he follows due process. Its not like the means to do so are non-existant. They have specific panels of judges that are ready to grant those privledges. Its not up to him to just blanket everyone.

Truly, if he's been trying for the last 6 years to stop people "hell bent" on destroying America and data mining his own constituents is where he's at, he matters well just step aside now.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

I refer to the Telecommunications act of 1934 (amended in 1996):

SEC. 222. [47 U.S.C. 222] PRIVACY OF CUSTOMER INFORMATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect
the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other
telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including
telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a
telecommunications carrier.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK
INFORMATION.--
(1) PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CARRIERS.--Except as required by law or with the approval of the
customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer
proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a
telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to
individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its
provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such
information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the
provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of
directories.

So what the government does not have to follow this act anymore?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: techs
That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

That is exactly the point. It is UNLAWFUL for the government to violate the Constitution. Which is what Bush did.
The idea that a law passed under Clinton can allow a violation of the Constitution is ludicrous. Only a Constitutional Amendment can do that.
And the idea that a "court order" isn't the only lawful way to get this info, as the article states, may mean things like a Presidentially signed, NSA drafted letter. Which has always meant a single individual or small group of individuals whose records are being requested or the National Security Act that allows getting this info for up to a short time until a court order can be gotten. These acts have been held to be Constitutional by the courts because they are urgent and limited.
Your post is completely erroneous in the criticizing the media on this. Many Republicans and Democrats and Constitutional scholars have called what Bush did outrageous and illegal. In fact outside of the Bush administration there haven't been many supporters.
Lastly, the whole idea that if it ok for one person than we can do it to everyone is dangerous. An example would be if we can torture suspects in emergency situations to get information than we can just torture everyone to get information.
When the Nazis came to get my grandparents they had no trouble finding them. Seems the Nazis has spent the last few years finding out everything about everyone in Germany. The phone company in Germany was an excellent source. Of course the Nazis justified it with the same rationale as the Bushies. Enemies of the state have no rights. How can it be the the USA is doing what the Nazis did?


and from Wiki on the New York Sun:
The paper's owners include Hollinger International, the company once led by Conrad Black until his arrest warrant following numerous indictments by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Other Sun owners are a group of New York City businessmen, as well as the paper's two founding editors. The paper's staff include many well-known political conservatives. Major backers of the paper include Bruce Kovner, a billionaire financier who is also a backer of the neoconservative Manhattan Institute and American Enterprise Institute, as well as Roger Hertog, a trustee of the American Enterprise Institute, which is associated with the Project for the New American Century.


Not a newspaper but a PROPAGANDA source itself!!!

section 103(a)2. of the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Acts specifically states a court order or other lawful authorization
My guess is that intercepting communication of an enemy hell bent on destruction of the United States would fall under National Security that would clearly give voice to the words other Lawful Authorization
Since security of the US is clearly a Govermental mandate.

Now we can certainly argue that this is a bad law, poorly worded and without proper safeguards, but please can we give the full story USA today?
And that is that this phoney outrage of Democratic senators is in response to something thier party made law 12 years ago.


I will be equally interested in seeing your blow by blow breakdown of the New York Times owners and staff:Q must be a few skeletons in that crew.

Many republicans and democrats are outraged about many things in front of the camera..take it with the grain of salt.
They are all outraged about our borders as well as they sit there and do nothing, except keep mexico informed of where minutemen are.


in conclusion you sound pretty worked up about it. Perhaps putting more safeguards in the law is what is needed? I dunno. I do know we can not defeat an enemy if our attemps at subtrafuge are constantly splattered all over the National Headlines in an attempt to get more Democrats in congress?

My guess is that intercepting communication of an enemy hell bent on destruction of the United States would fall under National Security that would clearly give voice to the words other Lawful Authorization
You guessed wrong. There are lawful means to get this info but the idea you are proposing you can just get them whenever you want is not supported. And the government is getting everyones records. Getting everyones phone records has nothing to do with catching terrorists.

I do know we can not defeat an enemy if our attemps at subtrafuge are constantly splattered all over the National Headlines in an attempt to get more Democrats in congress?
You have completely missed the point. Getting EVERYONES phone records is a ridiculous way to try and "defeat" and "enemy". This is just snooping. If the government has the least amount of evidence that someones planning an attack they can easily get that persons and any person they have been in touch withs phone records.
The government is getting EVERYONES phone records. Think of the abuse this can cause.
It is literally spying on every US citizen, without ANY cause, and is EXACTLY what the Nazis and Communists did and do to subjucate their people.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: techs
That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

That is exactly the point. It is UNLAWFUL for the government to violate the Constitution. Which is what Bush did.
The idea that a law passed under Clinton can allow a violation of the Constitution is ludicrous. Only a Constitutional Amendment can do that.
And the idea that a "court order" isn't the only lawful way to get this info, as the article states, may mean things like a Presidentially signed, NSA drafted letter. Which has always meant a single individual or small group of individuals whose records are being requested or the National Security Act that allows getting this info for up to a short time until a court order can be gotten. These acts have been held to be Constitutional by the courts because they are urgent and limited.
Your post is completely erroneous in the criticizing the media on this. Many Republicans and Democrats and Constitutional scholars have called what Bush did outrageous and illegal. In fact outside of the Bush administration there haven't been many supporters.
Lastly, the whole idea that if it ok for one person than we can do it to everyone is dangerous. An example would be if we can torture suspects in emergency situations to get information than we can just torture everyone to get information.
When the Nazis came to get my grandparents they had no trouble finding them. Seems the Nazis has spent the last few years finding out everything about everyone in Germany. The phone company in Germany was an excellent source. Of course the Nazis justified it with the same rationale as the Bushies. Enemies of the state have no rights. How can it be the the USA is doing what the Nazis did?


and from Wiki on the New York Sun:
The paper's owners include Hollinger International, the company once led by Conrad Black until his arrest warrant following numerous indictments by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Other Sun owners are a group of New York City businessmen, as well as the paper's two founding editors. The paper's staff include many well-known political conservatives. Major backers of the paper include Bruce Kovner, a billionaire financier who is also a backer of the neoconservative Manhattan Institute and American Enterprise Institute, as well as Roger Hertog, a trustee of the American Enterprise Institute, which is associated with the Project for the New American Century.


Not a newspaper but a PROPAGANDA source itself!!!

section 103(a)2. of the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Acts specifically states a court order or other lawful authorization
My guess is that intercepting communication of an enemy hell bent on destruction of the United States would fall under National Security that would clearly give voice to the words other Lawful Authorization
Since security of the US is clearly a Govermental mandate.

Now we can certainly argue that this is a bad law, poorly worded and without proper safeguards, but please can we give the full story USA today?
And that is that this phoney outrage of Democratic senators is in response to something thier party made law 12 years ago.


I will be equally interested in seeing your blow by blow breakdown of the New York Times owners and staff:Q must be a few skeletons in that crew.

Many republicans and democrats are outraged about many things in front of the camera..take it with the grain of salt.
They are all outraged about our borders as well as they sit there and do nothing, except keep mexico informed of where minutemen are.


in conclusion you sound pretty worked up about it. Perhaps putting more safeguards in the law is what is needed? I dunno. I do know we can not defeat an enemy if our attemps at subtrafuge are constantly splattered all over the National Headlines in an attempt to get more Democrats in congress?

My guess is that intercepting communication of an enemy hell bent on destruction of the United States would fall under National Security that would clearly give voice to the words other Lawful Authorization
You guessed wrong. There are lawful means to get this info but the idea you are proposing you can just get them whenever you want is not supported. And the government is getting everyones records. Getting everyones phone records has nothing to do with catching terrorists.

I do know we can not defeat an enemy if our attemps at subtrafuge are constantly splattered all over the National Headlines in an attempt to get more Democrats in congress?
You have completely missed the point. Getting EVERYONES phone records is a ridiculous way to try and "defeat" and "enemy". This is just snooping. If the government has the least amount of evidence that someones planning an attack they can easily get that persons and any person they have been in touch withs phone records.
The government is getting EVERYONES phone records. Think of the abuse this can cause.
It is literally spying on every US citizen, without ANY cause, and is EXACTLY what the Nazis and Communists did and do to subjucate their people.

I think you are falling prey a little to the media hype.

Here are the facts as we know them:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12734870/

USA Today reported Thursday that the National Security Agency has been building up the database using records provided by three major phone companies ? AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. ? but that the program ?does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations.?

Instead it documents who talks to whom in personal and business calls, whether local or long distance, by tracking which numbers are called, the newspaper said.



....The NSA has ?access to records of billions of domestic calls,? USA Today said. Although customers? names and addresses are not being handed over, ?the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information,? it said (a strict safeguard would be needed here, in my opinion)

And this would be done when they saw suspicious activity. We know that the 911 perpatrators communicated with each other while in this country. In planning the murder of thousands of people at the world trade center.
So just for the sake of argument, lets sat muhammed's number was 555-4567.
Would it not be nice to know everyone that Muhammed called while he was here?
At that point I am assuming that a court order would be obtained to actually get the conversations and see what was said to Muhammed pals.

Now if my number was in there.....(which its not, as I use Qwest) I don't feel real worried that I called my kids 8 times this month, my mother twice, and the local autoparts store to see if they had a thingamabob for a Ford.
As was already stated by someone else we are all now already in so many databases of private buisness..that really is more worrisome then this in my opinion.

 

[smack Down]

section 103(a)2. of the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Acts specifically states a court order or other lawful authorization
My guess is that intercepting communication of an enemy hell bent on destruction of the United States would fall under National Security that would clearly give voice to the words other Lawful Authorization
Since security of the US is clearly a Govermental mandate.

Why don't you put the law degree back in the cracker jacks box and comeback when you learn how to read. The part you quoted does not establish what are lawful authorizations it only establish what the teleco most do.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: smack Down

section 103(a)2. of the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Acts specifically states a court order or other lawful authorization
My guess is that intercepting communication of an enemy hell bent on destruction of the United States would fall under National Security that would clearly give voice to the words other Lawful Authorization
Since security of the US is clearly a Govermental mandate.

Why don't you put the law degree back in the cracker jacks box and comeback when you learn how to read. The part you quoted does not establish what are lawful authorizations it only establish what the teleco most do.

Right sailor jack, soon as you learn to spell.

 

[sandorski]

The big question here is the "Lawfulness" of the current actions. It takes more than the Legal obligation of Communications to provide data, there is also the Legal obligation of the Government to go through proper channels in order to acquire and use that data.

 

[skooma]

Originally posted by: daniel49
And this would be done when they saw suspicious activity. We know that the 911 perpatrators communicated with each other while in this country. In planning the murder of thousands of people at the world trade center.
So just for the sake of argument, lets sat muhammed's number was 555-4567.
Would it not be nice to know everyone that Muhammed called while he was here?
At that point I am assuming that a court order would be obtained to actually get the conversations and see what was said to Muhammed pals.

Still not getting it, huh?

If they wanted to find out this info on muhammed then they'd already know what they're looking for and can get a warrant legally. You think muhammeds 10-20 phone calls are going to alert the NSA when they (allegedly) aren't even listening? They're just foing to know that an additional 10-20 calls were made and start investigating :roll:

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: skooma

Originally posted by: daniel49
And this would be done when they saw suspicious activity. We know that the 911 perpatrators communicated with each other while in this country. In planning the murder of thousands of people at the world trade center.
So just for the sake of argument, lets sat muhammed's number was 555-4567.
Would it not be nice to know everyone that Muhammed called while he was here?
At that point I am assuming that a court order would be obtained to actually get the conversations and see what was said to Muhammed pals.

Still not getting it, huh?

If they wanted to find out this info on muhammed then they'd already know what they're looking for and can get a warrant legally. You think muhammeds 10-20 phone calls are going to alert the NSA when they (allegedly) aren't even listening? They're just foing to know that an additional 10-20 calls were made and start investigating :roll:

I think if they suspected muhammed those 10-20 numbers would lead them to other suspects and perhaps prevent them from setting off a bomb while your cheering for the Red Sox this season. I guess I'm not much of a conspiracy buff...I don't feel threatened by my govt I feel threatened by Islamist fascists.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: skooma

Originally posted by: daniel49
And this would be done when they saw suspicious activity. We know that the 911 perpatrators communicated with each other while in this country. In planning the murder of thousands of people at the world trade center.
So just for the sake of argument, lets sat muhammed's number was 555-4567.
Would it not be nice to know everyone that Muhammed called while he was here?
At that point I am assuming that a court order would be obtained to actually get the conversations and see what was said to Muhammed pals.

Still not getting it, huh?

If they wanted to find out this info on muhammed then they'd already know what they're looking for and can get a warrant legally. You think muhammeds 10-20 phone calls are going to alert the NSA when they (allegedly) aren't even listening? They're just foing to know that an additional 10-20 calls were made and start investigating :roll:

I think if they suspected muhammed those 10-20 numbers would lead them to other suspects and perhaps prevent them from setting off a bomb while your cheering for the Red Sox this season. I guess I'm not much of a conspiracy buff...I don't feel threatened by my govt I feel threatened by Islamist fascists.

Sure you are, you are just as bad as the guys who think Bush perpetrated 9/11. You see Islamic terrorists around every corner, so much so that you can't even put your paranoia aside when discussing a LEGAL issue. For you, the only argument that matters is that you are afraid there are terrorists lurking in your closet. skooma basically asked why the legal warrant process can't just be used, and the only way you could address it was by using scare tactics and movie plot security "analysis".

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: skooma

Originally posted by: daniel49
And this would be done when they saw suspicious activity. We know that the 911 perpatrators communicated with each other while in this country. In planning the murder of thousands of people at the world trade center.
So just for the sake of argument, lets sat muhammed's number was 555-4567.
Would it not be nice to know everyone that Muhammed called while he was here?
At that point I am assuming that a court order would be obtained to actually get the conversations and see what was said to Muhammed pals.

Still not getting it, huh?

If they wanted to find out this info on muhammed then they'd already know what they're looking for and can get a warrant legally. You think muhammeds 10-20 phone calls are going to alert the NSA when they (allegedly) aren't even listening? They're just foing to know that an additional 10-20 calls were made and start investigating :roll:

I think if they suspected muhammed those 10-20 numbers would lead them to other suspects and perhaps prevent them from setting off a bomb while your cheering for the Red Sox this season. I guess I'm not much of a conspiracy buff...I don't feel threatened by my govt I feel threatened by Islamist fascists.

Sure you are, you are just as bad as the guys who think Bush perpetrated 9/11. You see Islamic terrorists around every corner, so much so that you can't even put your paranoia aside when discussing a LEGAL issue. For you, the only argument that matters is that you are afraid there are terrorists lurking in your closet. skooma basically asked why the legal warrant process can't just be used, and the only way you could address it was by using scare tactics and movie plot security "analysis".

the point had been covered numerous times already. we just disagreed. Go threadcrap somewhere else.

 

[skooma]

If they suspected mohammed they'd have legitimate means to secure a warrant and do it legally. If they're relying on data mining a billion communications a day to identify mohammed, we've got a bigger problem now.

Go Sox!!

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: skooma
If they suspected mohammed they'd have legitimate means to secure a warrant and do it legally. If they're relying on data mining a billion communications a day to identify mohammed, we've got a bigger problem now.

Go Sox!!

They had a good season last year...pity me I have to root for the m's

 

[MrColin]

Before I respond let me tell you that I stand to the left of any sitting US politician I can think of.

The NSA's datamining is one of the few things that have been done correctly IMO. The phone records have been fair game for criminal investigations for decades (no warrant needed). I've been at peace with this for many years. What troubles me is that I don't trust the government not to abuse this information.