As I stated in the other thread:
Anyone remember how Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover abused the law to gather information and interfere with or ruin the lives of people "who had nothing to hide"?
And even though I would not consider trusting any administration doing this; I remember back to Ike, and GWB is the least trustworthy of all, by a longshot.
Anyone remember how Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover abused the law to gather information and interfere with or ruin the lives of people "who had nothing to hide"?
And even though I would not consider trusting any administration doing this; I remember back to Ike, and GWB is the least trustworthy of all, by a longshot.
At first I didn't know if I should try to explain in detail or instead use short sentences with very small words while I have you watch a picture slide show. I'll opt for something in between.
Instead of a slideshow just look around your room maybe pace around the house or appartment a bit. Now that you are familiar with your surroundings I will simply state that this is your private property. Yours. Not someone else's but yours. Be it renting or living with parents it doesn't matter. Legally, even if only for a purchased time, this is yours. That is what the 4th Amendment covers.
Driving on a highway as you so rightly stated is not a right at all. However it doesn't have anything to do with your home or the example you gave. Your vehicle and what is inside it however is also your private property including the gym bag you take with you. That's why nobody can, or should, be able to search it without a warrant. Because it's your private property you have some protections in place to secure that property from other people including the courts.
Your phone conversation takes place from your home and ends elsewhere. Email is another example. As is your mail going through the post office. Whatever is in either one of those 3 items is between you and whomever it's intended for. It's still your property. Just because it left your home it doesn't mean it's not yours anymore. Government scaning email or reading labels on your physical mail (let alone opening it) is no different from them opening your gym bag or going through your car while parked on the street. When government reads where you send mail to they generally have to violate private property in one of two places. Either tresspassing at the mail facility that has agreed to handle your property or when they go through your mailbox on your private property.
Those phone records are as much your property as is the responsiblity of the company who holds them in trust as an intermediary between you and whomever it was placed to in keeping it private. This information is not in plain sight and it violates your right to your own property.
Now the government can pass laws and a Judge at state or federal level could agree with it but that doesn't mean it's a constitutionaly, let alone moraly, correct law. If evidence is brought against you and it was aquired in such a fashion without a warrant there's nothing stoping a jury from throwing out the case and finding you not guilty regardless of what the law states or the direction of the Judge.
So in essence just because someone tells you it's OK to violate your rights and you agree it doesn't neccessarily make it right.
I think that time has come for people to realize that the Internet and electronic communications are no different in terms of expectation of privacy than your home or car. But when you leave your home or your car, you LOCK them, even though you know that someone walking in would be illegal, there is a fundamental assumption that if it is easy to break the law, then it will be broken. Otherwise we wouldn't be using locks.
Same goes for data. If we care about its integrity and security, then let's treat it as a protected commodity. First things first - eliminate the use of plaintext in all communications... if they can't read the contents of your email, nobody really cares if they download terabyte after terabyte of useless crypto junk from your ISP. Secondly - move all communications you are about being protected into the encrypted digital domain. Third - and most important - the current hierarchical structure of the Internet is outdated, and prevents any reasonable expectations of access privacy because your ISP can ultimately track the packets. There is a solution to this, however -> total mesh networking! No more hierarchy - all traffic should be routed by the nodes themselves. So every packet you receive, will inevitably be coming from one of your physically neighboring PCs. This will result in much higher node bandwidth, albeit slightly higher latency. The number of hops would probably stay the same, but now all of them will take place on other nodes, that are not controlled by a single entity. This would make tracking the origin and destination of an encrypted packet virtually impossible.
Same goes for data. If we care about its integrity and security, then let's treat it as a protected commodity. First things first - eliminate the use of plaintext in all communications... if they can't read the contents of your email, nobody really cares if they download terabyte after terabyte of useless crypto junk from your ISP. Secondly - move all communications you are about being protected into the encrypted digital domain. Third - and most important - the current hierarchical structure of the Internet is outdated, and prevents any reasonable expectations of access privacy because your ISP can ultimately track the packets. There is a solution to this, however -> total mesh networking! No more hierarchy - all traffic should be routed by the nodes themselves. So every packet you receive, will inevitably be coming from one of your physically neighboring PCs. This will result in much higher node bandwidth, albeit slightly higher latency. The number of hops would probably stay the same, but now all of them will take place on other nodes, that are not controlled by a single entity. This would make tracking the origin and destination of an encrypted packet virtually impossible.
None of this matters vis-à-vis the war on terror, nor is it likely to stop a terrorist act. The cat is already out of the bag. The terrorists, if they're communicating at all, are doing it through low-tech means. Human courier most likely.
Verizon is one of those freely giving up records. Does that mean I could cancel my verizon cell account and void their "contract" terms???
I'd love to dump verizon cell service, not just because of this but also because of what I consider their poor service and quality (at least in my area). But I have one whole year left on that two year contract, then they charge you some $150 fee each phone if you cancel before that contract is up. I'd think this issue, of cell phone records that I was (and everyone else) unaware of, could be fair grounds for canceling reguardless of any contract terms.
Anyone thought of calling verizon to press the issue?
I'd love to dump verizon cell service, not just because of this but also because of what I consider their poor service and quality (at least in my area). But I have one whole year left on that two year contract, then they charge you some $150 fee each phone if you cancel before that contract is up. I'd think this issue, of cell phone records that I was (and everyone else) unaware of, could be fair grounds for canceling reguardless of any contract terms.
Anyone thought of calling verizon to press the issue?
I agree that this is un constitutional, but I also think that its an ineffective way to "catch" terrorists. Seems like those with something TO hide would not use private phone lines that could be linked to themselves. They would use public pay phones, etc
I'm angry....
I'm angry....
I thought I share this dude opinion from digg.com posted under "NSA now immune to the Department of Justice", because really I disagree with him... and what really pissed me off last thing he said "leave" just because don't agree with government action "oh let's kicked them out because he wasn't brainwash by our BS" too bad because I'm staying a$$hole.
The phone company records the numbers you call , just to bill you for them. This is how they make money off you! The GOVMNT wanted these records in secret without a legal warrant. Now, what is the GOVMNT Boys trying to hide? If they are not doing something wrong, why keep it from the judges who have the job to issue the warrants?
Go ahead and try. I'm willing to bet that the supervisor or manager you speak with will tell you you can't do it. That doesn't mean he/she is right but that's the company's position and they WILL defend it with full force litigation.
If the cat is out of the bag that you can cancel because of this then they will have thousands, tens of thousands whom will likely cancel contracts and look for others whom won't flip like a 2 dollar whore.
Think about the absurdity of your/BushCo's whole position. From a statistical point of view, you are going to have a standard deviation of something on the order of millions of phone calls in any given day. I would venture to guess that on any given day, well over a billion phone calls are placed in the US. Given this, I would expect the standard deviation to be on the order of 100 to 200 million phone calls. Are terrorists going to make more phone calls than a standard deviation to allow the NSA to know that something out of the ordinary is going on? Do you see the absurdity of claiming that this is some tool to be used in the WoT?
And before you say, well a standard deviation won't be hundreds of millions of phone calls because they will just be tracking local markets -- this is also absurd. Take the case of the 9/11 highjackers as a for instance. There were 19 of them. Do you possibly think that even if they were on the phones non-stop talking about their plot, that this would make a statistical difference in the number of phone calls placed from the Boston or New York metropolitan areas on September 10, 2001? A difference enough to be able to seen above statistical noise?
They (BushCo) are lying to you (again!!!). This is just a way to collect information on Americans for some unknown reason. Someone needs to tell BushCo that 1984 is not a "How to" manual, it is a warning (credit to Keith Olberman for the 1984 comment). In these times, I suggest you read it (or re-read it, if that is the case), for your and your country's own good.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,227
- 14,657
- 146
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060513/pl_nm/security_att_dc_1
Motion filed to intervene in AT&T secrets case
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government filed a motion on Saturday to intervene and seek dismissal of a lawsuit by a civil liberties group against AT&T Inc. over a federal program to monitor U.S. communications.
The suit filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California accuses AT&T of unlawful collaboration with the National Security Agency in its surveillance program to intercept telephone and e-mail communications between the United States and people linked to al Qaeda and affiliated organizations.
The class-action suit was filed by San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of AT&T customers in January -- before reports this week that AT&T and two other phone companies were secretly helping the government compile a massive database of phone calls made in the United States.
In its motion seeking intervention, posted on the court's Web site, the government said the interests of the parties in the lawsuit "may well be in the disclosure of state secrets" in their effort to present their claims or defenses.
"Only the United States is in a position to protect against the disclosure of information over which it has asserted the state secrets privilege, and the United States is the only entity properly positioned to explain why continued litigation of the matter threatens the national security," said the motion, dated May 12.
A hearing is scheduled for June 21 before federal Judge Vaughn Walker.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has said in court filings that a former AT&T technician had approached the group in January to share details of the company's role in the surveillance program.
The revelation in December that the NSA was eavesdropping inside the United States without warrants on international calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects sparked an uproar.
On Thursday, USA Today reported that the NSA, helped by AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp., was secretly collecting phone records of tens of millions of people, and using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity.
President Bush denied the government was "mining and trolling through" the personal lives of Americans.
"
Motion filed to intervene in AT&T secrets case
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government filed a motion on Saturday to intervene and seek dismissal of a lawsuit by a civil liberties group against AT&T Inc. over a federal program to monitor U.S. communications.
The suit filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California accuses AT&T of unlawful collaboration with the National Security Agency in its surveillance program to intercept telephone and e-mail communications between the United States and people linked to al Qaeda and affiliated organizations.
The class-action suit was filed by San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of AT&T customers in January -- before reports this week that AT&T and two other phone companies were secretly helping the government compile a massive database of phone calls made in the United States.
In its motion seeking intervention, posted on the court's Web site, the government said the interests of the parties in the lawsuit "may well be in the disclosure of state secrets" in their effort to present their claims or defenses.
"Only the United States is in a position to protect against the disclosure of information over which it has asserted the state secrets privilege, and the United States is the only entity properly positioned to explain why continued litigation of the matter threatens the national security," said the motion, dated May 12.
A hearing is scheduled for June 21 before federal Judge Vaughn Walker.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has said in court filings that a former AT&T technician had approached the group in January to share details of the company's role in the surveillance program.
The revelation in December that the NSA was eavesdropping inside the United States without warrants on international calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects sparked an uproar.
On Thursday, USA Today reported that the NSA, helped by AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp., was secretly collecting phone records of tens of millions of people, and using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity.
President Bush denied the government was "mining and trolling through" the personal lives of Americans.
"
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,227
- 14,657
- 146
Yet MORE on the Bush Spy Powers:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060514/ap_on_go_pr_wh/presidential_stretch_3
"Experts Debate Bush's Use of His Powers
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
Sat May 13, 9:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON - President Bush has made broad use of his executive powers: authorizing warrantless wiretaps, collecting telephone records on millions of Americans, holding suspected terrorists overseas without legal protections. His administration even is considering using the military to patrol the U.S. border.
Congress is on notice from the president that he will not enforce parts of legislation he believes interfere with his constitutional authority.
These are extraordinary times, for sure, and the president says he is acting to safeguard the country. But Democrats and some Republicans, along with human rights activists and legal scholars, suggest Bush has gone too far in stretching presidential powers.
"I do think the president has pushed the envelope," said Georgetown University political scientist Stephen J. Wayne. "He seems so determined for another act of terrorism not to occur on his watch that he has forgotten the constitutional protections that most Americans value as highly as they value their security."
Bush is using a variety of techniques and strategies to maximize his power ? at the expense of Congress, some say. It's a course, critics suggest, that both he and Vice President Dick Cheney have pursued since they took office in January 2001.
Administration officials insist they have acted within constitutional limits, citing added flexibility that comes during a time of war.
The disclosure last week that the National Security Agency is building a data base of domestic telephone numbers has touched off an intense debate about whether the administration and phone companies are undermining people's privacy rights.
Expressions of concern came from some prominent Republicans, including House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and added to earlier questions about the NSA's domestic eavesdropping program.
These once-covert programs pose potential trouble for the president's nomination of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to be CIA director. Hayden oversaw both programs as NSA director from 1999-2005.
"Everything that the agency has done has been lawful," Hayden asserted last week as he visited the offices of the senators who will vote on his nomination.
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says his committee will scrutinize Hayden's role in both the NSA's phone data bank and the eavesdropping program.
Former CIA Director Stansfield Turner is among those critical of the administration's eavesdropping program and Hayden's oversight.
"I'm concerned that he had a role in wiretapping American telephones without warrants. I interpret that, if it happened, as against the law. Apparently, the president and others interpret it otherwise," said Turner, who was CIA chief in the Carter administration.
In projecting his powers widely, Bush has made extensive use of statements that accompany the signing of a bill into law. These statements claim a presidential prerogative not to enforce parts of the legislation that he deems to encroach on executive authority. He has issued hundreds of such statements.
Among provisions he has challenged is a requirement to give detailed reports to Congress about his use of the Patriot Act and about a ban on torture.
"The president apparently believes, based on a number of recent statements and policy directives, that anything he approves is automatically legal," said Stephen Cimbala, a Pennsylvania State University professor who studies national security issues.
Because Bush has not vetoed any bill sent to him, Congress has not had the chance to challenge such pre-emptive assertions of presidential authority.
"It undercuts the whole legislative process of veto and override," said James Steinberg, deputy national security adviser in the Clinton White House. He said Clinton issued such signing statements, but only rarely.
"Concentrating that kind of authority in one person is dangerous," said Steinberg, now dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas.
Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt both suspended various constitutional protections, claiming all-consuming wars as the reason.
President Kennedy drew criticism for ordering the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. He blamed the disaster on poor planning and lack of reliable intelligence from the CIA, just as the Bush White House would do when U.S. forces failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
President Nixon was accused of widespread abuse of the Constitution in the Watergate scandal that forced him to resign rather than face certain impeachment.
Human rights leaders continue to decry the treatment of detainees in U.S. prison camps in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and allegations of secret CIA-run prisons in Eastern Europe.
Criticism that the administration is undermining privacy rights of Americans has failed to generate wide opposition from the general public. In an ABC-Washington Post poll taken last Thursday, 63 percent of the 502 Americans asked said it was acceptable for the NSA to collect and analyze phone records "in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conservations."
Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Research Center, said in repeated polls taken since Sept. 11, 2001, "a solid plurality, around 50 percent" continues to say they would rather the government went too far in restricting civil liberties than not going far enough in protecting the country.
"There's a concern about terrorism that continues to this day. And, on balance, people are saying, `protect us,'" said Doherty.
However, a Newsweek poll of 1,007 Americans taken last Thursday and Friday and released Saturday found that 53 percent believed the program "goes too far in invading people's privacy" while 41 percent found it "a necessary tool to combat terrorism." The Newsweek poll question said NSA "doesn't actually listen to the calls but logs in nearly every phone number" and referred to it as "this domestic surveillance program."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060514/ap_on_go_pr_wh/presidential_stretch_3
"Experts Debate Bush's Use of His Powers
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
Sat May 13, 9:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON - President Bush has made broad use of his executive powers: authorizing warrantless wiretaps, collecting telephone records on millions of Americans, holding suspected terrorists overseas without legal protections. His administration even is considering using the military to patrol the U.S. border.
Congress is on notice from the president that he will not enforce parts of legislation he believes interfere with his constitutional authority.
These are extraordinary times, for sure, and the president says he is acting to safeguard the country. But Democrats and some Republicans, along with human rights activists and legal scholars, suggest Bush has gone too far in stretching presidential powers.
"I do think the president has pushed the envelope," said Georgetown University political scientist Stephen J. Wayne. "He seems so determined for another act of terrorism not to occur on his watch that he has forgotten the constitutional protections that most Americans value as highly as they value their security."
Bush is using a variety of techniques and strategies to maximize his power ? at the expense of Congress, some say. It's a course, critics suggest, that both he and Vice President Dick Cheney have pursued since they took office in January 2001.
Administration officials insist they have acted within constitutional limits, citing added flexibility that comes during a time of war.
The disclosure last week that the National Security Agency is building a data base of domestic telephone numbers has touched off an intense debate about whether the administration and phone companies are undermining people's privacy rights.
Expressions of concern came from some prominent Republicans, including House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and added to earlier questions about the NSA's domestic eavesdropping program.
These once-covert programs pose potential trouble for the president's nomination of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to be CIA director. Hayden oversaw both programs as NSA director from 1999-2005.
"Everything that the agency has done has been lawful," Hayden asserted last week as he visited the offices of the senators who will vote on his nomination.
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says his committee will scrutinize Hayden's role in both the NSA's phone data bank and the eavesdropping program.
Former CIA Director Stansfield Turner is among those critical of the administration's eavesdropping program and Hayden's oversight.
"I'm concerned that he had a role in wiretapping American telephones without warrants. I interpret that, if it happened, as against the law. Apparently, the president and others interpret it otherwise," said Turner, who was CIA chief in the Carter administration.
In projecting his powers widely, Bush has made extensive use of statements that accompany the signing of a bill into law. These statements claim a presidential prerogative not to enforce parts of the legislation that he deems to encroach on executive authority. He has issued hundreds of such statements.
Among provisions he has challenged is a requirement to give detailed reports to Congress about his use of the Patriot Act and about a ban on torture.
"The president apparently believes, based on a number of recent statements and policy directives, that anything he approves is automatically legal," said Stephen Cimbala, a Pennsylvania State University professor who studies national security issues.
Because Bush has not vetoed any bill sent to him, Congress has not had the chance to challenge such pre-emptive assertions of presidential authority.
"It undercuts the whole legislative process of veto and override," said James Steinberg, deputy national security adviser in the Clinton White House. He said Clinton issued such signing statements, but only rarely.
"Concentrating that kind of authority in one person is dangerous," said Steinberg, now dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas.
Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt both suspended various constitutional protections, claiming all-consuming wars as the reason.
President Kennedy drew criticism for ordering the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. He blamed the disaster on poor planning and lack of reliable intelligence from the CIA, just as the Bush White House would do when U.S. forces failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
President Nixon was accused of widespread abuse of the Constitution in the Watergate scandal that forced him to resign rather than face certain impeachment.
Human rights leaders continue to decry the treatment of detainees in U.S. prison camps in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and allegations of secret CIA-run prisons in Eastern Europe.
Criticism that the administration is undermining privacy rights of Americans has failed to generate wide opposition from the general public. In an ABC-Washington Post poll taken last Thursday, 63 percent of the 502 Americans asked said it was acceptable for the NSA to collect and analyze phone records "in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conservations."
Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Research Center, said in repeated polls taken since Sept. 11, 2001, "a solid plurality, around 50 percent" continues to say they would rather the government went too far in restricting civil liberties than not going far enough in protecting the country.
"There's a concern about terrorism that continues to this day. And, on balance, people are saying, `protect us,'" said Doherty.
However, a Newsweek poll of 1,007 Americans taken last Thursday and Friday and released Saturday found that 53 percent believed the program "goes too far in invading people's privacy" while 41 percent found it "a necessary tool to combat terrorism." The Newsweek poll question said NSA "doesn't actually listen to the calls but logs in nearly every phone number" and referred to it as "this domestic surveillance program."
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,227
- 14,657
- 146
Dog-gone them lib-rul newsies...here's ANOTHER story about this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060514/pl_nm/security_usa_cheney_dc_2
"Cheney pushed to widen eavesdropping: NY Times 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
NEW YORK (Reuters) -
Vice President Dick Cheney argued in the weeks after the September 11 attacks that the National Security Agency should intercept domestic telephone calls and e-mails without warrants as part of its war on terrorism, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.
Cheney and his top legal adviser, David Addington, believed the Constitution permitted spy agencies to take such sweeping measures to defend the country, The newspaper said, citing two senior intelligence officials who spoke anonymously.
NSA lawyers opposed the move and insisted that any eavesdropping without warrants should be limited to communications into and out of the country, a position that ultimately prevailed, the Times said.
Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of the NSA at the time designed the eavesdropping program and is certain to face questions about it when he appears at a Senate hearing on his nomination as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Hayden persuaded wary NSA officers to accept the eavesdropping program and sold the White House on its limits, the Times said.
The newspaper said accounts by the two intelligence officials, as well as others it interviewed, placed Hayden as the man in the middle as President George W. Bush demanded that intelligence agencies act to prevent more attacks.
While intelligence agency lawyers and officials were concerned with avoiding accusations of spying on Americans, Cheney and Addington thought eavesdropping without warrants "could be done and should be done" if people suspected of links to Al Qaeda made calls inside the United States, one of the intelligence officials told the Times.
Another official described the debate as "very healthy," with Cheney's staff "pushing and pushing, and it was up to the NSA lawyers to draw a line and say absolutely not."
Cheney's spokeswoman, Lee Anne McBride, declined to discuss the deliberations about the classified program and said: "As the administration, including the vice president, has said, this is terrorist surveillance, not domestic surveillance ... " the Times reported.
People speaking for the NSA and for Hayden also declined to comment, the newspaper said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060514/pl_nm/security_usa_cheney_dc_2
"Cheney pushed to widen eavesdropping: NY Times 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
NEW YORK (Reuters) -
Vice President Dick Cheney argued in the weeks after the September 11 attacks that the National Security Agency should intercept domestic telephone calls and e-mails without warrants as part of its war on terrorism, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.
Cheney and his top legal adviser, David Addington, believed the Constitution permitted spy agencies to take such sweeping measures to defend the country, The newspaper said, citing two senior intelligence officials who spoke anonymously.
NSA lawyers opposed the move and insisted that any eavesdropping without warrants should be limited to communications into and out of the country, a position that ultimately prevailed, the Times said.
Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of the NSA at the time designed the eavesdropping program and is certain to face questions about it when he appears at a Senate hearing on his nomination as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Hayden persuaded wary NSA officers to accept the eavesdropping program and sold the White House on its limits, the Times said.
The newspaper said accounts by the two intelligence officials, as well as others it interviewed, placed Hayden as the man in the middle as President George W. Bush demanded that intelligence agencies act to prevent more attacks.
While intelligence agency lawyers and officials were concerned with avoiding accusations of spying on Americans, Cheney and Addington thought eavesdropping without warrants "could be done and should be done" if people suspected of links to Al Qaeda made calls inside the United States, one of the intelligence officials told the Times.
Another official described the debate as "very healthy," with Cheney's staff "pushing and pushing, and it was up to the NSA lawyers to draw a line and say absolutely not."
Cheney's spokeswoman, Lee Anne McBride, declined to discuss the deliberations about the classified program and said: "As the administration, including the vice president, has said, this is terrorist surveillance, not domestic surveillance ... " the Times reported.
People speaking for the NSA and for Hayden also declined to comment, the newspaper said.
I actually came back to this thread looking to see if anyone else was thinking about this and am glad to see others are. They, it seems, breached their contractual obligations to us. If that can be proven to be the case, then we should no longer be obligated to continue with the service. But what seems and what can be legally proven are too different things... and I'm just not versed enough in the laws governing such things to know what kind of case we'd have...
How about bringing up this possibility in emails to the EFF and/or other groups that may be involved in litigation against the phone companies over this issue? I have to figure they'd have a better idea of how possible it might be that we could voice our displeasure with our dollars and drop their services without paying termination fees.
43st
Diamond Member
- Nov 7, 2001
- 3,197
- 0
- 0
At the very least... at worst the data will be cherry picked for the court case without you having access to the same data for your case.
The data mining alone isn't that bad compared to the data mining + selective use + partisan gain. This will get linked to the 2004 election cycle before it's all over. People need to get life in jail for this.
Even easier: a pre-paid cell phone. Buy it for cash, use it for a few days and then toss it in the trash. I'd wager the NSA never finds an Al Qaeda terrorist using electronic surveillence ever again.
eits
Lifer
gonzales is such a little bitch...
this nsa thing is getting on my nerves... all this shyt isn't legal/safe. we wouldn't be in this mess had bush or his administration not been a worhtless piece of texas cow shyt.
this nsa thing is getting on my nerves... all this shyt isn't legal/safe. we wouldn't be in this mess had bush or his administration not been a worhtless piece of texas cow shyt.
eits
Lifer
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter