NSA building massive database of phone records

[10sun]

Bet they can't trace VOIP phone calls and I bet that you'll see a rise in the usage of those.

[Arlos]

Dunno about that, Atensen, Carnivore might be able to latch onto VOIP calls, and the cryptanalysts at NSA are reknowned for being tops in the world, so cracking anything short of truly paranoid levels of encryption (triple-DES, etc) isn't too much of an issue.

Has the government stopped trying to push that asinine Clipper chip encryption technology? That was one of the Clinton-era things I most stryongly disagreed with.

-Arlos

[Phlegm]

According to a ABC news/Washington Post poll:

63 percent say the secret program, disclosed Thursday by USA Today, is justified, while far fewer, 35 percent, call it unjustified.

51 percent approve of the way President Bush is handling the protection of privacy rights, while 47 percent disapprove.

45 percent say the government is not doing enough to protect Americans' rights as it investigates terrorism.

66 percent say it wouldn't bother them if the National Security Agency had a record of phone numbers that they had called. 34 percent would be bothered.

[Thon]

53% of all statistics are made up

[Hatak]

Also getting approval for taps isn't always as easy as it sounds. You tend to need more then "my gut tells me this guy is bad" to get approval to tap their phone.

Um, isn't that the reason for getting approval? To keep checks and balances in the system against unwarranted invasion of the American citizen's privacy?

It amazes me how we can put laws in place but are deemed unnecessary because we're supposed to be terrifed of terrorists. This is supposed to be America, not a prison where all of our letters, emails, and phone calls are monitored for "our own safety".

Tell that to the family of people who die in attacks that were planned over the phone or email. "Sorry all, we could have stopped this but the privacy of the terrorists was more important."

Would it make you feel any better if they planned it in person instead of using communication devices now that we all know they are being tapped?

[Spazz]

the privacy of everyone should not be compromised becuase of terrorists either. You think some chumps got the right to hear and go through all the details of your life just cuz some doon coon might try to blow us the fuck up ? Would you be willing to give up all of your rights if they promised you no bad guys would ever get ya again ???????

[10sun]

Dunno about that, Atensen, Carnivore might be able to latch onto VOIP calls, and the cryptanalysts at NSA are reknowned for being tops in the world, so cracking anything short of truly paranoid levels of encryption (triple-DES, etc) isn't too much of an issue.

Has the government stopped trying to push that asinine Clipper chip encryption technology? That was one of the Clinton-era things I most stryongly disagreed with.

-Arlos

Wonder about Skype and the like... places where you have direct peer to peer connections without going through a centralized server.

If I were to design a terrorist cell, I think I could do it properly.

[labbats]

I didn't read this whole thread, but I hope all of you realize that the USA Today is a sensastionalist newspaper designed to piss you off and sell newspapers through big headlines.

This reporter skewed facts. It just so happens that we've probably dodged a couple more airplane torpedos due to this, and they haven't listened to one word any of you have said. They can't even see the names of people you have called, just the numbers. Long story short, the NSA has less information of your phone records than the mailman would if he stole your bill.

Move along.

[Minrott]

Where can I buy a ticket to your world?

Apathy towards infastructure that is the precursor to tolertarian controls makes me sick. While you're not "doing anything illegal" now, perhaps in the future just being who you are becomes illegal and then you may begin to see the problem.

I also can't understand the ACLU types that pretend to be defenders of liberty, and in the same breath condemn gun rights and gun owners. When all of your protests are squashed under the heels of troops, all of your lawsuits fall onto deaf ears in the courts, and your very lifestyles become criminalized; you may realize the error of your ways.

[labbats]

What's your perfect strategy to counteract SUICIDAL TERRORISTS that would gladly blow up shit just to get some face time on CNN? It's simple to sit back and fold your arms and quote Ben Franklin, but reality is a harsh bitch.

For one, I'm absofuckinglutely shocked that there hasn't been any sickos blowing themselves up in the USA yet. How do you suggest intercepting and preventing this type of behavior? Crossing your fingers or voting Green Party doesn't count.

Lastly, I doubt this would have been so quickly judged foul in say... October 2001. How quickly we forget that the world is not a safe place without safe guards.

[Phlegm]

I think the NSA put out this story themselves to get people paranoid.

[dammuzis]

how about the fact that the government was warned and knew about the attacks (albiet not the exact day and hour) and yet did nothing to prevent it?

[Spazz]

Would you give up your rights ( all of em) for the promise that nobody will blow you up. Heres how i see it. Any given day i could be killed by anything so im not gonna worry bout someone murdering me. Id rather keeps my rights and die free tomorrow than be safe and on lockdown. If the govt wants to look in on my life they should have to have a warrent and if you think otherwise ITS A FACT your a fuckin moron.

[labbats]

Actually, you're a fuckin moron for letting the media bias sway you. It's a simple fact that they can only see the numbers you have dialed. No more, no less. If that's infringing on your civil liberties you've got problems.

[Lyion]

This was 15 million calls out of hundreds of billions, gathered to get statistics on certain very select call patterns from several years ago, after 9/11.

And, as has been said, there was no tapping.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01656.html

On Thursday, USA Today reported that three U.S. telecommunications companies have been voluntarily providing the National Security Agency with anonymized domestic telephone records -- that is, records stripped of individually identifiable data, such as names and place of residence. If true, the architect of this program deserves our thanks and probably a medal. That architect was presumably Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and President Bush's nominee to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The potential value of such anonymized domestic telephone records is best understood through a hypothetical example. Suppose a telephone associated with Mohamed Atta had called a domestic telephone number A. And then suppose that A had called domestic telephone number B. And then suppose that B had called C. And then suppose that domestic telephone number C had called a telephone number associated with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The most effective way to recognize such patterns is the computerized analysis of billions of phone records. The large-scale analysis of anonymized data can pinpoint individuals -- at home or abroad -- who warrant more intrusive investigative or intelligence techniques, subject to all safeguards normally associated with those techniques.

Clearly, there is a compelling national interest in understanding and penetrating such terrorist networks. If the people associated with domestic telephone numbers A, B and C are inside the United States and had facilitated the Sept. 11 attacks, perhaps they are facilitating a terrorist plot now. The American people rightly expect their government to detect and prevent such plots.

Very few career government officials possess the expertise, initiative and creativity needed to devise a system to penetrate such networks, using only existing statutory and presidential authorities, employing only existing technical and personnel resources, and violating the privacy of no American. Yet, if the USA Today story is correct, this appears to be exactly what Hayden did.

Some legislators and observers have questioned the legality of the alleged NSA domestic telephone records collection program. If the facts of the program are as reported in USA Today, there is every reason to believe that the program is perfectly legal.

There are, of course, strict legal limits on the ability of federal agencies such as the NSA to compel the provision of domestic information or to collect it secretly. The USA Today story, however, alleges that three telecommunications companies -- AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth -- provided it voluntarily. How else could one company (Qwest) decline to provide the information? Since there is no prohibition against federal agencies receiving voluntarily provided business records relating to their responsibilities, it appears that the NSA's alleged receipt and retention of such information is perfectly legal.

The three companies reported to have supplied telephone records to the NSA also appear to be acting lawfully. The Telecommunications Act of 1934, as amended, generally prohibits the release of "individually identifiable customer proprietary network information" except under force of law or with the approval of the customer. But, according to USA Today, the telephone records voluntarily provided to the NSA had been anonymized. In addition, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 explicitly permits telecommunications companies to provide customer records to the government if the government asks for them. So it would appear that the companies have been acting not just in the public interest, but also within the law and without encroaching on the privacy of any of their customers.

Bureaucrats excel at finding reasons not to do something. They are most often guilty of sins of omission, not commission. A timid, ordinary executive might have concluded that it was too risky to ask U.S. telecommunications companies to provide anonymized call records voluntarily to an agency such as the NSA, dealing with foreign intelligence. If the USA Today story is correct, it appears that Mike Hayden is no timid, ordinary executive. Indeed, it appears that he is exactly the sort of man that we should have at the helm of the CIA while we are at war.

[Spazz]

What is so hard to understand about WARRENT

[labbats]

It's hard to understand when you keep misspelling it.

They legally don't need a warrant when they aren't wiretapping.

Move along.

[Spazz]

I see the light i will learn to spell and the govt should be allowed to do whatever they want whenever they want with out any checks. Thank youfor clearing that up for me.

[Thon]

omgz someone warn poland, the spelling nazi's have invaded NT

[Spazz]

Yea i hate i cant spell i never have been able to. I comunicate best in words unless i just got up from taking like 10 tylonal pm or some shit then i speak like i type

[labbats]

omgz someone warn poland, the spelling nazi's have invaded NT

There's no need for your apostrophe in nazi's.

[Thon]

too late for poland, better call up France

[Lueyen]

Dedn't yau knuw thet yau onley rally nead too geit it mosstly rite four peepole to understand¿

[Drem]

It's hard to understand when you keep misspelling it.

They legally don't need a warrant when they aren't wiretapping.

Move along.

I believe that's "wire-tapping"

[Gidan]

Would you give up your rights ( all of em) for the promise that nobody will blow you up. Heres how i see it. Any given day i could be killed by anything so im not gonna worry bout someone murdering me. Id rather keeps my rights and die free tomorrow than be safe and on lockdown. If the govt wants to look in on my life they should have to have a warrent and if you think otherwise ITS A FACT your a fuckin moron.

If the gov't did monitor a call of an american citizen that provided information that could be used to save the lives of millions, should they use that information and save those lives? Or, should they respect that americans right to privacy and let the millions die? Would you be willing to allow millions to die to protect the rights of 1 person?