NSA building massive database of phone records

[Gidan]

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"

Actually its wiretapping.

[araby]

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?

you read this right out of one of those questions books didn't you...

Gidan, the government having the right to monitor citizens' conversations isn't really an issue that makes me think of all the millions of people we could save if a call were monitored that provided information that could be used for that purpose. I think of a government, overstepping it's governing boundaries and into the territory of socialism. I can see how that information is valuable, but I cannot agree that the way that it is obtained is within the limits we've set for ourselves in our country, laws and beliefs upon which the country was founded.

[Diekan]

On the other, I for the life of me, can't figure out how mining millions of phone records has anything to do with the war on terror.

It doesn't. When are you guys going to wake up and realize that all of this Homeland Security bullshit has nothing... NOTHING... to do with protecting this nation? It's all about garnering more power over the individual citizen. IF, and that's a big IF, the government really wanted to do something about terrorism and to protect the US they'd have the Mexi-American boarder locked down. They'd have in progress a MASSIVE hunt for bin Laden (not a few troops scattered here and here with their fingers crossed they might run across him).

I knew the Patriot Act (as well as the development of the Department of Homeland Security) was bullshit from the start - just another attempt to invade the privacy of the American citizen - but many of you people ate it up hook line and sinker.

[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"

Actually its wiretapping.

You mean "it's".

[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?

you read this right out of one of those questions books didn't you...

Gidan, the government having the right to monitor citizens' conversations isn't really an issue that makes me think of all the millions of people we could save if a call were monitored that provided information that could be used for that purpose. I think of a government, overstepping it's governing boundaries and into the territory of socialism. I can see how that information is valuable, but I cannot agree that the way that it is obtained is within the limits we've set for ourselves in our country, laws and beliefs upon which the country was founded.

So, if my little instance happened. Would you be praising the countries intelligence agency for saving those lives or would you be yelling about how they violated somones right to privacy?

One of the biggest issues is that, all those people who hate to see somones rights to privacy still appretiate what we gain from it. If you really have a problem with it, then every time soemthing good comes of it, you should be yelling just as loud about how that good thing shouldn't have happened becasue it violated somones right, even if that violation saved lives.

I can gaurantee you that the NSA is cracking encrypted email daily, in all that time, its a safe bet that they have uncovered and stopped events that would have cost lives had they not been stopped.

[Diekan]

Come on man, do you really think is as much about national security as it is with simply the government seizing an oppertunity to take away that much more individual freedom and privacy from you?

If [they] are so worried about national security then why are they not doing anything about the boarders?

[Tikker]

I think of a government, overstepping it's governing boundaries and into the territory of socialism.

what the fuck does socialism have to do with wiretapping your own citizens?


/boggle

[Thon]

So, if my little instance happened.

the keyword is if. you can't justify taking away real rights, and real privacy over a hypothetical what-if.

[Gidan]

So, if my little instance happened.

the keyword is if. you can't justify taking away real rights, and real privacy over a hypothetical what-if.

So people who have a liciense to carry guns should be able to bring them on planes. Just as you said, "you cant justify taking away real rights ... over a hypothetical what-if."

[Gidan]

Come on man, do you really think is as much about national security as it is with simply the government seizing an oppertunity to take away that much more individual freedom and privacy from you?

If [they] are so worried about national security then why are they not doing anything about the boarders?

Yeah thats it, a group sat around a table and started with. "Lets see, we need to do something for no purpose other then to take aware more individual freedoms of the country" Like it or not, if you want our intelligence agencies to be able to do their job and keep us safe, they need to have the tools to do that. Every large scale operation requires comminication. The best way to stop these attacks is to monitor that communication. If you prefer that our intelligence agenies function blind, then dont get pissed when they fail to keep this country safe.

As for the borders, how would you secure the borders.

[Hatak]

So, if my little instance happened.

the keyword is if. you can't justify taking away real rights, and real privacy over a hypothetical what-if.

So people who have a liciense to carry guns should be able to bring them on planes. Just as you said, "you cant justify taking away real rights ... over a hypothetical what-if."

It would be a lot harder to hijack a plane if people licensed to carry a concealed weapon were allowed to bring them on board.

[Lyion]

Come on man, do you really think is as much about national security as it is with simply the government seizing an oppertunity to take away that much more individual freedom and privacy from you?

What freedoms are you losing by having a call database analyzed for patterns from middle eastern calls?

You do know all this information is transmitted via POTS, and is readily available to just about anyone?

There is no Big Brother. The government couldn't care less about most of us.
What it does is analytics for calls from Al Qaeda, and it has zero domestic issues or affairs.

I'd rather we did analyze stuff in ways like this which are legal and do not violate rights, but enable us to catch Islamic whackjobs, than the alternative, and watch a mushroom cloud go above a US city.

[Diekan]

Come on man, do you really think is as much about national security as it is with simply the government seizing an oppertunity to take away that much more individual freedom and privacy from you?

If [they] are so worried about national security then why are they not doing anything about the boarders?

Yeah thats it, a group sat around a table and started with. "Lets see, we need to do something for no purpose other then to take aware more individual freedoms of the country" Like it or not, if you want our intelligence agencies to be able to do their job and keep us safe, they need to have the tools to do that. Every large scale operation requires comminication. The best way to stop these attacks is to monitor that communication. If you prefer that our intelligence agenies function blind, then dont get pissed when they fail to keep this country safe.

As for the borders, how would you secure the borders.

They government has NO business listening on anyone's conversation. Now, even with that said.... yes... I can see a valid point being made about tapping into or recording phone calls going overseas. BUT... why the fuck does the NSA need to "listen" to phone calls between people IN the US? So, I call my people back in Ohio and the NSA has a "need" to record that call? That's pure, absolute bullshit.

Secondly, how do you or anyone else know that what they've been doing is the result of invading our privacy? How do you know it's not simply the CIA and other intell agencies simply pulling their heads out of their collective asses? You don't. None of us do. THAT is exacltly what they count on.

You cannot, with good sense, sit back and say... "well we haven't had an attack in a couple of years it must be because they're tapping and recording phone calls now."

If [they] came out and stated that they needed to tap and record calls leaving or coming into the country. Ok, I deal with that on a very limited basis. But, to come out and say they need to tap and record every phone call made in US is just another way for them to invade YOUR privacy.

If you can't see that, then I really do feel sorry for you.

I'll ask again - how many of you really think this will be a "free" country 50 or a 100 years from now? I sure as hell don't. Not unless the American people get off their lazy asses, turn off the TV, start paying attention to what's going on in Washington and stop worrying so much about which shithead on American "I'm a moron for watching this shit" Idol wins.

They can take your land now and all they have to do is justify it as it being a benefit to the community in which you live. They can tap your phones without a warrant. They can detain you with no other reason that you simply being "suspected" of being a terrorist. They have "secret" prisons around the world. They're taking damn near 50% of your total wages for their spending. And, they've been talking about mandiating that we each carry a "national ID" card...

Tell me again how what they do is for our benefit and not theirs?

[Tikker]

I think you're crazy if you think they listen to every call

chances are they would just catalogue everything, then if they get a lead that phone#1234567 is doing something bad, then they pull up the recordings and see whta's going on

[Gidan]

Diekan, your making the assumption that all terrorists are outside the US. You do realize that americans can be terrorists as well and it would make perfect sence that terrorists would need people on the inside of the country to assist in completeling their attacks.

You may wish to give a completely secure communication network to terrorists to make their plans, but I would prefer we didn't. They probably love being able to use our own communication network against us.

[Arlos]

So, Gidan, what, exactly is the issue with the government actually FOLLOWING THE LAW and getting a warrant in order to wiretap someone's phone? They can go to a secret court with their evidence, and get it, so don't have to expose assets, etc. Also, if they think there is probable cause they have 24 or 48 hours to wiretap someone while the process of getting the warrant is in motion. If the government has a LEGITIMATE case against that individual, there is no reason whatsoever why they couldn't present a case to the court within that time frame. None. If they *DON'T* have a real case, they have NO business wiretapping that person, period.

To partially answer your earlier question: yes, I would rather be killed, along with my entire family, in another 9/11 type attack than have the country charge headlong towards a more totalitarian form of government, like in Nazi Germany or like that in 1984. Period. Patrick Henry did not speak idle words when he said, "Give me Liberty or give me death." This nation was FOUNDED on the idea of liberty. It is worth ALL of our lives to preserve it.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

So, Gidan, what, exactly is the issue with the government actually FOLLOWING THE LAW and getting a warrant in order to wiretap someone's phone? They can go to a secret court with their evidence, and get it, so don't have to expose assets, etc. Also, if they think there is probable cause they have 24 or 48 hours to wiretap someone while the process of getting the warrant is in motion. If the government has a LEGITIMATE case against that individual, there is no reason whatsoever why they couldn't present a case to the court within that time frame. None. If they *DON'T* have a real case, they have NO business wiretapping that person, period.

To partially answer your earlier question: yes, I would rather be killed, along with my entire family, in another 9/11 type attack than have the country charge headlong towards a more totalitarian form of government, like in Nazi Germany or like that in 1984. Period. Patrick Henry did not speak idle words when he said, "Give me Liberty or give me death." This nation was FOUNDED on the idea of liberty. It is worth ALL of our lives to preserve it.

-Arlos

You're being extremely selfish. If you don't have anything to hide, then don't worry about it. I bet you're also against schools performing random checks of students' lockers for guns and drugs too. You people who constantly whine about your rights are going to be the demise of America. Your "rights" are miniscule in comparison to national security. I hope the government continues on with what they're doing now and just ignoring the "rights" whiners. Look at the BIG picture holmes. The comparison to nazi Germany is completely outrageous.

[Thon]

by your retardo logic, the government could also freely kick down your door without a warrant. if you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem Comrade?

[Narrock]

by your retardo logic, the government could also freely kick down your door without a warrant. if you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem Comrade?

O M G

If you haven't done anything wrong, the cops are NOT going to kick your door down. They only do that to SUSPECTS, accompanied by PROBABLE CAUSE.

[Arlos]

If they have PROBABLE CAUSE then why the FUCK can't they get a warrant first? In which case, if they HAVE a warrant, they have every right to sieze, search & kick the door down, or wiretap, as the case may be.

I am not arguing against police powers legally obtained by the use of Warrants. I am against actions that blatantly circumvent the Constitution, such as warrantless wiretapping.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Why is wiretapping an issue? There is no wiretapping going on for this.

There also is no constitutional issues here.

[Arlos]

Clue-Phone for Lyion: The discussion has moved beyond the original topic. I realize that this never ever happens on NT, so you might have been confused.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

No need to be a smartass. I saw Gidan's assertion, but that really is a purely hypothetical.

But I guess in your world Bush is almost a dictator and taking over the world.

[Narrock]

If they have PROBABLE CAUSE then why the FUCK can't they get a warrant first? In which case, if they HAVE a warrant, they have every right to sieze, search & kick the door down, or wiretap, as the case may be.

I am not arguing against police powers legally obtained by the use of Warrants. I am against actions that blatantly circumvent the Constitution, such as warrantless wiretapping.

-Arlos

In the name of National Security is the "warrant." Just think of it that way and you'll be fine.

[Lyion]

If they have PROBABLE CAUSE then why the FUCK can't they get a warrant first? In which case, if they HAVE a warrant, they have every right to sieze, search & kick the door down, or wiretap, as the case may be.

I am not arguing against police powers legally obtained by the use of Warrants. I am against actions that blatantly circumvent the Constitution, such as warrantless wiretapping.

-Arlos

In the name of National Security is the "warrant." Just think of it that way and you'll be fine.

The ends does not justify the means....Unless you're Jack Bauer.