It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1 in 5 Americans Think Feds Tapping Their Calls

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by idiotech101
I belive that this is the result of a very well thought out campain to make people belive that the intelligence agencys have the manpower and ability to tap your phone on the mass scale these people seem to think they can. If people feel that they are being constantly watched then they will be more carefull about what they say and do, and will self police. The idea that intelligence agencys could possibly perfrom such a task is ridiculous. in the end it doesn't matter because if people belive they can it creates the same results.


They do have the manpower and ability to record and analyze ALL of our phone conversations.

Your'e spreading misinformation and unprofessional opinions.


We already have software that can understand your voice and turn it into text. Setting up your computer to automate the scanning and analysis process of thousands of recorded conversations is not that hard for me to do. And I'm not all that of an experienced computer programmer. If I can do it, US intelligence can do it.

They can and DO analyze your entire electronic existance.

And they do it while drinking their coffee because it's the computers that do all the work.



I think you would be an idiot to think they don't.
I think you would be an even bigger idiot if you think they couldn't if they wanted to.

Sheeple gullable moron, or government agent. Your'e one of the two.




posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
that's over 60 MILLION people...

i highly doubt that the united states government has the resources and manpower to pull that off.


Then I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on ECHELON.


ECHELON is a highly secretive world-wide signals intelligence and analysis network run by the UKUSA Community. ECHELON can capture radio and satellite communications, telephone calls, faxes and e-mails nearly anywhere in the world and includes computer automated analysis and sorting of intercepts. ECHELON is estimated to intercept up to 3 billion communications every day.

en.wikipedia.org...


And ECHELON has been around for quite a while. I'm sure they've increased its capabilities over the years since it began, or may even have completely new systems.


Some people may not realize that ECHELON besides the NSA, includes the the UK's GCHQ, Aussies DSD, Canada's CSE, and N.Zealand's GCSB, and they all share information.

Don't forget the armed forces Crytpologic entities of the US (Central Security Service) and the above countries as well.(see Wikkipedia)

ECHELON has been around since the 70's. Now it's just so newer, faster, stronger that the human analyst has a helluve time keeping up.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
The right would have you believe that this is simple partisan politics because they are in full spin CYA mode. Anyone who believes this is politics in action is sadly deluding themselves to the seriousness of this breach of the US Consitution. Those people also deserve no freedom and with any luck will be the first ones rounded up to the halliburton camps.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
The people continuing to try to spin this into something acceptable disgust me. Our government is spying on us and that is a fact. Our government does what is best for them, not for the people, and that is fact.

Get it through your heads. This is not a good thing. They have already been monitoring dissident groups and that is fact.

This latest bit of information says that they are creating a database of telephone calls to link people together. While that might be legal, I still think it's wrong. And that does not include the standard ECHELON dragnet that goes through EVERY communication and filters for keyword (and now, I suspect, it pulls aside all communications from 'suspect' numbers picked up by their connection database).

AND the NSA cut off an investigation into the programs by denying the investigators access. If a private citizen did that, they'd be charged with interfering with an investigation. But the NSA is clearly above the law.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I think this piece of news fits in very well to this thread

news.bbc.co.uk...

Seems Bush thinks this is lawful spying on millions of your own countrymen , you guys seem to have loads of terrorists in the us apparently



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
While that might be legal, I still think it's wrong.


I wonder if you will still have the same view if that morally ‘wrong’ program could have made a difference?

mod edit: fixed bbcode

[edit on 11-5-2006 by sanctum]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
If you entered every house in the country, you'd find a lot of people breaking various laws that would have otherwise been undetectable. That doesn't justify entering everyone's house in the off chance that they're a criminal.

The same thing applies to any other form of mass surveillance.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LognCale
The same thing applies to any other form of mass surveillance.


I agree, but there isn't any mass ‘surveillance’ going on. I don’t consider gathering the number of calls from Boston to Dallas and how long each lasts a violation of anyone's rights. In this latest program only statistics are being collected.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
to mean that the Feds are listening to their calls. And that’s not what they did

Their records have been tapped, it didn't involve a tapwire connected to their physical phone line, but their records and information have gone to someone it shouldn't've.


nor did they collect names

Since names are matched to numbers in pulic phone books, thats not too important.
Also, there's nothing that says that they aren't collecting names and addresses, since that information is associated with the numbers at teh teleco records, nor that they haven't also logged that information with social security numbers, bank accouts, or IP addresses, which they can get via the Narus Sacandal. Infact, we haven't heard anything, because the NSA isn't talking, and the president is saying that its not happening.


This latest bit of information says that they are creating a database of telephone calls to link people together. While that might be legal,

Its not even legal. AT&T and other telecos have sued in court over companies that have obtained their phone logs, claiming that its a crime. The NSA refused to go to FISA over this because they figured that they wouldn't approve it, because its illegal. When Qwest requested that they check with FISA, that was the response.

So they can't even claim that its all that important, since it wasn't apparently worth the effort.

The article actually cites a law from 1934 that is aimed that this specific act, the release of a citizen's phone logs.Not to mention that there 's a big difference between teh government monitoring the entire population, and private companies using it for marketing. (maybe I am preaching to the jury here though! :lol



westpoint23
if that morally ‘wrong’ program could have made a difference?

And how would we ever know? They've already made up claims of having stopped attacks in california, they'll just make up the same story with respect to this.

In this latest program only statistics are being collected.

I don't know why you think that. They are collecting, minimally, the phone numbers and when they connect to each other. The government hasn't explained the programme, we only have what USA today is telling us, and I don't see where that says that they are looking at the 'statistical number of calls alone. That'd be useless.
THey are identifiying networks, that requires minimally the phone numbers and place of origin. All the information that is held by the teleco is probably handed over, your address, the checks you pay with, the online statements you get, etc.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Collecting phone numbers is called installing a "pentrap".

You need a warrant to install a pentrap.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

I agree, but there isn't any mass ‘surveillance’ going on. I don’t consider gathering the number of calls from Boston to Dallas and how long each lasts a violation of anyone's rights. In this latest program only statistics are being collected.


My problem with this particular program - that is, the collection and storing of connections between telephone numbers - is that they're analysing behavior that can potentially be used against the person, potentially without cause, without a warrant.

A similar example that I thought of today was this: in a town where they have surveillance cameras on every streetcorner and systems analyzing "criminal" behavior - they're in development or possibly even in use in some places already - it's very easy for them to mistake normal behavior for "odd" behavior. For example: My dad was driving in town and saw a bumper sticker that he couldn't read in time as he passed it by. So he went around the block and came by again. Still didn't finish reading the entire thing (busy road) so he went past for a third time. And he happened to be driving around the block right past a bank each time. If that had been picked up by cameras linked to such a system, it could've flagged it as suspicious and we might have gotten a visit from the police.

The same sort of mistake could be done with the phone database. I certainly don't have a problem with them investigating telephone calls FROM criminals and seeing who they called and who is connected - but that still requires probable cause that they're committing a crime and a warrant to get the information.

So it is mass surveillance. They're not surveilling the contents of the conversations, but they're surveilling who that person is calling and other statistics about it. And that's just with this program.

ECHELON, or whatever variant of such is being used now, is a mass surveillance program. It's a dragnet that sifts through all traffic and searches for keywords. And while I can understand that in limited situations during wartime in a foreign country, it is certainly not acceptable in our own country. Ever.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't know why you think that. They are collecting, minimally, the phone numbers and when they connect to each other.


I got that from the USA today story and several other articles on this program. The government is not listening to the telephone calls nor are they collect any specific identifying information. They are only putting in their database the number of calls from any given location to another location, the times those calls were made, and how long they lasted. Your adding on with assumptions, I'm only saying what the USA report stated.


The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

Link



Questions and answers about the NSA phone record collection program

Q: Does that mean people listened to my conversations?

A: Eavesdropping is not part of this program.

Q: What was the NSA doing?

A: The NSA collected "call-detail" records. That's telephone industry lingo for the numbers being dialed. Phone customers' names, addresses and other personal information are not being collected as part of this program. The agency, however, has the means to assemble that sort of information, if it so chooses.

Link



The secretive electronic intelligence agency does not record or listen to the conversations but uses the data -- numbers, times and locations -- to look for patterns that might suggest terrorist activity, the newspaper reported.

Link



Originally posted by Nygdan
And how would we ever know? They've already made up claims of having stopped attacks in california, they'll just make up the same story with respect to this.


How do you know the claims were ‘made up’?


Originally posted by Nygdan
Its not even legal. AT&T and other telecos have sued in court over companies that have obtained their phone logs, claiming that its a crime.


Being sued in court over something does not automatically make it illegal. I believe there are provisions in the Patriot Act which allow this program to be legal.


The White House would not confirm or deny the existence of the NSA data mining program described in the newspapers. Officials said Thursday that if such a program existed, it would be legal because among other things when the Patriot Act was reauthorized it included language specifically regarding the handling and treatment of business records such as "call detail records."

Link



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
The same sort of mistake could be done with the phone database. I certainly don't have a problem with them investigating telephone calls FROM criminals and seeing who they called and who is connected - but that still requires probable cause that they're committing a crime and a warrant to get the information.


Just one question, how are they suppose to know who is a criminal if there exists no questionable past or record? Like the 9/11 hijackers, if they don't have a record then they could potentially get away with what they’re up to because we would be more concerned about making a harmless and honest mistake instead of going after that one lead which could have made a difference.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23Just one question, how are they suppose to know who is a criminal if there exists no questionable past or record?


Innocent until proven guilty correct? We shouldn't assume everyone is a criminal until we find out who is not. I can name plenty of totalitarian and fascist regimes that assumed people were guilt WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Innocent until proven guilty correct?


Were the 9/11 hijacker innocent? Of course not, but because we were not allowed to investigate and determine any suspicious activities we had to wait until 3,000 people died to find out that yes they were guilty. PS. you’re not offering any alternatives.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
This summer, when I was talking to my fiance, I remember several times hearing a distinctive clik click click that sounded like a tap. Ive heard phone taps before. It sounded like one.

Was it a tap? I dunno. I do not rate myself as someone whose life is interesting enough to warrant surveilance, yet with this information that ATT and the NSA have been in bed with each other, I dont rule out any possibility.

Which, if its true, makes me doubly enraged. For starters, all this business is a severe violation of constitutional rights. And of course, the massive waste of tax dollars used to monitor people who simply should not be monitored.

Another impeachable offense to add to Bush's list.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Innocent until proven guilty correct?


Were the 9/11 hijacker innocent? Of course not, but because we were not allowed to investigate and determine any suspicious activities we had to wait until 3,000 people died to find out that yes they were guilty. PS. you’re not offering any alternatives.


You could the same thing about any criminal. Apparently this wasn't enough?

Edmonds is a 33-year-old former FBI translator whose February allegations to the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks directly challenge the credibility of the commission's star witness, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. In an April 2 interview with the news.independent.co.uk... Independent of London, Edmonds said she read intelligence reports from the summer of 2001 that al Qaeda operatives planned to fly hijacked airplanes into U.S. skyscrapers.

"There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks," she said. She added that specific cities with skyscrapers were mentioned.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Why does there need to be an alternative? Maybe the alternative should be for the damn FBI to do their job.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I've only read this last page of the thread so far, but I can offer some info.

1) The device that's attached to a specific phone line to record the phone numbers of all incoming and outgoing calls is known as a "pen register". I've never heard the term "pen trap."

2) I know of a case about a year ago involving a missing young lady under suspicious circumstances (she may have been lured into criminal activity) where the parents are state-level politicians. The political connections may have played a part in this, I do not know. Anyhow, the girl was supposed to be at work the day after she went missing, but an unknown woman called her in as being sick, claiming to be her aunt. All I know is that someone from either the state police, or from the town police where the girl's place of employment was, simply picked up a phone and called someone else, who then quickly faxed over a list of every incoming and outgoing phone call (traced to phone number, address, and owner's name) to the girl's place of employment, including dates, times, and duration of the call. It was quickly discovered who the "aunt" was and the girl was located at the woman's house, using the phone records from the girl's place of employment. I thought nothing of it, I figured it must be info available to anyone with the right connections.

[edit on 11-5-2006 by therainmaker]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

"There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks," she said. She added that specific cities with skyscrapers were mentioned."


I’m not question the credibility of this person but lets assume what she says is true. Would you then have supported that after these reports the NSA should have been conducting the kind of electronic surveillances its doing today or should we have waited a bit more?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by LognCale
The same thing applies to any other form of mass surveillance.


I agree, but there isn't any mass ‘surveillance’ going on. I don’t consider gathering the number of calls from Boston to Dallas and how long each lasts a violation of anyone's rights. In this latest program only statistics are being collected.


West, I find it deeply disturbing that you do not consider these actions to be a violation of our right to privacy as citizens of an ostensibly, free society, ruled by law, not by men.

Duty. Honor Country.

Since these are ideals you've chosen to emblazon in your avatar, I assume you have at least a passing familiarity with the meaning behind these concepts, and why so many courageous men and women have given thier lives, willingly, to defend them and the Constitution for which they stand. The Constitution, which guarantees its citizens, amoung many equally basic and important rights, to be secure within our persons, homes and papers.

Do you not see it as your Duty to stand for the Spirit embraced by this document, in its broadest and most encompassing interpetation, for only in extremes is freedom truly tested, rather than merely the letter of the text.

If we resort to parsing our words, if we quibble over terms and definitions such as "Surveillence" and "Wiretapping" in the absence of due process, in an effort to minimze, or even legitimize what, by the spirit of the Constitution, is an affrontery to to its citizens, do we not Dishonor those who risked all to provide these rights to us.

Who have gone before us, and given all to protect these rights for us. Do we Honor them by blythely marginalizing thier sacrifice for the convenience of a modicum of illusionary security?

If so, we, as a society are not worthy of their sacrifice, their gift to us; this Country.

I assume you have been well trained, a fact for which you are justifiably proud. But perhaps, while learning the "how" of things, you might have taken some small time to better understand the "why" of what you were being taught.

Country is more, much more, than a people, a flag, or even a parcel of land; Country is the spirit by which a people, a flag, and even a parcel of land are remembered, long after all three have passed.

And so you say that you do not consider these actions to be a violation of our rights as citizens, and that deeply disturbs me.

Fortunately the State of California does:


Telephone Records

No information regarding calling patterns, credit or financial information, subscriber services, or demographic data shall be disclosed by any telephone company without first obtaining the residential subscriber's consent. Exceptions include directory assistance services, postal zip codes, collection and billing materials, documents made available pursuant to FCC reporting requirements and the names and addresses of lifeline customers for the purpose of low-income assistance outreach. Cal. PUC, Article 3, Sec. 2891, Customer Right to Privacy.


The NSA may, by virtue of powerful men and those who curry their favor, hold itself above the law. If it succedes, we will all have failed in our Duty to protect the Honor of the promise that was our Country.

One may seek comfort in within the embrace of ones' Flag, but if the Rule of Law is lost to men of avarice, a flag becomes no more than a piece of stained cloth.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join