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.

 

AT&T Sends ALL Internet Traffic to NSA says EFF

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Source




"The public deserves to know about AT&T's illegal program," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "In an abundance of caution, we are providing AT&T with an opportunity to explain itself before this material goes on the public docket, but we believe that justice will ultimately require full disclosure."

The NSA program came to light in December, when the New York Times reported that the President had authorized the agency to intercept telephone and Internet communications inside the United States without the authorization of any court. Over the ensuing weeks, it became clear that the NSA program has been intercepting and analyzing millions of Americans' communications, with the help of the country's largest phone and Internet companies, including AT&T.




So, this is the way it is. Its out of our hands, all for the sake of terrorism.
All Domestic calls as well.

Thoughts?


*fixed end tag*

[edit on 7-4-2006 by dbates]




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Thank you,
I tried but couldnt.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
This is pretty interesting. I guess the next step would be to find out exactly what % of Internet traffic is handled by AT&T. My guess is that a large portion of it is owned by them since they have been complaining about Google and Yahoo using their pipes for no extra fee.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
rense.com...
So, this is the way it is. Its out of our hands, all for the sake of terrorism.
All Domestic calls as well.


dgtempe >Rense dot com ??? Come on, you can do better !

With the reputation that site has got I think I will pass this off till does appear in the "mainstream" or atleast insomething more credible than Rense !



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Some times even Rense may have to be given the benefit of the doubt.... IF this can be backed up by ay other reliable site its actually quite a development...rountine screening by the HSA....hmmm deserves a closer look into it me thinks......



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Right! Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Since Rense post every single wack-theory available one of them would have to eventually be right. The story doesn't sound too far off the wall. It's probably worth looking into.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Quite a lot of BT traffic apparently goes to the NSA station in Menwith Hill, why shouldn't AT&T have the same arrangement?

duncan.gn.apc.org...



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I realize its Rense.com

So? Many theories were born there.

I am sure this will start coming out soon enough, in the mean time
this is interesting and downright incredible.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
Quite a lot of BT traffic apparently goes to the NSA station in Menwith Hill, why shouldn't AT&T have the same arrangement?

duncan.gn.apc.org...
Thank you for the link, Koji

I appreciate any links people may have pertaining to this obscure topic. Thanks

[edit on 7-4-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Well, its always a shot in the dark with Rense and it always will be. I would rather wait till the lights come on or atleast till someone gets a flash light.

Also do you know that NSA once printed in their intercept operator's manual :
"In God we trust, everyone else we monitor"

This I read in a book called : Body of Secrets- Anatomy of the ultra-secretive National Security Agency by James Bamford [ex NSA himself !]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
IAF,

Thanks for sharing that quote with us.

"In God we trust, everyone else we monitor"

Isnt that something.




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I found more information to the topic Dg.



The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T on January 31, 2006, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications.


www.eff.org...

It may be Rense the link Dg have but the issue is real and already measures has been taken to sue AT&T.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
If you use any form of communication, electronic or otherwise, which is regulated and controlled in some way by the government, you should not have any expectancy of privacy. BTW, thats just the way it is, not necessarily the way it should be.

NSA is taksed to conduct SIGINT. Just because the transmission medium is fiber or copper, that doesn't mean that the signals are off-limits. Our enemies will use whatever medium they can to plan our demise, it's NSA's job to get down in the dirt with them and puzzle out our enemies intentions.

If you think this is fresh news, or a new capability, you are sadly uninformed.

If you think that NSA spend ba-jillions of dollars monitoring these kinds of communications because they bear no fruit, or because their interested in your dirty laundry, you are badly mistaken.

Be judicious in what you post, what you blog, and what you send in e-mail. This "world wide web" is in fact the next sphere of conflict that we, and our enemies, will be looking to leverage into a position of geo-political and military superiority in the near future. Its no different then when man learned to fly at the turn of the last century. All whole new (cyber) realm of technology and capability is opening up in front of us, much like the skies opened up to us in the 1910's and 1920's. It is only natural that the military (friendly and hostile) would look to exploit this realm for their own purposes. Thus the NSA is obliged to step in and conduct surveillance.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
If you use any form of communication, electronic or otherwise, which is regulated and controlled in some way by the government, you should not have any expectancy of privacy. BTW, thats just the way it is, not necessarily the way it should be.
intentions.

If you think this is fresh news, or a new capability, you are sadly uninformed.



On some level, its true- but not the whole enchilada. This is recent and many other telecommunications companies are said to be involved as well.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
This was in yesterday's S.F. Chronicle as well, but it only talks about the case being filed and offers no new details.

Here is the link.

Whether one feels this is justifiable or not, I think we can all at least agree that this is worthy of a "national debate and discussion," as people seem to like to call free speech in this day and age. Personally, I don't like the thought that an email I send someone that happens to mention a news story about terrorism and which in so doing mentions a foreign country or organization that is a buzz word for whatever digital dragnet they're using to pick things up, might be intercepted and read. Many such emails concern multiple subjects, not just those, and often move from news, to health, to subjects of an exceedingly personal nature - things I wouldn't want a total stranger reading.

That said, would I choose keeping my underwear size or medicine dosage secret over the lives of people that might die were this system not in place? Certainly not. Nonetheless, I don't believe I should be forced to make that choice, even hypothetically. I feel we should find a way use our vast wealth, ingenuity, and technology to devise a better method of protecting ourselves than this. Or are we saying we can't? I don't believe that. I say if we can put a man on the moon for (at the time, at least) little reason other than to show up Russia, then we can do this for the sake of our privacies and freedoms.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I always assume my phone calls are being listened to. No, I'm not a terrorist, but I trust our congress critters and the people in the alphabet-soup agencies about as far as I can throw them.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
So to prevent terrorism, we spy on everybody, anywhere, anytime and leave the borders wide open since 9/11


and we are to trust these people to not use intimidation, blackmail, or other illegal means that this may provide?


uh remember watergate? cheney was in that administration too. coinkidink? you see what happens when someone gets too much power; they abuse it. that's what the FISA courts were for, but i guess Bush is not suseptible the tempation of power because he's on a mission from god


terrorism kills less people than cancer, car accidents, guns, malpractice probably even bee stings in america, yet it's being over-exaggerated and trumped up to take away our freedoms, as an excuse for pre-emptive war, and to increase defense spending while slashing social programs.

I can't believe so many people are falling for this, it truly makes me sad. 9/11 (which was an inside job) brought forth the "Long War", where yes is no, seeing people tortured really isn't torture (according to the admin), and having your private communications listened to is for our own good!

Welcome, to the police state! Another 10 years of this and we'll be just as bad as China.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by derdy]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
This is nothing new, has been going on since the early 1980's. Haven't any of you heard of Echelon?



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Doesn't that mean that all SBC, AT&T, Verzion, and other consutomers of AT&T(through mergers,etc.), weither it be directly or indirectly could legally sue them for violating the 4th Admendment?


Source

SBC buying AT&T

The History of AT&T

Bill of Rights

I'm just curious, but then again the NSA will do, what it does.


[edit on 7/5/2006 by cranefly]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by cranefly
Doesn't that mean that all SBC, AT&T, Verzion, and other consutomers of AT&T(through mergers,etc.), weither it be directly or indirectly could legally sue them for violating the 4th Admendment?


I'm just curious, but then again the NSA will do, what it does.


[edit on 7/5/2006 by cranefly]


What individual customers can do in response to a possible violation of privacy, persuant to rights granted under the 4th Amendment, may be limited by Federal interpetation of what those rights are.

In the current suit, wherein the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) v. AT&T for violation of privacy, AT&T, which would otherwise be bare-nekkid and defenless in my opinion, is recieving "amicus curiea" help from the federal Department of Justice in the form of a petition to have much of the evidence dismissed on the grounds that its dislosure would "compromise national security".

The state in which I live has some very potent privacy laws, and these laws are reflected in the regulations by which telecoms, such as AT&T, serving the customers of my state must operate. One of these regulations deals specifically with securing the privacy of subscriber's information.

On May 2, 2006 I therefore filed the following complaint:


Information about the Company/Utility your complaint involves:

Company Name: AT&T Representative Contacted (if any):

Full Address: N/A Phone No: 800-433-4518

Briefly describe the complaint below:

Description: By allowing the the National Security Agency (NSA) , an agency of the United States federal government, to utilize its equipment to monitor and/or intercept the telephone and internet communications of its customers, without the required notification or legally issued warrant, AT&T and others knowing and willfully have violated Section #2891.1 of the California Public Utilities Code.


Filing such a complaint is much easier and less expensive than filing a legal suit; in fact, the process is free and can be done on-line in California.

The really neat thing about California's PUC regulation #2891.1 is that it does not require the injured party to provide proof of injury; it merely requires the service provider to prevent the release of subscriber information unless the subscriber has recieved prior notification of the release, or unless the release is authorized by a court ordered warrant.

Since AT&T admits that it aided the NSA in these "wire-tap" efforts, obviously without notifying its subscribers, and without court issued warrants, AT&T is undeniably in violation of this regulation.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join