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.

 

NSA is keeping logs of phones calls in the US

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Gets his guys in office to get him the records of this guy, under the guise hes possibly funding terrorists. just say that the reason hes up and coming is that hes a terrorist affiliate. The full records of everything comes up, monopoly corporation pays them their money under the table, takes all the records and looks at all the plans this guy has made for the future of the business. From there they sabotage his business, which would be relatively easy since he has no privacy really.



Grim, do you honestly think that it would be that simple? While I understand what you are saying, I don't understand why you think that it would be this simple. Interest groups and corporations' main goal is to influence policy in Washington in order to benefit themselves, I can agree, but it just wouldn't be that simple to get a persons records in this respect, I don't care what corporation you work for. It would be much simpler just to pay off a clerk at the bank to access his financial records, or whoever and whatever it is you are looking for. Anyhow, do you really see this as a 'corporate conspiracy'? Hmmmm. Nope I don't.

Sorry to hear about your computer. I hope you get it up soon! Nice bumping into you!


Anyhow, as for the rest of this nonsense...it's political rhetoric in my opinion. The Constitution does not guarantee us the right to privacy...case law however does protect our privacy in certain aspects. The 'issue' here should be 'has the law been broken' and if you can prove to me that it has been, i'll eat crow. I've done it before and it doesn't bother me, really.


As for me believing lies Truthseeka, I use my common sense. I will not turn this thread into a debate about 9-11, but I can use my common sense there as well. While I doubt everything went down at face value on that day, I do not doubt that it was an organized terrorist plot by radicals. Instead of digging so far into the details attempting to dissect every small detail to prove it was a gov orchestrated event perhaps you should just look at the broader picture of it for a moment and ask some questions.




posted on May, 13 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   

quoted by zenlover28
The Constitution does not guarantee us the right to privacy...case law however does protect our privacy in certain aspects.


Cornell Law School has an interesting take on that:


Privacy

Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life.


Furthermore, it also discusses the right to privacy and access to information. What most interests me here is the Privacy Act of 1974:


Personal Information

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) protects personal information held by the federal government by preventing unauthorized disclosures of such information. Individuals also have the right to review such information, request corrections, and be informed of any disclosures. The Freedom of Information Act facilitates these processes.


So, if the government is seeking our information without "probable cause", do we have the right to access that information they gather on us? And still, if they are doing this in the name of "national security", do we--as citizens--have the right to petition a "redress of grievances" done in the violation of our privacy?

[edit on 13-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   
The destruction of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and political fabric of America. The Confidence that we have always had as a people, is not simply some romantic dream or a proverb in a dusty book that we read just on the 4th of July, it is the idea that founded our nation of the variety of our development, that as a people, confidence in the future has supported everything else.

We have always believed in something called progress, we’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own; our people are losing that faith.

For the first time in the history of our country the majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse then the past five years.

We were taught that our armies were always invincible, that our causes were always just; only to suffer the agony of Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iran and now Iraq. We respected the Presidency as a place of honor until the shock of Watergate, Reagan and the I don't recall, Clinton and the Intern, Bush and the oil bussness dealings and war.

We need to stop crying and start sweating, stop talking and start walking. Working together with our common faith we can not fail.

We have ignored our Declaration of Independence. Many men fought for the freedom of this Country and lost there lives for what is going to be for "NO REASON" if our Government is not rooted out and properly put into proper perspective for America and its people.
Take notice of what the Declarations says, read it you can find it at [www.law.emory.edu...]

"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness".

We are all responsible.

It is time to wake up upon the world. To see that the earth is all we have. It is our GIFT to live upon. If we really treat this GIFT as badly as it is, then we deserve nothing less than what will happen to us.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Ceci, show me where the Constitution and any of the amendments address privacy as a right. As I stated our rights as citizens on this issue was derived from case law. Have you read the torts that address this issue?



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I bet all of you have ever spy on other people? Hmm?


Sometimes I have, when it's none of my business. I can't help it but being curious.

Come on, folks. You spy on other people's stuff. You can eavesdrop on other people's conversations or people talking on cellphones publicly.

Admit it, folks. Naturally, we are all spies here.


Let's spy on government officials, intelligence agents, the Bush administration, all their families and friends, too.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
Ceci, show me where the Constitution and any of the amendments address privacy as a right. As I stated our rights as citizens on this issue was derived from case law. Have you read the torts that address this issue?


Good point there, zenlover28. There is nothing in the US Constitution guaranteed privacy as a right to all Americans. Back in the days of the American colonial settlements and the early years of the USA, privacy wasn't even a big concern. To equate privacy with free speech is like equating the bull with the cow. Different purposes.

The interest in privacy in American life gradually increased in the 19th century as federal government powers increased over the years and certain independent-minded natives feared its growing incursion on privacy in the name of national interests. Since the 20th century, the battle for privacy against national interests by the government grown out of various political, economic, industrial and technological events, of which shifted privacy into the middle ground between those advocating privacy as a right and those who put national interests above privacy.

People fear the loss of privacy is due to the fear of governmental powers over the individual. But the government is not interesting in you sitting on the crapper and finding out what you're doing with defecating and wiping your butt (or masturbating or for women, peeing or menstruating). There are two types of privacy: personal privacy and general privacy.

Personal privacy is what you do for yourself that have absolutely nothing to do with anyone else or the government for that matter.

General privacy is what you do with yourself which may involved another person, few or several people in whatever matter that might create or invite a perception or assumption from others NOT involved in your general private matter, if there's a reasonable situation that may or may not involved everyone or the government.

NSA is only interesting in those who have historical patterns of making frequent and infrequent phone calls of suspicious nature, basing on the contents or statements recorded from other intel sources.

How many times have you pull someone aside and speak to that person privately? Does it involved with that person or does it involved with someone or everyone else? How often you make private phone calls or Internet messaging that may or may not be related to what you do for living? Did other people take notice of what you're doing privately?

Supposedly if all the ATS moderators and super-moderators having their own private threads and talk about us members, we don't know what they are discussing and we all say it's a conspiracy that is out to get us!



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
There is absolutely nothing illegal about what NSA is doing relative to traffic analysis of communications--that is, and always has been their job. They don't care about the actual content of your communications unless a multitude of filters flags it as: (a) International, (b) terrorist related and (c) in direct contravention of federal law. As I pointed out in an earlier post on the subject of NSA surveillance, you can encrypt the content of your communications if the thought that NSA may read your E-mail bothers you, but that will do nothing to prevent them from conducting traffic analysis and/or monitoring your movements (if they chose to do so).

Their activity really should not bother you, it should comfort you to know they can do what they do. Should you believe they are violating some inalienable right of privacy inherent in the constitution or guaranteed by the privacy laws, you would be wrong on both counts. The Constitution does not guarantee any right of privacy to anyone and the privacy laws do not preclude the government from collecting data about you (except in very narrowily defined areas).

[edit on 13-5-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Yeah, Pawn. I even went over the entire Constitution again myself including all Amendments and I can't find where any of them state that 'the right to privacy' is guaranteed. It's just not. The only thing protecting us is the law and due process of the laws.

Civil liberties are our rights to the freedoms that we as individuals enjoy and that governments CANNOT invade.

Our right to privacy clearly can be invaded under certain circumstances and is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Which would make it a 'civil right' in my opinion as it is to be protected BY the government through laws and due process.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
Grim, do you honestly think that it would be that simple?

Honestly? I wouldn't put it past anyone these days to do somethiong totally dispicable.


While I understand what you are saying, I don't understand why you think that it would be this simple. Interest groups and corporations' main goal is to influence policy in Washington in order to benefit themselves, I can agree, but it just wouldn't be that simple to get a persons records in this respect, I don't care what corporation you work for.


Any reason why it wouldn't? Like one quote I heard
"one man says to the other 'But EVERYONE isnt corrupt!!' the other man replies 'BUT EVERYONE makes mistakes'. These businesses probably have the money and the resources to find out whatever they want, and this would make it so they could do it legally(sort to speak).


It would be much simpler just to pay off a clerk at the bank to access his financial records, or whoever and whatever it is you are looking for. Anyhow, do you really see this as a 'corporate conspiracy'? Hmmmm. Nope I don't.


yes but this they can do it legally, and not be prosecuted by law. Its not that it cant happen, but it just makes it that much more easy and that much less risky if having anything go wrong.



Sorry to hear about your computer. I hope you get it up soon! Nice bumping into you!

thanks



Anyhow, as for the rest of this nonsense...it's political rhetoric in my opinion. The Constitution does not guarantee us the right to privacy...case law however does protect our privacy in certain aspects. The 'issue' here should be 'has the law been broken' and if you can prove to me that it has been, i'll eat crow. I've done it before and it doesn't bother me, really.

How do you feel about this when looking at FISA? Does this law become void? Should it in the name of security?



As for me believing lies Truthseeka, I use my common sense. I will not turn this thread into a debate about 9-11, but I can use my common sense there as well. While I doubt everything went down at face value on that day, I do not doubt that it was an organized terrorist plot by radicals. Instead of digging so far into the details attempting to dissect every small detail to prove it was a gov orchestrated event perhaps you should just look at the broader picture of it for a moment and ask some questions.


personally I think it could have went either way of them orchestrating it, but they definately knew about it. There is just way too much to ignore. What questions do you suggest? I personally cannot see radicals killing on the other side of the globe because of an ideal that they hate when they could just as easily attack israel which is right there. That doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense is revenge for our actions that we have taken in the region. That makes sense. And in that case I think this war on terror is ironic. The terrorist ideal and way of life comes about from killing, yet we try to supress it by killing.

The way we are handling this is through paranoia rather then unity, and it will destroy us. We are using violence to combat something created by violence, its the vicious never ending cycle. I think we are dooming ourselves by our shortsighted answers to problems, ad immediate primitive solutions.


(anyway anyone know any good buys on a laptop used for game designing? means i need a great video card, great sound card, alot of RAM, at the lowest price I can find. any help would be appriciated)



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
These kind of reply's play right into the hands of those that have control. What I read here is that most are afraid. Most have voted to feel there doing something to help. All I can say is keep feeling that way. That is why thay are leaders and your pawns. COM'OM quit kidding your selves. Most are more apt to talk about the contitution then read it. Why read it? I tell you why you don't want to read it, because truth makes one a very unwanted person. Talking on any of these sites is like my neighbors.

Is that all that caught your attention was the Contitution? The first six paragraphs didn't bring out a love that kindled hope?



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
These businesses probably have the money and the resources to find out whatever they want, and this would make it so they could do it legally(sort to speak).


No really it wouldn't be legal to do that. Not in any form or fashion. It would probably make more sense to just hire a private detective and allow him/her to do the dirty work.


yes but this they can do it legally, and not be prosecuted by law. Its not that it cant happen, but it just makes it that much more easy and that much less risky if having anything go wrong.


Since when did a government employee handing over personal information through bribery and fraudulent means become legal exactly?


How do you feel about this when looking at FISA? Does this law become void? Should it in the name of security?


FISA is not set up to monitor us as citizens or to infringe on our rights as citizens. It is set up to monitor foreign intelligence and no that does not necessarily mean that intelligence has to be outside of U.S. borders, the FISA laws do not limit the word 'foreign' to another country, it could be an illegal alien, a terrorist operation affiliated with a foreign network operating in our borders, etc. So, if you want to get down to the nitty gritty of it, a foreign entity, person, terrorist, illegal alien whatever or whoever they are, they would not be protected by our laws or rights in this nature as they are deemed 'foreign'.

FISA judges have ruled that Bush did nothing illegal during the whole wiretapping episode, if that is what you are getting at. If FISA gave Bush the authority to wiretap my phone as a citizen and without properly following the legalities determined by the FISA court, then yes I would have a great problem with it. However, that is not the case now nor was it the case then. Again, if he has broken a law prove it to me and I will gladly 'eat crow'.


The way we are handling this is through paranoia rather then unity, and it will destroy us. We are using violence to combat something created by violence, its the vicious never ending cycle. I think we are dooming ourselves by our shortsighted answers to problems, ad immediate primitive solutions.


I agree and disagree with you to some extent, and while I don't want to get off topic, i'll just say that I don't believe we are handling it in the right way as far as the war goes, but that doesn't give us permission to assume every move made by the Bush administration is an illegal act or a conspiracy. I think he's a rotten President, but I'll still try to be fair to him because I do believe what he is doing domestically is what he should be doing at this time. I was furious after 9-11 of how the government could have ignored the signs and allowed such a thing to happen. I'd be a complete hyprocit to say that I don't believe what Bush is doing is necessary and purposeful at this time.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally quoted by zenlover28
Ceci, show me where the Constitution and any of the amendments address privacy as a right. As I stated our rights as citizens on this issue was derived from case law. Have you read the torts that address this issue?


I believe that it is a question of semantics. Within the Fourth and the Fifth Amendment, the right to privacy is inherently explained. I have read some of the torts related to privacy, but I find the quote from Justice Louis D. Brandeis most useful when explaining this:



Privacy

"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect."


Although it could be argued that the Bill of Rights addresses privacy in each of its Amendments, I agree that the Founding Fathers did address privacy in terms of forced invasion into a person's private property, the unlawful theft of one's personal records and of course, the guarantee that all he or she holds dear within his/her possession should be left alone without being touched by authorities. I would also believe the ability to hold these possessions should not be violated by anyone unless there is probable cause for them to be searched. In the case of wiretapping, the very notion of "probable cause" has been taken away from us by virtue of the Patriot Act. And therefore, the unlawful searching into the private business of citizens violates the guarantee within the Constitution that every United States person should not have to be unreasonably intruded upon by the powers that be.

If we easily give up our rights against search and seizure without probable cause, we might as well just unlock the door and let the government take anything that they want without question or criticism. It is as if you just left the door open and anyone off the street can walk in and take your television or computer. Would you like for that to happen? No one would. That's how I see this entire wiretapping thing. The government walks right through your open door and steals some of your most prized possessions without your ability to protest.

This is most explicitly stated in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as mentioned above:


Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


With these two amendments (not to mention the 1st, 9th and 14th), one can infer that wiretapping or the obtaining of records of any kind should not be attempted unless there has been a court ruling that issues a warrant to take the material. Furthermore, when taking the material to build a case, the defendant must have their day in court to answer for what has been seized. Isn't that also an inherent right?

What I see is that the President--with the Congress in conjunction--has passed a set of laws bypassing our rights as citizens to take what they want without a court ruling, probable cause or "just compensation". How are we being paid back for acquiesing our private records to the government? We're not. And that's the problem. In essence, the Constitution laid out issues of privacy if one attempts to look under the surface and read the Founding Father's intent in the Bill of Rights.
















[edit on 14-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   
www.msnbc.msn.com...







Newsweek Web Exclusive
By David Jefferson
Updated: 11:59 a.m. ET May 13, 2006
May 13, 2006 - Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.



All along, Fox's polls reflect the opposite- that Americans are behind this spying for the most part. Right.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Ceci, hun I realize what the amendments say, but they are not GUARANTEED rights to privacy or civil liberties which was the issue we were getting at. Our founding fathers left it up to interpretation and therefore the interpretation of it is based upon CASE LAW.

Again, show me where the law has been broken, that is the issue.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

All along, Fox's polls reflect the opposite- that Americans are behind this spying for the most part. Right.


Dg, what makes one more unbiased than the other? What's good for the goose is good for the gander and I don't believe either media source you quoted is unbiased one way or the other.

If I were to blindly believe all of the political rhetoric being spewed by the left then i'd be against it as well. I see that it really reflects our society as a whole and how the media plays into our fears on one side or the other. And yes, fear in this case is a two way issue. Everyone seems to overlook that.

Edited to add: Just so you know, I didn't blindly follow the Republican rhetoric spewed at Bill Clinton either.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by zenlover28]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
zenlover you may have misunderstood what i was trying to say. I meant it like this. Instead of it being illegal for the government to get all the information illegally then the business buys it, again illegal, now the only thing illegal is the transaction, rather then actually getting the info.
(The government could definately do alot better then a private investigator, especially with the infinite amount of money they have to spend post 9/11.)

Every time I look at the news its like a new discovery about the case comes out. This makes me wonder if we have tried everything as a court, or just what we knew at the time. AT THE TIME the wiretapping program may not have been considered illegal base on what we knew then.

I was angry 9/11 too, but I try to question at the roots of why it happened. This lead me to see all the government has REALLY done in the past, and why these people are so angry. In the end I learned alot of stuff and became more aware because of the tragedy. Unfortunately what I found showed me how corrupt we are and how wrong we have been. So while I find it very wrong to attack civilians, after all this time, are you really that surprised they would act so desperate to attack us how they did? The official story about them just hating freedom isn't enough, but when you look at the facts of our history in the middle east...well that is. So I am not surprised there are terrorists, and I wont be surprised when another attack comes, because we will never change.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
(The government could definately do alot better then a private investigator, especially with the infinite amount of money they have to spend post 9/11.)


Grim, do you honestly think the government keeps records of every citizen in the U.S. in one file? That's really what i'm gathering from your posts. It's really not that simple. Again, you are giving the government way too much credit.



Every time I look at the news its like a new discovery about the case comes out. This makes me wonder if we have tried everything as a court, or just what we knew at the time. AT THE TIME the wiretapping program may not have been considered illegal base on what we knew then.


Again, the political rhetoric did not accomplish what the Left wanted it too, thus we have continuous leaks of information and security breaches which REALLY should be the concern here. The facts are being twisted and it's easy to see that. And they are being twisted to accomplish only one thing, a Democratic Revolution in the House and Senate much like the one that happened in the 90's by the Republicans.


Unfortunately what I found showed me how corrupt we are and how wrong we have been. So while I find it very wrong to attack civilians, after all this time, are you really that surprised they would act so desperate to attack us how they did?


Nope, not surprised at all. But, the past is the past. We have to live in the present. Is it our fault? Probably to some extent, but the fact of the matter is that this is now and that was then. The majority of people around here acts as if the government is one big spectrum of people all conglomerating to take over the world. It's just not that simple in any respect. The U.S. government will look out for the U.S. interests. Just as Dems and Repubs will look out for their interests. If we bent over and took it up the rear just because we did this or that back then well then, we'd really be in trouble. There are clearly disturbing factors about our past and present relationships with the Middle East, however the same can be said about many other places in the world.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
If you think phone records are an invasion of privacy (which I Do )
Just imagine what the NSA has in their satellite photo archives.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
New guy here. Well, after reading 8 pages of concern and political debute, I would like to ask what several others have asked. Where is proof of our freedoms being compremised by the issue at hand here? American's are targets!!!! Of what? False accusations and imprisonment? Has this actually happened, or is this just a worse case scenerio of Mr. X comes into office, and imprisons Mr. Y for reason Z, and it's all in the name of terrorism? Bit sketchy, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. But if that's the reason, there are so many other possibilities of this happening, and not just in the name of terrorism. Is that the only concern? Do the people concerned with this issue really think the Government cares that you're cheating on your spouse or that Billy Bob has cancer of the buttocks? Someone called a 79 year old man pig stupid or another for saying he had nothing to hide and he was for it. What's wrong with that though? I understand that freedom is of first priority, but I have yet to see where a freedom is being taken out of your hands.

"Oh no! They're listening to what I say on the telephone! Can't talk to Ralph anymore about bombing the white house...
"

Seriously though. What's the real issue here? If it's freedom, what freedom are you losing? Is it illegal? How can it be when that evil, evil Patriot Act allows such tactics? Those are the only two problems being brought up, besides just being paranoid. I'm not trying to say you're all wrong for being against this. But I really wish you'd elaberate more on what's wrong with this picture. Someone made an example dealing with the corporations and smaller businesses. If that was an issue, as a corporation hot shot you wouldn't need recorded conversations of your small up and coming rivals. Because you have other great tools I always refer to as bribery, extortion, and black mail. Sure, it can be a tool. But regardless, there are plenty out there. Are there any other points to be made besides "we've lost our freedom and the government is trying to rape us all of our dignity" statements? Sorry ahead of time if I come across harsh.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

If you think phone records are an invasion of privacy (which I Do )
Just imagine what the NSA has in their satellite photo archives.


NSA doesn't operate photo reconaissance satellites.




top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join