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: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Maybe FallenFromTheTree was thinking of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency(NGA). It's only one letter off.



Spy agencies historically avoided domestic operations out of concern for Pentagon regulations and Reagan-era executive order, known as 12333, that restricted intelligence collection on American citizens and companies. Its budget, like all intelligence agencies, is classified. On Clapper's watch of the last five years, his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires. With help, the agency can also zoom in. Its officials cooperate with private groups, such as hotel security, to get access to footage of a lobby or ballroom. That video can then be linked with mapping and graphical data to help secure events or take action, if a hostage situation or other catastrophe happens.

Privacy advocates wonder how much the agency picks up -- and stores. Many are increasingly skeptical of intelligence agencies with recent revelations about the Bush administration's surveillance on phone calls and e-mails. Among the government's most closely guarded secrets, the quality of pictures NGA receives from classified satellites is believed to far exceed the one-meter resolution available commercially. That means they can take a satellite "snapshot" from high above the atmosphere that is crisply detailed down to one meter level, which is 3.3 feet.

www.canada.com




posted on May, 14 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EntheEnd

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


LOL...that's not happening anyway and it's funny that people even think it is.



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?


That's what i'm trying to figure out. I keep asking where the law has been broken because I can't figure out where anything else is an issue?! Are our telephone numbers our personal property? It's not like our name and address are attached to the numbers when the info is dissected by the government and if probable cause is found with a phone number it's not like due process wouldn't be given in order to find out who it belongs to. Wouldn't this be the same process with an IP address on the internet??????? I'm still trying to figure out where the issues begin and the rhetoric ends in this conversation myself.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Oh I'm sure there are many layers of intelligence we have no clue about, that use all the methods
available to keep tabs on the sheeple.

I guess we shouldn't think of this so much as big brother watching over us.

I'm sure to 29% of us, it's more like a shepherd watching over his flock.


Then there are some of us who don't give a flying flock how they try to justify what they are doing.

It's wrong!







[edit on 14-5-2006 by FallenFromTheTree]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
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.


budget in the billions? I think that youre undereastimating them because you seem to believe that what you see is what it is. With that kind of money, its hard to believe they CANT do alot of things we would think they couldn't based on our public view. They don't need a database though, all they need is a name pretty much and from there they can do alot more then we public know.




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.


not sure what your talking about. What we are doing can be reveiled without where we are doing it and whos doing it. If we have prisoners being abused, Im glad its being leaked. If we have programs which are wasting money, Im glad those are being leaked. If the public isnt behind something they shouldnt be sending our money to do the program. To me democrat and republican means no difference, because in the end, money is money.



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.


I have a problem with that. The past is not just the past. You cant look at a murderer and say "well the past is the past" then move on and let him go on the streets again. The past shows intentions, the past shows reason, the past is more then just something that happened. people hold grudges, so the past is not just the past. To try and brush off the past, then solve the problems of today is like saying "well the tires on these cars are blowing out....but that was the past and we have to live in today" that really doesn't solve the problem of the countless people who may have died from their tires blowing out. That doesnt mean there should be no lawsuit, "because it was the past".
No they arent trying to take over the world. they are puppets of varying business whole are looking for a profit, not world domination. They will do whatever they need to in order to make money, not some power hungry world conquest.
The US government IS democrat and republican. They arent looking out for our interests though. Maybe your rich, and in that case maybe they are...but Im not part of one of the families that got that 70 billion dollar savings tax cut that bush signed. Im not part of the 1% of the families, so way I see it these guys haven't been working in my interest.
Your trying to stop violence, by being violent. We have learned NOTHING from our former leaders(not presidents and stuff). Ghandi, MLK, etc. did they say stop the violence by killing? You will never stop this by killing. We caused alot of problems over there...maybe not all of them, but a lot of them. Now we were attacked and are acting surprised that it happen. The day we act like the true world power, is the day we say no more violence. The day we stop fighting for resources, and start to just talk it out. Yea I know some of you are going to say, that will never work, yet for some reason it seems like we never really have tried it before. We have always tried to take advantage and if the country didnt go along with it we would just attack them.
"The ultimate act of a warrior is to put down his sword"



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally quoted by zenlover28
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.


zenlover28, I believe that the amendments do discuss privacy and civil liberties. I will agree with you that case law has been used to buttress or refute these rights to privacy. However, I still believe that the Founding Fathers did consider what is defined as private property of the citizens of the United States. And they explicitly said so through the amendments:

1)The privacy afforded the choice of religion (1st Amendment)

2)The sacredness of one's private home being protected from being inhabited by soldiers (2nd Amendment)

3)The right to keep personal effects without them being seized by authorites unless there is a warrant (4th Amendment)

4)The right to not incriminate one's self in a court of law, and to keep that knowledge privately. The right not to be tried for double jeopardy in a court of law. And the right to have private property not taken or seized by the government without just compensation. (5th Amendment)

5)Section 1 of the 14th amendment states:


Fourteenth Amendment
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Which, imho, states that the personal "life, liberty and property" of a person is protected from state laws unless they are subject to a court of law. That means, the privacy of a person is protected and considered sacred unless they break a law and goes to court to face his/her accusers. If this was not in place, then states would equally have the power to intrude the privacy of anyone without any provocation.

However, one of the virtues of the set of laws which make up the Constitution is the fact that people can see what they want. You interpret it literally. I read between the lines. And yes, case law has to do with both depending on the ruling.

However, I tend to see that the amendments fully well are intedted to set out the freedoms we as citizens are entitled to have. And that includes civil liberties and privacy. I believe that the Founding Fathers did guarantee these rights because when America was a colony of the British, privacy and civil liberties were continually violated without reason.

Isn't that the reason why the Founding Fathers wrote the protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" in the Fourth Amendment?

But, if you prefer, my dear, to let all that you possess and hold relevant to be taken away without any recourse, then that is your right.

There are others within this country that seem to disagree, imho.






[edit on 15-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
However, if you want to see about how the law has been broken, I came up with the Center of Constitutional Rights. They have filed a suit against the Bush Administration on the account of warrantless wiretapping:


CCR Files Suit over NSA Domestic Spying Program

In New York, on January 17, 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit against President George W. Bush, the head of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA’s surveillance of persons within the United States without judicial approval or statutory authorization. The suit seeks an injunction that would prohibit the government from conducting warrantless surveillance of communications in the U.S. CCR filed the suit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York on its own behalf and on behalf of CCR attorneys and legal staff representing clients who fit the criteria described by the Attorney General for targeting under the NSA Surveillance Program.


Furthermore, this is their reason why:



As has been widely reported, for over four years the NSA, with the approval of the president, has engaged in a program of widespread warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone calls and emails in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The suit argues that the NSA Surveillance Program violates a clear criminal law, exceeds the president's authority under Article II of the Constitution, and violates the First and Fourth Amendments. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act explicitly authorizes foreign intelligence electronic surveillance only upon orders issued by federal judges on a special court. It expressly authorizes warrantless wiretapping only for the first fifteen days of a war, and makes it a crime to engage in wiretapping without specific statutory authority. Rather than seeking to amend this statute, the president simply violated it by authorizing warrantless wiretapping of Americans without statutory authority or court approval. As a result, the President violated his oath of office to take care that the laws of this nation are faithfully executed, and instead secretly violated a criminal prohibition duly enacted by Congress.


I believe your request was to show where the Amendments afforded to privacy has been broken by virtue of CASE LAW. Although I could bring a string of cases which demonstrate this, I think that its explaination of how the President broke the laws of the Constitution and the FISA court is sufficient enough.

Well, here it is. I don't know whether the President is going to face his accusers, though.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
3)The right to keep personal effects without them being seized by authorites unless there is a warrant (4th Amendment)

You, as with others, might want to refresh yourself with the 4th Amendment, because quite frankly, your definition is not cutting it. Two key points your are purposely excluding are: reasonable expectation of privacy and searches and seizures without warrants.
4th Amendment
Supreme Court: Phone Records belong to phone company, no privacy
§ 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records
Unwarranted Criticism







seekerof

[edit on 14-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Seekerof,

You are right. I did not consider in my explaination of the Fourth Amendment what would be deemed as a "reasonable expectation" as well as what was determined as acceptible regarding searches and seizures without a warrant. However, the court has ruled that society would have to determine was is "reasonable". And of course, these "searches and seizures" are done with an expectation by law enforcement as "criminal activity".

My question is what exactly does "reasonable" search and seizures mean beyond the "plain sight" rule? Who in society determines what is "reasonable"?

Plus, are you determining (just because a poll asked a limited number of people how they feel regarding their phone records being private or not) what MSNBC perceives as an acceptable answer for "society's view of what is deemed reasonable"?

Judging from some of the responses in this post about warrantless datamining and wiretapping, there are people who express their concern over this as "invasion of privacy".

I will think more about this issue in a future post. But, I still hold by my firm belief that our rights have been violated. Because above all else, the President or his "officers" did not go to a court of law in order to justify their actions. They simply did it. And these actions of datamining and warrantless wiretapping were done past the 15 day period stipulated by the FISA court.



[edit on 15-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. Everything Joe Stalin did was legal in his country I don't hear many people excusing his excesses.

9/11 blew this country's mind and reduced us immoral cowards.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Grim, no offense, but I don't think your issues are concerned with 'privacy rights' or the law being broken. It looks like your issues are that you're just against the government alltogether. So, no matter what I say, you are going to be on the defensive. This conversation is going nowhere because you deem the government to be this romanticized ideal that I really can't follow. However, it was nice to bump into you! Take it easy.


Ceci, have you actually read the FISA laws? Have you read the previous 3 court rulings on this subject? Just because someone filed suit doesn't mean squat in America. You really should do your own research on this instead of following the crowd.

Anyhow, again this is being blown way out of proportion. But, y'all have fun with it!

Over & Out



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
well mainly because I believe they can be bought out, and with all the corruption news in the government, can you blame me? Of course Im going to be against it when I turn the tv on and see corruption in the government repeatedly. When it seems to tie back to money from big businesses, of course Im going to be suspicious. My view is that they are like most people...sell out for a quick buck. They more power they have, the more likely that is.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
This is the information I recieved yesterday from my work. Company Name removed and replaced with widgets



The President has referred to an NSA program, which he authorized, directed against al-Qaeda. Because that program is highly classified, Widgets cannot comment on that program, nor can we confirm or deny whether we have had any relationship to it.
Having said that, there have been factual errors in press coverage about the way Widgets handles customer information in general. Widgets puts the interests of our customers first and has a longstanding commitment to vigorously safeguard our customers’ privacy -- a commitment we’ve highlighted in our privacy principles, which are available at (link removed).
Widgets will provide customer information to a government agency only where authorized by law for appropriately defined and focused purposes. When information is provided, Widgets seeks to ensure it is properly used for that purpose and is subject to appropriate safeguards against improper use. Widgets does not, and will not, provide any government agency unfettered access to our customer records or provide information to the government under circumstances that would allow a fishing expedition.

Widgets hopes that the Administration and the Congress can come together and agree on a process in an appropriate setting, and with safeguards for protecting classified information, to examine any issues that have been raised about the program. Widgets is fully prepared to participate in such a process.


Well, regardless of how they put it, this looks really bad for us and everyone of our customers.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Grim, I have an honest question. If the corporations run our government and the media is obviously conglomorated and basically corporately owned...why would they be portraying our government in such a negative picture?



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Here's an example, below. Can you tell which cluster is from a Fortune 500 company, and which one is from Al-Qaeda? Network analysis guru Valdis Krebs shows this slide to corporate and government audiences. Their answers are usually pretty scattershot.


Recently stumbled across this.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Those who defend this type of thing are the same type of people who snitch on their neighbours for "suspicious behavior".

"Omigod Vern, I think I saw a copy of the Koran on Ned's coffeetable. Geez, we oughta call the guvmint on him."


Welcome to what we'll call the Infancy of American Fascism.

You don't have anything to worry about as long as you are 100% loyal to your government masters. Like good little sheep.

Careful who you call, who you annoy, and who you talk to. You are being watched.

Might want to change the "Home of the Free" monicker.

Home of the Fries?



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Because If they keep you talking and sit here and say "yea" are you ever going to actually do anything? If they werent saying anything bad, who would be there to vent your anger. they say how your feeling, and it keeps things from building up. The things they dont televise are the things that are too risky and might actually get you fed up. Truth is, when they are there talking about it you feel like "hey the issue is acknowledged, there for something will be done about it".

The real question shouldnt be why are they showing them in the negative light, its why doesnt anything ever get done about it? The answer to that is that people dont get angry enough over it. When they hear about it enoguh they think it already has the attention it needs. unfortunately just because congress and senate acknowledge something doesn't mean they are going to do something about it.

motto here
"Keep the public happy, but make sure we have more to gain by it."
Tell me do you ever see the news saying "enough is enough, corruption has run wild and we must force them to do something about this. Its time we take some actions to make sure that corruption is stopped."
not in a million years. They will tell you how things are, but youll never hear any news station say, "nothing is being done about this, and there really isnt any plans to change it. They arent listening to you."



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Jakomo and Grimreaper,

You both have given me a lot of thought. Originally, I was going to give my take on the "reasonable search and seizure" portion of the Fourth Amendment. But I realize now that such debate is useless. Because no matter what I say, there are going to be those that say, "This is not a big deal." Of course, it isn't a big deal--to them.

After all, I also have to take boogyman's words: just because a law is passed doesn't make it right. People tend to forget the social and moral implications of what the government is doing. And some segments of the population--in the guise of safety--will do anything the government tells them to do without thinking about how it effects other citizens in the United States.

I find it appalling that people would rather give up their privacy and civil liberties just to placate those in government who sit at the upper echleon of power. Those who sit at the top do not care what happens to the common man. They do not think about how these actions affect the rest of us. They do it because they can. And that, I find very sad and scary.

It doesn't matter to them that what the President and his cohorts did was wrong. And that the President himself said, "The Constitution is nothing but a d--n piece of paper." They are willing to just follow the precipices of government without question.

And that is the most frightening thing of all.


[edit on 15-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
As a loyal American, I think it's perfectly reasonable when the government operating inside our government tells us they're not doing anything illegal, we should trust them.


Man Oh Man were the spin doctors out in force today on the radio.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   
In more matters surrounding phone calls, news outlets, and journalists/reporters continued "whistleblower" 'leakings', just ran across this:
FBI Acknowledges: Journalists Phone Records are Fair Game

And:


Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling


Of relevance: Supreme Court: SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735









seekerof



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
just because a law is passed doesn't make it right. People tend to forget the social and moral implications of what the government is doing. And some segments of the population--in the guise of safety--will do anything the government tells them to do without thinking about how it effects other citizens in the United States.


Ceci, the law has its purpose whether you choose to believe so or not. I don't see any social and moral implications going on at all. I still get up believe in what I want to believe in, go to a job I chose, vote for who I want to vote for, pretty much I'm still living my life the way I want to and no one is trying to stop me. You don't need to lecture anyone because they try to be fair. There are many things that I don't agree with that the government does. I don't live my life based on a constant assumption that they are trying to take away my rights and liberties though. Have any of you ever asked yourself WHY they would even want to do that and how silly of a notion it is? Seriously. Have you ever got down to the nitty gritty of that question????


I find it appalling that people would rather give up their privacy and civil liberties just to placate those in government who sit at the upper echleon of power.


Again, what privacy rights and civil liberties am I giving up according to the U.S. Constitution? You don't even know yourself. You can't answer that, because there is no answer.




top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join