or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › NSA: Checking the Phones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NSA: Checking the Phones - Page 2

post #41 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So?

They aren't traceable to an specific person so who gives a crap?

Let me get this straight. Are you defending the mass surveillance of American phone calls?
post #42 of 215
CNN just ran a story saying the NSA was seeking patterns in phone calls to see if the EVIL ONES were using a rather standard practice of intermediaries: A calls B and gives him a casual message which he passes on to C, who then passes it on to D who then follows the order to blow up a Krispy Kreme. They also suggest that if the phone companies provide numbers voluntarily, that that is not illegal, but anyone with a computer can then search the Net and make links...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #43 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Let me get this straight. Are you defending the mass surveillance of American phone calls?

No.

And...The response (of mine) that you quoted (above) was about retail cash transactions and reporting sales taxes and traceability of all of it...not phone calls.
post #44 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
CNN just ran a story saying the NSA was seeking patterns in phone calls to see if the EVIL ONES were using a rather standard practice of intermediaries: A calls B and gives him a casual message which he passes on to C, who then passes it on to D who then follows the order to blow up a Krispy Kreme.

Of course, the Bushies would never, ever dream of mining this data to see who calls Democratic party phone numbers, or the ACLU, or environmental organizations... although, you know, those people are probably dangerous terrorist sympathizers we should be keeping an eye on, like when we assign FBI agents to monitor antiwar protesters and infiltrate their meetings.

Nor would our valiant leadership ever for a moment consider mining this data to find out who telephones fundamentalist churches, or gun clubs, or pro-life organizations to figure out where best to target campaign efforts... although, God knows (and personally told Dubya) that if Republicans don't maintain control, the terrorists will win and the souls of all Americans will burn in hell.

And perish the thought that anyone in the Bush administration would let high-paying corporate contributors mine this treasure trove of data for all of the marketing value it would have... although, come to think about, if we don't help out our stalwart pillars of capitalism enough that might mess up Republican re-election chances, and we all know what a sad terrorist-winning state of affairs Republican electoral losses would lead to.

I trust our President and the fine people he's surrounded himself with to use this vast collection of personal data only in the wisest and most honorable ways, only to protect the American people from terrorism.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #45 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Of course, the Bushies would never, ever dream of mining this data to see who calls Democratic party phone numbers, or the ACLU, or environmental organizations... although, you know, those people are probably dangerous terrorist sympathizers we should be keeping an eye on, like when we assign FBI agents to monitor antiwar protesters and infiltrate their meetings.

Nor would our valiant leadership ever for a moment consider mining this data to find out who telephones fundamentalist churches, or gun clubs, or pro-life organizations to figure out where best to target campaign efforts... although, God knows (and personally told Dubya) that if Republicans don't maintain control, the terrorists will win and the souls of all Americans will burn in hell.

And perish the thought that anyone in the Bush administration would let high-paying corporate contributors mine this treasure trove of data for all of the marketing value it would have... although, come to think about, if we don't help out our stalwart pillars of capitalism enough that might mess up Republican re-election chances, and we all know what a sad terrorist-winning state of affairs Republican electoral losses would lead to.

I trust our President and the fine people he's surrounded himself with to use this vast collection of personal data only in the wisest and most honorable ways, only to protect the American people from terrorism.

Man, i bet they never even invented the word ''protection" before 9/11. Or "freedom".
post #46 of 215
...oops

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #47 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Of course, the Bushies would never, ever dream of mining this data to see who calls Democratic party phone numbers, or the ACLU, or environmental organizations... although, you know, those people are probably dangerous terrorist sympathizers we should be keeping an eye on, like when we assign FBI agents to monitor antiwar protesters and infiltrate their meetings.

Nor would our valiant leadership ever for a moment consider mining this data to find out who telephones fundamentalist churches, or gun clubs, or pro-life organizations to figure out where best to target campaign efforts... although, God knows (and personally told Dubya) that if Republicans don't maintain control, the terrorists will win and the souls of all Americans will burn in hell.

And perish the thought that anyone in the Bush administration would let high-paying corporate contributors mine this treasure trove of data for all of the marketing value it would have... although, come to think about, if we don't help out our stalwart pillars of capitalism enough that might mess up Republican re-election chances, and we all know what a sad terrorist-winning state of affairs Republican electoral losses would lead to.

I trust our President and the fine people he's surrounded himself with to use this vast collection of personal data only in the wisest and most honorable ways, only to protect the American people from terrorism.

Amen.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #48 of 215
This article claims that:

- 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism
- 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort
- 35 percent said the program was unacceptable
post #49 of 215
And so it begins...

The lies and fear mongering lead the populace to question their security to the point that they will support the government invading their privacy in order to "protect" them. Using terrorists as the pawns is really playing into the government's hands.

It is really scary how easily the average Joe is getting duped by all this.

Now that it is in the open, the targets will chage tactics, leaving the program useless for anything other than the lists above.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #50 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This article claims that:

- 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism
- 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort
- 35 percent said the program was unacceptable

I imagine they must have polled the same group of Americans who were unable to locate China, Iraq and Louisiana on the map.

Fascism is always enabled by the clueless and unaware who run to their government for protection against a nonextistent enemy, little knowing that their government ...... (fill in the blank)
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #51 of 215
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This article claims that:

- 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism
- 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort
- 35 percent said the program was unacceptable

i just died inside.

WTF
post #52 of 215
Couple of things to keep in mind on that survey:

1. It was taken in the immediate aftermath of the report. People tend to react and then think things through more later on...sometimes changing their view.

2. People might not consider the data-ming aspect of this too problematic.

3. (All) people have always been willing to trade (some) liberty/freedom/privacy for security (setting aside the "real-ness" or "unreal-ness" of the threat for a moment). We all do it. The only issue is about where the line is drawn.
post #53 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
i just died inside.

I know how you feel. The sad thing is that the biggest reason for Bush's recent slide in the pools is gas prices, which isn't (even given Bushes petro-cronyism) something Bush has a lot of control over. Even if it were, letting the oil companies have a field day at the pumps would be among the least of Bush's sins.

Little things like care for consitutional rights and lying to and misleading the people into an ill-advised and poorly planned war don't seem to get people worked up nearly so much.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #54 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This article claims that:

- 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism
- 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort
- 35 percent said the program was unacceptable

63 % of the 502 americans they asked who most likely got no details of the program yesterday...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #55 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Little things like care for consitutional rights

I'm not really sure this particular issue is rubbing up against "consitutional rights" or not. Not defending it...just trying to be level-headed about it.
post #56 of 215
Talking about fascism, this movie is about to make the rounds.

About the director
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #57 of 215
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'm not really sure this particular issue is rubbing up against "consitutional rights" or not. Not defending it...just trying to be level-headed about it.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment. Furthermore, "We the people of the United States, in order to ... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." did not explicitly grant this kind of access for the government.

i just checked the amendments. I didn't see any granting the federal government the ability to mine and troll through our personal and private records, without cause and warrant.

this probably won't be challenged on legal grounds though. i'm sure they'll come up with some way to justify it legally.
post #58 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Talking about fascism, this movie is about to make the rounds.

About the director

I agree with most of the principles on that site, but do they have a plan for how the government would operate without income tax? Would we be able to draw enough money from tariffs, bond sales and other means?

And haven't they heard of the 16th amendment to the Constitution?

Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #59 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment. Furthermore, "We the people of the United States, in order to ... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." did not explicitly grant this kind of access for the government.

Have to think about this one.

Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
i just checked the amendments. I didn't see any granting the federal government the ability to mine and troll through our personal and private records, without cause and warrant.

Not sure how "private" the records in question really are.
post #60 of 215
Didn't we have a revolution to get rid of a King George who searched our homes without warrants?
post #61 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by trick fall
Didn't we have a revolution to get rid of a King George who searched our homes without warrants?

And if that is what was happening, your comment would be...well, relevant and even humorous.
post #62 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And if that is what was happening, your comment would be...well, relevant and even humorous.

Dude. You are. You don't have a problem with this at all, do you?

If you do, feel free to tell us your disappointment with your government's intrusion into your privacy.
post #63 of 215
Quote:
And if that is what was happening, your comment would be...well, relevant and even humorous.

If you want to give your rights away like they were cheap baubles won at a fair go ahead, but I'd rather opt out.
post #64 of 215
So the episode of The Simpsons where Side-show Bob runs for mayor was just on TV. It's positively eerie how a 12/13 year old episode is still so eminently relevant today.

Not really on topic, but it really struck me as I was watching.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #65 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by trick fall
If you want to give your rights away like they were cheap baubles won at a fair go ahead, but I'd rather opt out.

Umm...if you want veer off-topic into un-warranted searches of people's homes go ahead, but I'd rather opt out.

Collection phone numbers (hardly private data) and the numbers they have called (questionably private information) is not the same as searching your house.
post #66 of 215
If someone follows you everwhere you go, if they trace your phone calls and then follow the traces and to find out more about you and those whom you interact with, it is called stalking, and that has been proven time and again to be an invasion of privacy.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #67 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
...the numbers they have called (questionably private information) ...

That is certainly private information. If it wasn't prosecutors around the country wouldn't need a warrant to get the telephone numbers a person called...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #68 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
That is certainly private information. If it wasn't prosecutors around the country wouldn't need a warrant to get the telephone numbers a person called...

As soo as you a) enter into an event with another person or organization (make a phone call, buy something, rent a movie, etc.) you should have a reasonable expectation that the record of that event will not be private. Period. The other party "owns" it as much as you do. The only thing keeping it private is some agreement (written or not) that says it will be.
post #69 of 215
Quote:
As soo as you a) enter into an event with another person or organization (make a phone call, buy something, rent a movie, etc.) you should have a reasonable expectation that the record of that event will not be private. Period. The other party "owns" it as much as you do. The only thing keeping it private is some agreement (written or not) that says it will be.

That's absolute nonsense.
post #70 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
As soo as you a) enter into an event with another person or organization (make a phone call, buy something, rent a movie, etc.) you should have a reasonable expectation that the record of that event will not be private. Period. The other party "owns" it as much as you do. The only thing keeping it private is some agreement (written or not) that says it will be.

WRONG.

Actually, you can't even record a conversation with another person on the phone without permission. Period.

In any event, it isn't the second party giving access to the government to spy on the first party.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #71 of 215
Bingo. Why do you think large companies have the announcement on their help lines that goes, "Calls may be recorded for quality control purposes" or something like that. If they don't, they can't be sued ad nauseum if the recording ever comes out.

Also, when people record calls at home, they are in-admissable in court unless there is a clearly audible warning to the effect of a recording is being made, and it is clear that the other party could have heard it (i.e., it is not on a silent part of tape before the recording starts).

Privacy is a big thing and usually can be assumed. If I go to company A and discuss a matter with them, I can assume that that conversation does not then go to company B. Many companies also now have privacy policies that are prominently displayed; they have t be very careful about what they collect and how they use it. For example:

http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/

Privacy also struck at photos taken during the events on 9/11. There is a photo of a man jumping to his death; some tried to stop the photo as a violation of the man's right to privacy; others said it was a photo depicting a one-time event and therefore was very important. If it were your brother, how would you repsond if the photo was then flashed around the world?

In some areas, even your garbage is considered private; in others not. Several famous cases have been made or lost on this very point.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #72 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
As soo as you a) enter into an event with another person or organization (make a phone call, buy something, rent a movie, etc.) you should have a reasonable expectation that the record of that event will not be private. Period. The other party "owns" it as much as you do. The only thing keeping it private is some agreement (written or not) that says it will be.

Having a private telephone conversation is not the same as renting a movie. Are you that desperate to defend this government and its (mis)deeds that you will use any and all arguments available to you, even if they make absolutely no sense?
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #73 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by trick fall
That's absolute nonsense.

OK.
post #74 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
WRONG.

Actually, you can't even record a conversation with another person on the phone without permission. Period.

In any event, it isn't the second party giving access to the government to spy on the first party.

No. You are wrong. You are correct that it is illegal for someone to record my phone coversations without a court order. But we aren't talking about recording conversations (straw man). We are talking about a record of the event of the conversation. If I make a phone call to someone, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that guarantees that the fact that call took place will remain a secret or private.

P.S. Even in regard to the recording aspect...you have no reason to assume that the contents (as conveyed by the other party's recollection) will remain secret or private either. Not a recorded version mind you, but the contents nonetheless.
post #75 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Are you that desperate to defend this government and its (mis)deeds that you will use any and all arguments available to you, even if they make absolutely no sense?

This isn't about defending this government. Leave that tired bit at the door if you don't mind.

The fact of tha matter is that there is no reason whatsoever to assume that the fact that a particular phone call was plced from one number to another will remain a secret piece of information. The contents? Perhaps. The calls occurrence? No.
post #76 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
Privacy also struck at photos taken during the events on 9/11. There is a photo of a man jumping to his death; some tried to stop the photo as a violation of the man's right to privacy; others said it was a photo depicting a one-time event and therefore was very important. If it were your brother, how would you repsond if the photo was then flashed around the world?

Horrified...but that doesn't mean I have any right to assume that the thing (picture of an event in this case) is required to be private.

P.S. The corporate privacy statements are merely a friendly business agreement that companies choose to employ. They aren't a "right" per se. They aren't any different than if you and I have a phone conversation and you promise to keep it secret. I'll trust you...until you don't. (In fact, you can be compelled to testify about should it be necessary for some criminal case or what-not).

P.P.S. And from the Apple privacy policy:

Quote:
At times we may be required by law or litigation to disclose your personal information. We may also disclose information about you if we determine that for national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary.
post #77 of 215
So totally predictable. Again.
post #78 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No. You are wrong. You are correct that it is illegal for someone to record my phone coversations without a court order. But we aren't talking about recording conversations (straw man). We are talking about a record of the event of the conversation. If I make a phone call to someone, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that guarantees that the fact that call took place will remain a secret or private.

P.S. Even in regard to the recording aspect...you have no reason to assume that the contents (as conveyed by the other party's recollection) will remain secret or private either. Not a recorded version mind you, but the contents nonetheless.

You do in fact have every right to challenge the validity of how that other person's recollection was collected (due process and all that jazz).


Phone companies are not allow to divulge information on even the basic occurrence of a phone call without a warrant. It just isn't legal.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #79 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Horrified...but that doesn't mean I have any right to assume that the thing (picture of an event in this case) is required to be private.

P.S. The corporate privacy statements are merely a friendly business agreement that companies choose to employ. They aren't a "right" per se. They aren't any different than if you and I have a phone conversation and you promise to keep it secret. I'll trust you...until you don't. (In fact, you can be compelled to testify about should it be necessary for some criminal case or what-not).

There are several statutes that the FTC enforces with regard to enforcement of private information in the private sector. Not to mention the existence of state by state laws...

That is to say, you are mistaken.

Edit: And a corporation that breaks its "promise" in a legal document is shit out of luck... as opposed to that friend of yours...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #80 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You do in fact have every right to challenge the validity of how that other person's recollection was collected (due process and all that jazz).

Yes, you do. Never claimed any differently. But we are talking about expectation/assumption that the call (and its contents) are kept secret.

Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Phone companies are not allow to divulge information on even the basic occurrence of a phone call without a warrant. It just isn't legal.

We'll find out I guess.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › NSA: Checking the Phones