FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Damen on June 06, 2013, 09:14:32 am
-
...yep.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/us-govt-secretly-collecting-data-millions-verizon-users-013542225.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/us-govt-secretly-collecting-data-millions-verizon-users-013542225.html)
The National Security Agency (NSA) has been collecting telephone records of millions of Verizon customers – right down to local call data – under a top-secret court order issued in April, Britain’s The Guardian newspaper reported late Wednesday. UPDATE: The Administration responds, defending a "critical tool" against terrorism and underlining that the government is not listening in on anyone's calls.
Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) order, the Guardian reported, Verizon Business Services must provide the NSA “on an ongoing daily basis” with information from calls between the U.S. and overseas – but also with calls entirely inside the United States. Calls made entirely overseas were not affected. It was unclear whether phones in other Verizon divisions -- its regular cell phone operations, for instance -- were similarly targeted.
Guardian writer Glenn Greenwald, a frequent and fierce critic of the national security state’s expansion since 9-11, writes in his bombshell report that:
The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.
The order, issued April 25 and valid through July 19, requires Verizon to turn over the numbers of both parties, location data, call duration, and other information – though not the contents of the calls.
The White House initially declined comment, but a senior administration official defended the activities described in the Guardian piece without confirming the specific report.
"On its face, the order reprinted in the article does not allow the Government to listen in on anyone's telephone calls," the official, who requested anonymity, said by email. "The information acquired does not include the content of any communications or the name of any subscriber."
You know, I'm getting really sick of seeing the government butt-raping the 4th Amendment and then try to sell me on this "you're in danger" shit. It's always the same; "Just give up a few more of your rights so we can keep you safe." I don't buy it and never have. If living free is living dangerously then I will live dangerously. A touch dramatic, maybe, but you get my point.
Of course, I've always held fast to what Benjamin Franklin (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin) said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-
The order, issued April 25 and valid through July 19, requires Verizon to turn over the numbers of both parties, location data, call duration, and other information – though not the contents of the calls
So they know who's been calling who, but not what they said?
-
The order, issued April 25 and valid through July 19, requires Verizon to turn over the numbers of both parties, location data, call duration, and other information – though not the contents of the calls
So they know who's been calling who, but now what they said?
You say that as though it doesn't make any sense at all.
-
This shit happens regularly since the Patriot Act was passed. These secretly court ordered mass surveillances of call data usually do not get leaked to the press, is all. This is the second or third time since the Act passed that an order or info about surveillances has leaked out, but people forget the news items from 5, 10+ years ago.
The title, "Patriot Act", screams double-think, but the nation was still so shocked and scared about 9/11/01 that these fuckers in DC took advantage of that. It was the single worst legislation package passed into law, ever, if you care about the Bill of Rights. If you recall, the Act did start a wildfire of opposition from the grassroots left and far right back then.
NSA and other intelligence agencies will do w/e the fuck they want to, even if the Patriot Act is repealed.
-
Oh the god ol' NSA. For when you want a government spy agency that has less scruples and morals then the fucking CIA.
Ironbite-but hey....at least we haven't had a 9/11 ever again right guys? Right?
-
Isn't this pretty much the NSA's job description these days?
-
This doesn't surprise me. Since 9/11, the government has all but repealed the Fourth Amendment in the name of "National Security."
-
The order, issued April 25 and valid through July 19, requires Verizon to turn over the numbers of both parties, location data, call duration, and other information – though not the contents of the calls
So they know who's been calling who, but now what they said?
You say that as though it doesn't make any sense at all.
Well, I thought if the CIA was gonna do this large-scale privacy violating thing, they would've gone balls deep with it and listened in to the calls. though I am glad they didn't.
-
What's worse, that they're pulling this B.S. or that it gives the Tea Party more ammo?
-
What's worse, that they're pulling this B.S. or that it gives the Tea Party more ammo?
Both.
-
God dammit, this makes my blood boil. If this is what we do in an attempt to counter terrorism, then they've already fucking won.
-
It probably doesn't even catch all that many terrorists. If someone is really worried about not attracting the attention of authorities, they use disposable prepaid phones.
-
I'm sure it doesn't help for shit. They're not stupid, they know how to get around those things.
-
God dammit, this makes my blood boil. If this is what we do in an attempt to counter terrorism, then they've already fucking won.
They won as soon as the Patriot Act was signed.
-
It probably doesn't even catch all that many terrorists. If someone is really worried about not attracting the attention of authorities, they use disposable prepaid phones.
Yep. In fact, the failed Times Square bomber in 2010 was found to be calling to the Middle East before the bombing not because of the government spying on his pre-paid phone 24/7, but because during the investigation they found who had sold him the bomb car and got the number he had used from her. That let them check the records for that number and find that he had been calling a Pakistani phone number that they already knew was linked to him (as he was already a terror suspect in the first place).
In short, they accomplished nothing through the Patriot Act and everything through standard police investigation procedures. Actually, is there any record on how many people have actually been accurately pegged as terror suspects and caught before a planned attack through the Patriot Act?
-
How many Americans were killed by terrorists last year? Almost none. How many Americans were killed by other Americans with a gun? 30,000. (Five more killed in California yesterday)
Billions of dollars are spent and privacy invaded on anti terrorist measures to defend against an inconsequentially small threat yet any move to control guns and those who have access to them are resisted tooth and claw.
How people can agree that keeping records of the phone calls and emails of the entire population is OK while at the same time oppose background checks for gun buyers is totally wrong is beyond me.
Maybe it's time to reconsider your priorities. Is this really the "freedom" that has to be protected so much? I was under the impression that the idea is to stop the maximum number of Americans from being killed or injured by acts of violence. Well really maybe you should be looking a lot closer to home because when it comes to killing Americans the terrorists just can't compete with your average nutcase with an assault rifle and a thousand rounds of ammunition all legally bought without any questions asked at all.
-
I'm resisting the urge to correct your misinformation about assault rifles.
It's not working well.
-
I'm resisting the urge to correct your misinformation about assault rifles.
It's not working well.
I have a better idea; how about we just keep this thread focused on the U.S. government's pissing all over the 4th Amendment and that way if Wyvern wants to have another gun control hissy he can make a gun control thread and flog that dead horse some more or make a post in a thread that actually might be related to guns instead of trying to derail this one.
So, on that note, allow me to bring this back on topic.
I just found this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/obama-defends-nsa_n_3406448.html) that is making me think "Shame on you, President."
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared Friday that America is "going to have to make some choices" balancing privacy and security, launching a vigorous defense of formerly secret programs that sweep up an estimated 3 billion phone calls a day and amass Internet data from U.S. providers in an attempt to thwart terror attacks.
He warned that it will be harder to detect threats against the U.S. now that the two top-secret tools to target terrorists have been so thoroughly publicized.
At turns defensive and defiant, Obama stood by the spy programs revealed this week.
The National Security Agency has been collecting the phone records of hundreds of millions of Americans each day, creating a database through which it can learn whether terror suspects have been in contact with people in the U.S. It also was disclosed this week that the NSA has been gathering all Internet usage – audio, video, photographs, emails and searches – from nine major U.S. Internet providers, including Microsoft and Google, in hopes of detecting suspicious behavior that begins overseas.
"Nobody is listening to your telephone calls," Obama assured the nation after two days of reports that many found unsettling. What the government is doing, he said, is digesting phone numbers and the durations of calls, seeking links that might "identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism." If there's a hit, he said, "if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they've got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation."
I'm sorry, Obama, but I have a serious problem with this. I don't give a shit if you are or are not listening in; if I have done no wrong and am not suspected of doing any wrong then you have no right to know who the flying fuck I am or am not calling or how long I'm talking to them for.
-
I have a better idea; how about we just keep this thread focused on the U.S. government's pissing all over the 4th Amendment...
They are really not.
For one thing the Verizon records were obtained after getting a warrant from the FISA court. Second Smith v. Maryland established that the phone numbers you dial are not private since you giver those numbers to the phone companies in order for them to connect you.
-
I have a better idea; how about we just keep this thread focused on the U.S. government's pissing all over the 4th Amendment and that way if Wyvern wants to have another gun control hissy he can make a gun control thread and flog that dead horse some more or make a post in a thread that actually might be related to guns instead of trying to derail this one.
Dude, the horse's flesh rotted off a couple months ago. Then the bones that were left got macerated, by hand, and are now used for calcium supplements for chickens and ducks. At this point Wyvern's punching a bare patch of dirt in the middle of a field. I think he's scaring the cows, and damn it, that makes the milk taste bad.
-
Benjamin Franklin is rolling in his grave.
-
The whistleblower has revealed his identity and is currently riding this out in Hong Kong (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20full-width-1%20bento-box:Bento%20box:Position1)
-
MadCatTLX: *applauds* Bravo. I would have said that he was raping the dead horse, but your analogy works much better. Thanks for that.
To get back to the topic: I beg to differ, but then, if it were up to me, the whole damn Patriot Act would be ripped out of the law books, used as TP, and then thrown out with the rest of the garbage.
-
MadCatTLX: *applauds* Bravo. I would have said that he was raping the dead horse, but your analogy works much better. Thanks for that.
To get back to the topic: I beg to differ, but then, if it were up to me, the whole damn Patriot Act would be ripped out of the law books, used as TP, and then thrown out with the rest of the garbage.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't sully the beauty that is my anus by touching it with something as filthy as the Patriot Act.
I say we just skip to burning it. It's existence is a stain upon this nation.
-
Interesting. I see this as more of a "trap" or at least political move for setting up the 2014 midterms. Either the GOP has to scream loudly against it. That would mean the Patriot Act (brainchild of the Bush administration) was a big mistake, giving the Executive branch way too much power. Or Obama is getting serious on fighting terrorism (whatever that means). And the DNC would look better to, um, somebody.
I came up with this based on the following. Verizon is the sole provider for Congressional offices, along with a good chunk of the rest of the government. And it was a British news agency who broke the story. And the way Sen. Graham reacted, it made me think this was planned.
-
The whistleblower has revealed his identity and is currently riding this out in Hong Kong (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20full-width-1%20bento-box:Bento%20box:Position1)
>Wants to go to Iceland
Isn't this the same country that banned internet porn?
Also I like how when you google Edward's name this condemning article (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-is-no-hero.html) is the first one that pops up.
-
While I wish that Snowden hadn't gone to Hong Kong because it's under the influence of China, I have to admit on a personal level the choice was probably a smart one.
China is one of the few countries unlikely to roll over to pressure from the US, and also one of the few the US can't afford to piss off by just going in and grabbing him.
-
"Fox & Friends" is now suddenly and conveniently against the wiretapping they supported under Bush. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/06/fox-and-friends-suddenly-against-wiretapping-they-supported-under-bush/)
Around and around it goes...
-
"Fox & Friends" is now suddenly and conveniently against the wiretapping they supported under Bush. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/06/fox-and-friends-suddenly-against-wiretapping-they-supported-under-bush/)
Around and around it goes...
The ride, it never ends.
-
What gets me is all the character assassination levied at Snowden. Not just the traitor accusations, but the people saying he did it for glory or fame or because he's a narcissist or whatever. I don't give a flying fuck why he did it.
The guy who brought down the Nixon administration turned out to be an asshole who probably did it for petty revenge. The character of the whistleblower didn't make what Nixon and his cronies did OK, and it doesn't make this mass spying OK either.
-
What gets me is all the character assassination levied at Snowden. Not just the traitor accusations, but the people saying he did it for glory or fame or because he's a narcissist or whatever. I don't give a flying fuck why he did it.
The guy who brought down the Nixon administration turned out to be an asshole who probably did it for petty revenge. The character of the whistleblower didn't make what Nixon and his cronies did OK, and it doesn't make this mass spying OK either.
Snowden himself has said that, unlike Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, he specifically hand-picked the information to make sure he could release it to the public without endangering anyone's lives. To me that shows a greater level of respect for his principles. I'm not saying that what Manning or Assange did was bad, but it's harder to attack Snowden for being "irresponsible."
-
Looks like the ACLU is a Verizon customer:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-nsas-patriot-act-phone
-
Looks like the ACLU is a Verizon customer:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-nsas-patriot-act-phone
America, fuck no.
-
"Fox & Friends" is now suddenly and conveniently against the wiretapping they supported under Bush. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/06/fox-and-friends-suddenly-against-wiretapping-they-supported-under-bush/)
Around and around it goes...
Gee that's surprising.
-
Michael Moore and Glenn Beck have found common ground.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/10/glenn-beck-michael-moore-call-nsa-whistleblower-ed/
Quick, someone living on the coast run outside and see if the oceans are rising up and turning yellow.
-
Michael Moore and Glenn Beck have found common ground.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/10/glenn-beck-michael-moore-call-nsa-whistleblower-ed/
Quick, someone living on the coast run outside and see if the oceans are rising up and turning yellow.
No, but I saw a duck that looked like it had a red mohawk or something.
-
What gets me is all the character assassination levied at Snowden. Not just the traitor accusations, but the people saying he did it for glory or fame or because he's a narcissist or whatever. I don't give a flying fuck why he did it.
Or dragging his girlfriend through the mud.
-
What gets me is all the character assassination levied at Snowden. Not just the traitor accusations, but the people saying he did it for glory or fame or because he's a narcissist or whatever. I don't give a flying fuck why he did it.
Or dragging his girlfriend through the mud.
I believe he also had a child. Jesus fuck that kid is going to be bullied.
-
Michael Moore and Glenn Beck have found common ground.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/10/glenn-beck-michael-moore-call-nsa-whistleblower-ed/
Quick, someone living on the coast run outside and see if the oceans are rising up and turning yellow.
I dunno. Michael Moore is kinda the Glenn Beck of the left-wing.
-
Michael Moore and Glenn Beck have found common ground.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/10/glenn-beck-michael-moore-call-nsa-whistleblower-ed/
Quick, someone living on the coast run outside and see if the oceans are rising up and turning yellow.
I dunno. Michael Moore is kinda the Glenn Beck of the left-wing.
Yay false equivilancy.
-
Michael Moore and Glenn Beck have found common ground.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/10/glenn-beck-michael-moore-call-nsa-whistleblower-ed/
Quick, someone living on the coast run outside and see if the oceans are rising up and turning yellow.
I dunno. Michael Moore is kinda the Glenn Beck of the left-wing.
Yay false equivilancy.
....I'm sorry, did you just try to accuse me of making a logical fallacy during a joke?
-
Sure why not [/saracasm]
-
What's kind of got me rattled is how many people on the far right who I literally have no other agreement with feel the same way. Beck, Ron Paul, bunches of wingnuts at sites like Whirled Nuts Daily, Moonbattery and the Blaze...
It's the average people who have been duped by fearmongering about scary brown terrorists out to murder us in our sleep who are fine with giving up their rights for the illusion of security, apparently.
-
What's kind of got me rattled is how many people on the far right who I literally have no other agreement with feel the same way. Beck, Ron Paul, bunches of wingnuts at sites like Whirled Nuts Daily, Moonbattery and the Blaze...
It's the average people who have been duped by fearmongering about scary brown terrorists out to murder us in our sleep who are fine with giving up their rights for the illusion of security, apparently.
And of course, many people don't care because of their divisions. The far right forgets all about Bush starting the trend and uses this as an excuse to bash the left, while the far left denies that Obama has anything to do with it or even tries to paint it as a good thing.
Nobody's willing to work together to solve problems. Not when they can be fighting.
-
Both Mozilla and the ACLU have combined all their powers to protest unconstitutional government surveillance. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/12/mozilla_aclu_vs_nsa/)
-
AHAHAHAHA! That's rich.
Ironbite-PATRIOT ACT BITCHES! This is all legal.
-
AHAHAHAHA! That's rich.
Ironbite-PATRIOT ACT BITCHES! This is all legal.
The PATRIOT Act isn't exactly constitutional, y'know.
-
No...no it's not. But the fact remains that disgusting piece of legislature is all the justification the Executive Branch now needs to not only strip away our rights as citizens, but ignore them.
Ironbite-the GOP is just pissed a black man's using it.
-
No...no it's not. But the fact remains that disgusting piece of legislature is all the justification the Executive Branch now needs to not only strip away our rights as citizens, but ignore them.
Ironbite-the GOP is just pissed a black man's using it.
brb, learning Icelandic
-
Don't they want to ban all porn on the internet.
-
Both Mozilla and the ACLU have combined all their powers to protest unconstitutional government surveillance. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/12/mozilla_aclu_vs_nsa/)
Unfortunately I think they will fail at this. Even if it get to the Supreme Court the court in the past has ruled that phone records are not private. Combined this with that fact that any ruling that makes such records private could very well hurt a lot of corporations that make money selling and using that info.
-
Congress members are complaining intelligence agents are deliberately evasive and they can't bring technical aides into security briefings so they know what questions to ask. If they don't ask the right question using the right wording in exactly the right way, they don't get answers. Why am I not surprised?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-security-congress-briefingsbre95c052-20130612,0,6032255.story
As far as I'm concerned, James Clapper needs to be arrested and tried for perjury.
-
As far as I'm concerned, James Clapper needs to be arrested and tried for perjury.
Clapper was put in a no win situation. He was asked a question that legal he could not answer honestly, nor could he even state that.
-
As far as I'm concerned, James Clapper needs to be arrested and tried for perjury.
Clapper was put in a no win situation. He was asked a question that legal he could not answer honestly, nor could he even state that.
Under which law?
-
Under which law?
The FISA and classified information laws. He gave about the best answer he could without revealing to much information about the program.
-
As far as I'm concerned, James Clapper needs to be arrested and tried for perjury.
Clapper was put in a no win situation. He was asked a question that legal he could not answer honestly, nor could he even state that.
No, he could have said he could not answer the question in an open session. But he didn't.
-
No, he could have said he could not answer the question in an open session. But he didn't.
The senator who asked the question, knowing Clappers position, did not have to ask the question in an open session.
-
No, he could have said he could not answer the question in an open session. But he didn't.
The senator who asked the question, knowing Clappers position, did not have to ask the question in an open session.
So what you're saying is he just shouldn't have asked Clapper at all? Hell, the senator even gave advance notice he was going to ask Clapper the question and asked him afterwards if he wanted to change his answer. Clapper had the opportunity to essentially plead the 5th, but he chose to answer the question with a lie and perjure himself instead.
That's called "Giving your opponent enough rope to hang himself with."
-
So what you're saying is he just shouldn't have asked Clapper at all? Hell, the senator even gave advance notice he was going to ask Clapper the question and asked him afterwards if he wanted to change his answer. Clapper had the opportunity to essentially plead the 5th, but he chose to answer the question with a lie and perjure himself instead.
That's called "Giving your opponent enough rope to hang himself with."
The fifth does not come into play because Clapper was not in danger of incriminating himself in a crime.
-
What's kind of got me rattled is how many people on the far right who I literally have no other agreement with feel the same way. Beck, Ron Paul, bunches of wingnuts at sites like Whirled Nuts Daily, Moonbattery and the Blaze...
It's the average people who have been duped by fearmongering about scary brown terrorists out to murder us in our sleep who are fine with giving up their rights for the illusion of security, apparently.
And of course, many people don't care because of their divisions. The far right forgets all about Bush starting the trend and uses this as an excuse to bash the left, while the far left denies that Obama has anything to do with it or even tries to paint it as a good thing.
Nobody's willing to work together to solve problems. Not when they can be fighting.
This is the reason I refuse to identify myself with partisan politics. If it was bad for Bush to do it (and it was) than it is bad for Obama to do it (and it is). I'm registered as a Democrat but I don't consider myself a loyal partisan. Party loyalty is for tools.
You should watch The Young Turks video where they play Sean Hannity's statements about the NSA from 2006 to those from today. That level of hypocrisy is bad even by Fox News standards.
-
Bad? It shows exactly the kind of tools they have working for them that's what it shows.
Ironbite-and the bad part is...they get away with this.
-
Here's my sincere question:
Does Obama have a choice in whether this is done or not?
-
Here's my sincere question:
Does Obama have a choice in whether this is done or not?
If he had a choice in bombing Libya, he has a choice in whether or not the NSA Surveillance program should continue.
-
Here's my sincere question:
Does Obama have a choice in whether this is done or not?
If he had a choice in bombing Libya, he has a choice in whether or not the NSA Surveillance program should continue.
That logic doesn't work for me, since one was his act as a Commander in Chief (...is that what the title is? My brain farted), and the other is the result of a bill signed by the previous President.
-
Here's my sincere question:
Does Obama have a choice in whether this is done or not?
If he had a choice in bombing Libya, he has a choice in whether or not the NSA Surveillance program should continue.
People have an idea that the president can somehow nullify any programs or laws that he doesn't like and only doesn't do it because he's evil. This isn't true, and such a line of thinking is one of the main reasons why partisan politics exist.
-
Well using that line of thinking Obama should keep defending DOMA. Just because something has been put in place by a previous administration doesn't mean you always have to use it.
Ironbite-just usually you do.
-
So what you're saying is he just shouldn't have asked Clapper at all? Hell, the senator even gave advance notice he was going to ask Clapper the question and asked him afterwards if he wanted to change his answer. Clapper had the opportunity to essentially plead the 5th, but he chose to answer the question with a lie and perjure himself instead.
That's called "Giving your opponent enough rope to hang himself with."
The fifth does not come into play because Clapper was not in danger of incriminating himself in a crime.
That's why I wrote "essentially plead the 5th." He could have said he couldn't answer the question in an open session. Clapper had advance warning the senator was going to ask the question. The senator asked him afterward if he wanted to change his answer for the record. Neither of these things happened. Instead he chose "the least untruthful answer" ie a lie under oath. If Clapper is in hot water, he has no one to blame but himself.
On another note, I found a copy of the full order on the Guardian web site:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order
Notice it asks for a lot more than just phone numbers. It also wants complete routing information, the unique identification number of the cell phone and any "calling card" (probably a SIM for when the person is abroad and calling back to the US) and complete routing and trunking information. The routing information would tell them which tower the call originated from, giving them the person's approximate location at the time of the call.
-
Well using that line of thinking Obama should keep defending DOMA. Just because something has been put in place by a previous administration doesn't mean you always have to use it.
Ironbite-just usually you do.
You're suggesting that Obama intentionally chooses to use it, rather than it merely being difficult for him to get rid of it. We don't have a full picture of the political realities in the United States, let alone the global scale. It's very difficult to make a truly correct opinion.
-
That's why I wrote "essentially plead the 5th." He could have said he couldn't answer the question in an open session. Clapper had advance warning the senator was going to ask the question. The senator asked him afterward if he wanted to change his answer for the record. Neither of these things happened. Instead he chose "the least untruthful answer" ie a lie under oath. If Clapper is in hot water, he has no one to blame but himself.
On another note, I found a copy of the full order on the Guardian web site:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order
Notice it asks for a lot more than just phone numbers. It also wants complete routing information, the unique identification number of the cell phone and any "calling card" (probably a SIM for when the person is abroad and calling back to the US) and complete routing and trunking information. The routing information would tell them which tower the call originated from, giving them the person's approximate location at the time of the call.
Refusing to answer the question in open session is still refusing to answer the question. Which he did not have an option to do. Seeing as he was put in that position Clapper is not going suffer for it.
As for the information they wanted, it all falls under the order from the FISA court and is the call content which means it is not protected. None of it is a persons private information.
-
Well using that line of thinking Obama should keep defending DOMA. Just because something has been put in place by a previous administration doesn't mean you always have to use it.
Ironbite-just usually you do.
My point is that he may not have a choice. That the information is tracked whether Obama requests it or not.
Still, I find it hilarious that there was very little uproar among the right when Bush implement this policy, but now that it's come out that the policy is still continuing, they're suddenly freaking out because there's a democrat president in.
And the democrats who freaked out about it before have every right to say "I told you so".
Not that this information doesn't bear freaking out about. I just don't want to jump on the "blame the president!" bandwagon for emotional reasons and assumptions about what a president can and can't do.
-
"Fox & Friends" is now suddenly and conveniently against the wiretapping they supported under Bush. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/06/fox-and-friends-suddenly-against-wiretapping-they-supported-under-bush/)
Around and around it goes...
The ride, it never ends.
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/418/492/533.jpg)
Actually, is there any record on how many people have actually been accurately pegged as terror suspects and caught before a planned attack through the Patriot Act?
In my experience, too few people by far ask that question.
The answer is NOPE! They literally expect people to take PR and selectively altered info at face value. Older info is available only due to congressional request and heavily biased. For example:
REPORT FROM THE FIELD: THE USA PATRIOT ACT AT WORK (http://www.justice.gov/olp/pdf/patriot_report_from_the_field0704.pdf)
-
Those were words. They were put in some order that resembled english.
Ironbite-but fuck me if it means anything.
-
Not that this information doesn't bear freaking out about. I just don't want to jump on the "blame the president!" bandwagon for emotional reasons and assumptions about what a president can and can't do.
Honestly I'm not entirely convinced that it bears freaking out about, we heard about it under Bush, who lied about it's scope repeatedly and no one ever said it stopped. Some people said it should, said they may want it to, but I don't remember anyone ever saying it did. Typically when it comes to the government and things I dislike I assume it's continuing until I have it's dismembered corpse in my hands for inspection.
Just to make it wonderfully clear, it isn't a "I love obama so it's ok", it's "Well no shit they're still doing it". The bit possibly worthy of noting out about is the assholes who defended it in the first place are now freaking out. Which if anything puts it under funny. You'd think people would remember that the next election cycle could put all of the tools they've given the government into the hands of someone they don't like, or worse yet, someone who doesn't like them.
-
I have to admit that I don't like the idea of the government listening in on my calls.
...However, considering I hate making and taking phone calls anyways, my behavioral pattern hasn't changed much, and I honestly forget about it if I spend enough time away from something that reminds me of it.
95% of everything the NSA is listening to is effectively noise to them. It would be too inefficient to listen to every single phone call in detail. They're probably just listening for certain keywords or strange behaviors, which then bears a closer listening to that phone conversation.
Again, not defending it, just ... I dislike the meme that Obama is somehow personally listening in to conversations. That's not how things work and it's not really even funny. Now if it was someone who was ambiguously identifiable a government agent doing it, then it would be funny-ish.
-
I have to admit that I don't like the idea of the government listening in on my calls.
...However, considering I hate making and taking phone calls anyways, my behavioral pattern hasn't changed much, and I honestly forget about it if I spend enough time away from something that reminds me of it.
95% of everything the NSA is listening to is effectively noise to them. It would be too inefficient to listen to every single phone call in detail. They're probably just listening for certain keywords or strange behaviors, which then bears a closer listening to that phone conversation.
Again, not defending it, just ... I dislike the meme that Obama is somehow personally listening in to conversations. That's not how things work and it's not really even funny. Now if it was someone who was ambiguously identifiable a government agent doing it, then it would be funny-ish.
I want to just call myself with another phone, rattle off all the obvious keywords that a computer program would be set to search for(bomb, terrorist, al-queda, islam, allah, etc.), and then hold the phone up to a stereo and blast "Never Gonna Give You Up" at obscene volumes. Another plan would be to do the first two parts and then start reading the quotes I posted in my F&B thread a while back.
-
This is all a grand ploy for some socially-challenged government workers to be able to perv everyone's sext messages, photos, and vids.
Uncle Sam is a PERV!
:D
-
We've had the ability to intercept phone calls for quite a while now. I seem to remember some Intelligence agency tapping Pablo Escobar's phones back in the '80s. So when the Patriot Act came out, as far as warrentless phone taps, did it really do more than openly say that's what we're dojng now?
-
This is all a grand ploy for some socially-challenged government workers to be able to perv everyone's sext messages, photos, and vids.
Uncle Sam is a PERV!
:D
Its not funny because it happens.