NSA Requests ALL Phone Records From Verizon

[SHaYap]

target acquired ... I repeat ... target confirmed ... and acquired ....

~

[Kowalski]

Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains....-- Rousseau

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_matyh9tq6X1roa1duo1_500.png

[SHaYap]

Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains....-- Rousseau

~image snip

Mr Bukowski would like a word ... Lady Kowalski ... if he may ...

let's invite Charles to the party ...

~edit : added Factotum

.

Edited June 6, 2013 by third_eye

[Dark_Grey]

Still one of my faves!

[Kowalski]

So true....

[SHaYap]

Still one of my faves!

I have a list of his quotes but the language is a bit too ... shall we say ... strong ...

~

[Kowalski]

Obama administration defends massive phone record collection

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Thursday defended its collection of a massive amount of telephone records from at least one carrier as part of U.S. counterterrorism efforts, re-igniting a debate over privacy even as it called the practice critical to protecting Americans from attacks.

The admission came after Britain's Guardian newspaper published on Wednesday a secret court order related to the records of millions of Verizon Communications customers. The surveillance appears to have involved the phone records of millions of Americans.

Privacy advocates blasted the order as unconstitutional government surveillance and called for a review.

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, did not specifically confirm the report, but noted the published court order pertains only to data such as a telephone number or the length of a call, and not the subscribers' identities or the content of the telephone calls.

The order requires the government to turn over to the National Security Agency so-called "metadata" such as a list of numbers that called other U.S. or international numbers as well as other transactional information on the time and location of calls. The NSA is the main U.S. intelligence-gathering agency tasked with monitoring electronic communications.

"Information of the sort described in the Guardian article has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States, as it allows counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States," the senior administration official said.

Taken from http://news.yahoo.com/nsa-collecting-phone-records-verizon-customers-report-010806341.html

Ahhh, of course, their protecting us from the "evil" terrorists....

[Frank Merton]

Ahhh, of course, their protecting us from the "evil" terrorists....

Terrorists are something other than evil?

[Orcseeker]

I have a notion that most of this listening behavior is quite normal around the world, and in fact very small. Foreign agents, criminal organizations, tax and market cheats, would-be revolutionaries and terrorists and assassins, and so on are all steadily getting access to sophisticated technologies, and government agencies charged with enforcing the law need to keep up.

It also appears that there has been independent court oversight, something few governments bother with.

I would be the last to say that the States has ideal government, but the reaction I see above, and especially the unfortunate and apparently completely ignorant response to my last message, tell me that there is too much worship of the Constitution and too little clear thought about it.

Apparently this is to prevent terrorism. Mugging on the streets are more of a problem an cause more damage to the US than terrorists do. So why take an extreme approach like this for something that really isn't a huge threat at all?

Or, as Jesse Ventura put it. People are more likely to drown in their bathtub than be killed by a terrorist. Where's the fact of installing special life saving devices on all the tubs? An emergency drainage button? A camera inbuilt into all our bathtubs so if they notice us drowning they can drain the tub?

Seriously. Look at the laws that were passed after 9/11. Look at how the media handled it. Look at all the fear spread that changed the way the general populace thought about their own rights. Look at the actions of the country that followed. Tell me the amount of terrorist attacks that have been made on US soil or have been foiled and justify the amount of freedoms and such that have been eliminated as a result.

It's all quite clear cut I assure you. Rationalising such overbearing rules and unsolicitered monitoring over a populace over a minor threat that in turn generates greater control is baffling.

[Frank Merton]

I suspect your point about why take extreme measures about a "minor" issue is because both it is seen as not a minor issue (the dollar costs from one 9-11 are immense -- the last one helped cause a recession) and the public in particular will punish politicians who are perceived as not doing everything they can.

[aztek]

I suspect your point about why take extreme measures about a "minor" issue is because both it is seen as not a minor issue (the dollar costs from one 9-11 are immense -- the last one helped cause a recession) and the public in particular will punish politicians who are perceived as not doing everything they can.

lmao. good one, the best joke of the day.

Edited June 6, 2013 by aztek

[Dark_Grey]

Tell me the amount of terrorist attacks that have been made on US soil or have been foiled and justify the amount of freedoms and such that have been eliminated as a result.

Actually that would be a great media campaign to garner support: instead of slinking around in the shadows, show off all of the terrorist plots you've foiled. Similar to how the DEA shows off their big drug busts and people go "Oh ok. Now I understand why they need such a big budget!"

[pallidin]

Well, all I know is that I don't care if my activities are monitored by the Government.

For example, I have a very close friend that works in a DoE(Department of Energy) National Laboratory and he has a "Q" clearance, which is a clearance roughly equivalent to a "Top Secret" clearance in the DoD.

We email each other fairly frequently, and I am fully aware that our emails are monitored(required due to his position). But neither one of us cares, because we are doing nothing wrong. So, we just ignore the monitoring and enjoy our conversations. Nothing has ever happened over many years.

In other words, we enjoy life over rediculous paranoia.

The NSA is just doing their job, a very important one at that.

[Orcseeker]

I suspect your point about why take extreme measures about a "minor" issue is because both it is seen as not a minor issue (the dollar costs from one 9-11 are immense -- the last one helped cause a recession) and the public in particular will punish politicians who are perceived as not doing everything they can.

9-11 was a big deal. Just not on the terrorism side of things.

So why is Hilary Clinton still in office after Benghazi?

Politicians in the US who make a mistake, at the most are just moved around, reassigned. They don't actually take responsibility or made to step down by the public. The only thing that comes to mind of the public really punishing a government in recent times in the US would probably have to be the Battle of Athens.

[Orcseeker]

Actually that would be a great media campaign to garner support: instead of slinking around in the shadows, show off all of the terrorist plots you've foiled. Similar to how the DEA shows off their big drug busts and people go "Oh ok. Now I understand why they need such a big budget!"

It would be great if there were actual numbers behind it to justify the preventative measures.

[Frank Merton]

Hillary Clinton is still in office because she is Hillary Clinton. Others in a similar position would be long gone.

In a way I think that is not good. Businesses cannot run by firing any employee who makes a mistake -- even a serious mistake. Otherwise you get a corporate culture of ass protectors. I think government should be similar. However, when the press and public generate a real hue and cry, it is usually the case that heads hafta roll.

The idea that the government knows who every American has talked to, when, and for how long, is a bit spooky, so legal oversight is needed and restrictions can be applied. I think all that will work through the system over the next year or so.

[Dark_Grey]

Hillary Clinton is still in office because she is Hillary Clinton. Others in a similar position would be long gone.

In a way I think that is not good. Businesses cannot run by firing any employee who makes a mistake -- even a serious mistake. Otherwise you get a corporate culture of ass protectors. I think government should be similar. However, when the press and public generate a real hue and cry, it is usually the case that heads hafta roll.

You should absolutely fire an employee who makes a serious mistake (more than once). That employee is detrimental to the overall success of the company, which is essentially robbing the rest of the employees from potential gains and preventing the company from reaching it's full potential.

[Orcseeker]

Hillary Clinton is still in office because she is Hillary Clinton. Others in a similar position would be long gone.

In a way I think that is not good. Businesses cannot run by firing any employee who makes a mistake -- even a serious mistake. Otherwise you get a corporate culture of ass protectors. I think government should be similar. However, when the press and public generate a real hue and cry, it is usually the case that heads hafta roll.

The idea that the government knows who every American has talked to, when, and for how long, is a bit spooky, so legal oversight is needed and restrictions can be applied. I think all that will work through the system over the next year or so.

People died because of god knows what reason or agenda. Others involved were simply reassigned. Still keeping their jobs. How many deaths should Hilary be partially responsible for until she has to step down?

It's funny you say that. Most of the CEOs who had a hand in causing the GFC bailed on their companies with a fat cheque under their arm. Some walking away with over $500 million. Guess where they are now? Back at the desk.

How would businesses run without these essential additions? They won't be as corruptible this time around, they have sure learnt their lesson. Sleeping on that bed of money must have given them a lot to think about all those bad things they've done.

Even in businesses. Some people should just be removed. Though corruption being an enabler. You need to cut off the body of the hydra from the heads before a change can be made. And of course, not replaced with another hydra.

The problem being with the government, it is not supposed to be a business. When you're in the government you're not there for yourself. When you show signs that you're there for more of that reason than to serve the populace. You aren't one for the job.

That is how it should be.

Removal of those who are their solely or mostly for themselves should bring to light an overall better government. That is actually for the people.

The problem I have with this is due to corruption. Otherwise I couldn't care less if they had access to people's call data.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Orcseeker

[Frank Merton]

Well you know the problems of the employees you have; you don't know those of applicants except they for some reason left their last job. Therefore one should work with present people and develop them as much as possible, in spite of problems, and use termination as an absolute last resort.

[Babe Ruth]

`it is amaising, no matter how bad gvmnt screws you, you find some sort of reason to justify it. you are a perfect subject.

That sir, is the operative dynamic.

That is the reason why we have the government we deserve, unfortunately.

[Babe Ruth]

Well, all I know is that I don't care if my activities are monitored by the Government.

For example, I have a very close friend that works in a DoE(Department of Energy) National Laboratory and he has a "Q" clearance, which is a clearance roughly equivalent to a "Top Secret" clearance in the DoD.

We email each other fairly frequently, and I am fully aware that our emails are monitored(required due to his position). But neither one of us cares, because we are doing nothing wrong. So, we just ignore the monitoring and enjoy our conversations. Nothing has ever happened over many years.

In other words, we enjoy life over rediculous paranoia.

The NSA is just doing their job, a very important one at that.

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so. So sayeth Voltaire.

Or from Sam Adams--Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

[Merc14]

I remember when this was first used it was very tightly controlled and only captured calls originating from overseas which were then tracked to inside the US. How it has grown into this monstrosity, especially with all the screaming and yelling from the left when it started, is beyond me. I wish there was a way to go back a few years and see who was saying what on these forums back when the Bush administration first started overseas call monitoring.

Obama has chafed against the restrictions imposed on his position by the constitution since taking office and I guess he acted on that anger. What is par for teh course is he railed against this very thing when he ran for office. By tomorrow the NYT's wil be telling us this is a good thing.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Merc14

[jugoso]

It also appears that there has been independent court oversight, something few governments bother with.

What kind of independent oversight are you talking about? Not this I hope

In a report by Glenn Greenwald, the paper published an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISC) that directs Verizon to provide “on an ongoing daily basis” all call records for any call “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls” and any call made “between the United States and abroad.”

One order by one judge to provide ongoing records for ALL US phone calls?

Terrorists are something other than evil?

I´m not sure. Could you define terrorists please?

This has alledgedly been going on for over seven years and I´m sure not limited to Verizon. When are you yanks gonna stand up for yourselves?

Edited June 6, 2013 by jugoso

[Babe Ruth]

I remember when this was first used it was very tightly controlled and only captured calls originating from overseas which were then tracked to inside the US. How it has grown into this monstrosity, especially with all the screaming and yelling from the left when it started, is beyond me. I wish there was a way to go back a few years and see who was saying what on these forums back when the Bush administration first started overseas call monitoring.

Obama has chafed against the restrictions imposed on his position by the constitution since taking office and I guess he acted on that anger. By tomorrow the NYT's wil be telling us this is a good thing.

While the left was screaming and yelling, the right was calling them all sorts of dirty names. The ACLU and other organizations predicted such behavior when the Unpatriot act was passed. They were right.

And Bush was not monitoring only overseas stuff--domestic too. AT&Treason was a big player. All the telecomm companies were happy participants in doing the government's dirty work. The New Yawk Times kept this secret for a year, so that Bush might be re-elected.

We do have the government and the media we deserve.

[aztek]

with all that monitoring, they still missed boston bombers, after warning form fsb. i have absolutely no faith in their abuility to acually do what they supposed to.

the thing thta scares me the most, is that they "never make misakes" yea right, and when they do it is your fault.

i'm not much consearned about intended use of this, but very consearned about abuse, and we have numerous example of that. actually more than examples of opposite.