NSA is giving your phone records to the DEA

[danielost]

Questionmark is correct we have the government we deserve.

[Michelle]

Hahahahhaaaaaa!!!!! Welcome to the spy world.

And no, Congress approved those activities, in concert with special international partners of considerable influence. So it's not breaking the law.

"Will you be bringing your own KY to the airport when we expand our searches, or will we be charging you for ours?", asks the TSA.

[danielost]

Update. Out on fox the irs is giving tax info to tge fec. Federal election division.

[Michelle]

You don't have to be involved in anything to be caught up in a dragnet operation, and especially not in a dragnet computer surveillance. Being on this site, where some very extreme positions against the government are voiced (some even advocating revolutions) is enough.

Any of us, that have voiced our displeasure at government antics, are probably being watched more closely than the average Joe. I'm sure this site is watched very closely due to it's popularity and the volume of posts alone.

[Andami]

Personal privacy from the government isn't in place for personal feel goods. Privacy prevents government overreach on so many levels. What happens when once legal activities become illegal? When we lose freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assembly, and freedom against quartering, we have no one to blame but ourselves because we let ourselves lose the right to privacy regarding those matters long ago.

[jugoso]

Hahahahhaaaaaa!!!!! Welcome to the spy world.

Thanks for sitting idly by and allowing it to become one. The US has crossed A LOT of lines on this one.-

And congress DID NOT and still DOES NOT have information on exactly what the NSA is doing.

Members of Congress have been repeatedly thwarted when attempting to learn basic information about the National Security Agency (NSA) and the secret FISA court which authorizes its activities, documents provided by two House members demonstrate.

From the beginning of the NSA controversy, the agency's defenders have insisted that Congress is aware of the disclosed programs and exercises robust supervision over them. "These programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate," President Obama said the day after the first story on NSA bulk collection of phone records was published in this space. "And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up."

But members of Congress, including those in Obama's party, have flatly denied knowing about them. On MSNBC on Wednesday night, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct) was asked by host Chris Hayes: "How much are you learning about what the government that you are charged with overseeing and holding accountable is doing from the newspaper and how much of this do you know?" The Senator's reply:

The revelations about the magnitude, the scope and scale of these surveillances, the metadata and the invasive actions surveillance of social media Web sites were indeed revelations to me."

But it is not merely that members of Congress are unaware of the very existence of these programs, let alone their capabilities. Beyond that, members who seek out basic information - including about NSA programs they are required to vote on and FISA court (FISC) rulings on the legality of those programs - find that they are unable to obtain it.

http://www.theguardi...a-denied-access

So if congress doesn´t know what´s going on and the citizens are under constant surveillance......yes you are right.....it is a police state. Don´t get the HAHA part about it though!

Edited August 5, 2013 by jugoso

[ninjadude]

Not true. The person who commits a felony is a felon. A person who gets convicted in a court for that felony is a convicted felon.

I'm sorry but that's just not how it works.

[Ugly1]

You don't have to be involved in anything to be caught up in a dragnet operation, and especially not in a dragnet computer surveillance. Being on this site, where some very extreme positions against the government are voiced (some even advocating revolutions) is enough.

I guess it depends on the facts such as how far they were going in advocating revolutions. If they are simply saying "Hey that's not a bad idea" then who really cares? If they are talking about weapons they may have purchased to participate in upcoming events (Revolution) then their records need to be turned over to the U.S. Government. It is our duty to make sure that our courts of law give the people due process in their trial on treason but it is not the job of the American people to have vigilante justice.

[Ugly1]

And why does it concern you or the government whether people do drugs or not? It's none of their business or yours. As long as their not out robbing and killing people to get the money for their drugs, who cares??

This is because a lot of people that do hard drugs that come from out of the states do rob and kill to support their habit. Drug addicts get on welfare, commit crime and do all sorts of nonsense. Hard drug addicts are not the type to hold down a 9-5 job so how is it that you think they are getting the money to buy drugs? You have your pot heads that have jobs but I doubt these are the people that are being tracked with government surveillance.

[Ugly1]

I'm sorry but that's just not how it works.

Care to elaborate?

[Ugly1]

Bush listened in on phone calls going to ad coming from the middle east. Everyone throw a fit. Obama listens in on every phone call in the country. No body says a thing. Let's not forget that they also have your emails.

They are not doing this to fight drugs or terrior. They are doing this to identify people like me, who will stand against these ppwer grabs.

The administration is trying to gather as much information as they can as quickly as they can with the power that they have. With this knowledge they can design and program powerful computer algorithms to analyze and then further manipulate the American and even world population. This is going to give the people with the information the ability to market specific areas with specific marketing campaigns when it comes to elections or other events that such information may come in useful. I think of this like where in Sci-Fi movies you will see someone passing by a screen and then the screens advertisement automatically changes to an advertisement that appeals to that person. Knowledge is power. The government is simply gathering more power over everyone, through knowledge on everyone.

It is a lot easier for the President of the United States of America Barack Obama to gather this intelligence then it would be for a community events organizer from Chicago Barack Obama. It appears that President Bush did a money grab through corporate business as President while Barack is doing a knowledge grab.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Ugly1

[No Censorship]

I don't care because I have nothing to hide, and I further respect the efforts of our government to uncover those that DO have something to hide.

What if you exchange emails and phone calls with someone who does have something to hide? What if they wrongly assume that you're involved in their activity just because they have metadata that links you to her/him, as well as others involved in the nefarious activity? It would be guilt by association. This is yet another Pandora's box in a factory full of them, and the government is fine with opening them.

[No Censorship]

"Will you be bringing your own KY to the airport when we expand our searches, or will we be charging you for ours?", asks the TSA.

I fear that your joke may become a reality, and some people will gladly bend over and take it. Just today, a talking head said that Al Qaeda put "bombs" inside their bodies, so I don't even want to know how Homeland Security will react if that's true.

[Michelle]

I fear that your joke may become a reality, and some people will gladly bend over and take it. Just today, a talking head said that Al Qaeda put "bombs" inside their bodies, so I don't even want to know how Homeland Security will react if that's true.

A lot of truth is said in jest. Considering one of the justifications for the searches was drug smuggling, and I'm sure we've all heard of contraband being hidden in various orifices of the body, it isn't a stretch to think where it could go next.

[questionmark]

Care to elaborate?

Everybody is presumed to be innocent until convicted by a court of their peers. So you are NOT a felon until convicted.

[Ugly1]

Everybody is presumed to be innocent until convicted by a court of their peers. So you are NOT a felon until convicted.

Ah, the way I read the statement was that if you have committed a felony you are a felon which would be true. It did not say if accused of felony, you are a felon. Once convicted of said felony, you would be a convicted felon.

[questionmark]

Ah, the way I read the statement was that if you have committed a felony you are a felon which would be true. It did not say if accused of felony, you are a felon. Once convicted of said felony, you would be a convicted felon.

Well no, read the constitution, once you have committed whatever you are a presumed felon until convicted.

[lightly]

We are always Presumed innocent ..until convicted? I think you are an ALLEGED criminal until convicted? But.. if you commit any crime, lets take murder for example, you ARE a murderer ,and you know it. Presumptions and allegations are for others to engage in?

As for Phone records .. they are just that.. records of when and where, and to where, calls are made. It's being said that our actual (DOMESTIC) calls are not being listened in on.

Of course we all know that is bullschnitz ....

[questionmark]

We are always Presumed innocent ..until convicted? I think you are an ALLEGED criminal until convicted? But.. if you commit any crime, lets take murder for example, you ARE a murderer ,and you know it. Presumptions and allegations are for others to engage in?

As for Phone records .. they are just that.. records of when and where, and to where, calls are made. It's being said that our actual (DOMESTIC) calls are not being listened in on.

Of course we all know that is bullschnitz ....

It does not matter what you know, what matters is whether 12 people find that too. And because that is being ignored the government gets away with considering us all guilty, even when proven otherwise. But if we do not care, why should the government?

[slaughtr]

Hell no I don't like it and really it's an infringement on everybody's rights. One day most you government loving individuals will get what you ask for it and some more. This is not a communist country by any means so for anybody to see my phone records is BS. Keep your flag loving ass away from me because in the end you will be the snitch who gets turned on. In reality there are too many people to investigate since you want to take it there. If you make yourself Hot then investigation is what you should get but to secretly spy on folks is like being a digital peeping tom so f&^k that!

[Babe Ruth]

I don't care because I have nothing to hide, and I further respect the efforts of our government to uncover those that DO have something to hide.

As Oliver Stone put it last month, the question is not "do you have anything to hide?", the question is whether we control the government or the government controls us.

[Kowalski]

As Oliver Stone put it last month, the question is not "do you have anything to hide?", the question is whether we control the government or the government controls us.

Amen, brother!

[Babe Ruth]

Bush listened in on phone calls going to ad coming from the middle east. Everyone throw a fit. Obama listens in on every phone call in the country. No body says a thing. Let's not forget that they also have your emails.

They are not doing this to fight drugs or terrior. They are doing this to identify people like me, who will stand against these ppwer grabs.

Bush listened in on ALL phone calls, no just to & from middle east. He admitted that law breaking in public. NYT sat on that information for about a year, long enough for Bush to be re-elected in 2004. Yes, the media is complicit and an enabler of government law breaking.

Kucinich, Wexler, and a handful of other conscientious legislators attempted to impeach Bush for his crimes. Nancy Pelosi ended those efforts.

[Babe Ruth]

I'm sorry but that's just not how it works.

Really? Please, tell me just how it does work.

Until due process is followed and one is convicted, one is not a convicted felon.

If one commits a felony, but there is no due process or no trial, the person is an UNconvicted felon.

I'm all ears, waiting for that explanation.

[Kowalski]