Tell me again - why do they need everybody's phone number??

[kentuck]

I forget.

It's something about terrorism, I think?

Something about 5 years from now, they may find that you or I talked with a terrorist and they can locate a terrorist cell that might be operating in this country by connecting all the phone numbers? Is that correct?

That really sounds stupid, doesn't it?

What else am I missing? Why do they need everybody in their database?

[pscot]

1. Too many prank call to Chinese take-out place

From now on, you get put on a terrorist watch list.

[Buzz Clik]

2. non-discrimination. Everyone is a suspect.

Meh.

[treestar]

3. So they can call you?

Are you really going to play dense like that?

[kentuck]

12. You don't know why, do you?

[treestar]

23. To see if terrorrsts are calling your number?

If they are calling me, I'd be sure to want to find out and talk to the FBI or whoever about it.

[daleanime]

33. So how many pol.....

I mean terrorrsts have you been talking to?

[treestar]

34. None that I know of

And the FBI hasn't been bothering me.

[BarbaRosa]

4. Cuz pretty much everyone has a phone number.

[Nye Bevan]

5. They got Jenny's number on the wall.

I got it, I got, I got it
I got your number on the wall
I got it, I got, I got it
For a good time, For a good time call...

Jenny don't change your number
I need to make you mine
Jenny I call your number
867-5309

[Recursion]

6. They don't, which is why they don't have it

Tying a given phone handle to your identity requires a specific warrant.

[kentuck]

8. So they do have it?

But they need a warrant to listen in? They have connected the number with a known terrorist 5 years ago? Pretty smart, huh? And protects us from those evil terrorists. Do you want to be dead or do you want to be protected by Big Brother? There is no other choice.

[Recursion]

15. This is an example of another choice

The spooks look at patterns that catch their attention and get court permission when they want to go further.

The fact that you are worried about the NSA rather than the FBI suggests you haven't really absorbed the releases of the past few weeks.

[kentuck]

18. Tell us more.

It's getting interesting.

[Recursion]

20. The FBI has received bulk call data from carriers, apparently for years now

The NSA perks up its ears when whatever patterns it's looking for appear; the FBI just tells all the phone carriers "give us everything you have on everybody".

[kentuck]

21. And the new FBI Director agrees with this policy, also?

I assume? Since he is a Republican.

[Recursion]

22. No idea. Bureaucratic inertia is an amazing force at times

It would surprise me if the director were closely-enough involved in operations to be making a call about this.

[neverforget]

9. Sen Merkley disagrees with you. The NSA "is engaging in massive, secret bulk data collection of

Americans' phone records."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023087145

[Recursion]

13. No, Merkley agrees with me. Read that again

The step where the court gets involved is either

1. They determine on their own that the subject is an American
2. They need to find out who the subject is

[neverforget]

19. No he doesn't agree with you.

From the email from Sen Merkley:

The recent revelations that the National Security Agency is engaging in massive, secret bulk data collection of Americans' phone records finally bring out in the open a program that is incredibly disturbing. The government is sweeping up detailed information about all of our phone calls into an enormous database without our knowledge or permission. I think this kind of dragnet is a breach of Americans' privacy and contrary to our founding values.

Equally disturbing, though, is that the legal interpretations governing this vast program are made in secret and kept from the public. This secrecy seriously limits public debate around our surveillance programs.

The language of the law can be quite different from the court's interpretation. For instance, the standard in the law for record collections is that the records must be "relevant to an authorized investigation" – quite different from the court's apparent interpretation of all phone records, all the time, all across the U.S.

For the public to truly be able to weigh in on whether Congress is striking the right balance between privacy and security, they need to know how the courts are interpreting the laws Congress writes. We can and should have this policy debate without divulging how surveillance takes place and tipping off our enemies. I've introduced a bipartisan bill that would require the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to declassify significant opinions that oversee programs such as this, and have also called on the Administration to do the same.

The debate around our privacy and our constitutional rights is far too important to be kept in the dark. Americans deserve the chance to weigh in and make their voices heard when Congress is authorizing these laws – and that means understanding the real-world impact of the laws that are being debated. I'll keep fighting to make our surveillance laws more transparent and give concerned Americans the right to weigh in.

[neverforget]

7. I've asked many times what business is it

of the governments of who, when and for how long I call someone.

[kentuck]

11. What it was was football...

Andy Griffith. He was confused also.

[DJ13]

10. If you order pizza more than twice in a month they pass that info to your health insurer

[unblock]

14. they need to make sure you don't order your pizza from the same place a terrist does.

remember, it's 2 degrees of separation. if you dial any number that a known (or suspected!) terrist dials, then they can get a search warrant and all your phone sex are belong to them.

[kentuck]

17. But if you are talking about some type of illegal or criminal" activity...

They can keep those calls. Of course, it's hard to see how they know you are talking about something illegal or criminal if they are not listening to your call? Perhaps someone can explain that?

[treestar]

24. Because they are going to suspect the customers of a pizza place

If the pizza place is a front for Al Qaeda, that hardly means the ordinary customers will be suspect.

Just thinking this through shows how ridiculous is the concern with loss of privacy.

[unblock]

25. yes i'm sure they'll get it right everytime.

they couldn't possibly hide either incompetence or ulterior motive behind that veil of secrecy.

impossible i say!

[randome]

28. So you're going to be upset ahead of time because the world isn't perfect enough for you?

Every single law enforcement agency in the world is capable of 'ulterior motives'. What makes you think the NSA is out to get you or anyone else?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[unblock]

36. "we the people, in order to form a more perfect union..."

right up at the top of the constitution. the main thrust of the constitution was that the people grant *limited* powers with *checks and balances* to the government, including explicit denial of certain powers (bill of rights, in particular). this was all because our founders got "upset ahead of time" because they wanted america to be more perfect.


the nsa in particular has more power to affect more people than the local police department, and in particular is very close to the president and operates under a level secrecy that most law enforcement agencies don't have.

and yet i'm very interested in protections against abuses even from the local police department. why on earth should i cut the nsa slack?

nixon is no doubt drooling in his grave at the thought of what he could have done with today's nsa and his "enemies list".


governments ought not to have certain powers. the dubious potential for marginally more successful defense against violent attacks is, imho, vastly outweighed by the manifest potential for horrific abuse by the government.

[RC]

37. A clue for a pizza joint being a front for Al Quaeta might be the horses tied up out back.

[JaneyVee]

16. Yeah, we should only be collecting metadata from Muslims living in America.

[Progressive dog]

26. To put in phone books

[liberal N proud]

27. How will they ever let you know that you won the lottery?

[Puzzledtraveller]

29. Because they can

The goal of power is power, nothing else.

[WinkyDink]

30. Records are important, mein Herr.

[graham4anything]

31. Why should everyone get the normal flu shot when there is a new panademic?

to put a ring around it.

and OBL used old school methods

[Skittles]

32. they're concerned about the "Terrorist Family Plan"

[alc]

35. it's not about terrorists

terrorists will do what it takes to avoid surveillance. they run tests to see what is/isn't found out when they communicate. the rest of us don't go to effort to avoid the snooping (and shouldn't have to).

yes, the snooping will likely stop some foreign terrorists. if it's a real operation rather than a test it will still tell them what not to do next time. So it won't work long against organized terrorist groups.

But, if another group like ows or the tea party starts to grow, they have an advantage in shutting it down before it gets "out of control". They will also be able to stop some violent domestic groups, which is very good, but not worth making it more difficult for non-violent domestic opposition.

And if the NSA feels threatened by congressional oversight or isn't getting what they want from the FISA court, we'd better hope all congressmen and judges "have nothing to hide". It's a little optimistic to expect all future NSA personal with high level access to care about laws and warrants - especially if the president and both parties put pressure on them. And if one presidential candidate looks much more favorable there may be some anonymous leaks to journalists. It may not be legal, but they won't be planning to take the details to court where warrants would be required and methods scrutinized.