Oops! Another case of our rights slipping away!

Joeychgo said:
Wait a second, we're not talking about monitoring international calls - the story is that they have been seeking all of OUR private phone records. I am concerned about how much of my private information they have collected. What dont I know about? Do they have my medical records? Credit card records?

They didnt ask for phone books. They are welcome to have every one. But having access to my call history does make me nervous. They might see my calling Bryan and start sending me Republican fund raising mail because I talk to a conservative!

Seriously. Why hasnt GW done anything concrete to seal the borders? One meeting and he can have national guard posted on the borders. So why hasnt he? This is the kind of thing that suprises me. Same with the container ports. Alot more could be done, why hasnt it been done?

One truth however. We dont know what successes have been made - what attackes have been averted. We dont know what 'hasnt' happened. Maybe there has been alot, maybe nothing. We just dont know, nor will we ever really know. [yes we do, do a google search - see below.]

I just dont want to see another round of Japenese Internment Camps, or McCarthy Blacklists, or anything of the sort.
You people are amazing. You go on and on about how the Bush administration didn't connect the dots, they didn't do enough to prevent 9/11, some of you even wackily claim Bush KNEW about 9/11 ahead of time and in fact was behind it. Now you are claiming the opposite, saying he's doing TOO MUCH to prevent terrorism. This is PROOF POSITIVE that the Democrats can NEVER be allowed to be in charge of our nation's security.

Joey, get a grip. You don't have any expectation of privacy with phone records. You're reacting to sensationalism of the worst kind - laced with falsehoods. The fact is that the Communications Act Assisting Law Enforcement of 1994 (Dem Congress and Senate, Clinton) required the phone companies to do this and in fact set aside funding to compensate them for any equipment they would need in order to comply.

Don't change the subject to borders. Your own Congressmen are just as guilty as Bush in not sealing the borders. This has already being discussed. You're firing in all directions. Try to stay on the subject.

You're not thinking clearly. We can't announce every terrorist plot that's been foiled because some of the investigations are still ongoing to catch those responsible. If we announced it every time, the terrorists would figure out how we're preventing them from hitting us - sort of like they did when THIS CRAP WAS LEAKED. So sit back, take a deep breath, and let our intel community DEFEND OUR COUNTRY, for crying out loud! Jeez!

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050712/12natsec.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100600455_pf.html
 
No, im not saying he's doing too much. In fact, im saying he's doing too little.

And the Congress does not have as much power. He can make a phone call, and 50,000 troops are on the mexican border within a few days. No hearings, no votes. Done. Why doesnt he? Its an honest question more then a criticsm. Its not about guilt for me, its just a question of why its not being done.

And I do have an expectation of privacy in my phone records. This has been established in the courts. My local police cant just call up my phone company and ask for my records, they need a warrant.

Lets not degrade this to a Dem vs Repub thread - I dont care what congress or what president did this or that. Fact is, someone is doing it now, and im not completely comfortable with it. Conversely, nobody is securing our borders, and I am not comfortable with that either.
 
Joeychgo said:
And I do have an expectation of privacy in my phone records. This has been established in the courts. My local police cant just call up my phone company and ask for my records, they need a warrant.

No, you DON'T. This has been established by the aforementioned law passed in 1994 which, by the way, has never been overturned by the courts.

Joey, you're p!ssing up a rope. This not only isn't illegal, but it's necessary. You need to let it go. The fact is that the greater crime is revealing our intel methods to the General Public. You don't think Al Qaeda is listening? You'd prefer, much like RaVeneyes, to leave ourselves vulnerable rather than take precautions. You've been victimized by the Drive-by Media's sensationalism and falsehoods.
 
Joeychgo said:
HA - You think they dont know we intercept phone calls?

This is getting tedious. We really shouldn't be having this conversation all over again. You are obviously unaware of the FACT that when Risen's big expose about the foreign surveillance program came out, Al Qaeda switched to disposable cell and sat phones, thus making it much harder to track them. You are also apparently unaware that before 9/11, Al Qaeda members roamed the phone lines blissfully unaware of any surveillance that went on. Ever heard of Able Danger? We have actual data that shows that Atta was communicating with cells in the US before the attack, but thanks to Clinton's Gorelick's Wall, our agencies couldn't share with each other, and thus the twin towers were brutally destroyed. You Bush-haters climbed all over the admin about not connecting the dots. Now you want to prevent them from connecting the dots because THEY ALREADY KNOW ABOUT IT ANYWAY? You seriously need to do some heavy thinking about which side you're on. It sure ain't the side of the good ol' USA.

You really want to justify illegal leaking of national security on the basis that they probably know about it anyway? Fine, then why don't we just expose EVERYTHING we're doing that's secret? To hell with intelligence, let's just abandon all our efforts to covertly find out what's going on and instead we'll use the NYT and CBS News to announce our latest plans to thwart terrorism. No, wait, let's put it on the President's weekly radio address, yeah, that's it!
 
NBC: Bush may deploy Guard along U.S. border

NBC: Bush may deploy Guard along U.S. border
President to address nation on immigration Monday as Senate nears deal

NBC News and news services
Updated: 3:02 p.m. ET May 12, 2006


WASHINGTON - As the White House prepared for President Bush to address the nation on immigration, sources told NBC News on Friday that the Pentagon could deploy as many as 5,000 National Guard troops to the country’s southwest borders to stem the flow of illegal immigrants.

The White House said it was seeking time from television networks for the president’s remarks on Monday at 8 p.m. ET. Bush, trying to build momentum for legislation that could provide millions of illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens, is to speak from the Oval Office.

“This is crunch time,” Tony Snow, the new White House press secretary, told reporters.

Senate passage of the legislation appears assured, but many House Republicans oppose allowing illegal immigrants now in the country a chance at citizenship. The deployment of military troops to stem the flow of more illegal immigrants could be a way to ease that opposition.

The legislation includes provisions for additional border security, a new guest worker program and eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

Compromise in the Senate
The measure was bogged down by opposition for weeks before Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed on a procedural compromise that gives the bill’s critics ample opportunity to offer amendments. It also offers assurances to Democrats that Senate negotiators will not simply capitulate to demands of House conservatives in talks on compromise legislation later in the year.



Nearly everyone except House Republicans seemed pleased.

“We congratulate the Senate on reaching agreement and we look forward to passage of a bill prior to Memorial Day,” said Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, said on Thursday. Reid and Frist exchanged compliments on the Senate floor, and Mexico’s foreign secretary said in a statement that the deal was a “positive step toward the approval of a migration accord.”

But many House Republicans criticized the Senate’s bill as an amnesty measure. Putting National Guard troops on the border could serve as a way to appease conservatives.

White House strategist Karl Rove met with lawmakers earlier in the week, and at least one session included a discussion about this. Some lawmakers said at the time that they expected Bush to announce border security improvements next week, possibly in a speech in Arizona or another border states.

Gov. Janet Napilitano, D-Ariz., has asked Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in the past to provide guard assistance. Rumsfeld earlier this week ordered Assistant Secretary of Defense of Homeland Security Paul McHale to review options for the National Guard and Reserve, as well as active duty forces, NBC News reported.


Agreement about 'the money'
One Pentagon official told NBC's Jim Miklaszewski that federal involvement is primarily about money: State governors can deploy their National Guard forces whenever they see fit, but without direct involvement from the Pentagon, the states would have to pick up the tab.

The National Guard forces, if deployed to border states, would still remain under the command of the state governments.

The differences between Bush and House Republicans flared dramatically when the Senate appeared on the verge of agreement on a comprehensive immigration bill several weeks ago. Several GOP conservatives denounced the bill as an amnesty measure and Rep. Steve King of Iowa said anyone who voted for it should be “branded with a scarlet letter A.”

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., offered his view of the importance of immigrant labor: “I say let the prisoners pick the fruits.”

In political terms, Rep. J.D. Hayworth of Arizona and others said Republicans would pay a price in the midterm elections if they vote for anything like the Senate legislation. “Many of those who have stood for the Republican Party for the last decade are not only angry. They will be absent in November,” Hayworth said.

Given Bush’s recent erosion of support among conservatives, as measured in polls, there’s been no evident change in sentiment among his congressional critics.

The political calculations are different at the White House. Hispanics comprise the nation’s fastest growing minority, according to this line of reasoning, and no political party can afford to be seen as blind or even hostile to their concerns and the desire of their relatives to join them in the United States.

Bush and top House Republicans reviewed the issue last week at a private White House meeting, according to several officials, and the president urged the GOP congressional leadership to embrace his call for comprehensive legislation. That means provisions to strengthen border security, coupled with a guest worker program that — while the president doesn’t say so in public — provides a chance at citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. and other leaders stressed that would be a hard sell with their rank and file. Bush restated his desire for a comprehensive bill, and the leadership responded by noting the sentiment of the rank and file, according to officials familiar with the conversation. They spoke on condition of anonymity, given the private nature of the meetings.

NBC's Jim Miklaszewski, NBC's Tim Russert and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12754924/
 
fossten said:
63% = half? I guess I know which "half" you are in...:D
Hey! What's with the f^cking personal attacks again?

63% +/- 5% = 68-58% -> 58% is statistically insignificantly different from 50% and "about" half...
 
Calabrio said:
You don't have a "RIGHT to complete privacy."
you are simply wrong.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

The bill of rights has been interpreted broadly throughout the history of our country and this has resulted in laws being passed that gives the citizens of this country an absolute right to complete privacy in their personal information. These rights are guaranteed in several different laws, and are also protected by stiff fines and penalties for entities breaking those laws.

Ever heard of "HIPPA"? All stems from the fourth amendment and people's rights to privacy.
 
fossten said:
No, you DON'T. This has been established by the aforementioned law passed in 1994 which, by the way, has never been overturned by the courts.
The 1994 law you quoted *only* applies to the FBI, and it's investigations and it *only* says they can gain records by legal means it doesn't say they can just come in and take them.

Further, look at any number of overturned cases in the penal system and you'll see that discoveries made sans warrant of people's calling patterns have made cases be overturned.
 
raVeneyes said:
The 1994 law you quoted *only* applies to the FBI, and it's investigations and it *only* says they can gain records by legal means it doesn't say they can just come in and take them.

Further, look at any number of overturned cases in the penal system and you'll see that discoveries made sans warrant of people's calling patterns have made cases be overturned.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You didn't read it. Here, read this part:

(5) The term `government' means the government of the United States and any agency or instrumentality thereof, the District of Columbia, any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, and any State or political subdivision thereof authorized by law to conduct electronic surveillance.

*owned*
 
raVeneyes said:
you are simply wrong.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures [so you think it's unreasonable to track Al Qaeda phone calls? I guess you want to grant terrorists the same rights that you have, huh?], shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

The bill of rights has been interpreted broadly throughout the history of our country and this has resulted in laws being passed that gives the citizens of this country an absolute right to complete privacy in their personal information. These rights are guaranteed in several different laws, and are also protected by stiff fines and penalties for entities breaking those laws.

Ever heard of "HIPPA"? All stems from the fourth amendment and people's rights to privacy.

Look who's trying to quote the Constitution now. Sort of like Satan quoting Scripture.

You're obviously not a lawyer, because as any lawyer will tell you, there are no ABSOLUTE rights to privacy, and I can prove it, although that would be wasted on you. In fact, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you've said has actually taken place. You are not grounded in reality to make that statement. You also don't understand how that law works. It's designed to allow large computer-based tracking of numbers to identify any calls to Al Qaeda. If those calls originate, a warrant is issued and the call is now monitored. The sheer logistics of listening in to millions of phone calls across America is staggering; it's just not possible. It is, in fact, absurd, and anyone who is duped by that school of thought is irrelevant in any discussion.


By the way, it's HIPAA, not HIPPA, or HIPPO, or whatever misshapen way you want to portray it. And it's healthcare related, not phone call related, in case you didn't know. I'm very well versed in it, thank you, since I work in the healthcare credentialing field, and I understand better than you how healthcare orgs and providers are supposed to keep information confidential. Nevertheless, it's apples vs. oranges to compare HIPAA to tracking PHONE NUMBERS. :bowrofl:
 
raVeneyes said:
Hey! What's with the f^cking personal attacks again?

63% +/- 5% = 68-58% -> 58% is statistically insignificantly different [YOU'RE KIDDING, RIGHT? WATCH ME SHRED YOU NOW] from 50% and "about" half...

Wow. Nice try. But you forgot to do the plus side.

63%+4%=67%, far less a stretch than your silly math.

67%-50%=17%. The mean percentage would be 58.5%, not 63%. Therefore, 63% is MUCH closer statistically to 67%.

67% is statistically the same as TWO-THIRDS.

By the way, 58% is 16% larger than 50%. 67%, on the other hand, is only 5.9% larger than 63%.

Therefore, it's MORE ACCURATE STATISTICALLY to say that TWO-THIRDS of the American people etc. than to say HALF the American people.

Must have learned that math from Algore. Or maybe from the Drive-by Media. Welcome to the real world. Maybe you should stick to photography and leave the math to somebody else.

In the words of John McEnroe, "You can NOT be serious!"
 
Joeychgo said:
NBC: Bush may deploy Guard along U.S. border
President to address nation on immigration Monday as Senate nears deal

NBC News and news services
Updated: 3:02 p.m. ET May 12, 2006


WASHINGTON - As the White House prepared for President Bush to address the nation on immigration, sources told NBC News on Friday that the Pentagon could deploy as many as 5,000 National Guard troops to the country’s southwest borders to stem the flow of illegal immigrants.

The White House said it was seeking time from television networks for the president’s remarks on Monday at 8 p.m. ET. Bush, trying to build momentum for legislation that could provide millions of illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens, is to speak from the Oval Office.

“This is crunch time,” Tony Snow, the new White House press secretary, told reporters.

Senate passage of the legislation appears assured, but many House Republicans oppose allowing illegal immigrants now in the country a chance at citizenship. The deployment of military troops to stem the flow of more illegal immigrants could be a way to ease that opposition.

The legislation includes provisions for additional border security, a new guest worker program and eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

Compromise in the Senate
The measure was bogged down by opposition for weeks before Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed on a procedural compromise that gives the bill’s critics ample opportunity to offer amendments. It also offers assurances to Democrats that Senate negotiators will not simply capitulate to demands of House conservatives in talks on compromise legislation later in the year.



Nearly everyone except House Republicans seemed pleased.

“We congratulate the Senate on reaching agreement and we look forward to passage of a bill prior to Memorial Day,” said Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, said on Thursday. Reid and Frist exchanged compliments on the Senate floor, and Mexico’s foreign secretary said in a statement that the deal was a “positive step toward the approval of a migration accord.”

But many House Republicans criticized the Senate’s bill as an amnesty measure. Putting National Guard troops on the border could serve as a way to appease conservatives.

White House strategist Karl Rove met with lawmakers earlier in the week, and at least one session included a discussion about this. Some lawmakers said at the time that they expected Bush to announce border security improvements next week, possibly in a speech in Arizona or another border states.

Gov. Janet Napilitano, D-Ariz., has asked Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in the past to provide guard assistance. Rumsfeld earlier this week ordered Assistant Secretary of Defense of Homeland Security Paul McHale to review options for the National Guard and Reserve, as well as active duty forces, NBC News reported.


Agreement about 'the money'
One Pentagon official told NBC's Jim Miklaszewski that federal involvement is primarily about money: State governors can deploy their National Guard forces whenever they see fit, but without direct involvement from the Pentagon, the states would have to pick up the tab.

The National Guard forces, if deployed to border states, would still remain under the command of the state governments.

The differences between Bush and House Republicans flared dramatically when the Senate appeared on the verge of agreement on a comprehensive immigration bill several weeks ago. Several GOP conservatives denounced the bill as an amnesty measure and Rep. Steve King of Iowa said anyone who voted for it should be “branded with a scarlet letter A.”

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., offered his view of the importance of immigrant labor: “I say let the prisoners pick the fruits.”

In political terms, Rep. J.D. Hayworth of Arizona and others said Republicans would pay a price in the midterm elections if they vote for anything like the Senate legislation. “Many of those who have stood for the Republican Party for the last decade are not only angry. They will be absent in November,” Hayworth said.

Given Bush’s recent erosion of support among conservatives, as measured in polls, there’s been no evident change in sentiment among his congressional critics.

The political calculations are different at the White House. Hispanics comprise the nation’s fastest growing minority, according to this line of reasoning, and no political party can afford to be seen as blind or even hostile to their concerns and the desire of their relatives to join them in the United States.

Bush and top House Republicans reviewed the issue last week at a private White House meeting, according to several officials, and the president urged the GOP congressional leadership to embrace his call for comprehensive legislation. That means provisions to strengthen border security, coupled with a guest worker program that — while the president doesn’t say so in public — provides a chance at citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. and other leaders stressed that would be a hard sell with their rank and file. Bush restated his desire for a comprehensive bill, and the leadership responded by noting the sentiment of the rank and file, according to officials familiar with the conversation. They spoke on condition of anonymity, given the private nature of the meetings.

NBC's Jim Miklaszewski, NBC's Tim Russert and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12754924/

Wrong thread.
 
fossten said:
Wow. Nice try. But you forgot to do the plus side.

63%+4%=67%, far less a stretch than your silly math.

67%-50%=17%. The mean percentage would be 58.5%, not 63%. Therefore, 63% is MUCH closer statistically to 67%.

67% is statistically the same as TWO-THIRDS.

By the way, 58% is 16% larger than 50%. 67%, on the other hand, is only 5.9% larger than 63%.

Therefore, it's MORE ACCURATE STATISTICALLY to say that TWO-THIRDS of the American people etc. than to say HALF the American people.

Must have learned that math from Algore. Or maybe from the Drive-by Media. Welcome to the real world. Maybe you should stick to photography and leave the math to somebody else.

In the words of John McEnroe, "You can NOT be serious!"


Who Cares...
 
Snooping likely legal, but some still hung up

MARIAN GAIL BROWN and MICHAEL P. MAYKO
Connecticut Post Online

Staff writers
If the National Security Agency wants to reach out and collect the phone records of ordinary Americans to build a database it can mine for information — in other words, snoop into anybody's calling patterns — it's probably legal.

But it undermines public trust in government, smacks of "1984" and is probably a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, constitutional experts, academia and John and Jane Q. Public said Thursday. Connecticut's congressional delegation expressed concern.

The NSA has secretly amassed phone records of "tens of millions of Americans" with help from three of the nation's largest phone companies: AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, according to a USA Today report. The NSA refused to comment on agency operations, citing the sensitivity of its work.

"This activity by the NSA doesn't violate anything the court has said with respect to the Fourth Amendment," Fairfield University professor Don Greenberg, chairman of the college's politics department, said Thursday. "It's definitely not an unreasonable seizure. They are not listening in on your calls. People who have access to your phone records are not necessarily sworn to any kind of secrecy," Nevertheless, the NSA's phone record compilation is a "bad idea," he said, because it overreaches. "Instead of collecting good information, it bogs the government down in information overload. They would be better off taking a more selective tactic collecting information, rather than this shotgun approach."

Moreover, "it erodes people's trust in government," said Greenberg, who teaches political science courses focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court and American civil liberties. "It leads people to think Big Brother is still out there. We are past George Orwell's '1984,' but it doesn't mean those sentiments are gone."

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged the nation's need to protect itself from terrorist attacks, but added: "I also believe that we need to protect and preserve the basic freedoms and liberties that define our nation and our national character."

He called on President Bush to immediately spell out whether this secret effort has infringed on the American public's right to privacy, and if not, what safeguards exist to give the American people confidence that their rights are protected.

U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, said that Congress should provide oversight "to ensure these programs are legal, do not compromise Americans' right to privacy, and are effective. Our intelligence agencies need to be able to do their job to keep us safe, but not at the expense of the constitutional principles upon which our country is founded."

"The wire-tapping policy put in place by the Bush administration is much more far-reaching than the president initially claimed," U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, said as she also called for congressional oversight. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., did not return requests for comment Thursday night.

Several area residents interviewed at a local shopping center, including Marcus Valko, 25, and Lonnie Chase, 55, both of Stratford, and Chris Sciarappa, 28, of Seymour, are worried that the government is gathering too much information about the public. Others say they can't imagine what the government wants with all that information.

"Our privacy is going down the drain little by little," said Valko, a computer repairman. He said he is so upset that he is trying to find a group that will do something about it.

"I understand the argument and concerns about security in the wake of the terrorist attacks," he said. "But there has got to be an easier way to do this than by peeping in on people."

Sciarappa, a retail manager, said he also is concerned that his right to privacy is being violated.

"I don't know what they think they will get by seeing who people talk to," said Sciarappa. "Do they think terrorists are going to be discussing their plans over the phone? It's pointless."

Chase wonders about the government's intent.

"What they've done is created the largest database in the world," said Chase, a cosmetic retailer. "But there's not enough focus. What good is keeping tabs on everyone in the country?"

Chase, 84-year-old Bridgeport retiree Stan Bernard, and 62-year-old salesman Al Barkley from Cheshire all said they weren't worried about the NSA collecting their calling records.

"I just make calls to my family," Bernard said.

"I don't know what they will do with the information," Barkley said. "But, hopefully, they're scanning it to find some patterns. Maybe they are using it to follow up on leads by tying certain numbers in."

The precedent for NSA collecting phone records has been clearly established for some time, and it dates back to the Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Maryland, said Hamden's Quinnipiac University Law School Professor Jeffrey Meyer, a former federal prosecutor in Connecticut.

"The holding in that case is the public does not have an expectation of privacy in the phone numbers they dial," Meyer said. "But the twist in this case is the sheer scale and the massive data collecting that's going on."

President Bush did not outright dispute USA Today's account of the NSA's covert activity, but he did not take questions from the Capitol Hill press corps about it.

"We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans," Bush said. "Our efforts are focused on links to al-Qaida and their known affiliates."

Bruce K. Miller, a constitutional law expert at Western New England College School of Law in Springfield, Mass., listened to Bush's assertions about NSA activity.

"The president says that the surveillance is lawful, and I can see now how the Bush administration puts these two things together," Miller said. "It reflects a sense of an executive with a unitary sense of the three branches of government in times of war with unchecked power, and any statute that conflicts with this view of the Constitution need not be enforced. You can see that view reflected in the signing statements Bush has attached to the bills he's signed into law."
 
May 12, 2006, 8:39PM



AP NewsBreak: Verizon Faces Suit Over NSA
By BETH DeFALCO Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

TRENTON, N.J. — Verizon Communications Inc. faces its first lawsuit that claims the phone carrier violated privacy laws for giving phone records to the National Security Agency for a secret surveillance program.

The lawsuit filed Friday asks the court to stop Verizon from turning over any more records to the NSA without a warrant or consent of the subscriber.

"This is the largest and most vast intrusion of civil liberties we've ever seen in the United States," said New Jersey attorney Bruce Afran, who sued with attorney Carl Mayer in federal district court in Manhattan, where Verizon is headquartered.

USA Today reported on Thursday that the NSA has been building a database of millions of Americans' everyday telephone calls since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Verizon, AT&T Corp. and BellSouth Corp. provided data, the newspaper reported.

Verizon said in a statement that because the NSA program is highly classified, it wouldn't confirm or deny whether the company participated in the program. It also declined to comment about the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks $1,000 for each violation of the Telecommunications Act, or $5 billion if the case is certified as class-action.

Afran said that he and Mayer will also ask for documents dealing with the origination of the program and President Bush's role in it.

Afran and Mayer have filed numerous lawsuits against New Jersey officials over such things as political appointments and finances.
 
fossten said:
The fact is that the Communications Act Assisting Law Enforcement of 1994 (Dem Congress and Senate, Clinton) required the phone companies to do this and in fact set aside funding to compensate them for any equipment they would need in order to comply.

And to add, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) voted FOR the Act. Now, apparently Leahy is having second thoughts about the Act since all we hear is his lamenting how terrible and wrong it is for President Bush to use the Act to foster national security and protect the American people.

And the democrats want Americans to trust them with national security.

I don't think so!
 
Joeychgo said:
May 12, 2006, 8:39PM
AP NewsBreak: Verizon Faces Suit Over NSA
By BETH DeFALCO Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

TRENTON, N.J. — Verizon Communications Inc. faces its first lawsuit that claims the phone carrier violated privacy laws for giving phone records to the National Security Agency for a secret surveillance program.

Here comes a bunch of slip-and-fall lawyers looking to make names for themselves. They will loose! Obtaining phone numbers without identifying information is not subject to privacy rights, especially in the interest of national security and is lawfully collected pursuant to Communications Act Assisting Law Enforcement of 1994, which Patrick "Double Talker" Leahy helped to enact.

But then again, when a bunch of clueless lawyers are looking for attention they tend to file frivolous lawsuits.
 
Joeychgo said:
eh, not really, because we talked briefly about securing the borders with troops.

No, you did, and I told you not to change the subject.

Who cares...
 
Joeychgo said:
May 12, 2006, 8:39PM



AP NewsBreak: Verizon Faces Suit Over NSA
By BETH DeFALCO Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

TRENTON, N.J. — Verizon Communications Inc. faces its first lawsuit that claims the phone carrier violated privacy laws for giving phone records to the National Security Agency for a secret surveillance program.

The lawsuit filed Friday asks the court to stop Verizon from turning over any more records to the NSA without a warrant or consent of the subscriber.

"This is the largest and most vast intrusion of civil liberties we've ever seen in the United States," said New Jersey attorney Bruce Afran, who sued with attorney Carl Mayer in federal district court in Manhattan, where Verizon is headquartered.

USA Today reported on Thursday that the NSA has been building a database of millions of Americans' everyday telephone calls since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Verizon, AT&T Corp. and BellSouth Corp. provided data, the newspaper reported.

Verizon said in a statement that because the NSA program is highly classified, it wouldn't confirm or deny whether the company participated in the program. It also declined to comment about the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks $1,000 for each violation of the Telecommunications Act, or $5 billion if the case is certified as class-action.

Afran said that he and Mayer will also ask for documents dealing with the origination of the program and President Bush's role in it.

Afran and Mayer have filed numerous lawsuits against New Jersey officials over such things as political appointments and finances.

Who cares...
 
Joeychgo said:
Snooping likely legal, but some still hung up

MARIAN GAIL BROWN and MICHAEL P. MAYKO
Connecticut Post Online

Staff writers
If the National Security Agency wants to reach out and collect the phone records of ordinary Americans to build a database it can mine for information — in other words, snoop into anybody's calling patterns — it's probably legal.

But it undermines public trust in government, smacks of "1984" and is probably a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, constitutional experts, academia and John and Jane Q. Public said Thursday. Connecticut's congressional delegation expressed concern.

The NSA has secretly amassed phone records of "tens of millions of Americans" with help from three of the nation's largest phone companies: AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, according to a USA Today report. The NSA refused to comment on agency operations, citing the sensitivity of its work.

"This activity by the NSA doesn't violate anything the court has said with respect to the Fourth Amendment," Fairfield University professor Don Greenberg, chairman of the college's politics department, said Thursday. "It's definitely not an unreasonable seizure. They are not listening in on your calls. People who have access to your phone records are not necessarily sworn to any kind of secrecy," Nevertheless, the NSA's phone record compilation is a "bad idea," he said, because it overreaches. "Instead of collecting good information, it bogs the government down in information overload. They would be better off taking a more selective tactic collecting information, rather than this shotgun approach."

Moreover, "it erodes people's trust in government," said Greenberg, who teaches political science courses focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court and American civil liberties. "It leads people to think Big Brother is still out there. We are past George Orwell's '1984,' but it doesn't mean those sentiments are gone."

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged the nation's need to protect itself from terrorist attacks, but added: "I also believe that we need to protect and preserve the basic freedoms and liberties that define our nation and our national character."

He called on President Bush to immediately spell out whether this secret effort has infringed on the American public's right to privacy, and if not, what safeguards exist to give the American people confidence that their rights are protected.

U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, said that Congress should provide oversight "to ensure these programs are legal, do not compromise Americans' right to privacy, and are effective. Our intelligence agencies need to be able to do their job to keep us safe, but not at the expense of the constitutional principles upon which our country is founded."

"The wire-tapping policy put in place by the Bush administration is much more far-reaching than the president initially claimed," U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, said as she also called for congressional oversight. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., did not return requests for comment Thursday night.

Several area residents interviewed at a local shopping center, including Marcus Valko, 25, and Lonnie Chase, 55, both of Stratford, and Chris Sciarappa, 28, of Seymour, are worried that the government is gathering too much information about the public. Others say they can't imagine what the government wants with all that information.

"Our privacy is going down the drain little by little," said Valko, a computer repairman. He said he is so upset that he is trying to find a group that will do something about it.

"I understand the argument and concerns about security in the wake of the terrorist attacks," he said. "But there has got to be an easier way to do this than by peeping in on people."

Sciarappa, a retail manager, said he also is concerned that his right to privacy is being violated.

"I don't know what they think they will get by seeing who people talk to," said Sciarappa. "Do they think terrorists are going to be discussing their plans over the phone? It's pointless."

Chase wonders about the government's intent.

"What they've done is created the largest database in the world," said Chase, a cosmetic retailer. "But there's not enough focus. What good is keeping tabs on everyone in the country?"

Chase, 84-year-old Bridgeport retiree Stan Bernard, and 62-year-old salesman Al Barkley from Cheshire all said they weren't worried about the NSA collecting their calling records.

"I just make calls to my family," Bernard said.

"I don't know what they will do with the information," Barkley said. "But, hopefully, they're scanning it to find some patterns. Maybe they are using it to follow up on leads by tying certain numbers in."

The precedent for NSA collecting phone records has been clearly established for some time, and it dates back to the Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Maryland, said Hamden's Quinnipiac University Law School Professor Jeffrey Meyer, a former federal prosecutor in Connecticut.

"The holding in that case is the public does not have an expectation of privacy in the phone numbers they dial," Meyer said. "But the twist in this case is the sheer scale and the massive data collecting that's going on."

President Bush did not outright dispute USA Today's account of the NSA's covert activity, but he did not take questions from the Capitol Hill press corps about it.

"We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans," Bush said. "Our efforts are focused on links to al-Qaida and their known affiliates."

Bruce K. Miller, a constitutional law expert at Western New England College School of Law in Springfield, Mass., listened to Bush's assertions about NSA activity.

"The president says that the surveillance is lawful, and I can see now how the Bush administration puts these two things together," Miller said. "It reflects a sense of an executive with a unitary sense of the three branches of government in times of war with unchecked power, and any statute that conflicts with this view of the Constitution need not be enforced. You can see that view reflected in the signing statements Bush has attached to the bills he's signed into law."

Who cares...
 
Joeychgo said:
NBC: Bush may deploy Guard along U.S. border
President to address nation on immigration Monday as Senate nears deal

NBC News and news services
Updated: 3:02 p.m. ET May 12, 2006


WASHINGTON - As the White House prepared for President Bush to address the nation on immigration, sources told NBC News on Friday that the Pentagon could deploy as many as 5,000 National Guard troops to the country’s southwest borders to stem the flow of illegal immigrants.

The White House said it was seeking time from television networks for the president’s remarks on Monday at 8 p.m. ET. Bush, trying to build momentum for legislation that could provide millions of illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens, is to speak from the Oval Office.

“This is crunch time,” Tony Snow, the new White House press secretary, told reporters.

Senate passage of the legislation appears assured, but many House Republicans oppose allowing illegal immigrants now in the country a chance at citizenship. The deployment of military troops to stem the flow of more illegal immigrants could be a way to ease that opposition.

The legislation includes provisions for additional border security, a new guest worker program and eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

Compromise in the Senate
The measure was bogged down by opposition for weeks before Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed on a procedural compromise that gives the bill’s critics ample opportunity to offer amendments. It also offers assurances to Democrats that Senate negotiators will not simply capitulate to demands of House conservatives in talks on compromise legislation later in the year.



Nearly everyone except House Republicans seemed pleased.

“We congratulate the Senate on reaching agreement and we look forward to passage of a bill prior to Memorial Day,” said Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, said on Thursday. Reid and Frist exchanged compliments on the Senate floor, and Mexico’s foreign secretary said in a statement that the deal was a “positive step toward the approval of a migration accord.”

But many House Republicans criticized the Senate’s bill as an amnesty measure. Putting National Guard troops on the border could serve as a way to appease conservatives.

White House strategist Karl Rove met with lawmakers earlier in the week, and at least one session included a discussion about this. Some lawmakers said at the time that they expected Bush to announce border security improvements next week, possibly in a speech in Arizona or another border states.

Gov. Janet Napilitano, D-Ariz., has asked Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in the past to provide guard assistance. Rumsfeld earlier this week ordered Assistant Secretary of Defense of Homeland Security Paul McHale to review options for the National Guard and Reserve, as well as active duty forces, NBC News reported.


Agreement about 'the money'
One Pentagon official told NBC's Jim Miklaszewski that federal involvement is primarily about money: State governors can deploy their National Guard forces whenever they see fit, but without direct involvement from the Pentagon, the states would have to pick up the tab.

The National Guard forces, if deployed to border states, would still remain under the command of the state governments.

The differences between Bush and House Republicans flared dramatically when the Senate appeared on the verge of agreement on a comprehensive immigration bill several weeks ago. Several GOP conservatives denounced the bill as an amnesty measure and Rep. Steve King of Iowa said anyone who voted for it should be “branded with a scarlet letter A.”

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., offered his view of the importance of immigrant labor: “I say let the prisoners pick the fruits.”

In political terms, Rep. J.D. Hayworth of Arizona and others said Republicans would pay a price in the midterm elections if they vote for anything like the Senate legislation. “Many of those who have stood for the Republican Party for the last decade are not only angry. They will be absent in November,” Hayworth said.

Given Bush’s recent erosion of support among conservatives, as measured in polls, there’s been no evident change in sentiment among his congressional critics.

The political calculations are different at the White House. Hispanics comprise the nation’s fastest growing minority, according to this line of reasoning, and no political party can afford to be seen as blind or even hostile to their concerns and the desire of their relatives to join them in the United States.

Bush and top House Republicans reviewed the issue last week at a private White House meeting, according to several officials, and the president urged the GOP congressional leadership to embrace his call for comprehensive legislation. That means provisions to strengthen border security, coupled with a guest worker program that — while the president doesn’t say so in public — provides a chance at citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. and other leaders stressed that would be a hard sell with their rank and file. Bush restated his desire for a comprehensive bill, and the leadership responded by noting the sentiment of the rank and file, according to officials familiar with the conversation. They spoke on condition of anonymity, given the private nature of the meetings.

NBC's Jim Miklaszewski, NBC's Tim Russert and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12754924/

Who cares...
 
raVeneyes said:
you are simply wrong.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

The bill of rights has been interpreted broadly throughout the history of our country and this has resulted in laws being passed that gives the citizens of this country an absolute right to complete privacy in their personal information. These rights are guaranteed in several different laws, and are also protected by stiff fines and penalties for entities breaking those laws.

Ever heard of "HIPPA"? All stems from the fourth amendment and people's rights to privacy.

Educating Journalists 101
Posted by Mithridate Ombud on May 12, 2006 - 18:04.
A quick note to drive-by journalists about NSA illegally collecting telephone records without first obtaining a warrant.

U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. MARYLAND,
442 U.S. 735 (1979)
No. 78-5374.
Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home.
Held: The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.

http://newsbusters.org/node/5348

*owned*
 
Every year, you file a form that tells the federal government exactly how much money you make and from where. If you file a long form, you volunteer even more information, including where you spent it, how much you spent on entertainment, and how much was medical.

Every ten years you fill out a census form that has questions in it that are so personal you wouldn't be comfortable answering it in person.

Yet, when the government collects unattributed phone numbers for a data base you flip out?


This is another where you can have valid debate. It's reasonable to have a degree of concern about this program. Classically, government programs never go away, they just expand. So the long term implications of a program like this, or more broadly, the changes TECHNOLOGY are making to our world and privacy should be addressed.

But the media, once again, is totally off the mark. Jack Cafferty is a loon. I remember growing up with him on the local ABC news.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top